Volume 677 Week 3 - Tuesday 14 February 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 677 Week 3 - Tuesday 14 February 2012 
[Sitting date: 14 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:307. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 14 February 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy Rebalancing—Progress 
1. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress is being made in rebalancing New Zealand’s economy towards paying our way in the world? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: New Zealand is making steady progress rebalancing the economy with an improved merchandise trade result and improved household savings in 2011. Merchandise trade grew to a $3 billion surplus notwithstanding the significant external challenges of a high dollar and of course weak global growth. Overall our exports grew an impressive 9.7 percent by value in the calendar year last year. There is still a long way to go of course but these early signs are encouraging for exporters and reinforce the Government’s commitment to helping build a platform from which our businesses can compete and trade in the wider world.  
John Hayes 
: How much did New Zealand’s merchandise trade with Australia and China grow in 2011? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: New Zealand expanded exports to our key market Australia by 8.45 percent over the last year to just under NZ$11 billion. This percentage increase is a very significant result given the higher volume of existing trade. It continues a trend evident over the last few years of strong year-on-year growth. In addition New Zealand’s exports to China grew by over $1 billion in the calendar year last year. That is 22 percent annual growth which is a fantastic achievement for exporters and reinforces the importance of China as our second largest export market.  
John Hayes 
: What progress is being made on increasing New Zealand’s national savings? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: More good news. New Zealand’s savings rates are steadily improving. Statistics New Zealand figures show household savings in the year to March last year were positive for the first time in a decade. This is quite a turn-round from 2007 when households were spending about $1.11 for every dollar they earned. It remains early days but it does show the importance that households are now placing on savings. The shift from net borrowing to savings if it continues will help provide a stronger platform for faster economic growth. 
Hon David Parker 
: By how much are New Zealand’s net international liabilities projected to grow over the next 5 years? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not have the net international liabilities but I do have the current account deficit which I think alludes to the same thing that the member means in terms of that being expected to widen out from March 2012 to the year to March 2016. That is due to primarily the Canterbury— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was not about the current account deficit. I do have a question about the current account deficit but this is not it.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s point of order. I think though the Minister indicated he did not have the net liabilities figures with him and he tried to be helpful by at least providing some information about the current account. But I do accept that is not exactly the same issue. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is question No. 1 it is the Government’s own question to the Minister of Finance it is about progress on the economic growth agenda and I have asked about one of the most basic indicators as to whether that is working. I would have thought that the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is quite correct. It is the Government’s own question and asking about net liabilities is not exactly way out of line; there is no question that the supplementary question is in line. But I take the Minister at his word that he does not have the figures. People can make their own judgment about that but that is what the Minister indicated to the House and there is nothing I can do about that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you at least ask the Minister whether he has general indications—for example the percentage of GDP liabilities. I mean any Associate Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not strictly a point—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The Minister wants to speak to the point of order? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That was exactly what I was doing by referring to the increase in the balance of payments deficit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we are now debating the whole issue. New Zealand’s net liability is a reasonably standard figure and it is not exactly the same as the current account deficit. The question was very specific about net liabilities but I take the Minister at the Minister’s word: the Minister does not have those figures. Members can be critical of the Minister for not having those figures—that is the situation we are in—but I cannot ask the Minister to provide what he does not have with him. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that the Minister in answer to the last supplementary question acknowledged that New Zealand’s current account deficit is projected to grow over the next 5 years from $5 billion this year to a $17 billion deficit in 2016 is he surprised to learn that over that period New Zealand’s net international liabilities are projected to grow from $140 billion to $200 billion—an increase of 10 percent of GDP? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do understand that the current account deficit figures and the international liabilities figures—it would not surprise me at all which I think underlines the point that we were making with the primary question which is the importance of growing exports and the importance of also—[ 
Interruption 
] The importance of growing exports. The reality of it is that that is due to happen because of the Canterbury rebuild—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Minister. Look the Labour spokesperson on finance asked a supplementary question. I presume he wants to hear the answer and the Minister is answering this question. I think the interjections are beyond reasonableness.  
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The point I was making is that the member inadvertently underlines the exact point that I was making in the responses to the question. The way you deal with that is by improving domestic savings and by improving our exports as we sell to the rest of the world. Those are the ways in which you primarily address those issues and I was reporting to the House that we are making some reasonable—in fact good—progress in doing that. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table two documents both prepared by the Parliamentary Library. The first is a graph of New Zealand’s increasing net liabilities; the second is the graph of the increase in the current account deficits every year to 2016. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister as to how he concludes that a seriously overvalued dollar massive borrowing and key asset sales to foreign ownership could do anything other than balance our economic position worse? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Although some people undoubtedly believe the New Zealand dollar to be overvalued I think the point is that actually our total exports grew last year to $47.7 billion. So although it obviously had an impact on some exporters it did not obviously have an impact on all exporters because we had that growth in exports over the full calendar year of 2011. So the dollar is challenging but it is good to see that our exporters are continuing to grow. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked him about the seriously overvalued dollar and massive borrowing which everybody admits. The third aspect was key asset sales to foreign ownership. He answered one part of that question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —but I asked only one question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is required to answer only one part of a supplementary question. It has been a longstanding requirement in this House of Ministers— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may resume his seat while I am on my feet. Thank you. It has been a longstanding practice in this House that a Minister is required to answer only one part of a supplementary question. If members want to put more than one part to a question that is the risk they run. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not put more than one part to the question. The question was relating to the rebalancing of this country’s economy. I gave it three aspects and asked which one of those or those collectively would do what he said. I am not asking three questions; I am asking questions with a few details. Surely the Minister is capable of answering that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member just destroyed any merit his point of order had because he does not make that kind of derogatory comment under a point of order. I am sorry but— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order Mr Speaker is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have not recognised the member yet. Does he wish to raise a further point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I do Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled already that the Minister has answered that question so it must be a further point of order and a different point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a different point of order. I want to know how it is that one could ask a question like I have put with facts a b and c. If I am to get b and c answered how does one make that question work in this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Very simply questions do not contain facts; they seek facts. 
State-owned Assets Sales—Prime Minister’s Statements on Current Estimated Revenue 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement made with regard to the revenue from asset sales “I don’t know the exact number that they have in their books today”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by the full statement I made in November 2011 when asked what value Treasury had put on the mixed-ownership assets. The exact quote was: “I don’t know the exact number that they have in their books today. But I know the estimations they gave to us—if we release 49 percent in the equity markets there’s five to seven billion.” 
David Shearer 
: Did he state when announcing these asset sales 1 year ago that $10 billion would be realised and if he does not stand by that figure how does he justify this much lower figure? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In terms of the latter part that is the best estimates we have and—as I said yesterday—in the end obviously it will be what the market is prepared to pay and it will depend how much of the 49 percent we sell. But the best estimates we have at the moment would be in the order of about $6 billion maybe a little more. 
David Shearer 
: Did he state that the figure could be up to $10 billion? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Probably and it could be; you never know. 
David Shearer 
: In light of his description of the Solid Energy account as “ropy” is it his opinion that some of the other State-owned enterprises up for sale are also significantly overvalued in the audited accounts; and if so which ones? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The leader’s own member has been making that point—that there is quite a range of valuations which was as Clayton Cosgrove said a commercial value for Solid Energy of $3.5 billion an updated board valuation of $2.8 billion and a Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit valuation of $1.7 billion. As I have said on numerous occasions there is a variety of reasons why companies have different valuations and they depend on whether they look at net asset value book value or equity value. In the end the value that actually matters is the one that the market will pay and in our view it is in the order of about $5 billion to $7 billion. 
David Shearer 
: Is there a bottom line below which he would not sell our profitable assets; and if so what is that bottom line? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The bottom line is that it has got to be the right thing for New Zealand and it is. 
David Shearer 
: How much less will the Crown receive as a result of the uncertainty around the Treaty clause? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well that would depend on the consultation process and what the final Treaty clause looks like. In my view we will find our way through an elegant solution which will mean that private sector shareholders will be happy about the outcome.  
David Shearer 
: What is his elegant solution for dealing with the Treaty clause? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is one that makes it clear to Maori that the Crown is bound by the Treaty but the specific obligations around consultation of sale would not be the case for a private sector shareholder. What I can say is that what we do in the end will be clear—just like when the Labour Party was proud of itself it was clear because those members came to the House with boxes with the name “Labour” all over them and now they have ripped the name off.  
Overseas Investment Rules—China Free-trade Agreement and Sale of Crafar Farms 
3. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: Did New Zealand’s Free Trade Agreement with China influence his decision to approve the sale of the Crafar farms to the Shanghai Pengxin Group? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Ministers were satisfied that Milk New Zealand Holdings met all the relevant criteria under the Overseas Investment Act 2005. Ministers can have regard only to the criteria and factors that are outlined in that Act. Every application is decided on its individual merits and the outcome would be the same even if New Zealand did not have a free-trade agreement with China. The Overseas Investment Act requires the Overseas Investment Office to treat all applications on an equal basis regardless of the country of origin of the applicants.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was I think a fine statement of general principles but I was asking about a specific Minister—this one—and his decision in a specific case. He did not address that primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must have misheard the answer but I thought I heard the Minister say that the outcome would have been the same regardless of whether New Zealand had a free-trade agreement with China or not which is another way of saying that it did not have any impact on the decision. Now if I am wrong there the Minister had better correct me very rapidly but it appears I am not wrong. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Thank you for that interpolation. Why then did he tell Mark Sainsbury on  
Close Up 
 on 27 January that when considering the Shanghai Pengxin Group’s bid there were certain requirements that New Zealand had to follow in relation to the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Because in the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement we have given China most favoured nation status. That means that if an application from a Chinese investor met all the criteria of the Overseas Investment Act which it did and we were then still to decline it I think that would send a very very bad signal to China about our relationship with it.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: How does the Minister put the two answers to those two questions together? On the one hand he said it had no influence on his decision and on the other hand he has gone to some length to tell us how important it was to his decision. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: With great ease. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty important and I thought substantive but simple question: how does he put them together? He just said “point of ease”. That is not really an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no the Minister said “With great ease.” was his answer and I have got to confess that that is a perfectly accurate—or perfectly reasonable—answer to the question asked. One of the problems when members ask how a Minister can do something or explain something or compare something is that that is the kind of answer they risk. There are other ways of wording that kind of question to get the answer the member is seeking. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it the Speaker’s ruling that that kind of answer is acceptable now in this House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been for an awful long time. I can remember one Minister in particular—no longer in this House—who on more than one occasion gave that kind of answer. Members need to think about their questions and when they are shaping a question in their mind need to be aware that if they ask how a Minister can do something it is not the smartest way to ask a question because it risks that kind of answer. The remedy is in the member’s hands: to ask questions that avoid that kind of answer. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Was Shanghai Pengxin Group wrong when it stated in its application for the Crafar farms that should its bid be turned down this would adversely affect New Zealand’s trade relationship with China and the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I think it is fair to say that if a bid met all of the criteria of the Act and in many cases over-met all those criteria then there would be adverse implications if the Government was to decline that bid. Frankly I do not even know what grounds the Minister would be able to do that on without being challenged by judicial review. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was a question about “Was Shanghai Pengxin Group wrong …”. The Minister simply did not address that part of the question. He gave us I thought a very valid answer in relation to general Government policy. I was asking “Was Shanghai Pengxin Group wrong …”. I mean he did not talk about that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are a number of dilemmas about that. I do not want to be unhelpful to the member but the Minister is not actually responsible for Shanghai Pengxin Group. It is one of the dilemmas that he is not responsible for what it may say. Now you have asked him for his opinion on it and he has given his opinion on it. Again it is difficult for me to be harder on a Minister with that kind of question. I apologise to the member because I realise I am not being terribly helpful to him and I do not want to be unhelpful. But I just cannot ask Ministers to do more than the Standing Orders require of them. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he received any advice from the Overseas Investment Office regarding a visit to the office by a senior Chinese Government diplomat late last year and did that Chinese Government official raise any issues around the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement if the Shanghai Pengxin Group’s application was turned down? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No and therefore it is not worth speculating on the second part. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If Shanghai Pengxin Group had no background— 
Hon Members 
: Penguin! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: “Pengxin” I said. I know you cannot speak Chinese. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well if he wants to interrupt and show his ignorance— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not carry on like that. Admittedly we do not encourage interjections [ 
Interruption 
]—I am on my feet—when members are asking questions because it does tend to lead to disorder. But it is no excuse to go with an exchange across the House. The member may now ask his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If Shanghai Pengxin Group did not have any background in farming of this nature to the extent that it required Landcorp to become a tenant farmer in our own country something the Prime Minister says he frowns on then how could it have possibly passed the economic test in the first place? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am going to be a bit guarded in answering in too much more detail. This matter is still before the court. The judge will be ruling on Friday and therefore I do not want to take it any further other than to repeat once again that all of the criteria under the Act including the question the member raises about a track record in farming—and Shanghai Pengxin Group has a track record in farming. But other than that I think it is unwise of me to get into more detail. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question and these issues were canvassed at some— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Oh is this a point of order? I beg your pardon. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: This is around the sub judice defence that the Minister just used. These questions went at some length last week in this House. The Prime Minister answered questions about them without seeking this. The Minister himself came to the House during the Address in Reply debate and gave a long speech— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! There are certain questions that can be asked and the Minister has answered certain questions. But the Minister is perfectly at liberty to as further detail is sought around reasons why and justifications—the Minister is not unreasonable in being cautious since the matter is either before the court or about to be before the court. Ministers must—in fact are required to—pay attention to the matter of sub judice. So it is not unreasonable.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Seeing as you are effectively saying that he can plead the sub judice rule but you did not at the time of my asking the question rule it out do I get my question back?  
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member had his question answered and that is the end of the matter.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is this: how is the Minister able to plead the sub judice rule now when on a far broader range of questions last week he and the Prime Minister did not?  
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is asking a question not making a point of order. The issue of order is simple: Ministers from time to time recognise that matters are before the court and therefore choose not to give further detailed answers. They may answer to a certain point and then choose not to go any further and that is quite proper when matters are before the court. In fact it is required of us to be cautious when matters are before the court and Ministers have to make that judgment with each question. I mean it would be unfair to not answer any questions. There is a certain point a Minister can go to to do with matters that are not seen to in any way risk compromising what is before the court. The Minister has chosen to do that up to a point but then the Minister has drawn the line about going into further detail and that is not unreasonable.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister put that at issue when he said that the application met all the criteria one of which is the economic good to New Zealand. He put it at issue. It was not ruled out then. Now he is hiding behind the sub judice rule. He cannot surely do that.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: And neither can members accuse Ministers of hiding behind the sub judice rule because points of order are not meant to make accusations. Points of order are meant to be issues to do with order and the member raised a valid point of order. But the rules remain that Ministers have to judge that matter. On some occasions the Speaker does and on this occasion I have got no reason to in any way doubt that the Minister is being reasonable in not wishing to go any further into the detail of the matter because it is before the court and that is not unreasonable.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a feeling that both you and the right honourable gentleman have misunderstood the comments that have been made by the Hon Maurice Williamson who I think did not invoke the sub judice rule about the possibility of influencing the court but invoked more the rule around prejudicing the Crown’s position. I think there is a difference and I think it is important we understand that.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Either way matters that are before the court are considered to be sub judice and have been for a long time. Now that does not mean that they cannot be mentioned. The honourable member will recollect that at the last Standing Orders Committee we had quite lengthy consideration of the issue to try and make sure that members could raise matters that were before the court. But they are meant to alert the Speaker if they are going to do so. On this occasion a Minister has chosen not to give further comment and I think we should respect that. I think it is a matter that we should respect for whatever aspect of the sub judice issue.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I promise this is my last thing. The issue is about consistency. It is fine to use sub judice—I would not say the word “hiding” like my colleague—but there has to be consistency about the application. So if we ask one question and the Minister says “I’m happy to answer that.” but then we ask a similar question and he does not like it so he says “Oh well sub judice—I can’t answer it.” that creates a problem for keeping the Government to account.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member but it is my assessment that that is not the case. I can imagine members would get frustrated if that were the case. There are certain questions to do with the mechanics of a decision—what has happened and why it might have happened—that Ministers would be prepared to answer. But once you get down to the reasons why a certain decision may have been made and get down to for example the economic arguments and that kind of issue beyond the fact that the Overseas Investment Office considered that the economic arguments had been met—that is a simple fact; it announced that. But once you ask the Minister to get down into detail beyond that I am not surprised the Minister may invoke the sub judice rule at that point because that is a different level of consideration of the issue in my opinion.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it common practice for senior diplomats from foreign countries to visit the Overseas Investment Office to lobby on behalf of specific applications and if that were the case would the Minister expect to be informed? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Given I am not aware of it ever happening obviously I have not been informed. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has he or his office received any advice from other Government Ministers or Government officials regarding the turning down of the Shanghai Pengxin Group’s bid and any adverse impact that may have on our trading relationship with China? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. This decision was taken purely on the merits of the application and the recommendation to me and the Associate Minister of Finance. Both of us signed off on that recommendation. Although I do talk to my colleagues across the board on a range of issues from time to time this decision was not based on any of those conversations. 
Whanau Ora Minister—Confidence 
4. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister responsible for Whanau Ora in fulfilling the objectives set out in the Relationship Accord and Confidence and Supply Agreement between his party and the Maori Party dated 11 December 2011? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister remember on page 2 the phrase “evolving focus” and can he tell us what that means for the future for Maori? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes; in fact I have it in front of me. It means delivering better results for some families and individuals who are clearly not doing as well as the Government would hope. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Prime Minister tell us whether this “evolving focus” of Whanau Ora will continue to include the funding of family reunions TV broadcasters or the performing arts and how will that improve the benefits for Maori? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot comment on the individual items that the member has quoted because some of those are contested. But what I can say is that the basis of the programme is to deliver better results. I think history shows at the moment that we have had many Government agencies working with these families on a siloed and isolated basis and it has not actually worked terribly well. So let us try something new. 
Welfare Reforms—Australian Proposals Regarding Teenage Parents 
5. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What reports has she received about proposed welfare reform in other jurisdictions? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I have seen recent reports that in Australia a number of changes are taking place in the welfare space that are similar to this Government’s proposals. One involves young people particularly teen parents where they will be required to be in education once the child is 1 year old or their benefit will be completely stopped. 
Alfred Ngaro 
: How is the Government supporting teen parents in New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This Government has made the single biggest investment in teen parents—$14.9 million—to support vulnerable teen parents and their children. And from July we will be giving them even more support contracting service providers to provide a full wraparound service to them and help with education money management childcare budgeting and parenting advice. 
Alfred Ngaro 
: Has she seen any reports that recommend we follow Australia’s lead here in New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes I have seen support for the Australian welfare reform that teen parents are expected to be in education when their child is 1 year old or their benefit will be cut. The report suggests we emulate the Australian model here in New Zealand. This support is reported in the  
Gulf News 
 and was from the member Jacinda Ardern. 
Electoral Broadcasting—Prime Minister’s Radio Live Show 
6. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “the PM’s Hour” on Radio Live on 30 September 2011 was an “election free zone”; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because that statement was made at the beginning of the show in order to indicate that neither I nor my guests would be discussing the upcoming election. 
Grant Robertson 
: Who had control over the content of the  
Prime Minister’s Hour 
—he and his office or Radio Live? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Radio Live had sought advice from the Electoral Commission so gave me riding instructions to make sure it was an election-free zone. I certainly chose the guests because they were guests I thought would be of interest to New Zealanders. At the time given we were in the middle of contesting the Rugby World Cup people like Richie McCaw were of great interest to the New Zealand public. 
Grant Robertson 
: Given that answer did the communications manager from his office rewrite the brief for the show and also write the email asking for an opinion from the Electoral Commission that was actually sent in Radio Live’s name? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Not to the best of my knowledge. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table an email dated Tuesday 27 September from the communications manager of the Prime Minister’s office where it states that he has made some tweaks to the brief and gives the details of an email that was subsequently sent in Radio Live’s name. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did the communications manager from his office rewrite the brief for the show and also write the email asking for an opinion from the Electoral Commission that was eventually sent in Radio Live’s name? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Not to the best of my knowledge. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did his communications manager say after receiving the Electoral Commission opinion on the show: “… they have been pretty clear about putting the responsibility on the broadcaster which is useful.”; if so what was it about that statement that was useful? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Not to the best of my knowledge but as the member will know the matter is a matter between the Electoral Commission and the broadcaster. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table an email from the communications manager in the Prime Minister’s office dated Thursday 29 September 2011 where he said: “But they have been pretty clear about putting the responsibility on the broadcaster which is useful.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Bail Legislation—Minister’s Priorities 
7. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What are her priorities in regard to bail laws over the coming three years? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 This Government is committed to bail laws that will help make New Zealand safer protect the public and keep victims at the heart of our criminal justice system. We will change bail laws to extend the reverse burden of proof requirement for people with previous serious convictions to people charged with kidnapping sexual conduct with a child under 12 sexual conduct with young persons under 16 aggravated burglary and assault with intent to rob in addition to the existing offences already covered. The reverse burden of proof will also apply to people charged with murder or serious class A drug offences such as manufacturing or dealing in methamphetamine regardless of any previous offending. This means that they must prove that they are not a risk to the public or to the trial process. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Why is the Government making these changes? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: We know that more than one-third of defendants arrested for these crimes commit further crimes while on bail. This is why it is so important to deal with them properly. These changes will build on the work this Government has already achieved and we are reversing Labour’s decision which made it easier for defendants to get bail. These changes will get the balance right between public safety and a defendant’s right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. 
Treasury—Confidence 
8. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he have confidence in The Treasury? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes but like many Governments before us that does not mean we agree with every piece of Treasury advice. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that when his Government came to office Treasury predicted the economy would grow 7.4 percent over the following 3 years and it grew only 1.2 percent is it the fault of Treasury’s forecasting or the Government’s economic management? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think a couple of events that have occurred since that date may have escaped the member’s attention including the global financial crisis and also the Canterbury earthquakes. Just like any forecaster Treasury had to make its best estimate at a given point in time without necessarily being aware of those two events which were at that stage still ahead of it. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that substantially after the 2008 election the Minister of Finance trumpeted Treasury’s forecast of 36000 extra jobs in the year to March 2012 and took this as credit to his Government is the fact that only 10000 extra jobs have been created so far the fault of Treasury’s forecasting or the Government’s economic management? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not sure exactly where the member gets those numbers from but I can refer him to the fact that in the year to December 2011 there were 34000 net new jobs in the economy. 
Hon David Parker 
: Are the recent sharp falls in business and consumer confidence linked to his Government’s continued trumpeting of rosy forecasts that never eventuate? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think I have seen criticism from the Opposition recently that the Government is being too pessimistic in its forecasts and I see today from Mr Parker we are perhaps too optimistic. Probably the most likely impact on business confidence as I think most New Zealanders understand would be the precarious situation in Europe and in particular southern Europe which of course all New Zealanders are watching with great interest. 
Disability Care Payment to Family Caregivers—Cost of Legal Action 
9. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the total cost of legal action spent to date by his Ministry to oppose the claim that family members have the right to be paid to care for adult disabled children? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 According to the Ministry of Health and Crown Law the total cost of this ongoing legal action to date is just under $1.4 million. I am advised this covers some 6 years. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Did his ministry consider an alternative strategy to litigation after losing at the Human Rights Tribunal and losing at the High Court on this matter? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The member will be aware that this case is currently before the courts so I am limited in what I can say. However I must tell the member that the strongest advice that we received from the Crown Law Office was that this ruling had implications for other parts of public policy and public support and that is the reason why the Government has made the decision that it has. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does he agree with the Ministry of Health that we can have “no idea” how many families would take up the offer of paid work for care if the policy was changed? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think we are getting rather close to some of the matters that are before the courts but what I would say is that clearly the Ministry of Health’s calculations of the financial impact are based across a range of scenarios and it would be correct to say that we would not know exactly how many people who are currently not being supported by public funding would switch to be supported by public funding if the rules changed. So from that point of view that is correct. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: How can his ministry say that fixing this discriminatory policy would be “fiscally unsustainable” if the costs are not known? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The costs are not known exactly because there are a number of variables that produce a range of results. But what I can say to that member is that the Government has nothing but admiration for the people who support their families in these very difficult circumstances. However Governments of both hues have recognised that there are some very serious implications for Government support across a wider variety of areas than just this. 
Sentencing Aggravating Factors—Application to All First Responders 
10. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Do fire-fighters ambulance officers and the small number of other types of first responders legally required to attend and assist in accident and emergency situations deserve the same level of legal protection from assault as police and prison officers when they are carrying out their duties; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. All citizens have the same level of protection from assault under New Zealand law. Section 196 of the Crimes Act 1961 makes it an offence for any person to assault any other person. This offence has a maximum penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment. The Government wholeheartedly supports this law. 
Charles Chauvel 
: If the Minister is correct and the law already provides all citizens with an adequate level of protection for assault what is the rationale for her advancing of the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill which confers particular and special protection on only two classes of occupation? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well the member is quite wrong. His question is around protection of the law and that is in relation to the offence itself which is under the Crimes Act. The bill that he is referring to refers to sentencing which is another factor. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Are we to understand from the Minister’s answers that she is saying that the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill will make no difference whatsoever in practice since as she has already told the House the law provides adequate and equal protections to all classes of person for assault? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. What I am telling the House is that the Sentencing Act is different from the Crimes Act. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Will the Minister support my proposal to instruct the Committee of the whole House to consider my amendment to the Sentencing (Aggravating Factors) Amendment Bill to extend the same level of courtesy respect and protection to firefighters ambulance officers and other emergency medical first responders; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: In relation to sentencing and the paper that that member has referred to me yes I will support that. 
Racecourse Safety—Racing Safety Development Fund 
11. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Racing 
: What announcements has he made relating to safety on racecourses? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 Last week I announced the opening of the next funding round of the Racing Safety Development Fund. It provides $1 million per annum to support projects that improve the safety and upgrade facilities at racecourses and I invite all racing clubs and the racing code bodies to submit applications for funding. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How significant is the issue of racecourse safety for the racing industry? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Racecourse health and safety continues to be an important issue for the industry. Racing is a potentially high-risk activity and the health and safety of those involved in racing and of the animals is paramount. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Apart from announcing the annual round of the racecourse safety fund something that yours truly started could he tell us what he has done about taxation for racing or the racing stakes money which is seriously down since National took over? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: If you have a look at the primary question in my opinion this is very wide of the primary question. I am very happy however to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Was that a point of order or was that an answer? [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. I am taking it as a point of order and it should have been raised as a point of order. I accept that the question was about safety but I thought it was not unreasonable. The reason why supplementary questions must follow a primary question is to ensure that Ministers have the information. On this particular occasion the nature of the right honourable gentleman’s question was such that the Minister would have the information because it asked about what he had done about matters other than safety. So although the Minister may not have detailed information I thought it not unreasonable to allow him to answer it because he may wish to boast about what he has done—and far be it from me to prevent the Minister from being able to do that. So in so far as he can answer the question I call the Hon Nathan Guy. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: At the moment I am busy engaging with the chair of the Racing Board. I am looking forward to meeting up with the racing codes and already I have attended three racing events. People are in my ear raising all sorts of issues and I am taking some time to evaluate those issues working closely with the Racing Board to understand the outcome of those issues and looking forward to a single strategy in the future. 
NZ On Air Board—Appointments 
12. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Does he believe that appointing the Rt Hon John Key’s electorate chair Stephen McElrea to the board of NZ On Air was appropriate? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Yes as I do for all current members of the NZ On Air board. 
Clare Curran 
: Have the expectations placed on NZ On Air board members to conduct themselves in a politically neutral manner and avoid conflicts of interest been met by Mr McElrea during his time on the board of NZ On Air? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: The board chair tells me he has full confidence in his members. I have full confidence in the chair and therefore the board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very straight question about a particular member and having— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows full well having listened to the question that it asked an opinion about a member’s behaviour. The Minister answered in the way he saw fit: he said that the chair of the board has confidence in the behaviour of the member and the Minister himself has confidence in the chair. That may not have been exactly the answer the member wanted but that is not an unreasonable answer.  
Clare Curran 
: Was Mr McElrea’s political connection to the Prime Minister considered during the appointment process? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: The process for all board appointees follows the standard due diligence process in place for all Crown entity appointments. Vacancies on the NZ On Air board are addressed using the regular process outlined by the State Services Commission and the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which has been standard since the introduction of the Crown Entities Act in 2004. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I’ll just say ibid. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think on this occasion the question did ask whether a certain matter was considered. Now the Minister is directly responsible for appointments and it would be reasonable that the Minister may know such information so I invite Clare Curran to repeat her question.  
Clare Curran 
: Was Mr McElrea’s political connection to the Prime Minister considered during the appointment process? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I am confident that full processes were handled for this appointment as they are for all Crown entity appointments including the gentleman in question and all other members of the NZ On Air board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again it was quite a direct one. It may be that you could interpret that as a yes or a no or somewhere in between but I do not think anyone over here could tell whether the political connections had been considered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable gentleman has been around this place near as long as I have and political appointments on boards are not new. It would be quite normal for the standard appointments procedure to consider all those—whether or not political affiliations can be compromising. And if the standard procedure is followed then I guess that matter was considered. I cannot force the Minister—unless I am wrong there. If I am wrong there the Minister had better correct me because what I am indicating is that yes any political relationships would have been considered to make sure that they would not unduly compromise the appointment. Now if I am wrong there the Minister had better correct the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to say thank you. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem with the answer is that we are left guessing as you are left guessing in your interpretation of the answer from— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. Look I do not want to be too silly about this but we all know that even I could rattle off all the political appointments under the previous Labour Government and questions could be raised as to whether there were any compromises. I am sure there could be cases raised where—and so there is nothing new about this. The point I am making as Speaker is that the Minister has said the procedure followed was standard. Therefore those matters would have been—[ 
Interruption 
] What the member is trying to tell me as Speaker is that under Labour such considerations were not part of the standard process. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well if that is not the case then the answer is reasonable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We do appreciate your explanations because frankly what you have said is that the Minister should have no difficulty in answering yes but he will not answer the question. Frankly you have told him twice that that would be normal and therefore— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are not going to spend more time on this silly point. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s right. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister may have all sorts of reasons why he answered the question the way he did. It is his decision to answer the question the way he did but it is perfectly obvious from the way he answered the question that all considerations—including political considerations—would have been taken into account because that is the way it has always been.  
Clare Curran 
: Has he or any other Minister had any communication with Mr McElrea regarding the child poverty documentary; if so what was the content of that communication? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I cannot actually answer for any other Ministers but as far as this Minister is concerned no. I have met Mr McElrea once at a social function prior to Christmas. That is as far as I can recall the only communication I have had directly with him. 
Clare Curran 
: Given Mr McElrea complained about the child poverty documentary on 17 November before it was screened as admitted by the Prime Minister in media reports and as has been revealed in Official Information Act documents does this action not constitute political interference; if not why? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: Again I am confident that the processes and the workings of NZ On Air are adequate as pursuant to the rules regulations and Acts that they are operating under.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we are having a repeat of previous points of order. Of these questions one might have been slightly loose but that was a very precise question. You might think that he said no; I might think he said yes. Maybe you could do what you did before and tell us what he meant. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! What I should do is put the honourable member on the spot and ask him—if he says it was a very precise question—to repeat the question because the question actually asked the Minister for his opinion about a certain course of action. That is what the question asked. The Minister gave his opinion. It might not have been quite the opinion members wanted but the Minister gave his opinion about how he sees that matter. The Minister’s answer was that he believed that the way the members of the board had carried on was quite proper in his view. The question sought an opinion: what the Minister thought about a certain action that had taken place whether that represented—what was it—a conflict of interest a compromise or something— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Political interference. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —or political interference. The Minister answered it in the way he chose to answer. I cannot ask him to answer it exactly the way the members want him to answer since it asked his opinion. If it had sought facts and the facts were not given I would have much more opportunity to insist the Minister give the information but it sought an opinion from the Minister. The Minister gave an opinion that was a reasonable opinion in relation to the question asked.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I want to thank you. You indicated that the Minister indicated it was quite proper. We could not get that from his answer. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table an email from Stephen McElrea to the chair of NZ On Air and the chief executive of NZ On Air dated 17 November complaining about the child poverty documentary before it was screened. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Address in Reply 
Debate resumed from 9 February. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to participate in this the Address in Reply debate. May I first congratulate you Mr Speaker on your reappointment to the office of Speaker and secondly may I congratulate all new members who are part of this the 50th Parliament of New Zealand.  
The Prime Minister has laid out clearly our Government’s four priorities. The first of these is to responsibly manage the Government’s finances. In a world as it is today—and last night we saw Moody’s downgrade both Spain and Portugal and we saw the Greek Parliament pass austerity measures in order to combat the evils of debt—it is important that our Government controls the debt path our country is heading on. It is about budgeting carefully and deciding which things are important and which things to prioritise. As with our own personal finances and our household finances we would not go for years spending more that we earn. So this Government is committed to returning to surplus in the 2014-15 financial year.  
Secondly we are about building a more productive and competitive economy. We have seen under this Government for the first time in many years a trade surplus and when we look at the record of the last Government we see 5 consecutive years of diminishing export levels. We know that the focus of a brighter future and the focus on jobs and opportunities must come through the export-focused economy. What does it mean? It means selling more of what the world wants. It means selling at a competitive price and building on a solid base of innovation. In both 2012 and 2013 our economy is forecast to grow more strongly than the eurozone the UK Japan the United States— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Still! 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: —as well as Canada. It is good to see you back in the House Mr Cunliffe. I do not know about the beard but it is good to see you anyway. Again the European crisis offers some lessons. It offers lessons because it is about— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I would actually like to hear what the member is saying so keep the interjections low. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: It is about competitiveness as I was saying. The second reason is that our competitiveness has declined over the period of the 2000s. As a result industries and sectors that were competing internationally have gone into recession and we have to do something about that. So what has this Government done? It has turned that round with a 120-point economic plan. I hold here in my hand some of the answers to peeling back some of the poor performance that the Labour Government gave us over the 9 years. What does it include? It includes a Future Investment Fund. It means investing in our future and investing in our kids. The schools and the early childhood centres that have been built across this country are part of the solution going forward. It is about a 120-point plan that will bring us into the 21st century.  
Simon Bridges 
: What’s it about? 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Mr Bridges wants to know what it is about. It is about some of the roads that go into Tauranga Mr Bridges. 
David Bennett 
: And Hamilton. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: That is right; and Hamilton. What else is it about? It is about broadband and connectivity between our cities as well as with the world. We are able to live in this country and make goods and services and export these across the world. That is what it is about. 
When I talk to our businesses in Maungakiekie they ask about the exchange rate and they ask about access to capital. This Government in the last 3 years has reformed so much of the capital markets. We created the Financial Markets Authority—admittedly with the help of the whole House; it was a policy that had cross-party support. We created a regulator that actually has teeth has resources and will enforce some of the really dreaded parts of financial markets where so many mum and dad investors were taken for a ride. 
We will reform the Securities Act which is 34 years old and needs refining. We will ensure that our capital markets operate with confidence and trust but also that the regulatory authority has the resources to enforce those matters in our capital markets.  
We are also looking at furthering our Resource Management Act reforms. When we talk to users of council facilities they say that one of things about consents is that they take too long they cost too much and there is so much uncertainty as to when and how a resource or building consent may be issued. So we are introducing a 6-month time limit for some of the consenting of medium-sized projects. 
We are encouraging oil and gas exploration and that is with a new system of processing permits. Whereas Opposition parties will look at our Australian cousins brothers and sisters and they will compare us with that country when you look at that country though you see how effectively they use their minerals and their resources. If we are going to be competitive not just with Australia but with the rest of the world we really need to get our act together in terms of exploration and in terms of using our minerals oil and gas resources in this country. 
We are also negotiating free-trade agreements. Although I admit that we are carrying on the good work of the last Government we are working on the Trans-Pacific Partnership including the United States as well as other free-trade agreements that will increase our access to markets around the world and increase our opportunities for job growth in our export sector. Of course we are talking also about the mixed-ownership model and extending that to four State-owned enterprise companies which will make better use of New Zealand’s balance sheet. It is about providing investment opportunities for our mum and dad investors because they cannot just invest in Telecom. They cannot just invest in a few top public companies. But these investment opportunities will provide some solid returns going into the future.  
Also for a company like Mighty River Power which needs access to more resources with its geothermal technological expertise and its ability to expand across the globe—it is in Chile in Germany and in the US but it is looking to get further into South-east Asia—these investments will provide Mighty River Power with the capital and expertise to extend those exports overseas. 
The final bit of reform that will be important especially this year—and I sit as the chair of the Social Services Committee—will be reforming welfare. Welfare is about getting people who can work to work. Welfare will be about providing a safety net for those who need help but providing incentives for those who need to go out and earn a living. 
I have set out the Government’s priorities. I am proud to represent this second-term National Government. It is a Government that is about action it is a Government that is about producing jobs and opportunities and it is about a Government that will deliver on its promises. Thank you very much. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I could spend 10 minutes deconstructing the arguments around the State-owned enterprise sales. They are just ridiculous. This idea that New Zealand will somehow become wealthier by changing who owns what already exists is an absolute nonsense. I will leave that to others of my colleagues.  
This is the Address in Reply debate which is the first formal set of speeches after the election. I suppose I should start by saying congratulations to the National Party and its colleagues in Government. You have won the Treasury benches again but I would note that New Zealanders are very fair-minded and in my lifetime there has never been a one-term Government—indeed except once. That was when the then sitting Prime Minister Norman Kirk died in office.  
So the fact that National has won a second term should not be seen as some great endorsement of the National Government. Indeed to achieve that National has gobbled up all of its coalition partners. All of them are either at 1 percent or lower if you round them. The Maori Party got slightly more than 1 percent but closer to 1 percent than 2 percent. The ACT Party is decimated. It is here only because of John Banks. Its vote has collapsed to 1 percent. Why? There was this litany of disasters around the ACT Party. It was seen by the electorate to be bankrupt.  
What happened? Well we had the perk-buster Rodney Hide busted for perks. We had the ultimate act of hypocrisy of David Garrett having railed against shorter sentences and name suppression being found out to have sought name suppression and a discharge without conviction for his earlier passport fraud. We then had the takeover of the ACT Party from outside its ranks by John Banks and Don Brash. Despite the endorsement that we had of this cosy little deal with Paul Goldsmith for the National Party saying: “Please don’t vote for me; vote for John Banks.”—that was essentially his campaign—it looked like Paul Goldsmith was still going to win.  
So what did they do? They had this tea party and within the tea party were planted seeds of discontent in the minds of the media and wider New Zealand that the Prime Minister was not quite all the smiles good nature and goodwill that he had previously pretended were his making. In the tea party we saw this act of political engineering. In fact someone said to me it was an act of political pornography where they went and they showed themselves off to 30 or 40 cameras. But the problem is when you agree to be a centrefold in an act of political pornography you lose your right to privacy. So New Zealanders and the media started to look askance at the Prime Minister when he called in the police. He had the temerity to say that the police had the time to inquire into this because the police had lower burglary rates. Well we know that around New Zealand there are lots of uninvestigated burglaries and other crimes but the Prime Minister used an arm of the State. The media were under attack by the police who were called in by the Prime Minister to witch-hunt as a consequence of this tape which was taken at this public event.  
Since then following the election we have had the Prime Minister saying that the rosy promises he was making just a few weeks ago he now no longer will be held to. That was the first act of the Prime Minister in this new Government backed up by the Prime Minister saying that he went to the election with the Government’s own forecast but now he is coming back weeks later and saying it is going to be even worse than that. As a consequence of that we have now seen in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 in the weekend a slow decline in the popularity of the Prime Minister because this forever telling people “It’s rosy it’s rosy it’s rosy.” and then saying “Oh look it’s all too hard; it’s not going to be that good.” is starting to wear thin with middle-class New Zealanders. They are tired of waiting for this nirvana which never arrives but which is forever promised by the Prime Minister.  
In the last term of Government we had Bill English saying that all that went wrong was the fault of the Labour Government. The Labour Government was blamed for increasing Government debt. Let us have a look at those figures. Does history bear that out to be true? Well in 1999 New Zealand’s gross Government debt was 35 percent of GDP. That is when the Labour Government came to office. By the time we left office we had reduced that figure to 17 percent of GDP—an incredible decrease in Government debt. Every one of those Budget surpluses that the Labour Party ran under Michael Cullen was opposed by National.  
Net debt went down even further and depending on the measure it was either zero percent or 5 percent of GDP. It went down because the Government was investing in assets like State-owned enterprises and Air New Zealand and was pre-funding superannuation. We were building up the assets of the Government at the same time that we were reducing Government debt.  
Since that time Government debt has increased—up from 17 percent of GDP to in 2011 36 percent of GDP. Where does it go from here? Can the National Party members tell me whether it gets better or worse from here? Silence! Well I can tell you that National in its own Treasury forecasts show that that debt continues to increase and by 2014 the end of this parliamentary term Government debt is projected to increase by another $16 billion—$16 billon more of Government debt.  
Now if there was some hope in terms of some of the structural imbalances in the economy being unwound and New Zealand making economic progress by then then maybe New Zealanders would forgive that. But the reason that middle-class New Zealanders are starting to go off the Government was amply illustrated by Steven Joyce when he answered on behalf of the Minister of Finance in the House today. The question the Government asked of itself—the first question—was to Mr Joyce on behalf of the Minister of Finance and asked what progress the Government is making in implementing its economic growth agenda. Well you would think on that basis that there was good news there but the reality is—and we explored this in our questions—that New Zealand’s structural economic problems remain so much so that if this Government was still in office in 2016 by which time it would have been in office for 8 years what would be happening to New Zealand? Well in that eighth year and in the years prior New Zealand gets poorer because every year New Zealand runs a current account deficit and we effectively import more goods and services and pay more interest out overseas than we earn. And every year we do that—every year that we have a current account deficit—we get poorer because we bridge that gap and we bridge that gap through more borrowing.  
So what happens? This year the current account deficit is projected to be $5 billion. Bill English pretends that the Government has changed structural imbalances in our economy to improve exports. Well you would think if that was the case then that balance would get better but it does not. Every year from here the current account deficit is projected to get higher so much so that by 2016 the current account deficit is projected to be $17 billion in that year alone—$17 billion of current account deficit which can be bridged in only one of two ways: selling more of our assets which the Government is big on whether it is land sales or State-owned enterprise sales or borrowing more money which the Government is also big on.  
So what does that mean in terms of New Zealand’s balance sheet? Well our balance sheet is measured by what we call our net liabilities and again it is bad news. By 2016 New Zealand’s net international liabilities relative to now—not years past but now; the Government is responsible for now and it has been in power for 3 years—increase by 10 percent of GDP. New Zealand’s net international liabilities go up from $140 billion now—it is already a big number—to $200 billion in 2016.  
The Government responds and says “Oh we have got a 120-point plan.” You look through that plan and about most of those things it says “Oh we’ve already done that.” In the list are things like investing in transmission infrastructure. That is part of its 120-point plan. Look there is nothing wrong with investing in transmission infrastructure—that is how we get electricity—but it was going to happen anyway; it is not the Government that has changed that. There is nothing substantial in its plan to address the structural imbalances in the economy. Why not? Treasury says it should. The briefing to the incoming Minister from Treasury says according to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 interpretation of it that it was calling for an introduction of a capital gains tax—a Labour Party policy that the Government refuses to adopt despite recommendations from Treasury the OECD the IMF and just about every other country in the world. It recommends changes to savings and it recommends raising the age of superannuation. These are structural changes that only the Government can bring about but this National Government refuses to acknowledge them and we go backwards until 2016 as a consequence. 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Can I just begin my contribution by congratulating you Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch and your fellow presiding officers on your re-election to your roles and can I welcome all new members to the House.  
That last contribution from Mr Parker tells us very clearly that Labour is still labouring under the illusion that somehow New Zealand got it wrong: they did not really mean to vote National; it kind of somehow slipped by them when they were not looking. The reality is that New Zealand has once more comprehensively rejected the Labour programme of debt and disarray. What New Zealand actually told us on 26 November was that they wanted a National-led Government with John Key at the helm and that they understood that in challenging times you need the sort of economically responsible strong stable Government that we have proven ourselves to be over the last 3 years and that we will continue to be over this next term.  
The last 12 months in particular have seen the global situation continue to deteriorate. I know that over the break in January I was looking at one of the reports that came out of Europe that had been entitled “Euro-geddon”. That is certainly a graphic way of describing the very real and very serious nature of the deteriorating situation in Europe and around the world. We cannot put our heads in the sand on this. We cannot keep continuing to believe that we can just keep spending and say “Don’t worry about where it will come from; it will all come out all right.” We have to take the necessary steps to protect ourselves from these international shock waves and we have to continue to diversify our trade routes. Excellent work has been done—and I acknowledge that that work has been done by a number of Governments—on diversifying those alternative trade routes making sure we are not as heavily reliant on the traditional European and US markets and recognising that the great growth areas for us are in the Asia-Pacific region. And all the work we are doing in that area is certainly fundamental.  
We have to also reflect on our domestic situation and recognise that when you are a country the size of New Zealand we have to be better leaner and more resilient than perhaps our larger neighbours. If we are going to move towards the sort of New Zealand that this Government wants to deliver—one of higher incomes and better opportunities—we have to have a plan in place to weather this situation and build towards our future and that is what this Government is focused on. It is not always going to be easy. Some of the decisions and some of the discussions will challenge some people but we cannot keep carrying on pretending everything is rosy while the world gets weaker and weaker around us.  
Looking across the 3 years of this term the Prime Minister set out in his introductory statements to the House that in this term there are four key areas in which we see important progress needing to be made. The first of those is around the management of Government finances. Both this National Government and National Governments historically have proven themselves to be Governments of economic rationality economic prudence and very careful management of taxpayers’ money. We understand that every cent we spend we take out of the pocket of a hard-working New Zealander. We are very very mindful of that. We are not going to throw money away or throw it around recklessly. We have to respect the people who have earned that money and we owe them the courtesy of ensuring we spend it well. So we have to manage the Government finances well.  
We are focused on getting New Zealand back to surplus by 2014-15 and we are still on track to do that even though the times are getting tougher. Why is that so important? It is important because being in surplus means we have choices. We cannot keep spending money we have not got. You have got to earn money before you spend it. Now that sounds pretty simple; it sounds pretty trite. Every family and every business in New Zealand knows that but for too long Labour and left-wing Governments have forgotten that. We are going to get back to a basis that you have to earn money before you spend it. So we have to keep the Crown debt to a manageable level.  
Debt has become an issue over years gone by and dealing with the impact of the Christchurch earthquakes and other disasters we are going to keep debt peaking under 30 percent. The Labour Opposition over the campaign went out and promised $15 billion more in spending than this Government did. Labour did not worry about the debt it did not worry about the long-term resilience of this economy; it just kept promising to spend your money and rack up more debt which your future generations were going to have to cover. This Government will not do that. We will keep debt peaking below 30 percent.  
Let us look back on the legacy of the Labour Government. We hear Labour members harping away over there from the Opposition benches; let us look at what they left us. From 2004 to 2008 Labour increased Government spending by more than 50 percent—50 percent increases in core Government spending. That would be fine if things were going well in the real sector— 
Hon Annette King 
: We got rid of all the consultants that National employed. 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: —but over that same period Mrs King that party presided over a recession in the productive sector well ahead of the rest of the world. While Labour kept spending our productive sector—the people in this country who earn stuff make stuff grow stuff and sell stuff—was going backwards and the Labour Government did not care. It just kept spending. It did not understand that it is the productive sector in this country that creates jobs. You do not create jobs and you do not create better opportunities by Government spending; you create them by setting up the conditions in which business can thrive in which investment will come into New Zealand and where entrepreneurs are prepared to put their own capital on the line.  
That is the next part of what we need to do. We need to make sure our economy is resilient and we need to make sure it is productive and that it is competitive with the world. You have heard my colleagues Sam Lotu-Iiga and others talk about our 120-point plan. That is a comprehensive document recognising that the best thing the Government can do—the best thing the Government can do—is create an environment in which business can thrive.  
We are in the season of maiden speeches in the House and it makes me think back to my maiden statement. In that I talked at some length about the fact that we needed to wake up to the fact that in this country business is small to medium enterprises more often than not. It is not the big ugly corporates that the Green Party likes to attack at every opportunity. Actually more often than not it is a mum and dad running their own enterprise struggling to employ a few staff; it is a dairy owner; it is someone working out of his garage. It is small business. Those are the people who create jobs in this country; those are the people we have to support.  
We have to do that by doing a couple of things. We have got to create the right infrastructure. We have to get the road rail electricity and very importantly broadband networks in place to ensure that they can conduct their business easily. We have to ensure that we have got the skills coming through our education system to support that business and there is some tremendous work happening through my colleague Minister Joyce’s portfolios in tertiary education and skills. There is some tremendous work happening in the information and communications technology space around the entrepreneurs scheme to ensure that we are supporting our New Zealanders. They are incredibly innovative and we need to ensure that those skills are harnessed nurtured and retained in New Zealand. That is what this strategy is designed to do: to make New Zealand a place where young New Zealanders coming up come out of our system with the skills to lead the world and with every incentive to stay here in New Zealand.  
Obviously I have taken on the portfolio of broadband and communications and information technology and in that space alone over the period to July of this year we are going to see 58000 premises including 211 schools connected to ultra-fast broadband. The impact that is going to have on our education system our health system and our way of doing business will be revolutionary. It is due to the investment of this Government which the Labour Party opposed that we are going to see world-leading connectivity for New Zealand households New Zealand Government services and New Zealand consumers.  
Better public services are a core part of what we need to deliver. We have to have a welfare system that incentivises people to get back to work because that is the path out of poverty. You can talk about poverty all you like; the path out of poverty is to get people back into work. You have to create the jobs and you have to have a system that incentivises and rewards them for getting back into that system. We have to have a world-leading education system and my colleague Minister Parata is doing excellent work building on the good work of Minister Tolley in that space. And we have to ensure that the Public Service provides value for money.  
I know that my time is coming to an end and I do want to touch on the rebuilding of Canterbury. The rebuilding of Canterbury is a significant priority for this Government. The people in my region have shown incredible resilience over the past 18 months. We are now up at more than 10000 earthquakes and I want to pay tribute in particular to the residents of suburbs like Parklands and those out east who on 23 December when everyone else was settling back for Christmas looking forward to hanging up their briefcases and their suits were once again having to be out there digging out tonnes of liquefaction from their homes. The way that they get up time and time again keep going and stay committed to their province is absolutely heroic. I cannot speak too highly of them and this Government is going to walk with them every step of the way. We are going to build a temporary rugby stadium to get the Crusaders back there and I look forward to seeing every member of this House down there supporting the Crusaders on 24 March.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch may I take the opportunity in this my first contribution in the new Parliament to congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair and to congratulate through you Speaker Smith. May I also offer congratulations to the Government on the election results as it begins its second and last term of this Government.  
Can I acknowledge the member who has just resumed her seat the maiden opposite Amy Adams who has become a Minister through reciting key lines it appears. I would like to deal with just three of them before commencing my material. The first one was that you cannot spend it before you earn it—a fair enough point. They reckon their Government has reduced debt. Well as my colleague Mr Goff interjected quite rightly it was the previous Labour Government that reduced debt. But do not take our word for it; look at Treasury’s numbers: debt was 35 percent of GDP—35 percent of GDP—when Labour took office in 1999 and 17 percent in gross terms in 2008. In net terms it went down from 18 percent to zero forming the first credit since Sir Julius Vogel borrowed to build the railways. New Zealand’s Government books were in credit under Labour. Where are they now? I ask the member whether she really wants to stand on a record of debt reduction.  
The second point was Government spending which was 29 percent of GDP on average under the Labour Government. It started at 29 percent and ended on 30 percent. Guess what it is today: 33 percent of GDP. It has gone up 2.5 percent under National not gone down. Every year the Government reduces the tax take because the economy has fallen in a hole and every year it promises restraint to get the books back in order. National is chasing its tail. It is chasing its tail because we all know that when in a recession retrenchment and austerity prolong it. It is time for a growth strategy. It is time for jobs. It is time for getting New Zealand moving again.  
There is one thing I agree with the member opposite on: I do want to extend the condolences the sympathy and the empathy of members on this side to the people of Canterbury. Ten thousand earthquakes is an appalling thing to have lived through and we do I think offer solidarity in respect of Canterbury. But I would say this: there is $25 billion to be invested in rebuilding that wonderful city—and it was my home province for many years too. But I tell you this: if we do not sort out the insurance situation down there—where insurers will not insure new builds new plants new homes or new businesses—the recovery will not occur. I commend my colleague Lianne Dalziel for leading the charge on the insurance fiasco. Where is the Government? And more to the point where are the Government’s books if Canterbury continues to subside into a policy liquefaction?  
The Address in Reply debate—for people listening in or watching at home—is the triennial free-for-all that goes on after the Governor-General gets the privilege of reading out the Prime Minister’s Speech from the Throne. I have a huge amount of respect for His Excellency Lieutenant General The Rt Hon Sir Jerry Mateparae the new Governor-General but I have to say I felt a tad sorry for him reading out during his first time in that chair what has to go down in history as the smallest the shortest the meanest and the most vacuous Speech from the Throne that this Parliament has ever had the misfortune to hear. There were no ideas— 
Simon Bridges 
: Did you write it? Did you write it David?  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —no new ideas. Sure as hell Paul Goldsmith did not write it; it would have gone to 1000 pages if it was from that member. I think John Key must have written it on the bus on the way to the office. 
Hon Annette King 
: What bus? Do you mean the limo? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Oh the limo on the way to the office—good point. No he would not be taking a bus. It was remarkable. Why was it so short? Shortness is sometimes something to be admired but not in the case of this Speech from the Throne because it was short on achievement. Gone was the aspiration. Gone were the sunny uplands of the brighter future. Gone was the target of the first term of catching up with Australia. It was a 30 percent wage gap when it started; it is close to 40 percent today. It would be a joke if our young people were not leaving in droves if in 2011 we did not have the highest net out migration of New Zealanders in our history and if more people had not voted with their feet and told their children their families and their workmates “I’ve been trying for years. I’m sick of it. I can’t do it any more. We’ve got to go.” They have got to go because this Government has got no ideas.  
There is a 120-point plan. If you have got 120 points of everything let me tell you members opposite it is not a plan; it is a laundry list. It is not a plan; it is a laundry list. There are no priorities and no performance measures. It has given up on catching Australia. There is no strategy. That is why. Do not ask the Labour Party; ask Business New Zealand. Three-quarters of chief executive officers surveyed before the election said National did not have a plan for the economy. Three-quarters in Business New Zealand—how would we put it—manured in their own nest by saying that the Government had not got a clue on economic management and they were right.  
This Government has ballooned debt just like the Republicans in the United States: come in preach balanced Budgets blow out the deficit and then blame the Democrats. It is the same thing here: preach free markets; implement sell cut and hope; and blow out the deficit because tax revenue collapses. What happens? Very little—very little in terms of growth and very little in terms of recovery.  
Where did that leave the Governor-General? It reminded me of the American senator who had rather annoyed his speech-writer. In the opening page of his address to the Senate it said: “In my speech I will grow the economy—” 
Simon Bridges 
: This is as old as the hills David. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: “I will solve world hunger”—or child poverty in the case of Mr Bridges; he will worry about world hunger when he grows up. And on page 2 it said as follows: “Now you’re on your own you bugger.”—“Now you’re on your own you bugger.” That is how His Excellency the Governor-General must have felt when he got to page 4 of the Speech from the Throne and there was no plan. All he had was the dismal results of a failed 3 years thousands of broken lives and New Zealanders who have rushed for the exit because they have given up hope in their own country.  
They say that Oppositions do not win elections; Governments lose them. Well the Government is on track to lose the next one and Labour will be doing its little bit to help. We will be doing our bit to help in two ways. No. 1 is by holding the Government to account. We will not put up with rubber numbers. Here is today’s latest rubber number from the Ministry of Economic Development: how much does the Ministry of Economic Development think tourism has given to the New Zealand economy in Rugby World Cup year? The answer is $320 million plus or minus 20 percent according to its survey. Plus or minus 20 percent? The ministry has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the Rugby World Cup and it cannot get the figure on the tourism spend to within 20 percent.  
What is worse figures out today from the Ministry of Economic Development show that the tourism spend was only 3 percent higher than the previous year lower than the year before that and lower than 2 years before that. In other words the much-vaunted Rugby World Cup—fun as it was; I loved it too—did absolutely nothing for our economy. It did absolutely nothing for our economy. If that is the Government’s idea of an economic plan it proves what the Opposition has been saying for the last 3 years: they are platitudes in search of a plan—platitudes in search of a plan—and gimmicks in search of a strategy.  
Those ragtag members over there are here for one reason and it is not a very secure one. They are here on the coat-tails of John Key. Now John Key is currently setting a record: a record reduction in personal poll ratings. He is down 9 percent in 2 weeks— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: He’s still got a rather large lead over your leader. Who is your leader?  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —down 9 percent. The parrot opposite has got a problem. I feel sorry for the backbenchers in the far rows of Mongolia or Bulgaria or whatever they call it up there in the back row. They are here because of Mr Key’s personal popularity—personal popularity—and they will not be here long because it does not look like it is going to last to the next election. They will not be here long so it was nice to know you guys. Have fun back on the farm. Have fun back on the farm. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 And so says David—a Sermon on the Mount Mr Cunliffe. It is good to see you back in the House. I suggest that next time you stand a little closer to the razor though. A few things have changed over there in the Labour Party but some things do not change whatsoever. I do note there were some changes although listening to the speeches I do not know. I think some of them maybe had been written in about August last year. What did we see just yesterday? They have changed leaders over in the Labour Party and that is fine. Mr Shearer is now leading the assembled masses over there if you like. But I did see a picture of him being led by a poodle in the paper or online somewhere so that is not particularly encouraging I think for his leadership thus far.  
First of all though—I do digress and I apologise to members—is the acknowledgments of other members for the election results. Congrats and otherwise to the National Party for its winning of the election—thank you—are taken on board. But I return the compliments to those whom I contested in my electorate of Tukituki who ran a pretty good campaign and kept it clean. I think respect was gained for all parties concerned. I also welcome new members to Parliament and welcome back returning members. I am sure we will get to know some of the new members a bit more and I look forward to seeing you from time to time particularly around the House. I for one quite enjoy discussions outside of this Chamber around committees and things like that.  
November 26 does seem quite some time ago now but I would just like to point out that if one looks at the map of the North Island say from Wairarapa all the way up to somewhere near Auckland one sees it is a nice shade of blue—National Party blue. I feel a little bit sorry for the Hon Parekura Horomia who has quite a burden on his broad shoulders to look after that whole part of the country. But the people have spoken. The people spoke on November 26 and they resoundingly rejected the policies that the Labour Opposition put up to the public. They resoundingly rejected those policies to the tune of the lowest poll result I think it is for the Labour Party ever—27 percent or you could say 73 percent against. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know what the issue there with that one is—27 percent. Did I miss half a percent or something? I do not know; I will give it to you. But it was 27 percent.  
The people of New Zealand gave this Government a mandate. They gave this Government the permission to continue working towards such a brighter future. They gave us permission to continue to manage the country’s finances in such a better way to prudently manage every single taxpayer cent every single dollar so as to get the best outcome possible because we fully and honestly acknowledge where that dollar comes from in the first instance. As we all know it comes from taxpayers in one way shape or form.  
As we saw previous speakers were talking about structural issues in the economy. Well yes we were in Government for the previous 3 years but much of what we are still trying to tidy up was set in train from about 2004 to 2007 when Government spending and Government revenue doubled. 
Kris Faafoi 
: This is the speech from last year. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: That is right but I am responding to the other speeches that were written last year.  
New Zealand voted for the mixed-ownership model. Interestingly all the rhetoric aside the former Labour finance spokesman Mr Cunliffe—and I think the Hon Trevor Mallard when he was commerce Minister or thereabouts—used terms along the lines that their ambition was to unleash the power and potential of State-owned enterprises. A speech Mr Cunliffe gave at Victoria University in November 2010 I think it was used that exact term. Funnily enough I think it got taken out of some online versions but unleash— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: What? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: Well yes I think that is what we may be doing. I cannot quite understand why they are still arguing about it now having ignored the mandate and what New Zealand said. If I listened carefully to what Mr Parker said essentially he said the National Party’s victory at the election was some kind of statistical error— 
Hon Amy Adams 
: An aberration. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: —an aberration because there has only been one other one-term Government the one where unfortunately the Hon Mr Norman Kirk passed away. I actually fully encourage members opposite to continue in that vein because if I recall the rhetoric before the election apparently it was about policies—I do remember that bit. If it was about policies and Labour put its policies out there National put our policies out there to the public and only 27 percent or so of the public voted for Labour’s policies think it through a little bit. Remember the old GST off fruit and veges? Perhaps Labour members have thrown that out to be fair; I do not know about that. I will be interested to hear. Remember not paying PAYE on your first $5K? I do not know whether they have thrown that one out. I would be interested to hear. They have changed leader they have changed some of the front bench around to be fair and good luck to them all. I am looking forward to what they have to say in that space.  
I would also particularly like to acknowledge in my new role as Minister of Commerce that I do intend to work as closely as I can with Mr Cosgrove who is the new commerce spokesman over there continuing the heavy regulatory reform work that the Hon Simon Power started of necessity in the last 3 years. But I fully acknowledge that it was assisted generally in a bipartisan way across the House and hopefully we can continue down that track. I look forward to working with him quite closely where and when possible. I am sure there will be policy differences but on the whole I suspect we are all heading to the same place as far as that regulation and legislation coming up is concerned.  
I noted before the mixed-ownership model and I noted what Mr Cunliffe and Mr Mallard had said previously. I recall that the history of the new Leader of the Opposition—I think it came up when he was the candidate for Mt Albert 2 or 3 years ago—includes writing a paper proposing that defence forces were contracted out. I think it was to Sandline International or something like that. I do not really mind—I have not read the paper—but I was just thinking about this the other day. I do not really mind but I am just quite interested to hear—if it was good enough for that member to write a paper or thesis about that and propose it fair enough—if he has changed his mind how he reconciles that with his current position on the mixed-ownership model as we try to unleash the potential of New Zealand and therefore the Crown’s balance sheet to try to realise our awesome future.  
New Zealanders see on TV every night what is going on in Europe. We see what is happening in southern Europe across Greece across Spain etc. I do note that the previous Labour Party leader in one of his speeches essentially announced that the global financial crisis was over. He may have changed his mind to be fair. What is going on over in Europe is a threat to this country—regardless of the reason for the moment. It is indebted to the tune of $180 billion. We are reliant on the world’s capital markets to fund our aspirations. Regardless of the policy stuff around that actually it is right that New Zealanders and this Government are prudent and very cautious to try to avoid down here what we see is going on up there. If we do not unemployment will indeed go through the roof if the Government finances are out of control—if that in fact happens. Interest rates will go through the roof inflation will go through the roof and the whole thing will start to collapse.  
Little old New Zealand which is doing its best to try to punch above our exporting weight around the world actually has to do so well even so much better I think than many people realise just to tread water as we try to realise our expectations as we start to grow our exports particularly to Asia. Again I freely acknowledge the generally bipartisan nature of free-trade agreements which have been ratified by different parties and Ministers of Trade and Prime Ministers over the years—absolutely—and that is great. You know when we exit New Zealand we generally speak as one and most members understand how necessary that is to help pay for our aspirations. I heard a speaker say this quite recently. It is simply this: “New Zealanders I think they understand that if we want more better schools if we want more better health if we want those things that we expect of an OECD developed country in 2012 do you know how we do it? We simply have to export more grow more.” 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak. That last speaker had difficulty believing what he was saying about the mandate. That was an unbelievable gesture because he said that National has a mandate from New Zealanders to sell off State assets when he knows full well it has got only 59 members in a 121-member House. National is going to rely on Mr Banks who is a National Party member masquerading as an ACT Party member; it is going to rely on Peter Dunne; and it is going to rely on the Maori Party which by all accounts is not going to be part of that Government. How can it have a mandate with 59 members in a 121-member House when over a million people did not vote—a million people did not vote? National needs to be worried. It does not have the mandate—none whatsoever—from the public of New Zealand. It does not have the mandate at all to sell off the assets that it intends to sell.  
Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch I want to congratulate you and welcome you to your role. I look forward no doubt in the not too distant future perhaps to recognising and congratulating you when you are wearing the full regalia of the office of Speaker of the House. I also want to acknowledge and welcome all the other new members who are here and I particularly acknowledge also Asenati Lole-Taylor.  
We have heard from that side of the House—from the Government. We have been promised a brighter future more jobs and higher incomes. Only last week the household labour force survey for the final quarter of last year was released and it is not a brighter future. Last Friday for many workers and for many small businesses it was not a brighter future. This is what the Government has said in the speech that it has given us and it has been repeated by many of its members but I want to say what the community is saying. Those members are working on the basis that they can fool some of the people some of the time or all of the people some of the time but we are going to work on the basis that in the next 3 years they cannot fool all of the people all of the time.  
When they say that they are going to provide a brighter future I would ask that they go out and talk to workers in Manukau and talk to small businesses up and down this country and ask them how they are feeling about what they are experiencing at the moment. Last Friday I met with workers from Criterion an East Tamaki manufacturing company that has gone into receivership. One hundred and eighty workers are affected. Some of those after 20 or 30 years working in the same job have lost their jobs. There are no jobs out there. Yes this Government promised 170000 jobs over 4 years. If it is to be on track it has got to create 36000. So far we can count only about 10000 so it has not done it. That is due to the struggles and the battles of small businesses which are the backbone of this country. These people who lost jobs last Friday through no fault of their own—do they feel that they have got a brighter future? The answer is no. There is no brighter future for many of these families particularly those with schoolchildren and teenagers whom they have got to support.  
There are no jobs out there but that is what we have been promised. There is no plan yet the Government attempts to make out as if it has got a plan. When you look at the 120 points that the Government keeps throwing out none of that makes sense to ordinary people—hard-working workers and small businesses that are struggling to pay their bills in the face of a rising cost of living and in the face of uncertainty in the future. Those who have lost jobs are having to struggle because when they get re-employed for the lucky few they are having to be paid lower wages than they were paid before.  
We have got to hold this Government to account. If it is going to be making those promises then we—yourself every member of this Opposition side—have got to make sure that it honours those words because when you consider that over a million people did not vote in this election you have got to ask yourself why that is. Just because National is in the Government seats does not mean that it is trusted. Just because it is holding the offices of power does not mean that the people accept what it is going to do for this country.  
I say that we have all just heard a lot of hogwash from this Government. National made promises that just do not turn out to be the reality for many many families the length and breadth of New Zealand. The world has changed but National’s answers have not. It still thinks that by sitting on its hands the economic forces that are there will simply create the jobs that it is promising it will create. Sitting on your hands is not going to do it. It has got to come up with a comprehensive plan that all of us can follow that all of us can see and that all of us can make a contribution in. It is just not enough for it to simply say these jobs are going to appear out of thin air.  
It is just not acceptable when it says that it will sell off the assets and all will be well. That is not prosperity. Selling off our State assets the assets that members of our country own—the elderly and those who have contributed significantly over many many years. Those assets belong to the New Zealand public and if the Government took the time to read the many many polls that have been made available it would know that just because it has a seat in power it does not mean that it has the right to flog off those assets. That is right.  
Over 113000 New Zealanders have left our shores for Australia. Over 113000 New Zealanders have left our shores to go over to Australia. Why is that? They have given up under this Government. They have given up hope for a brighter future. For them going across the Ditch to Australia provides a brighter and a more confident future for their families than hanging around here with Mr Key at the helm of power. [ 
Interruption 
] Those members do not like hearing that but it was they who said that they would reduce the number of New Zealanders going across the Ditch to Australia—113000 all under their particular watch.  
The Government has said to us that it is focused on the young people of New Zealand particularly Maori and Pacific. We have not seen any of that. There is 41 percent unemployment among young people aged 15 to 19—not in education employment or training—all under Mr Key’s watch all under the National Government’s watch. Close to 65000 people aged 15 to 24 are not in education and are not in employment or training. The Government thinks that by allowing these young people not to be in education or training or by sweeping them under the carpet all is going to be well. It is wasting our young people. It is wasting the potential of this country. It is wasting the potential of our communities—people who want a brighter future who want to be able to work who want to earn higher incomes who want to have their children get an education and who want to get into a house of their own.  
But so far all that we have heard from this Government are empty promises that things are going to get better—empty promises that it will be brighter round the corner. It has been in power for the last 3 going on 4 years and all that I have heard all that my community has heard are empty promises—empty promises. So we will hold the Government to account. We will hold it to account in the next 3 years. I move that we support the amendment that my colleague David Shearer the leader of the Labour Party has moved: “and the National-led Government will sell New Zealand’s assets against the will of the public; the Government has no ideas to create jobs or a clean and innovative New Zealand; that the Government is widening the gap between the very rich and the rest and therefore this House has no confidence in the National-led government.”  
New Zealanders are battling to stay afloat New Zealanders are battling to make ends meet and all we get are empty promises. I say to you that the people of Mangere are sick and tired of empty promises from Mr Key and the National Government. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to greet all members in the Chamber congratulate all those successful members and commiserate and acknowledge all those unsuccessful members. I would like to acknowledge you Mr Deputy Speaker in your returning role and I guess it is fair to acknowledge the Government. Good on you for forming a Government. I think that this side of the House would have preferred it differently but I would like to acknowledge that you did have the numbers. What I would like to touch on is what your plan is for this next 3 years. I am happy to take a call in this Address in Reply debate responding to John Key and the Speech from the Throne.  
I want to touch on what the Prime Minister touched on which is the four key priorities: trying to get the Government’s books into surplus trying to get a competitive economy trying to reform the Public Service and trying to rebuild Christchurch. I want to look at what they mean for this country and why this Government is asking the right questions but is providing the wrong answers to those four priority points—surplus the economy the Public Service and Christchurch. I want to ask the Government why when there are 120 points in the plan it still does not make the grade. I want to ask the Government where the vision is with all those 120 points. I want to show the Government benches that we do have options available. We do have options. If we keep our assets Kiwi if we invest in our valuable “clean green” brand and if we invest in a compassionate economy we can build a richer New Zealand—a New Zealand for everyone.  
So firstly let us look at the first Government priority: trying to get the Government books back into surplus by 2014-15. It might surprise some of the members but the Greens support it in this aspect. You know we support sustainability when it comes to the environment and we support fiscal and environmental sustainability as well. It is clear that the country has got a debt problem. We have got a gross Government debt of around 33 percent to 36 percent of GDP and you only have to look at Europe—what is happening in Portugal and Ireland and the riots on the streets in Greece—and you see that we are on an unsustainable track. So we are asking the right question which is about Government debt but we have come up with the wrong answers. John Key’s speech talked about announcing only $800 million of new Government spending cuts to the public sector further cuts to the Government and departments like the Department of Conservation getting gutted yet what we are seeing is more wasteful spending being announced by the Government.  
Take the motorways. We have got $19 billion being borrowed by the Government to pour on these motorways with negative benefit-cost ratios. We have got the Government subsidising risky deep-sea oil ventures with $25 million - plus and direct subsidies to foreign offshore drillers. We have seen the new irrigation fund. What we are seeing is this Government cherry-picking: picking the winners in our economy. We are seeing motorways for truckies we are seeing special deals for Warner Bros we are seeing more pokies for Skycity we are seeing the Government picking the winner when it comes to the economy but it is the taxpayer picking up the tab. We see fiscal austerity as the watchword but the Government is selectively borrowing billions to back these supposed winners which are going to have huge impacts for our economy and country. When there are 120 points and there is no point when it comes to revenue you have got to ask some serious questions. Raising revenue has to be part of the question if we are trying to return the Government books into surplus.  
The Government said yes to more obscene bonuses. We saw the Government say yes to more tax cuts for the super-rich but we saw the Government saying no to capital gains tax we saw the Government say no to the temporary earthquake levy and we saw the Government say no to the small irrigation levy which would have helped our farmers and our waterways. We were the only party in the last election to go to the public with a plan to actually pay off debt faster. The Green Party went to the public with a plan to pay off $6 billion in debt over the next 3 years. But what we see from the Government benches is members playing politics looking out for their mates and taking our economy down the wrong road.  
When it comes to the competitive economy priority of the Government this again is another area where we agree with the Government. To help the sustainability of our economy and our environment we need to be reducing debt and to do that we need a competitive economy. But again what we see is the wrong answers given to the right question. The 120-point plan can be summarised in four words; I think they would be “drill it mine it”.  
Oil is the biggest strategic risk to our national economy. It is 16 percent of our imports. That is the largest single share of our national imports. We are seeing wealth directly flow offshore. Every US$1 rise in the price of oil wipes $40 billion to $60 billion off our GDP. It is the key area in the Ministry of Economic Development energy outlook analysis of the country so if oil is the problem why is drilling more of it the answer? The pathway to prosperity is not drilling new risky oil wells in deep hostile environment. It does not stack up when New Zealand sells itself far too cheaply. We see hardly any royalties hardly any taxes hardly any jobs for Kiwis we see the profits flow offshore yet it is the taxpayer who is picking up the tab when it becomes a mess.  
We see the Government with its insurance liability say: “Sure you are liable but you need only $30 million in insurance.” We see the Government quite happy to see New Zealanders who love their marine environment pay 100 percent of the environmental costs yet for only 5 percent of the value of the oil. What we saw with the  
Rena 
 tragedy off the Bay of Plenty was that the country is not prepared to deal with a moderate spill let alone a risky deep-sea oil well blowout. The only way to achieve oil exports which is what the Government wants to achieve—net oil exports as in its briefing for the incoming Minister of Energy and Resources—is to encourage risky deep-sea oil drilling more hydraulic fracturing or fracking and digging up the lignite the lowest-grade coal in the country.  
When it comes to the deep-sea wells that the Government plans to dig all over the offshore environment in New Zealand there is simply no way to plug a well blowout. What we saw in the Gulf of Mexico even with all of those rigs in the environment were 40000 people ready to respond but they still could not plug the well for weeks and weeks. I do not know how the Government thinks it is going to plug a well with its new legislation the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Yet where it is planning to be allowing these permits for these deep-sea oil rigs is between what is known as the “roaring forties” and the “furious fifties” off the Raukumara Basin one of the most seismically active parts of the country. And when it comes to the bill supposedly giving Kiwis and taxpayers protection from these risky deep-sea oil wells the “EEZ Bill” it is really more of an “E-zee Drilling Bill” for the way it simply facilitates more risky deep-sea oil drilling.  
The second part of the plan relies on fracking—more fracking across our country. Fracking or hydraulic fracturing is drilling vertical and horizontal wells letting off explosives and then using drilling fluids which are proprietary secret and often very toxic to extract oil and gas. What we know from fracking overseas is that it pollutes the groundwater it pollutes the air there are significant health worries and then we also know there is growing evidence including from prestigious UK and American scientific bodies of its links with earthquakes. So I do not know why the Government is embarking on this risky and very controversial fracking practice. It is no wonder that New South Wales Quebec France and many states in America have put moratoriums on it. And that is what this Government should be doing: if it wants to look out for the taxpayer if it wants to look out for Kiwis it should encourage the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to be doing some more research into the risks and until then put in an immediate moratorium.  
Now the nexus of the Government’s so-called economic development plans of “drill it and mine it” is its “sell it” approach. When it comes to the State-owned asset Solid Energy one of the State-owned assets on the books it is its plan to be bringing in billions of dollars of capital to dig up the lignite. The lignite coal—[ 
Interruption 
]—I could not hear the interjections but I am sure they were not any good anyway. But anyway when it comes to the lignite we are going to see the taxpayer pick up the bill—hundreds of millions maybe up to a billion dollars the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment reports—for subsidising it through the emissions trading scheme. This is the forefront where we should be using our expertise investing in innovation like in efficient wood pellet products other wood products and biofuels for which again the Government has not announced an extension of the grant. This is where we should be planting our effort and our focus to get innovation for prosperity for Kiwis.  
Like selling the State assets which the Government wants to flog off it is simple madness. These are assets returning a dividend of 18.5 percent to pay off debt of only 5 percent. It does not make any sense. It has no mandate. There is massive opposition in the country. Yet on the flip side there is a massive opportunity cost as well. We could be using these assets to drive our prosperity to drive our innovation. We have got world-leading expertise in renewable electricity generation already. If we using our State-owned assets to drive export growth could capture only 1 percent of that $800 billion industry this could bring $800 million per annum into the country and 67000 jobs.  
So in summary I ask where the vision is—“drill it mine it” is not enough to lift Kiwis’ living standards. Slashing the public sector is not enough to lift 200000 Kiwi kids out of poverty. The wasteful spending on the motorways and subsidising polluters is not enough to protect our wonderful environment and our valuable “clean green” brand. And the Green Party will be supporting the motion that this House has no confidence in the National Government. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call this afternoon. I would like to congratulate you Mr Deputy Speaker and the other presiding officers on being re-elected in this Parliament. I would like to begin my address this afternoon by talking about three very inspirational groups. We have heard a lot of negative talk in this House this afternoon and I just want to talk about these three groups I have met in the last couple of weeks.  
The first one I want to talk about is Maria Johnson. Maria Johnson is the founder of the Little Schools programme in Wellington. She is an entrepreneur she won the  
Her Business 
 award in Wellington at the end of last year and she is absolutely passionate about early childhood education. In fact she is so passionate that she is in the process of breaking through into China and the markets over there. She is totally aspirational for business and business women in particular in New Zealand.  
I would like to talk about the sanofi cyclists. The sanofi cyclists are a group of world-class cyclists who suffer from type 1 diabetes. They are elite athletes who can prove to and inspire other diabetes sufferers around the world that they can go out and live their lives to the full. They were recently in New Zealand competing and they became first or second I believe in the races they ran around Palmerston North.  
The third group is the Johnsonville and Newlands volunteer fire brigade. Like these volunteers and all other volunteers in New Zealand they give day after day week after week year after year to their communities. They are the backbone of our community and our country. I went to their awards ceremony and it was great to be part of that. Annette King was present as well it was good to see. It is always good to celebrate people who go out and make a difference in New Zealand.  
These three groups of people represent Kiwi ingenuity Kiwi spirit and the Kiwi way of life. We have heard in this House from the last couple of speakers from Labour about failures about how badly the country is going and how there is no hope for the country. 
Kris Faafoi 
: What happened to the positivity? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Well actually you are absolutely wrong. Su’a William Sio just sat down and he had said “I’ve just been around my businesses and I can tell you”. Well I just went to Maria Johnson’s business yesterday and I can tell you we have got some wonderful entrepreneurs out there doing some great work. Not often do we hear from the Labour members about solutions—solutions to the problems that face New Zealand solutions to our challenges—and about any innovation or inspiration at all.  
Well lucky this National Government has a solution. We have a plan and it lies in the spirit and the ambition of entrepreneurs like Maria Johnson. The role models of our cyclists and all those who work hard for our communities— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: The plan the plan I want to hear about the plan. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: National is committed to building a brighter future. It is so good to hear actually the Opposition talking about the brighter future that we have. I am going to look in Su’a William Sio’s  
Hansard 
 because I believe he talked about the brighter future most probably 10 times in his 10 minutes. It is great to see he believes in a brighter future for New Zealand where New Zealanders have opportunity where they are going to have jobs where we are going to have higher incomes where we are going to have better public services. When I talk about better public services what do I talk about? I talk about more elective surgery I talk about ensuring that our Maori and Pacific Island children have access to early childhood education—actually that we provide early childhood education that they want to access.  
We are going to ensure that we have high targets like the 95 percent target for the immunisation of our children before they get to school like rheumatic fever—reducing that instead of it increasing under the Labour Government— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: How? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: How? Oh my goodness you know exactly how we are going to do it because we have got our 120-point action plan. It is funny—Clare Curran is now sitting in the back there and last week Clare Curran said to us “You have no plan no plan at all.” And we said we have got the 120-point economic action plan and Clare Curran goes “What 120-point action plan?”. Well actually it is on the internet—www.national.org.nz—and anybody can go and have a look at it. It is a very comprehensive plan and it takes us through the next 3 years.  
Unlike the Labour Party which has no plan no vision no aspiration at all we have four main priorities over the next 4 years. The first is responsibly managing the Government’s finances. The others are building a more competitive and productive economy delivering better public services and of course rebuilding Canterbury.  
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: How? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: OK so how are we going to do it? A great question—I am pleased you asked. What we are not going to do is we are not going to borrow more money like Labour would have done if it had got into Government because we are all sitting back and watching Europe and seeing all those countries that are heavily indebted and knowing that we cannot borrow any more money. In fact I believe that in the election Labour campaigned on borrowing billions of dollars more money. We are not going to do that; we know we are not going to do that. We are thinking of other ways of raising capital and one of those is through our mixed-ownership model.  
But we alone as a Government cannot reduce the debt of the country. People have to take responsibility for reducing their own personal debt as well. We know that the tax switch was significant in ensuring that New Zealanders got to find a different way to look at how they are getting their money and what they are going to do with it. We know that before the tax switch for every dollar that was earned $1.10 was spent and after the tax switch for every dollar that was earned 99c was spent. So we know that New Zealanders are changing the way they are saving and spending their money. In fact in 2008 personal loans were $13.25 billion. Now personal loans are $12.5 billion. That is a significant decrease for New Zealanders in how they are spending and saving their money.  
This Government is committed to returning to surpluses in 2014-15. We are looking at $300 million in surpluses in our forecasts. We know that we have to be financially responsible—fiscally responsible—to ensure that we keep the pressure off interest rates because we know that one of the biggest pressures on households is interest rates. We need to keep those low so mortgage repayments stay low. Also we have to be responsible for our exporters to ensure that our exchange rate is stable and as beneficial to them as it possibly can be. But we know the only way we are going to grow our economy is through our exports: being productive and being a competitive exporter in overseas markets. We know that we need free-trade agreements and successive Governments have worked towards that. We know that our biggest trading partners are Australia and China and they have to be our biggest trading partners because they are the growing partners. We cannot afford to go back to our traditional partners which are not growing. If we want to grow we need to ensure that we hitch our wagon to the economies that are growing as well.  
I am excited about the future for our families our businesses and our organisations in New Zealand. I am excited that Maria has the opportunity one day to expand her business into China because of National’s commitment to business. I am excited about the future of sanofi cyclists and about how they inspire others in New Zealand and in their communities to overcome adversity day after day. I am proud that so many people in New Zealand are willing to put their hands up to help each other to help their communities. I am excited about this Government having its second term and that we can deliver the brighter future that we promised. We believe in opportunity personal freedom and the ambition to succeed. Thank you. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Let us have a bit of a look at that plan because when I heard the news yesterday that John Key’s Government was going to take us to a brave new world within the public sector my ears pricked up with interest. Could it be that this Government would use its purchasing power and its considerable influence and resources to drive technological change in the public sector in a way that would lead to innovation job growth and resurgence in our private sector? Could it be that it would invest in the skills required to ensure that we have a highly skilled technological workforce and that the pathways from school into that workforce were being considered and were being seen as a priority so that kids coming out of school could get into high tech jobs? Would it ensure that the growing digital divide in this country and the closing of that digital divide would be seen as a priority? No sadly.  
After looking a bit more closely at what the Prime Minister actually said it is all about slashing—slashing budgets—and using technology as a cover not to drive job growth or innovation but rather to cut jobs and make front-line services automated and maybe even send them offshore. Labour is all for efficiencies: making our public services better improving New Zealanders’ access to services using technology and data sharing among Government agencies. There is no question about that. But Labour is also about a productive high tech innovative economy—a clean green high tech economy. An innovation society is what we want for New Zealand.  
Unfortunately with this Government—and this is a tragedy—the technology argument is being used as an excuse for services to be diminished and if the driving reason for doing it is to cut budgets and to cut staff then you have got to wonder what on earth the thinking is. Delivering core services through a call centre maybe not even in this country—or even worse via an automated service—is not a public service. Duncan Garner has written about this today describing it as Treasury-speak from the 1980s. That is not future talk; that is talk very much from the past.  
Then there is the spectre of user-pays. Here we have the same old story about cuts and diminished services. That is what underlines the Government’s 120-point plan. I see that John Key is not going to be pressed on how many jobs are going to be cut but I ask him how he thinks New Zealanders are going to receive a higher quality of service for their complex issues if they cannot even speak to a person. I see that he is reported as saying that people will be able to use their smartphones to apply for passports and other things rather than having to wait in lines in offices. Well there are two things. Firstly many people do not even have smartphones. They cannot afford them and they are not likely to be able to afford them if they do not have a job. Secondly just how many services will be taken off the front line? I bet it is more than just applying for passports.  
Technology is critically important to this country’s future and innovation is critically important to this country’s future but so is direct contact. Technology should be about bringing people and their Government closer together not taking them further apart and then making them pay for it. That is why we pay taxes. As anyone knows if you take away the personal contact between people and an organisation then the organisation suffers as much as the customer. You cannot trust an organisation you cannot talk to where you cannot talk to an actual person when you need to. Taking the people out of Public Service will affect the service.  
New Zealand should become an innovation society—an innovation society in a country that uses innovation successfully to create jobs and to create exports. It does not use technology as a means to slash them and create even more inequality. This Government has no plan to grow the economy. It is short-term dumb thinking just as is its agenda to sell assets. New Zealanders do not want their assets sold.  
This fits with some of the other agendas of this Government which are equally disturbing but are definitely deliberate. The first is that our public broadcasting sector is being reduced to a shell—a shadow. We need a strong public media that is independent of any Government—any Government—and that provides critical analysis discussion and debate in our country. We should be proud of our public broadcasters. We should hold our public broadcasting service up as an example of a truly functioning democracy just like most of our fellow OECD countries. It should be part of the fabric of our democracy. Instead what has the Government done? It has frozen Radio New Zealand’s funding. It will not be able to provide its current services under its current funding model. It has stripped Television New Zealand (TVNZ) of its charter. It has made it become fully commercial. It has axed funding to TVNZ 7 which is our digital public TV station and which punches enormously above its weight.  
This has happened at the same time as cosy and dubious relationships are emerging between the Government and its corporate media mates. There was a $43 million soft loan to MediaWorks so it could pay its TV licences. There is a refusal to consider or discuss the glaring need—the glaring need—for some regulation in the broadcasting sector which is happening everywhere else except New Zealand. Why? Because that would affect its mate Sky television which dominates the pay television market. It is now doing deals with TVNZ to put even more content behind the pay wall meaning that great tracts of TV will not and cannot be seen because people cannot afford the subscription.  
Meanwhile—and most disturbing—this is all shrouded by the growing scandal of political interference. There is clear evidence emerging of overt political interference by this Government in our media to promote its own agenda. You have heard my colleague Grant Robertson today in question time question the Prime Minister about his free hour on Radio Live. The Prime Minister became strangely silent today on the extent to which he was directly involved in determining the content of what he described as an election-free zone but which could be described as a free hit.  
I know that many people are grappling with the extent of these issues out there in our community and more and more people are starting to speak out about them. Many people are asking how this sort of thing can be happening in New Zealand. Why is the Government doing it? It does not have a plan and it does not want public scrutiny of where it is failing. And it is happening. It is happening in our country and more and more people are waking up to that. We should be fighting against any perception of Government interference in broadcasting. This Government does not seem to give a toss. Broadcasting programming matters should be the responsibility of NZ On Air; they are not the business of Government Ministers Prime Ministers or anyone attached to a political party. In any other country where the Prime Minister’s electorate chair is involved in programming where the Government gives soft loans to broadcasters and where the Prime Minister gets a free hit on air time this would rightfully be regarded as corrupt and I agree with that sentiment.  
Just before the election a programme was screened on TV3 called  
Inside Child Poverty 
. It was controversial. It provided an evidence base for an issue that we all know is very important and concerning for our country right now. Too many children are living in poverty. Yes it invited debate and discussion but it was a good thing to have that discussion out there. But in January we discovered that the Prime Minister’s man did not like it and had complained to the board chair and the chief executive officer before that programme— 
Hon Annette King 
: Before? 
CLARE CURRAN 
: —before that programme was even aired. Now we have that man the Prime Minister’s own electorate chair on the board of NZ On Air deeply involved in making decisions about funding and the content of programmes that are promoting the Government’s own agenda—Whanau Ora; the Government’s own agenda—and is scrambling around inside TV3 and NZ On Air to cover its back.  
How could this happen in our country? Is NZ On Air not charged to be independent and fearlessly protective of public broadcasting values that are independent of politics? Is NZ On Air funding propaganda? How can someone so close to the Prime Minister be allowed to be involved in these decisions? The new broadcasting Minister Craig Foss has the extremely difficult job of reassuring the public that the Government has credibility— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Time has expired. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Congratulations Mr Deputy Speaker on your well-deserved elevation to the position you hold in this Parliament which I know you will serve with grace and dignity. I have to say in talking about the speech I have just heard from Clare Curran that maybe it is just me but there is a deep and twisted irony in what she is saying about broadcasting. On the one hand she talks about freedom and the need to let freedom reign within the broadcasting world but on the other she is straight in attacking the Sky TVs—the ones who are doing well in this area. Ultimately—and I am pretty sure I am right in terms of the policies Labour espoused on broadcasting before the last election—it comes down to the same old same old from that party and that is more regulation more State regulation and ultimately more State control with the State controlling broadcasting. And if she wants to know about a State inappropriately deciding what is on television all we need to do is go down the road that Clare Curran wants us to go down which she espoused and which was roundly rejected at the last election. 
You see in National we believe in freedom and we want to see people out there in the free marketplace of ideas talking about these things and not being bullied down because their idea does not fit with someone’s view. I want to give you a quotation I read in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
from Greek finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos. He said: “Our country has an acute issue of survival. The question is not whether some salaries and pensions will be curtailed but whether we will be able to pay even these reduced wages and pensions. When you have to choose between bad and worse you will pick what is bad to avoid what is worse.” I am no economist but I chair the Finance and Expenditure Committee; I am literate in these matters. But ultimately what happened in Greece is pretty simple. For way too long it spent more than it earned. I think that New Zealanders roundly rejected that sort of approach which we saw from the Labour Party opposite in the election campaign. You see Labour wants to take this country down that route. Now Phil Goff in campaigning at the last election made—I think at last count Amy Adams was saying it was $15 billion more in spending promises than National; I thought it was more like $20 billion. But what I do know is that it is a whole lot of money that Labour— 
Hon Annette King 
: It was just made up. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well it was made up; I agree with Annette King. That is exactly what it was. It was made up by Phil Goff. He was shown up in the debates for making it up because he did not know where his figures came from and he just kept on promising. Actually just as we have seen in Greece it does not work and it does not work here either. So we are determined to be fiscally conservative and to get our spending and our debt down in this country and to return to surplus in 2014-15. When National talks this way many of the members on the other side—and David Cunliffe committed this crime if I can put it this way—say: “Oh but we got debt down.” Well let me explain something to the Labour Party. There is a fundamental difference between spending and debt—right? They are different concepts. And yes that is right. In the best economy the world has probably ever seen it is true that Michael Cullen was able to return surpluses arguably I would say by taxing more than he needed to. But he was able to return big surpluses. But how did he do that? Well from 2005 we know that he spent like a drunken sailor. Every day day in day out he was spending much more than he needed to do and he was not spending it on productive stuff on the kinds of things Clare Curran harped on about before—innovation this innovation that. No he put it into the non-productive economy. And why did he do that? Well a cynic might say he did that to buy elections. But fortunately New Zealanders woke up. They knew it was a hopeless set of policies that Labour was selling. They did not want the “Greek-onomics” - styled stuff that Labour was putting in place. 
I was talking to a top economist just last week. He said to me that doing a good job by the economy comes down to two things. You can dress it up in all sorts of ways and you can talk about 15 things but it comes down to two things. Firstly it comes down to spending less and having less debt. They are different things but related. Secondly it comes down to building a more competitive and productive economy. And that is precisely what National wants to do. He also said this to me on the competitive and productive economy: “Actually it doesn’t come down to one big thing; it comes down to lots and lots of little things done right over time incrementally. That is how you make a difference in an economy.” [ 
Interruption 
] I hear Rajen Prasad and I know that on that side of the House Labour and probably the Greens as well says: “Actually it does come down to two or three things. You can just have some big bang. You know the innovation economy or the green economy and we just do all these magic little things.” Well that is exactly what it is; it is the magic theory of economics. It is the idea that the Government can just magic up industries and suddenly hey presto we are billionaires. Well let me tell the Opposition that that is actually not how the real economy works.  
Hon Annette King 
: How are you going to magic the 170000 jobs? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: There is no magic on this side of the House Annette King or Kris Faafoi. What there is is lots of things—a 120-point plan that adds up over time to making a step change in this economy. I know; I understand; Labour does not like it. Labour members are good people. They are well-meaning people but they are wrong fundamentally on the economics. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I am being generous. I wanted to be generous. They do have the magic wand theory of economics. As I say just dream up an industry. For Clare Curran it is innovation and for the Green Party it is a green economy. Actually we just want to build a more productive and competitive economy and we do that by reforming the economy day in and day out with lots of things. Labour says there is no plan—well here it is. They can get it on www.national.org.nz. I will go through some of these things: connect 58000 premises to ultra-fast broadband including 221 schools. 
Hon Annette King 
: How? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: How? Well we put them in the ground Annette. They dig them up and it works kind of well. Also there is changing ACC to allow choice in the work account reduce business costs and promote growth. We will pass legislation to implement the start-out wage to ensure our young people are not locked out of the job market. It is all of these things 120 things that make a substantial difference to the economy and do mean that we can deliver a brighter future for this country. 
I also have to say that there is something else that is needed to deliver a brighter future. It is basically attitudinal; it is not being a misery guts like some of the members opposite are when they stand up—“Woe is me!” and all this and that. Not that I have done it often but when you have been to South-east Asia to the so-called tiger economies and you read their newspapers you see that they focus on “can do” on what can be done on how a road can be built. They do not as Steven Joyce pointed out in what I thought was a stellar column in the  
New Zealand Herald  
focus on all the “can’ts” all the things you cannot do. They do not say: “There is this problem and that.” They do not shut off things here there and everywhere. Their papers are relentlessly positive. They talk about economic growth the things they are doing the broadband plans and this and that and we could do with a dose of that attitude and that optimism because there is room for optimism. When we look around the world at Europe and its issues at America which is doing better than it was but has its issues and we look at where we are next to the Asian economies—and I include Australia in that which is arguably the richest per capita country in the world right now—there is much room for optimism in New Zealand because we have a great spirit we are optimistic and we have a wonderful Government leading us at this time of trial. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 The first thing I want to say to the member who has just sat down is that clearly he is not an economist. Because he chairs the Finance and Expenditure Committee he might like to think that he is an economist but he is not. He believes only the two things that the friend of his the economist said were important—only those two things. I say to that member there are many more things that a responsible Government has to address and it cannot be just those two things.  
That is the problem with the Speech from the Throne. This society has as a right to look at the set-piece speech from the Government about its strategic intent—its statement of its aspirations—and to find a place for itself within this statement. This is a statement for all New Zealanders and one that we all should be able to look confidently at to see how the Government intends to advance our interests—everybody’s interests. So it is a fair test of this particular statement to see how it addresses the needs of all New Zealanders and how it reflects their point of view.  
In the Speech from the Throne the Government states that its driving goal is to build a more competitive economy with less debt more jobs and higher incomes. We should hold those three things in our minds. That was the goal of the Government throughout the last 3 years and here it is restated in a slightly different form but it is the same statement. Over the past 3 years we have not seen less debt; in fact debt has ballooned under this particular Government. No matter how it tries to explain it and no matter what reasons it finds the fact is that the debt under this Government has mushroomed. It has borrowed like there is no tomorrow. There is not any less debt and there will not be for some time.  
We have not seen more full-time jobs; full-time jobs are down. No matter how the Government tries to package that fact the fact is that full-time jobs are down. The number of hours worked is down and 100000 people need more hours to make ends meet. Maybe the Government does not care that some people are job-weak in the sense that they do not have the hours. They work less time they do not have enough money and they live in a sense suboptimal lives. We have already been told in this debate that 83000 people are not in education work or training. How could that be a judgment of the aspirations and performance of that Government over the last 3 years?  
As for higher incomes that applies only to those at the very top of the income scale. Ordinary people have not seen any meaningful increase under the stewardship of this Government and the programme it has outlined in this document will not do it for them either. Tax cuts notwithstanding—that gave advantages to one side. So by the Government’s own statements—less debt more jobs higher incomes—it has failed.  
This was a Government that promised it would make the boat go faster; it borrowed that from the America’s Cup challenge. However what it intends to do is actually sell the boat. That ain’t going to make it go faster. The Government knows that it does not have wide support for its asset sales programme and yet it intends to persist. It has no mandate. That has been well established and just because it won an election that does not mean it has a mandate for this one policy.  
There are two points about the Government’s asset sales programmes that need to be made. The first is to ask when a Government takes the views of the public into account in setting such a major policy goal. Does the lack of wide support for the asset sales currently reflected in surveys and opinion polls demonstrate to the Government that the level of support for such a radical policy is just not there? The Government knows it is just not there. It tries to say it has a mandate but it does not. Clearly the support is not there and it has no mandate. If it wants to test that then perhaps it should have a referendum and test that out and we know that the majority would not support it.  
The second point is that there is no agreement that selling State assets that currently produce a good rate of return for the Government is a no-brainer. It is a no-brainer selling those? Not many people see the logic of this policy expect perhaps those who would benefit directly from it. Many more will pay through higher prices for electricity. Many ordinary New Zealand families cannot afford it at the moment but the Government does not care for this particular group. The policy is entirely driven by ideology. This is the belief that the State has no business owning strategic assets for all New Zealanders. The Government will drive this ideology no matter what because only its supporters are likely to benefit. Why does the Government not govern for all New Zealanders? Certainly it is not there for the average citizen and this does not benefit them. The same applies to the privatisation of accident compensation in a sense or opening up those accounts. Charter schools are the same sort of stuff. It is ideologically driven and the facts are not there.  
Clearly this Government does not have a plan to meet its own goals of less debt more jobs and higher incomes. When challenged about this last November it hurriedly put together a 120-point plan in the last days of the election campaign. That seemed like a desperate act at the time but somehow it was promoted as a new idea. I have had a look at the 120-point plan which many speakers opposite have spoken to and see that only 21 percent of the 120 are new proposals. The rest have already been completed or are under way and many of them are the ragtag group of ideas that the Government promoted over the last 3 years. It has put them together and now it is a plan. This confirms that there are few ideas; selling State assets does not constitute a real plan for growth and progress towards a smart clean clever country.  
This country has already been judged as one of the most unequal in the OECD. This is a terrible indictment but where in this statement is there a real commitment to change that a real commitment to move much faster to make this a more equal society? There is a whole raft of anti-worker legislation which reduces their incomes. How does that create a fairer society? How does that create a more equal society? There is nothing in this plan that addresses our low-wage economy. In fact the Government policy is designed to make that even more difficult. I wonder how members of the Government go to bed comfortably at night knowing there are many others out there living lives of quiet desperation who have not been fed well that night and whose children are probably hungry and not looking forward to the next day. Yet this statement is the Government’s plan to address that. Those who are hungry and poor cannot wait.  
One of the changing aspects of New Zealand’s society is its culture and ethnic diversification. There are almost half a million people who identify as an ethnic group other than Pakeha Maori or Pasifika. They play a critical role in New Zealand society and given the social capital they represent they are well placed to make a difference—a real difference—to this country’s growth and well-being. But there is no reference to them in this particular document at all. These people are faceless and you would have thought that in the strategic statement from the Government to guide its 3-year programme there would be a reflection on at least the diversification of New Zealand society and what new ideas this Government had that might address them much more directly.  
This country has to invest much greater thought than it has to date in harvesting the potential of the ethnic sector. This is the new New Zealand particularly in Auckland but in other cities as well. Given this one would have thought that there would be some reference to their interests in this plan. So far we have become familiar with ethnic celebrations and ethnic elements or culture like food and entertainment but their interest in New Zealand is much greater than that. There has to be a much deeper level of engagement and involvement with the ethnic sector and with all New Zealand society about our ethnic diversification. I thought as this change is so important that in this strategic statement it would be addressed. There has to be a greater level of dialogue with and regarding the ethnic sector as well as with all New Zealanders.  
We are all reasonably well informed about the plight of our children in this country. This document says very little about our most vulnerable. We know that there is a correlation between abuse neglect and poverty yet this document is quite silent on many of those factors. There is a belief that somehow the trickle-down will trickle down to their interests as well. 
In conclusion this is a disappointing and bland Speech from the Throne. It will not give comfort to the many or reward them because their interests are not addressed. Instead it will advantage only the few who are already advantaged. I guess New Zealand will have to wait for a Labour Government to once again lift all boats through a clean green and clever programme. Thank you. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to once again lay out for New Zealand and for interested colleagues the National-led Government’s plan for a brighter New Zealand and what we are laying out for the next 3 years. Our four main priorities of course are first responsibly managing the Government’s finances. We have no particular interest in borrowing more and more and more from overseas such as other parties are peddling to the New Zealand public at the moment in order to fulfil their election promises.  
Secondly we want to build a more competitive and productive economy. Part of that of course is investment in very important infrastructure whether it is electricity transmission and generation infrastructure whether it is roading or rail or whether it is broadband or other forms of telecommunications which is important for New Zealanders particularly in the provinces to communicate with the rest of the country and the world. All those areas of infrastructure investment are important to us.  
Thirdly we want to deliver a better more effective and more responsive Public Service so that New Zealanders can more readily engage with Government and Government departments and agencies right throughout the country. Lastly of course is that all-important rebuilding of Christchurch. Those are our goals over the next 3 years ones that we will be measured on and fortunately ones we have already made considerable progress on.  
In terms of building a more competitive and productive economy I have already outlined that the importance of infrastructure is so very very high. It does not matter whether we communicate by rail and road physically travelling to places; through transport links delivering goods and services from one place to another; or in the virtual travelling through broadband or telecommunications. The point is that New Zealand being a long narrow nation needs to ensure that our communications and transport links are world class.  
I was stunned for instance when we had a region that historically has been isolated from the rest of New Zealand—I am talking about Northland. I am sure Southland Mr Deputy Speaker where you are from has never experienced this but Northland in the far reaches of the north of New Zealand has historically—100 years ago—been isolated from the capital and other parts of the country. I was stunned to see the Leader of the Opposition beating the drum for no more investment on that State highway network north of Auckland. He was beating the drum saying that State Highway 1 from Auckland to Whangarei should not be upgraded. In fact in a condescending manner he called it the “Holiday Highway” and said that the Labour Party would rather pull the $1 billion committed to that and spend it on everywhere else but Northland. It is very disappointing for Northlanders—very disappointing for Northlanders.  
For colleagues this will come as some surprise because my colleagues on this side of the House do not actually realise that the Labour Party leader at the moment ran for the seat of Whangarei. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: No you did not know that did you? 
Hon Amy Adams 
: No. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Many colleagues did not know. He ran for the seat of Whangarei in 2002 as a proud Aucklander. The Labour Party usually sends Aucklanders to Whangarei to stand. He came to Whangarei and actually said back in 2002 that he would stand up for Whangarei would stand up for Northland and wanted more attention to be given to Whangarei and Northland. That is what the Labour Party leader said in 2002. In this general election we found that he wanted to cut ties with Northland and did not want to invest more in that highway State Highway 1 to Whangarei. Whangarei residents were aghast at the change of fortunes—the turn I guess that the Leader of the Opposition has made in that time.  
So Labour Party members might want to continue to call State Highway 1 north of Auckland to Whangarei and Northland the “Holiday Highway” and mock it but actually we will accept that. We are delighted that Aucklanders want to come north. We are pleased actually that it is a tourist destination. If Aucklanders want to travel north pull out their credit cards and spend money in Northland’s capital Whangarei then we are absolutely delighted about that but we want to see that sort of investment in the north. We have seen decisions made on the Waterview Connection and of course on the Kopu Bridge and other important transport investment infrastructure right across New Zealand and we celebrate it. And there is much much much more to come.  
Roads are not the only area where we are investing significant finances for the benefit of economic growth. The electricity network across New Zealand is also looking at a massive upgrade. People would have read in the last 2 weeks that there is going to be a marginal increase in electricity prices due to the investment in Transpower’s network for the national grid right across New Zealand. I recall that when the National Party was in Opposition the Government of the day was talking about upgrading the national grid. It was concerned at that time that should there be power blackouts it would be unfortunate if that occurred because Transpower’s grid throughout New Zealand had somehow failed. I remember the Labour Party talking about that in the year 2000. In 2000 or 2001 they continued that discussion and I believe—and Maurice Williamson will correct me on this—in 2002 the Labour Party did what it did best and the Government of that time I think formed an officials committee.  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s right. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is right. It discussed that for 12 months and then was it not in 2003 or 2004 that it decided to get expert advice? I think some members called for a select committee inquiry so we had 5 years of Labour Government discussion about whether we should or whether we should not upgrade the transmission lines throughout the country. It probably issued a discussion document—a discussion document. I am not sure whether Labour surveyed but as was its habit when it governed during that period—it did not matter whether it was building a road electricity generation electricity transmission broadband rail or whatever investment it was—it simply did a number of things all in a row. It would have an officials committee discussion documents select committee inquiries expert advice and royal commissions—anything but make a decision. It would do anything but make a decision in case it isolated someone. Unfortunately as is the case throughout the world yes constituents like to be heard like to be loved and like to be agreed with but in the end if year on year you show no leadership and you show no decision-making prowess they will toss you out and that is what has happened.  
That is why we are saying quite clearly—nailing our colours to the wall—that we are about responsibly managing the Government’s finances and building a competitive and productive economy. We will invest in roading we will invest in electricity generation and transmission we will invest in broadband and we will invest in all these infrastructural opportunities. We will do that and make those decisions.  
That of course leads me to the investment in housing. Members will know that the previous Labour Government was very proud of increasing the number of State houses in its stock. When we took over we made a very distinct and clear decision that we were enthusiastic about having State houses that were fit for purpose warm dry and livable as well as increasing their number. So we decided that our investment would be upgrading the State housing stock and increasing it—doing that together—and that has been a very wise decision indeed.  
The previous Government interestingly enough looked at the issue of State houses being on quarter acre and half acre sections and being sort of 1940s and 1950s houses—being old cold and mouldy pieces of infrastructure. It discussed for many many years doing something about that but never actually did it. National has decided that we will subdivide large sections and we will demolish old cold and mouldy State houses and build new modern insulated ones. We will make better use of those assets. That is what we are doing. So although members on that side of the House might have increased the number of old cold and mouldy State houses on this side of the House we have decided that we need to invest in the quality not just the quantity of housing. That is what we are doing.  
We are very proud of the goals that we have outlined in our four main priorities: responsibly managing the economy building a more competitive and productive economy delivering better public services and rebuilding Christchurch. That is what we will be doing that is what we will be measured on and we are pleased that that in fact will be the bar we have set for ourselves and for New Zealanders to judge us by in 3 years’ time.  
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I congratulate you on your election. Support for your appointment extended across the House. That is testament to the success of your efforts during the first term of the current Government.  
I have the honour of being the 12th member of Parliament to represent the Dunedin North electorate. The seat of Dunedin North has a proud history of strong representation by the Labour Party both in Opposition and around the Cabinet table. The individuals who have held the seat have contributed to Labour holding it for 80 of the past 83 years.  
My predecessor the Hon Pete Hodgson can lay claim to a quarter of Dunedin North’s history with a Labour Party MP—more if you count his involvement before that. Pete pursued the integration of honest transparent and accountable economic policy with honest transparent and accountable environmental policy. He said so in his maiden speech. The year was 1990 and he argued for a price on carbon. He sought to make New Zealand “the first country in the world to have an economy that is truly sustainable”. Well we are not a truly sustainable economy yet. It was fully 18 years after Pete’s maiden speech that New Zealand finally legislated for a price on carbon. He played an important part in shaping that carbon debate. Pete got stuff done. His animal welfare private bill caused the Government to rewrite animal welfare legislation. It made New Zealand law amongst the best in the world. He did heavy lifting across 14 portfolios during 9 years in the Cabinet of the Clark Government. And he worked hard locally too. In his constituency work Pete wore his political colours lightly and was well-liked as his sizable majorities attest. As Pete makes good on his promise to withdraw from political life his talents and vigour are missed.  
The electorate of Dunedin North includes the northern coastal settlements of Waitati Warrington Karitane and Waikouaiti. The southern boundary is formed by the Otago harbour while the bulk of the central city and hill suburbs form the south-western boundary. But what of its flavour? Well Dunedin North is shaped by its Scottish heritage. Many of its important educational institutions including the University of Otago have Presbyterian roots. Manufacturing enterprises are important especially heavy engineering and the electorate contains a port with a skilled workforce that serves all of Otago. Dunedin North has more young people than any other electorate therefore the most who are single the most on lowest annual incomes and the highest proportion employed in education and training. It also has the highest proportion of people employed in the health care and social service sector.  
Those who made my election to the House possible have placed trust in me to represent this fine electorate. To them I extend my sincere thanks. In 2011 Dunedin North was the only general South Island seat where Labour won both votes. That is a credit to the hundreds of volunteers who helped out during the campaign and on election day and a tribute to the wisdom of the voters. To my wife Katrina I express gratitude for the support provided during the transition from my previous role of service at Selwyn College to one that will surely afford less reliable and frequent engagement in duties properly the responsibility of a father and a husband. Although my previous engagement in the parliamentary environment was short it was long enough to engender real understanding of the corresponding personal cost borne by wider families of the members of this House.  
Government will always be with us and as citizens we must decide what kind of Government we want. In my view Governments are elected to provide moral leadership not just to manage the economy to achieve things like market discipline and efficiency gains. Markets make excellent servants but terrible masters. Good regulation can harness markets to support people and their needs rather than the other way round. We must take our destiny into our own hands and shape the economy to benefit all of New Zealand. In recent decades those benefits have been shared too unequally.  
Politicians are elected to a life of public service; the service they are elected to is leadership. Leadership involves listening discerning assisting and decision making. Service should never be confused with servility. Politicians ought not to hide behind the term “service” awaiting a mandate of majority support on every issue and forgetting or perhaps never realising that the public have elected the politicians to do a job in good faith on their behalf. Politicians do not exist to rubber-stamp what the electorate has already decided but to articulate and share a vision of a better society.  
I will describe the better society to which I aspire. It has similarities with what founding members of the New Zealand Labour Party described as an “applied Christianity”. It is a society where accident of birth does not dictate one’s station and prospects. It is a society where every citizen can get ahead by dint of hard work that builds on their natural endowment. It is one where all have free and equal access to high-quality education a society where all have the ability to develop their talents sufficiently to ensure fulfilling and enriching lives. It is one in which choices are not driven by fear but are afforded by opportunity and in which everyone has access to legal representation regardless of their means. The society that I wish to live in recognises that prevention is better than cure. It has a health system with universal access: a trip to hospital does not require insurance or a cheque book. I believe that more careful attention needs to given to the prophylactic benefits of public health as compared with the resources required to attend to the illnesses of the dying and the diseases of the “worried well”.  
To support our objectives our economy must change and grow. We must recognise our dependence upon the primary sector and treasure and enhance it. But we must also diversify if we wish to be a prosperous nation. As a small country far from markets we must make some strategic decisions about the types of industries we wish to promote and support. The OECD recognises that we educate our kids well. We must leverage this learning for research for innovation and for New Zealand’s commercial gain. Dunedin is already a base for firms with a strong technology component. Taylormade Productions and Scott Technology are two of the most well-known but there are other weightless exporters locally like Pocketsmith Trunk.ly and 1000Minds. Squid gel DNA sequencing and probiotics illustrate the potential to commercialise science developed at Otago. We need more of this if we are going to prosper as a country.  
I have written and rewritten this speech several times. Allotted more time I would assert the benefits of placing a happiness index alongside our GDP metric as a way of measuring our progress as a society. I would suggest that a society is best judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. I would canvass the importance of New Zealand retaining a strong and independent voice in the Pacific. I would extol the benefits of universal provision of Maori language education both to brain development and to national identity. I would argue for appropriate financial instruments for the management of fresh water. I would emphasise the responsibility of current generations to hand over the planet in better shape than we inherited it. I would describe how we might reconsider financial transactions taxes gift and estate duties and a capital gains tax in order to broaden our tax base. And I would describe the nature of public services supported by a progressive taxation system that would drive greater social mobility. These topics are all close to my heart but I wish to concentrate the burden of my speech on one thing that is something of a precondition to good progress—that is greater equality.  
Sadly New Zealand has rushed towards greater inequality over the last 30 years. The truly wealthy have grabbed a disproportionately large slice of the economic growth pie at the expense of other New Zealanders. There is an urgent need to level an evermore slanted playing field. We need a broad-based and progressive taxation system that preserves the Kiwi dream of a country where a little talent and much hard work provide real opportunities to better one’s lot. My Christian upbringing instilled in me a strong sense of social justice. My theological education and my time as a Presbyterian minister have cemented that. That some people have many opportunities while others have few just does not feel right. For me this is a gut-level response rooted in firmly held values. A growing body of literature shows a correlation between societies with large inequalities and poor health longevity and other social statistics. A more equal society means better quality of life.  
Generating the conditions for a more equal society is the right thing to do but it increasingly seems that it is also the pragmatic thing to do. I believe that a fairer society also makes economic sense and here are four reasons why. First resources shared across society mean that all people are trained and available to make their best contribution to society. In New Zealand more than one in five children is born into poverty. These kids have to battle against the odds. They are more likely to suffer from diseases of poverty less likely to succeed in the education system and have higher chances of ending up in our prisons. For our country to get ahead we need all our children to realise their potential.  
Greater equality is good for a second reason. If we remunerate talent by valuing professions that support the whole of society rather than those that preserve the interests of a wealthy few we all benefit. Neurosurgeons and teachers give more to society than great brains wasted on exploiting distortions in poorly regulated financial markets.  
A third reason that greater equality makes pragmatic sense relates to public investment. Infrastructure is an example—witness growth in China’s high-speed rail network. It is 12 times bigger than it was in 2008 four times larger than that in any other country and is still growing at an astonishing rate. It is hard to imagine this happening in the USA today. Where a critical mass of the truly wealthy exert undue influence on the political process investment in infrastructure education research health care and other matters related to the common good dwindles and we all suffer. In any society with extremes of wealth and poverty the truly wealthy cease to value common assets. Able to buy what they desire they have no need for them.  
A fourth reason why more equal societies tend to be more successful is that people work harder when they know that the rules of society are fair. When everybody who does a fair day’s work can live well and when it is always possible for someone born in a family of modest means to be successful in their chosen field they are more likely to strive so to do. In New Zealand today the poverty of spirit that can result from birth into deprivation often has more far-reaching social consequences than those symptoms measured more immediately and with greater statistical ease.  
A more equal society that shares the benefits of a Western economy across its citizenry avoids unrealised potential wasted talent and a kind of selfish behaviour that results from distorted incentives and despair in the face of unfairness. Not only are the conditions for a fair society the right thing for Governments to busy themselves with but also they appear to provide for a better quality of life and the conditions for economic success. A more equal society is healthier wealthier and wise. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koutou katoa. I acknowledge the first people of this great country: the original stewards of lands and waters. I pay respects to those who have gone before us: our ancestors and those who have passed through this House and whose wisdom and achievements we inherit. Mr Speaker I congratulate you on your re-election to the role of Speaker. I knew you more than 20 years ago when I was a student leader campaigning on tertiary education issues and you were approachable and generous with your time then. I know you have established a reputation as a Speaker who acts without fear or favour and with much integrity and I look forward to playing my part in this House under your guidance.  
It is a great honour and a privilege to be in this House and to be here under the Labour banner. This year marks the centenary of one of the most bitter and violent industrial disputes in New Zealand’s history: the Waihi miners’ strike. It is an important part of the Labour story. A young Scottish union organiser was witness to that dispute and saw how workers who wanted nothing more than decent pay and a fair go were intimidated divided and—after a striking miner was beaten to death by those opposed to the strike—run out of town. Those dark events led to that organiser and many others realising that justice would be achieved only when working people reached beyond the workplace for influence and had a direct say on the laws and policies they were subject to. The union organiser was Peter Fraser who later became a Labour Prime Minister. He and others set about organising the first of the unity conferences in 1913 which drew in progressive elements brought together a social democratic programme and eventually led to the formation of the New Zealand Labour Party in 1916.  
I enter this House as a first-generation New Zealander. That means two things. I am born of a land that is steeped in natural beauty but also settled by our forebears under our foundation document the Treaty of Waitangi which was conceived in a spirit of peace collaboration and respect. And I accept my responsibility to give honour to that. The second aspect is that I am closer—if only by birth—to the other strand of our founding values: those brought here from a distant land; values that go back to the Magna Carta; values of respect for people of freedom of constitutional government and citizens’ rights of the rejection of arbitrary power and “might is right” and of due process and fairness—and I pledge to honour these traditions too.  
My parents settled in New Zealand 50 years ago this April. My father had a background in the military services and retrained as a school teacher eventually taking a post at New Plymouth Girls’ High School. My mother had a background in professional secretarial work. They arrived here with my eldest sister and with my eldest brother on the way and settled in the brand-new suburb of Marfell. By 1965 the Little household had grown to five children. I was fourth—or fourth equal—arriving with my twin sister Valerie that year.  
I look back on a great Taranaki childhood. Ours was a home that was far from wealthy dependent as it was almost entirely on my father’s teacher’s salary but what we lacked in material wealth was made up with in the rich experiences the region had to offer: the mighty Mount Taranaki—my maunga—the many beaches with the pounding west coast surf and black sand the beautiful parks and gardens and an emerging arts and cultural life. My brothers and sisters and I enjoyed a home filled with love good guidance strong educational values and supportive parents.  
Ours was a political household too. Dad was a staunch member of the National Party but one of his life experiences set him apart. As part of his military career he served in the Middle East after World War II. He observed how powerful Arab States tried to exploit and intimidate the stateless Bedouin people and he saw the world turn its back on the Palestinian people. The sense of injustice my father felt affected him deeply and it was impossible not to be influenced by it. Dad was a prodigious writer of letters to the editor. He railed at the TV whenever a political foe appeared the fiercest reactions being reserved as I recall for union leaders of the day. But there was much humour and irreverence in our house. Above all we were told to think for ourselves and make our own way. Mum would say to us: “To thine own self be true.”  
I enjoyed a good education and at New Plymouth Boys’ High School we were inculcated with very strong values of self-discipline respect and courtesy. Around this time Taranaki was beneficiary of the much-derided Think Big economic programme but that programme was instrumental in boosting the region’s heavy engineering industry. I remember in 1982 being fascinated by the huge heavy loads of process modules that had been fabricated overseas being hauled from the port to the east of the city. But it was with huge pride during last year’s election campaign that I stood with thousands of New Plymouth residents to watch a giant module being hauled in the opposite direction from one of the city’s leading and highly unionised heavy engineering firms Fitzroy Engineering to the port to make its way to Australia. It confirmed Taranaki’s strength as a world-class engineering centre.  
New Plymouth is a great city with I might add a great mayor and I enjoyed campaigning there last year although I remain intrigued by a question I was asked at one of the first meetings I held: what my position was on the merger of Air New Zealand and NAC. I said that Labour was taking a “wait-and-see” approach. I acknowledge the successful candidate and now my parliamentary colleague Jonathan Young and thank him for a clean and worthy fight.  
In 1992 I started work in Auckland as a lawyer for the organisation that would dominate my life for the next 19 years the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. My work for the union brought me into contact with many thousands of working people hundreds of companies and important industries and many managers good and bad. I started then with a reasonably clear view about the world and society I lived in. I did not accept the reductionist view of humanity that lay at the heart of the neo-liberal Washington consensus Friedmanite Thatcherite Reaganite and “whatever else - ite” style of public policy that was inflicted on us. I am not particularly religious but my driving values are neatly encapsulated in the biblical question in Mark 8:36: “What benefits the man that he gains the world and loses his soul?”. My work for the union made this conviction stronger. My time at the union gave me insights about the New Zealand economy; about how we create wealth; about how we ensure those who help to create wealth share fairly in it; how we ensure we rise to the greatest challenge we face today—the safe keeping of our environment—and how we protect and care for our most vulnerable: our young our elderly and our sick. From the time I started at the union I saw abuses of power a growing intolerance of difference and the rise of a managerial class that thought it knew everything. I saw the frustration of skilled and experienced workers who had much to offer management but whose voice even if it was heard was often ignored. I formed the view then that it was not just enough to secure and enforce contractual rights and benefits but that working people needed to be—were entitled to be—involved in all decisions bearing on their working life. Thirty years of the neo-liberal policy programme have been a disaster for working New Zealanders. Unfortunately not even the welcome arrival of good-faith laws and better collective bargaining rights in 2000 has been enough to ameliorate the damage that has been done.  
In 1991 when the Employment Contracts Act brought radical change to workplace relations the promise was that no one would lose conditions without their agreement. But workers did lose conditions. The promise of 1991 was that there would be freedom. Workers were told they would have the freedom to choose. But when the choice made by many workers to belong to a union was unacceptable to an employer they would find their choice challenged and undermined and obstructed. Many employers welcomed workers having freedom of choice—providing the choice was the employer’s. We were promised that the nation’s wealth would rise on the back of new flexibility and better opportunities for investment and that the wealth would be shared around through higher wages. None of this happened. The opposite did. Working life in New Zealand got harder. Median and average real wages have gone down. The gap in earnings between New Zealand and Australia has grown. Inequality of income has now become so great it is an injustice keenly felt. And resentment is real and growing. New Zealand workers now work some of the longest hours in the developed world. Too many people just cannot get ahead.  
And then there is the most insidious development of all: contracting out. Whenever managers are in retreat or just lack skill and competence and creativity they contract out. Contracting out is seldom good management. It is usually the absence of management. And so at Ports of Auckland we should look sceptically at claims about the need for contracting out. The people of Auckland City should demand that management do its job—fix the problems using their management skills. That is what they are paid to do.  
In training and skills formation we have performed poorly. The numbers signing up for apprenticeships have fallen and completion rates have dropped. A new business culture has emerged in New Zealand—a culture of dominance by management and increasing servility by workers. We have forgotten the social contract of business—that through limited liability investors will be protected from full liability for the misfortunes or incompetence and wrongdoing of the company they own and that communities upon which business depends for people and resources will be respected. We have a culture in our commercial sector that says bare legal compliance is OK. Never mind whether it is right or wrong. And never mind the impact on people. The ultimate product of years of a culture of management dominance deregulation poor enforcement and bare legal compliance is surely the tragedy at Pike River Coal. A year before that dreadful event the union approached management about collaborating over health and safety. The occupational safety and health manager took this up with the chief executive and as the royal commission has now heard the reply was this: “The ‘union’ … does not come into any consideration. Please do not use the union in the same sentence as anything at Pike.”  
In the last 30 years some in New Zealand have done very well. But many more today struggle to survive. In our rush to gain the world we have left many behind and we are losing our soul. We have a massive challenge ahead for New Zealand and a new way is essential. Against a background of growing poverty of a rising threat to our standard of living the primary challenge today is to lift the nation’s income so we can afford our future and enjoy a decent society. The challenge is harder than ever before because our planet the only one we have got is struggling to cope with the demands of a growing world population. So we will not recover our standard of living by doing more of the same. And if we do not make change we are destined to a life of continual cutting slashing scrimping and grinching. We will just get poorer.  
My leader David Shearer set out his vision for New Zealand at the very beginning of this Parliament just before Christmas. It was about rejecting “business as usual”. It was about seeing new opportunities and connecting with the rest of the world offering new products and services. I am excited to be working with David and all my Labour colleagues to realise the vision of lifting the value of what we do and what we produce by being smarter with technology and lifting our national income. Our future must involve investment not disinvestment which is what State asset sales amounts to and investment in new activity and investment in people. There must be local investment and foreign investment.  
Although our agricultural sector is vital to our economy and is something we lead the world in we will need to do more than agriculture to secure our future. Our future must be in making stuff. Manufacturing and fabrication involve more technology and more skilled people and as a result generate more wealth. We have some great businesses harnessing the latest in technology making amazing products they are selling around the world. We can do this stuff. We need more of it. But our goal cannot just be about gaining a bigger share of the world. We must look after our people and we must look after our natural world. We must preserve our soul. At the heart of economic change must be a different attitude to people. We need managers to involve their workforce actively seek out knowledge from the front line and open up management decision-making to hear what the workforce has to say.  
In the project to save Air New Zealand engineering jobs in 2005 the alternative proposal that was ultimately accepted by management was developed by front-line union members. The courageous men and women of Air New Zealand provided the ideas. In the nation’s largest and most important corporate Fonterra the unions and management have been involved in a long-term project to improve productivity in the maintenance function. The front-line unionised maintenance engineers have taken on more decision-making responsibility have less supervision work fewer hours are some of the top-earning fitters in New Zealand and the processing plant and equipment is some of the world’s most reliable. In both cases management had to surrender some control and hear from the workforce about what would work practically. This Government knows there is a better way.  
Before concluding I want to pay tribute to the people who have supported me and brought me here. I acknowledge the members delegates and officials of the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union—you are the heroes of a generation and you have taught me much; the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party—president Moira Coatsworth and secretary Chris Flatt; my fantastic campaign team and supporters in New Plymouth who worked so hard last year and ensured we all had a great time; to my family—my mother Cicely my brothers and sisters Jennifer Leighton Patrick and Valerie my half-sisters Nicky and Fiona half a world away my in-laws all of whom have been so loving and supportive and my wife Leigh and son Cam without whose love and support and forbearance I would not be the person I am. Because it is Valentine’s Day let me channel Whitney Houston and say: “I will always love you.” I am inspired by these words of John F Kennedy: “I am certain that after the dust of centuries has passed over our cities we too will be remembered not for victories or defeats in battle or in politics but for our contribution to the human spirit.” I hope to leave here secure in the knowledge that we are a people gaining our fair share of the world preserving and protecting it and with our individual and community soul intact. Thank you. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I join with my colleagues in congratulating you on your re-election. Like my colleague the last time we spoke it was in a less formal situation. It was the 1990s you were the Minister of Education I was a student we were at the University of Canterbury there were megaphones and it was said you made your getaway through a window—I am sure you remember those days well.  
Tena koutou katoa. It is with great honour that I rise to give the first speech in this House as the Labour member for Wigram. Maiden statements from members from Wigram are rare—so rare in fact there has never previously been one. Wigram and its precursor seats Sydenham and Yaldhurst are both steeped in history. The story of Wigram and its representation is an important part of New Zealand’s social and political history. I feel the shoes I have to fill are truly huge. Sydenham has been the seat of giants: Mabel Howard Norman Kirk and Jim Anderton. All three have shown an absolute commitment to social justice and equality.  
And Wigram is a seat where constituents have high expectation—and like David Clark’s constituents they are very wise—as they are already reminding me. One of the most vivid memories of my campaign came on a hot October Saturday afternoon doing street corner meetings. Robert Watson my friend and campaign volunteer and I were flagging a little at street corner meeting 100 and something and about the sixth of that particular day when we pulled up on a corner in Hoon Hay. An older gentleman came striding down the road towards the small crowd that had gathered. His stride was ripe with intent and his first comment showed he meant business: “I am here to argue.” “Good” I replied “that’s what it’s all about.” This being heartland red territory lest he be mistaken for someone of a different political hue he was quick to inform me: “I am a Labour man. I have been going to street corner meetings in this electorate for donkey’s years first one was Mabel Howard in Church Square and I want to get the measure of you.” The meeting went on. The striding man was as good as his word. He argued with me he argued with the others present and at one point I am convinced he argued with himself. But meeting done he came over to me shook my hand and informed me: “You’ll do.” and with this he strode home. 
But there is one predecessor I want to pay special tribute to and that is Jim Anderton. Although I did not know it at the time growing up in the 1980s in the Sydenham electorate I was witnessing the everyday reality of new-right reform. I had friends whose parents lost their jobs at the Addington rail yards. I saw people lose their homes and I saw the local post office disappear. Ordinary people were stripped of their jobs their dignity and their security. But then there was the local MP who stood shoulder to shoulder with us his constituents. For nearly three decades Jim Anderton refused to accept that there was no alternative. Jim as your successor I thank you for the high bar you have set in terms of political courage and for standing up for what you believe in and for the people you represented. 
Maiden statements are a bit like a note to self about why you are here and what you want to achieve. My note to self is simple: I believe in the power of an active New Zealand Government and State to make a real difference in people’s lives and that is why I am here. I was selected to be Labour’s candidate in Wigram on 19 September 2010—women’s suffrage day—only 2 weeks and 1 day after the first of Christchurch’s devastating earthquakes. On 22 February that rebuilding task ahead of us became mammoth. There are buildings homes roads sewage pipes and businesses to be rebuilt. Institutions with long histories now face uncertain futures. This is something we all feel on a personal level. My former school Catholic Cathedral College a school that once stood in the shadow of the mighty Catholic Basilica is now behind a crumbling building and a pile of rubble. The University of Canterbury where I spent a decade of my life faces an uncertain future with falling student numbers. It is imperative that broad research-based excellence is retained. Engineering commerce and science are undoubtedly crucial to our rebuilding but the humanities and social sciences are essential too. We need critical thinkers now more than ever.  
We have lost so much in our city and I want to acknowledge the people whose lives were lost and their families. We are all thinking of you. There is no doubt that people are struggling with the devastation of the last 17 months. The sense of loss is so much more than the physical; we lost the locations of so many of our memories—the school steps we scaled with trepidation as 5-year-olds the homes we toiled to build and make our own the churches where we worshipped and were married and the list goes on. This is hard enough but there is an even bigger job ahead of us and that is rebuilding hope—hope that we will have a vibrant and thriving city again; a city where people will not be looking for the nearest exit to terra firma; and of course a city where the Crusaders will continue to win every game they play. But some of that hope is embedded in a tension as people search for the right answers. When 4000 quake- and battle-weary people gathered in the centre of our city earlier this month collectively we were demanding fairness accountability preservation of our democratic rights and our right to participate in our future. These are the same sentiments and feelings that are driving the amazing community and grassroots responses we are seeing all over our city. These values are the future and are the solid foundations on which we will rebuild our city. These are also the very values that drive me politically and these are the values that have brought me to this House. 
There is no rabble at the gate that needs quashing and silencing. This is not something to be feared; it is quite the opposite. This is an engaged public and this is something I celebrate. An active and engaged Government must work with this public. Controversially in the wake of the 22 February quakes this House granted what amounted to wartime powers to the Government to rebuild our city. I am here today to remind those who wield those powers that with these powers comes great responsibility. The Act granted the Government the rights and responsibility to be active—and active it must be. It is an active State that will rebuild Christchurch. If we think about moments of greatness in our history—moments when we have taken a great leap forward as a country—it has been an active State and a belief in the power of communities that has delivered that reform not individualism and a rampant free market.  
In the 1870s Sir Julius Vogel had a vision and committed the colonial State to investing in the infrastructure essential for economic development. In the 1880s the Liberals intervened with the old-age pension scheme industrial legislation and the genesis of our public housing scheme. New Zealand was a progressive and world-leading social laboratory. In the 1930s the first Labour Government committed the State to creating constructive employment and a housing programme as a way out of the Great Depression and shaped our very present. Today in the 21st century I am proud to stand here as a Labour member an heir to those who have had the courage to reform. As in the past it is together collectively that we can solve the pressing issues we face as a nation. Government needs to facilitate this and empower people and community. “Look mum no hands” laissez-faire trickle-down economics based on individualism has failed.  
Christchurch may be a city currently on an active fault but it is simply cannot be a faulty city. We must believe that out of this destruction we have a unique opportunity to create something special and once again take that great leap forward. But it will take an active State that is willing to intervene. We have the opportunity to train a generation of young people with the necessary skills to be active participants in this work. Currently we have 83000 young people aged 15 to 24 who are not in any form of work training or education. This is up 4000 from last quarter. We cannot sit idly by and watch this figure continue to climb. I finished high school in 1991 when youth unemployment was at 20 percent so I know firsthand the fear of leaving school and there being no jobs. We had two choices then: further study or go on the dole. I made a decision to go to university—I was the first in my family to go straight from school—but the hopelessness felt by my friends who were looking for work is something I will never forget.  
There is an alternative. By 2013 36000 additional workers will be required in Christchurch. Bringing in skilled trades professionals from overseas simply cannot be our solution. We need to invest in our young people and let them lead the way. Such a commitment is not a leap into the unknown; we have done this before on the scale that is necessary now. Following World War II New Zealand faced both a critical housing shortage and the underemployment of young Maori. Labour Prime Minister Peter Fraser showed the necessary vision to resource trade training schemes for young Maori workers. This scheme was the subject of my PhD thesis and I saw both the positive opportunities this scheme provided individuals and the benefit the nation received in having a generation of skilled tradespeople—not to mention a stock of well-built houses. 
Real aspiration cannot come to mean policies and measures that make life a little bit more bearable for those on the lowest incomes. If we want to be aspirational for all New Zealanders if we are to raise wages if we believe in the right of all New Zealanders to get ahead if we will not tolerate poverty and if we believe in fairness then we need a commitment to an active State that believes it has an active role in creating a productive economy. In my previous role at Plant and Food Research I observed firsthand the real difference science and innovation can make. We need more businesses to access and utilise the exceptional knowledge that is being created in our Crown research institutes and universities. And we need a proper commitment to the fundamental research that underpins this. To improve this we must commit to adequately fund science and innovation to create jobs and lift wages. We must abandon the view that it is OK for someone to toil for a wage that is insufficient to make ends meet. This needs to be replaced with a belief that people have a right to be paid a decent wage for a decent day’s work. We need to move beyond quibbling about a few cents’ rise in the minimum wage and the constant questioning of whether the wages of the lowest paid are affordable while ignoring the excesses of managerial salaries. A living minimum wage must be an immediate priority and we must see it as just that—a minimum. We must have an environment where workers not only have the right but are encouraged to join unions and bargain collectively they have the right to have a voice at work and they have the right to be protected from unfair or unsafe treatment at work. We need to recognise that this does not mean that business is harder to do.  
As a proud member of the Service and Food Workers Union and the New Zealand Public Service Association I believe that decent wages and effective employment relations will enable New Zealanders to lift productivity and to perform well. It is not OK for me to stand in this House representing people who cannot afford to put food on their tables. Last week I met with a constituent who is on a sickness benefit. After his rent and fixed expenses he had $27 a week left for food. He was hungry. Neither is it OK that in my electorate there are homes that last winter had bedrooms that were monitored as being 9 degrees overnight with 90 percent humidity. I have not come here to stand idly by and watch this happen. It is not tolerable that in the OECD’s recent findings inequality has grown faster here than in most other countries. This is not an OECD table that we can accept being in the top half of. We need to reject the notion that tough economic times necessarily mean greater inequality and injustice. Selling publicly owned assets cutting spending low wages and benefits and ravaging the environment is neither a strategy for a healthy economy nor a recipe for a healthy vibrant and fair society. 
Growing up in the Sydenham electorate I learnt that selling assets is not the answer no matter what the question. It just does not make sense. Attempting to shroud the sell-off and the ideological commitment to privatisation under the rhetorical cloak of mixed-ownership models does nothing to change the simple fact that our current Government plans to sell off assets that have been built up by generations of New Zealanders. Let us call this what it is—selling them is selling them. 
No one comes to this House on their own and like all new members there are many I owe a huge debt of gratitude to for their support and encouragement. Firstly to my family especially to my parents—to Gordon and Maureen Woods and my sister Melissa thank you for your belief and your encouragement over many years. It is humbling as a candidate to have so many people give so generously of their time and skills. My campaign team and the many volunteers wrung the towel during an incredibly trying year in Christchurch and for that I am incredibly grateful and proud of what we achieved together. The experienced hands were joined by a fantastic Wigram Young Labour team who together created a creative and energetic team who did not neglect the tried and true basics of campaigning.  
In conclusion it is with great pride that I stand in this House representing the people of Wigram. I am a New Zealand historian by training who has worked in science and innovation. I am a former community board member who believes in the power of communities and the grassroots. I am a Christchurch native who grew up in the ravages of a user-pays world. Despite being glued to the royal wedding in 1981 I believe in the desirability and inevitability of our country becoming a republic in my lifetime and I celebrate the diversity of modern New Zealand. I am here because I have a strong belief in social justice. I am here because I believe that there are always real alternatives in working to ensure that hope opportunity and being all you can be are not accidents of birth for the privileged few but the birthright of all New Zealanders. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Ka rere taku manu ki te Tahuhu-o-te-Rangi topatopa ai ko muritai tokerau ata rangaranga hei hiki i ona parirau. Tau ana nga kanohi ki te pito o te Tiriti ki Waitangi ki roto o Ngapuhi nui tonu te kainga o taku whaea te ukaipo. 
Tere tonu te haere tae noa ki nga tai o te uru ki te Pa o nga Ariki ki te papa i turia ai te temepara i kauhautia ai e Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana te Mangai te tangata nana i hapai te Tiriti me te Paipera ki ona ringa. Kororia hareruia ki a Ihoa o nga mano Matua Tama Wairua Tapu me nga anahera pono—me te Mangai hei tautoko mai. Ae. 
Whakawhiti atu i Te Ikaroa a Maui ki Te Wai Pounamu makere noa ki nga maunga hukahuka o te tonga. Tau ana te mata ki nga taonga i Arahura oku panga tupuna. Huri noa ki Kaiapoi ki Murihiku te ure tarewa. Piki rawa ki te tauihu o te waka ka rongo te ao ka rongo te po—tihei mauri ora! 
E nga iwi e nga reo e nga mana e nga matawaka tena koutou katoa. E te Kaikorero o te Whare Paremata o Aotearoa tena koe. E rau rangatira ma e mihi tonu atu ki a koutou e huihui mai nei tatou i tenei wa. No reira tena ano tatou katoa. 
[ 
My bird soars high to Tahuhu-o-te-Rangi its wings uplifted by the northern sea breeze. The eyes gaze upon the part of the Treaty founded at Waitangi among greater Ngapuhi my mother’s home. 
The flight continues quickly down to the western tides until it reaches Ratana the place where the temple was established and where the Mouthpiece Tahupotiki Wiremu Ratana the man preached and held up the Treaty and the Bible in his hands. Glory hallelujah to God of the thousands the Father the Son the Holy Spirit the faithful angels—and the Mouthpiece endorses. Yes indeed.  
My bird crosses over from the North Island to the South Island to alight upon the snow-covered mountains of the south. The eye gazes upon the treasures at Arahura my ancestral ties and turns to look upon my paternal heritage at Kaiapoi and Murihiku. Eventually it ascends to the prow of the canoe where the day hears and the night hears—behold I speak. 
To the people voices authorities and many races greetings to you all. Greetings to you Mr Speaker of the House of Parliament of New Zealand. I particularly acknowledge you the many leaders as we gather here at this point in time. Greetings to us all once again. 
] 
Mr Speaker I join with my colleagues in congratulating you on your reappointment in this 50th Parliament. 
It is gratifying to be here as the member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga representing the largest electorate in the country and the many diverse iwi and Maori communities within it. It goes from our capital city Te-Whanga-nui-a-Tara or Wellington to the entire Te Waka-a-Maui the entire South Island and extending to the outlying islands of Rakiura or Stewart Island and Wharekauri Rekohu or the Chatham Islands. To the people of Te Tai Tonga thank you for your tautoko. 
I wish to acknowledge my predecessor Rahui Katene of the Maori Party and her work and service to Te Tai Tonga during her term. I extend my heartfelt personal thanks to the many helpers and volunteers in the Labour whanau across Te Tai Tonga for their generous support and in particular my small dedicated team many of whom are here today. To my new caucus colleagues I look forward to working with you all and making my contribution as a paddler on the Labour waka. To my tuakana Parekura Shane and Nanaia thank you for your support mentoring and encouragement. To all other members of Parliament from all sides of this House and all Maori members of Parliament I congratulate you all. My hope is that Maori will see the benefits of our presence here. 
Finally to my family my beautiful children and extended whanau thank you for your unwavering love and belief in me. I dedicate this occasion of my maiden speech to my late father Te Rino Tirikatene. 
Mr Speaker 80 years ago in this room maybe even in this chair my grandfather Sir Eruera Tirikatene stood before this House as the MP for Southern Maori. Forty-five years ago in this room maybe even in this chair my aunt Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan ONZ stood before this House as the MP for Southern Maori. Today I stand before the House as the MP for Te Tai Tonga. 
At the time my grandfather rose to address the House for the first time the Maori population numbered a mere 82000. We were at that time a rural people still recovering from the ravages of land sales and the scourge of introduced diseases. We existed at the very margin of the country’s economy. What income we were able to earn as unskilled labourers in the agriculture and forestry industries was supplemented by gardening and foraging. The land development assistance programme introduced by Sir Apirana Ngata in the 1920s which eventually gave rise to the Maori incorporations and trusts of today was in its infancy and poverty was all pervasive especially among those communities that had been left landless by confiscation and land sales. 
Statutory recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi the claims of Ngai Tahu Waikato and Taranaki and poverty were my grandfather’s main concerns. As a Ratana Independent member of this House he presented T W Ratana’s Treaty petition and took every opportunity to press for its adoption. He drew attention to Maori unemployment and to the need to remove the discriminatory rates paid to Maori for relief work pensions and family allowances and pressed for a Maori housing programme. Unfortunately the Treaty petition languished and it would be another 33 years in the time of the third Labour Government before his efforts in this area bore fruit. But the issues of discriminatory treatment of Maori in the social assistance area were addressed after the election of the first Labour Government as were Maori housing and education. 
By the time that my aunt Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan entered Parliament the Maori population had grown to 201000 Maori. Urbanisation had quickened in the intervening years reaching a peak in the 1950s and early 1960s and 62 percent of the population was now living and working in towns and cities. Lack of educational qualifications meant most Maori were employed in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs in factories and freezing works and on the wharves—industries that were sensitive to boom and bust. Nevertheless the incomes they received were considerably higher than what they might have received had they remained “at home” in rural areas and the overall standard of living of Maori improved. 
Urbanisation however was not without its downsides. On the one hand many Maori found it difficult to adjust and social problems now much more visible given the proximity of Maori and Pakeha began to emerge and grow; on the other the retention of Maori culture was being threatened. I understand that Norman Kirk used to refer to urbanisation as a movement as significant to Maori as the Great Migration in terms of distance and socio-cultural impact. And he conceived of that impact from two perspectives: from that of the people who had migrated to the towns and cities and were now in danger of losing their bearings through loss of culture; and from that of their whanaunga left at home and still struggling with the legacies of colonial land laws and practices. It was these issues—those afflicting urban migrants and those afflicting the rural sections of their whanau—that my aunt Matiu Rata and the other Maori Labour MPs sought to redress in the shaping and passage of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. It was a watershed moment in the history of our people. 
Fast forward to my time. In 2011 the Maori population was estimated to be 673000. The urban component at the time of the last census 2006 was 84 percent. With urbanisation has come deeper and deeper integration into New Zealand’s economy. In 2006 more than 78000 Maori were employed as managers professionals technicians and trades workers and for the first time workers in these occupation groups combined outstripped the number working as plant and machinery operators and labourers. More than 70000 Maori held a qualification above National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 3 and more than 45000 received a personal income of $50000 or more. In terms of household income more than one in every two Maori was living in a household with a combined income of more than $50000 and well over one in every three in a household with a total income of $70000 or more. What we are witnessing is the steady growth of a Maori middle class. 
On the collective front we are witnessing the rise of the Maori economic authorities—Maori land trusts and incorporations and iwi authorities. It has been my good fortune to have held positions that have enabled me to work either alongside or within some of these organisations and I have found the experience exhilarating. I began my professional career as a commercial lawyer but after a few years I transitioned from the law as I wanted to broaden my scope and become involved in the emerging Maori business sector. It was through trade promotion work with Trade New Zealand that I became involved with Maori businesses and Maori exporters—in particular working alongside them in trade development and promotion. I then took up a position with Ngai Tahu to help in the expansion of its seafood business. All this work has allowed me to become involved in Maori economic networks such as the Federation of Maori Authorities and to develop greater awareness of the potential for Maori to continue to improve on the contribution they are already making. 
The rise of the Maori economic authorities is something that goes largely unnoticed by New Zealanders. Not only are these organisations contributing to national wealth; they also contribute to the economies of their local regions. In some local body districts Maori authorities are already the largest single employer of labour—and I might add not just Maori labour. Many have reached out to Asia and the Pacific and as they continue to do so that contribution will become even more significant. In the not too distant future I can see at least five of these authorities breaking the $1 billion mark in their own right—something my forebears could not have dreamt of. And what is more sustainable development is not an option for these organisations since the principles of sustainability are already spelt out for them either in Maori land law generally or in their enabling legislation. 
There is a saying: the more things change the more they stay the same. The origin of this saying is thought to be French but I am pretty sure it is Maori. Life and prospects for Maori are so much better than they were 80 years ago but Maori know better than anyone that much remains to be done. We are still overrepresented at the bottom of the wealth pyramid. We will on average die sooner than our Pakeha mates. We will more so than our Pacific cousins end up in prison and unlike any other group in Aotearoa New Zealand we now receive more in transfer payments than we pay in tax. Too many of us remain locked into a cycle of dependency and poverty. 
The issue of Maori poverty is exacerbated by the deficit approach to the measurement of our progress and the eagerness of the media to capitalise on Maori failures and to ignore our successes. We have travelled a long way towards socio-economic parity with Pakeha and we have a fair way to travel yet. Our people are not helped by being constantly framed as a problem to be fixed or by a growing climate of opinion that positions inequality as a signal of market success rather than market failure; that attributes underperformance to rocky economic conditions rather than the structural settings of our economy; and that maintains it is too costly to change the present even if a change made now might save the future. 
 For me Maori development as Maori conceive of the idea has always been about enabling Maori to live the life that they want to live by extending the range of opportunities and choices open to them to do so. Mana Maori motuhake a concept that Pakeha have feared and some Maori have misconstrued was the term that was used in my grandfather’s day. It has little to do with secession but a lot to do with freedom. Until very recently for example Maori had little or no choice about the type of schooling they received or about how their health services should be delivered. It was the mainstream or nothing at all. Today some but certainly not all Maori have a choice between kohanga reo and mainstream at the preschool level kura kaupapa and mainstream at the school level wananga and mainstream at the tertiary level and Maori or mainstream primary health care delivery. 
I stand in awe of the succession of Maori MPs and of Maori leaders from outside of this House who never lost sight of the goal despite the hardships and frustrations that must have been involved in challenging mindsets and winning majority support for change. Incremental ad hoc and opportunistic though these initiatives might appear to be there is no mistaking their direction. Although I might differ from them in outlook priorities and experience I nevertheless share with them a commitment to the fundamental idea of Maori living the life they want to live and as well as ensuring that the safety net is set at a high enough level of working to extend the range of opportunities and choices open to those among us who are falling by the wayside. 
We are no longer as homogenous as we were in the past. Indeed increasing diversity and differentiation are the hallmarks of modern Maori society. It is this diversity—of ethnic and iwi affiliation of cultural proficiency of attachments to the past of the composition of our households and families of knowledge and skills of occupations and incomes and of values beliefs and opinions—that we as members of this House will be challenged by. It is not our place to tell our people how they should live their lives or to marginalise those who do not fit a prescribed picture of what it is to be Maori. As I see it our job as elected representatives is to embrace the diversity to give fair hearing to all interests and to ensure that the range of views are voiced and weighed fairly when it comes to decision making. This is my commitment I give to my electorate to Maori generally and to my parliamentary colleagues. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
Waiata 
Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the debate be now adjourned 
.  
Motion agreed to. 
Road User Charges Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 9 February. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 In the last couple of minutes of time I have remaining it would be remiss of me not to refer to the fantastic and wonderful speeches that were delivered to the House before the dinner break by new Labour members. I want to congratulate them all and I think we can look forward to a really good 3 years with members of that calibre here.  
But in regards to the Road User Charges Bill before the adjournment last week I had outlined Labour’s concerns about the bill and that some of them are not really being addressed. I was beginning to talk about New Zealand’s unique road-user charges system that it is a good thing actually—we have had it for many many years—and that it is now starting to be emulated by other countries such as European countries Australia and other countries as they accept that diesel tax on trucks is not going to provide the revenue to create and maintain the roads needed to maintain a growing freight task throughout Europe and other economies.  
I just wanted to record in my last remaining seconds that actually we have a fantastic industry in this country. It made submissions through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We have some wonderful innovative companies that have taken up this challenge about road-user charges are selling our product to the rest of the world and are providing clean green and clever innovations and that is wonderful. Thank you. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I am very pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Road User Charges Bill which the Green Party will be supporting. I did not have the privilege of contributing to the development of this bill myself so I must acknowledge the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the submitters and officials the members of this House who contributed during the Committee stage and especially my eminently qualified colleague Gareth Hughes who was intimately involved in the scrutiny of the bill up until this point.  
As Mr Hughes mentioned in his previous speeches on this bill we are happy to support the bill because it begins to modernise and simplify the road-user charges system. Road-user charges contributed about 37 percent of the National Land Transport Fund last year and that was about $1 billion. The goal of this bill is to increase compliance which is good; to simplify enforcement which is also good; and to provide an incentive for the efficient use of heavy vehicles. I note that by basing the charging on the maximum permissible weight for a given vehicle class there is a very small incentive to use a heavy vehicle to its full capacity. Now by optimising heavy vehicle movements around the country we can deliver the same amount of freight at a much lower cost to business with better social and environmental outcomes and at a lower cost to the public purse. This is a win-win and it is the kind of win-win that we could achieve a lot more of with our transport policy and funding.  
I believe there is a real role for the Government to play in levelling the playing field and providing an incentive for transport to occur in a more efficient and effective manner. Although we support this bill the Green Party sees it as a real lost opportunity to encourage greater efficiency especially energy efficiency. We are currently facing a paradigm shift in transport. If New Zealand seizes this opportunity we can spend less money and have a transport system that delivers far better outcomes.  
In 2008 there was a report to the New Zealand Transport Agency that identified a number of transport market distortions that have lead to an over-reliance on private vehicles for the movement of people and of freight in this country. It was an entirely understandable unintended consequence of Government policy and funding at all levels of government—local government central government and regional government—that has led to a transport system that is really not energy efficient and is incredibly overly reliant on cars for personal transport and on trucks for freight. This report identified a number of changes to the road-user charges system to the petrol tax system and to transport funding in general that would help deliver a much more efficient transport system for New Zealand and this is going to be particularly important as higher oil prices are imminent.  
What I would like to identify about this bill is that currently the road-user charges are contributing 37 to 40 percent of our National Land Transport Fund and that is about equivalent to the amount of money that is planned to be spent by this Government each year just on new motorways. Now some may think that is fair but in fact road-user charges are intended to pay for maintenance and renewal of the existing network and should be used for transport solutions that are going to enable goods and people to be moved in the most cost-effective way possible. Is a new motorway or extending the expressway north and south of Auckland the most efficient way to enable freight to move on our roads? Evidently not. At peak hour only 1 percent of the traffic on the roads in Auckland is heavy vehicles so we could easily free up the roads quite significantly for freight and commercial vehicles simply by shifting commuters on to more cost-effective modes such as walking cycling buses and trains. We do not have to force people to do that; we just need to make the costs of transport more direct and people will be able to weigh up those decisions for themselves. What the transport modelling shows us is that people would choose to take public transport walk and cycle more if those options were delivered for them.  
By continuing transport policy and land use policy that artificially subsidise private vehicles we are making the transport system more vulnerable to high oil prices which we know are coming. So spending all the road-user charges on a few motorways is a stupid idea that will not actually be good for the freight industry as households and businesses have to spend more to get around at peak hour. That means they have less money available to pay for goods in the domestic economy. What does that result in? Lower demand for goods that are transported by heavy vehicles for freight.  
I note that despite all of these unintentional subsidies to road transport the briefing to the incoming Minister of Transport stated that 45 percent of the products destined to become exports are currently moved around New Zealand by rail. The Green Party sees significant opportunities to grow the role of rail and sea freight and that is a perfectly legitimate use of the National Land Transport Fund because it is actually going to improve the situation for those who are currently in the freight industry whether they are using trucks or other means.  
In conclusion the Green Party is happy to support this bill but we feel it is a real lost opportunity. It does not go far enough to changing the transport system in the way that is necessary for New Zealand to meet the challenges of this century. Thank you. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 This is the first time I have spoken in this Chamber since the election so can I take the opportunity to congratulate firstly the presiding officers and especially yourself on your elevation to Deputy Speaker and I would also like to congratulate all members of the House on their re-election or their initial election if it is their first time. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Great result in Botany. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: Thank you and all that hard campaigning you did for me Mr Guy was much appreciated; thank you. Can I say that I have enjoyed the contributions from new members so far but I am looking forward to the real stars of the class of 2011 taking their first stand in the House on Thursday.  
It is good to see that the Road User Charges Bill is finally here for its third reading. Can I say thank you to the Ministers of Transport—firstly the Hon Steven Joyce and the Hon Gerry Brownlee now—for getting this bill this far in the House. It is a good bill and it is one that I hope a large number of members in the Parliament will be supporting. And credit where credit is due—I think it is worthwhile acknowledging that the Labour Party actually initiated the road-user charges review back in I think 2008 which ended up culminating in this bill where we are seeing these quite significant changes to the road-user charges system.  
As has been pointed out by members in this debate before it was adjourned last week and also by the new member Julie Anne Genter earlier this is about making the road-user charges system more simplified it is about making it easier to understand and it is about making it easier for the Government to enforce. It is important that when you have taxes in place and when you have penalties for not paying those taxes it is easy to enforce the paying of those taxes as well. I am pleased to see that just about every party in the House I understand is supporting this bill. We heard from the Labour members last week about their views on the bill. They are supporting the bill but they indicated some areas of concern. I do not tend to agree with the areas of concern that the members of the Labour Party were raising last week and in a minute I will take a few moments to outline why I do not think the views they are bringing to the House really have much credibility.  
This bill is about making it easier for business. It is about making it easier for New Zealanders to run their road transport using the road-user charges system. The previous system of nominated weights was incredibly complicated and it led to operators having to estimate how heavy the vehicles were. There are inherent problems in that and it also meant that the authorities had to work out whether there were problems and try to work out what the weight was after the fact. With this new system we have a road-user charges regime where we will know what every vehicle’s gross weight is and what its road-user charges will be. There is no estimating involved and it is far simpler.  
I was listening very intently to the Labour Party members last week. Darien Fenton and Phil Twyford outlined some concerns. 
Darien Fenton 
: “Dar-rien” Fenton. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: Darien Fenton; I am sorry Darien. Darien Fenton and Phil Twyford outlined some concerns they had and they were complaining that they did not feel that their concerns were answered adequately. I have done a bit of research this afternoon and actually just about all the answers to their concerns are found within the documents they were concerned about. We heard from two Opposition members that they did not feel as though there was very much consultation on this bill. Well I went through to page 178 of 189 pages—and it is buried quite deep in the departmental report but it is in there. This bill went through four phases of consultation by the Ministry of Transport before we got to the bill here. It had a consultation in September to November 2009. It had consultation in early 2010. It had another consultation a bit later in 2010 and then in October and December 2010 it had further consultation. That is four consultation phases.  
There was also the road-user charges review that the Hon Annette King initiated when she was the Minister of Transport. That went through consultation with the industry and on top of that we had the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consultation. Now that is six phases of consultation on the work that led up to this bill. I do not think anyone can stand up in this House and say there has not been consultation with the industry when this issue has been through six phases of consultation. There will be further consultation on top of that when it comes to the setting of the charges through regulations which will probably be taking place later this year.  
We also heard complaints that the Government is doing this nasty thing called regulations. What the Government will be doing is setting in place the charges through a secondary phase of legislation. It is not possible to set the charges in this bill because this bill we are hoping will stand for many years and obviously the charges have to change from time to time. I know Labour members know about changing road-user charges rates as 2008 was quite a hectic time for them when it came to road-user charges. But you simply cannot set those charges in the primary bill. It would be ridiculous to try to do that so setting those charges through regulations is not an unusual step. It is quite a logical step. But if you are asking yourself why the Government is doing this through regulations and you are concerned that the Government is using regulations and if you are hearing that from the Labour members you would think that Labour members are somehow opposed to the use of regulations.  
Well I was a little bit busy this afternoon and I did a little bit more research. In the last term of the Labour Government 1263 regulations were passed by the last Labour Government. So I take offence a little bit when I hear Labour members standing up and saying they do not like the use of regulations. In the last term of the Labour Government it passed 1263 regulations. So please stop whacking us over the head about the use of regulations. It is reasonable to set the charges through the use of regulation.  
The third topic I want to discuss is about who are going to be winners and who are going to be losers. We heard from Darien Fenton and Phil Twyford about the Motor Caravan Association. The Motor Caravan Association raised some points. It is concerned about what the charges will be. I think it is worthwhile pointing out that the charges have not been set yet. They will be set later on. We are going through consultation first but the members raised the plight of the Motor Caravan Association. The association in its submission was under the impression that charges were going to go up astronomically. It is important to remember that this change will be revenue-neutral for the Government. There will be some people who get small increases and there will be people who get some small decreases but there is no expectation that overall revenue will increase. This is about changing the system not increasing the revenue.  
The Motor Caravan Association unfortunately used some old figures in its submission. It was using existing road-user charges figures which just will not apply to the new regime. It believes that its charges will be going up and it gave an example of a motor caravan that is 19000 kilograms or 19 tonnes—a type 5 motor vehicle. It believes that that charge will go up by 270 percent. I can quite understand that 270 percent sounds like a lot but that is simply not the case. Again I am looking at the departmental report and the answer was right there for the Labour members. The Labour members did not quite see this but the departmental report itself outlines an answer to the Motor Caravan Association. Rather than the road-user charge going up to $451 as the association believed it would it would actually go up to only about $246. It is just an estimate at the moment but $246 versus $451 is quite a difference and nowhere near the increase that Labour members were telling this House last week that road-user charges would be going up by.  
This is a good bill. This is a bill that will make it easier for the industry. It is a bill that will make it easier for the Government and it is a bill that will remove a whole lot of complexity from the road-user charges system. I am glad the Labour members are supporting it. I am glad other members in the House are supporting it but I just had to answer some of those concerns we heard from the Opposition. They are simply not concerns that are relevant to this debate because the research was not done and the answers were right there in the departmental report. I look forward to this bill being passed by the House tonight. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Road User Charges Bill. It is very interesting that the honourable Jami-Lee Ross has done a little bit of research. I would like to remind members that actions have consequences and the consequences of this bill could be far-reaching indeed for the citizens of New Zealand. And I would remind members that consultation is one thing but listening and taking heed are entirely another.  
This is New Zealand First’s first vote on the bill and we oppose it. After careful scrutiny and after considering items that are transported by diesel—everything from people public transport users and schoolchildren to inanimate objects such as building products chemicals and medicines; then we have household rubbish and everything on the supermarket shelf—New Zealand First also entered into discussions and listened to affected and concerned parties within the industry including road transport freight owners crane operators trucking firms large livestock-carrying firms horse trainers individual truck owner-operators and members and representatives of the Motor Caravan Association. Now without exception everyone spoken to expressed grave reservations on this bill in the areas of fairness and expense.  
It is also a bill that it is fair to say many in the industry know very little about. It has been stated that the purpose of the bill is to modernise and simplify the road-user charges system to eliminate the scope for error and fraud. Upon first inspection despite a failure to prove systematic fraud surrounding road-user charges a rather heavy-handed approach seems to have been followed in penalising everyone for the unsubstantiated presumed fraudulent behaviour of a few.  
There are other goals and they are to reduce administration complexity reduce compliance costs and simplify enforcement. New Zealand First believes that the bill has far-reaching implications that will have a negative impact within our New Zealand society in terms of fairness affordability safety and even environmental considerations. Let us first consider fairness. The honourable members Shane Jones and Phil Twyford both expressed their reservations with regard to the effects on small businesses and motorhome owners and one should respect their experience.  
We ask whether it is fair for small trucking operators such as furniture movers who transport large bulky items such as mattresses pillows and sofas—and they are not necessarily heavy objects. Pray tell how will they be able to operate profitably when they will be charged every day for heavier loads than they will probably ever carry? Is it fair to skip operators who drop off an empty skip to most building sites in New Zealand return empty to their yard and then drive empty to collect a full skip? Surely we can find a better more equitable way than to charge full-load prices on every trip. These increases will undoubtedly trickle down to the end-user and add to building costs in the New Zealand housing industry.  
New Zealand First has concerns for the 22000 motorhome owners registered with the Motor Caravan Association. In talks with them they question the fairness of suddenly having their road-user charges increased—mostly doubled and in some cases trebled—because of new band widths and maximum permissible on-road weight charges when their weight is constant and in most cases considerably less than their maximum chassis weight. There are other considerations amongst motorhome owners in their contribution to internal tourism. This can be seen in the many rallies that the Motor Caravan Association holds throughout New Zealand every weekend in our cities and small towns adding to the economies of those areas. Many motorhome owners are pensioners and dramatic increases will affect their discretionary spend and also potentially affect the resale of their motorhomes. So New Zealand First cannot in good conscience do a Pontius Pilate here and have these clear failings in the bill left to the Minister of Transport to sort out.  
There are similar obstacles in this bill for those in the racing industry where we have horse trucks continually loading and offloading animals and their frustration with the administration. We have buses refrigerator units and many others. There are many truckies who have invested considerable sums to purchase B train units to enable them to compete within the current sense-making framework of the current legislation. What about them? These multi-wheeled vehicles are safer because more axles distribute the load meaning safer driving. If this bill is passed these operators will need full loads both ways to compete and in some cases to stay in business. This bill could very well be the catalyst that leads to every truck on the road carrying maximum loads leading to worse wear and tear on our highways and obvious safety issues. It also has the potential to lead to more smaller trucks on the roads again travelling with maximum weights and the challenges that I have expressed that that brings.  
So although this bill started with the very best of intentions there are many holes that—pardon the pun—you could drive a truck through provided you could afford the road charges. To date I have highlighted the injustice of this bill and in the same vein I would ask the parties to consider the social ramifications that drill right down from exporters and importers to the average man and woman on the street with the flow-on cost effect. Large or small goods—even a humble can of peas—travel by truck at least 10 times from seed until they reach a supermarket shelf. Now obviously the cost is going to go to the end-user and with affordability stretched one wonders how the average Kiwi mum and dad will be able to afford to buy those asset shares that we hear so much about from this National-led Government.  
There are also environmental concerns. At a time when we are trying to encourage people into public transport how can we introduce a cost increase to public transport and school buses? New Zealand First is not here just to oppose; we suggest a more equitable system of levying that is not one of one-size-fits-all. The solution may be to look at charges at the pump. There is a simple formula here and that is diesel is fuel fuel is proportional to horsepower and horsepower is directly proportional to weight. So the more weight you pull the more fuel you need. By addressing the issue at the pumps we would cut compliance costs and do away with administrative complexity and any requirement for legal enforcement.  
There could also be concessions for environmentally friendly engines. The new diesel engines are more environmentally friendly than ever before and surely we should be encouraging innovation and creativity. Now one of the flaws of this system is that the fishing and shipping industries do not use the roads but surely it is a path that could do with investigation and robust discussion. So on behalf of all of those in New Zealand who have expressed their concerns about this bill New Zealand First opposes it for the above reasons. Thank you. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to be speaking to the third reading of the Road User Charges Bill. I sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in the last term of Parliament and what a good committee it was chaired by David Bennett and continuing to be chaired by David Bennett. We heard many submissions on this bill. I would like to congratulate Steven Joyce the previous Minister of Transport. I think he made a significant contribution in the transport area and certainly he has made safer journeys for New Zealanders over his term. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the officials and submitters on this bill and to wish the new committee which I am no longer on well on its future deliberations and business in the future.  
This bill has been amended to ensure that it is enduring because quite frankly the current system is outdated. It is really last century and it was well and truly overdue for an overhaul. This bill will modernise the road-user charges system. It will reduce compliance costs for operators eliminate the scope for error and fraud in the purchase of road-user charges licences and simplify enforcement and administration requirements. It is very important. We must have a fair system a balanced system and a well-managed system. This is what this law will do. The road-user charges—or RUC—system was established in 1978. It is a long time ago and this review is very timely. All the revenue from the road-user charges system goes to the National Land Transport Fund and the fund is used mainly for road construction and maintenance along with other activities benefiting road users.  
 The bill is a result of the recommendations of the  
Independent Review of the New Zealand Road User Charging System 
 and it brings about the most significant reform of road-user charges since it was introduced—it is a very significant reform. Diesel vehicles are very popular in New Zealand—diesel is cheaper than petrol—and more economical to run. Fuel consumption tests generally give results between 20 percent and 30 percent better for a diesel-engine car compared with the same model with a petrol engine. But also you have got to know that up to 36 percent of diesel is used off-road such as on farms; in manufacturing industrial and commercial ventures; and on boats.  
But back to this bill. This bill is about bringing the road-user charges system into the 21st century from 1978 to 2012. This bill addresses the concern about road-user charges evasion which is conservatively estimated to be $30 million per year which is not an insignificant sum. This bill will remove the evasion opportunities and encourage timely payment making a fairer system for all.  
The main provisions of the bill are first of all a change in the definition of vehicle weight. Currently road-user charges are based on the distance travelled and the weight carried. The system is complicated and it has been open to error. An operator has to guess the actual gross weight to be carried and it can be difficult for an operator to predict in advance the actual weight to be carried. It is also very difficult of course to recover the charges owing after the fact. The bill changes the definition of vehicle weight to a fixed road-user charge so that operators do not have to guess in advance and so that Government authorities do not have to deal with recovering money afterwards. Inevitably this will result in lower administrative costs for the industry and the Government and of course it will mean that fewer road-user charges are lost through evasion so it is a win-win.  
There are a number of other provisions. Others are removal of a time licence system and modernisation of the list of vehicles exempted from road-user charges. There is also an improvement to the regulatory framework for electronic management systems and this really shows how far we have come from 1978 through to 2012. Really back in 1977 when the Road User Charges Act came into power we did not have electronic systems and we did not have the internet. None of this would have been dreamt of all that time ago. So really we have brought the system into the 21st century and it means much more efficiency and much more fairness. It means that road-user charges can be purchased electronically and that a distance licence can be displayed electronically on an on-board unit situated in the vehicle. And of course the distance travelled by the vehicle is measured electronically. It is all done electronically something which no one and certainly not our parents would have thought of back in 1977. Quite frankly the Road User Charges Bill of 1977 never would have dreamt of such a possibility that in 2012 we would be going to such a modern system.  
Another provision in the bill is that it is a fairer simpler and less costly structure in relation to offences—penalties—particularly for light vehicles. I cannot emphasise the fact that really a fixed road-user charges weight means that the distance-based evasion will be the main focus of compliance management and will obviously save money and save time.  
Really this bill I cannot stress enough is about bringing road-user charges into the 21st century. It is about reducing compliance costs for transport operators and ultimately reducing transport costs for our businesses and exporters. These changes will make it easier and fairer to all those who pay road-user charges and that has to be good. Changing the definition of licence weights removing the confusing time licence system and simplifying the list of exempted vehicles will all reduce compliance costs for businesses simplify the administrative processes for industry and Government and save a lot of time and frustration and confusion at times. The New Zealand Transport Agency will also be able to take greater advantage of modern internet technology in administering road-user charges payment channels.  
This bill addresses concerns about the evasion which I mentioned before which has been estimated to be up to $30 million a year which is a very big sum of money and that will be addressed in this bill with the different provisions that we have talked about. Really people who are using road-user charges honestly have been subsidising people who have been evading the system and who have not been paying their road-user charges as they should be. This bill will remove a number of evasion opportunities encourage timely payment and make the system fairer for all. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 Labour supports the Road User Charges Bill with some reservations. But before I get on to that I did listen with some interest to Jami-Lee Ross’ contribution. Mr Ross that was the first time I have heard you speak actually and I thought you made some very interesting points particularly about transport overall and the importance of transport on the economic and social well-being of New Zealand. That is why we on this side of the House have always supported a balanced transport policy. We do not believe that transport has to be about just tarmac and road building. We believe and we have for a long time that it is not also only about cycling and walking but it is actually about utilising all the modes of transport including road transport sea transport air and rail for the best economic benefit of this country.  
So when we were in Government we set out to have a fair funding system for roading and transport in New Zealand and it was a Labour Government that brought in hypothecation of all funding for roading which included road-user charges excise duty and registration into a National Land Transport Fund—something the previous Government had refused to do for many many years—which enables us now to have a much fairer approach to funding transport in New Zealand. But if anyone should know about a road-user charges system and getting a fairer road-user charges system in place it probably should be a former Minister of Transport who actually confronted many truckies in 2008 when in fact I increased the road-user charges for truckies in this country. So I have been very interested in the progress of this bill.  
The former Minister of Transport Steven Joyce called this bill a “fairer road-user charges system for everybody” bill but I wondered why there were people who were upset about it if that was the case. It seemed to me there was a fair amount of spin over substance in Mr Joyce’s comments in that respect.  
In July 2008 as the Minister of Transport I increased road-user charges—the second increase they had had since 1989. So in 19 years road-user charges went up twice—2 years in a row—and I put them up. That was for vehicles over 6 tonnes. And what happened? The truck operators took to the road in protest. So I said: “What I want is a fairer system one where all the road-user operators paid their fair share and they got their fair share.” But they went to protest over two issues. One was the amount of increase that was going to be charged to them. In fact it was an extra $32 a year for a small diesel car with an average mileage and for a typical 5-tonne truck— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: They weren’t small diesel cars in the Octagon protesting. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Just listen and you might learn something Mr Woodhouse. For a typical 5-tonne truck it was $53 a year and for a 23-tonne truck which is capable of carrying quite a lot of freight it was $198 a year the reason being that diesel is not subject to any taxation apart from less than half a cent per litre compared with 42.524c a litre for a car. So I wanted a balanced and fair system.  
The second reason they protested at that time was that they did not get enough notice there was going to be an increase. The year before I had given 3 days’ notice that there was going to be an increase in road-user charges. What happened? Many operators went out and pre-purchased road-user charges at the old rate costing the Government $17 million. So there was a protest.  
I set up a working party in conjunction with the industry to look at the formula we could have for setting road-user charges for heavy vehicles and to put in place legislation to address the notice issue. We put on to that committee three people with expertise and knowledge and they were to report back in March 2009. We are almost in March 2012 and we have legislation finally going through this House that is going to in two respects—and particularly in one particular effect—have a big impact on a high percentage of trucking firms. But what exactly that impact is going to be is at this stage still secret. Nobody knows what the figures are; they have not been divulged.  
The question I am wanting to ask is whether the truck operators will protest again because they will have a reason to this time. Rather than come up with a system that addresses the notice period under this bill the charges will be set by regulation by the Minister without public debate. No final numbers will be known before this bill becomes law. The actual charges will be set at a later date. It is seen to be a pretty complicated process and it could have legal challenges and lead to cost and delay.  
One of the submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee pointed out that clause 79 provides for 42 days’ notification of regulations specifying the changes but there is no process for consultation so I cannot see that there has been any improvement on the issues that were raised in 2008 and what is happening in this bill. You see the Road Transport Forum demanded consultation and that is what I thought was going to happen in this bill. I cannot see in it how this is occurring.  
Perhaps I could remind the members what was said at the time when I in fact increased road-user charges and what the National Party said about it. It said it was sneaky to raise road-user charges without warning but that is what is going to happen in this legislation. It said it would pile huge costs on people but people are not going to know what those increases are going to be. Bill English went so far as to say that we changed things in the dead of night that we had promised to consult on it and that there should have been consultation. Where in this bill now and when it is passed is there going to be consultation before road-user charges are increased?  
That was the basis of the protest in 2008 so it will be interesting to see whether Tony Friedlander comes out of retirement and asks the truckies to once again protest now against a National Government. After all Tony Friedlander was a former National Party member of Parliament. I wonder whether he has the same strength of feeling against what is happening now as against what happened when we were in Government.  
The second major issue that has been protested against is the change moving from nominated weight to gross weights for calculating road-user charges. Well what does all that mean? To the people listening out there it does not mean an awful lot but at present road-user charges are based on distance travelled and weight carried and the carrier has to estimate in advance the actual gross weight to be carried. For example—and I have never forgotten this example which was told to me by Fonterra way back in the time when I was Minister of Transport—Fonterra’s trucks can carry 50 tonnes of milk. It is actually allowed to carry only 44 tonnes so it does not fill its trucks to their full weight. But it is actually going to be charged for carrying a 50-tonne weight. That is what its maximum allowable weight would be. So Fonterra has opposed this bill. It has said that it fails to do what it has said it was going to do.  
Operators will now be deemed to be carrying the maximum permissible load on the road at all times and that is going to put a huge hike on the smaller operators. Now I know it suits some of the bigger operators. They are the members of the Road Transport Forum. Some of them were very good at avoiding road-user charges. But it is not going to help many of the smaller truck operators. One operator said there would be an additional average cost of $18000 per vehicle for him totalling an extra $137000 per year.  
So I am saying there should be a protest about these changes by this Government if people were really concerned about changes that have been made in the past and are wanting a fairer system. Also how it can be—as is much claimed by this Government—a fiscally neutral change when those who carry lighter loads are going to be disadvantaged? I think that the Government missed a very good opportunity to make it fairer.  
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I would like to congratulate the member who just sat down. She said that people should go out protesting against this Government’s policy. If she thinks people should protest against modernisation and simplifying of the road-user charge—simplifying and modernising New Zealand’s transport operations so that they are cost-effective efficient and fair for all users—well I do not know maybe she should actually go and encourage people to go and protest about that!  
Before I continue to speak about this bill the Road User Charges Bill I would like to take an opportunity to congratulate you Mr Deputy Speaker on being appointed to the Deputy Speaker’s Chair and I would also like to congratulate all my new colleagues in this 50th Parliament. This has been the first opportunity for me to speak in this House and I would like to congratulate my colleagues across the House as well. I did see Mr David Cunliffe just now and I have to say that—oh he is sitting over there—I looked up across the House and I hardly recognised him. I looked up in the gallery and I noticed a member of the gallery a visitor and recognised another person with a beard and I have to say that that beard is actually very becoming on Mr Cunliffe. 
Hon Annette King 
: Hear hear! 
MELISSA LEE 
: It is very becoming and you know it actually goes towards that whole change in the Labour benches does it not? We have got a new leader we have got a new— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: It’s a disguise.  
MELISSA LEE 
: Well it might be a disguise; I do not know. But I have to say that it does actually look very becoming. I would also like to congratulate— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It must a boring day in the National caucus if you’ve got nothing better to talk about.  
MELISSA LEE 
: Mr Cunliffe I am actually giving you a compliment. Do you not know how to take it graciously? I would also like to congratulate my colleagues across the bench on coming back into Parliament re-elected. Hopefully we can you know work across the House on many things.  
I think I was actually at a Chinese New Year event not long ago where Raymond Huo commented that he would like to thank the National Party’s success for his entry into the 50th Parliament and on that score I would like to thank the member for Waitakere the Minister for Social Development for winning that seat. We have got another ethnic MP in this House as a result of it. 
Hon Member 
: A thundering majority. 
MELISSA LEE 
: Pardon?  
Hon Annette King 
: She carries it wherever she goes.  
MELISSA LEE 
: A win is a win Miss King and a great win. I was not part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee— 
Hon Member 
: I can tell. 
MELISSA LEE 
: Ha ha! But I would like to take the opportunity to thank all of those people who submitted on this bill because obviously it was quite a debate. There was a big debate going on in this committee; obviously Miss King seems to know what she is talking about.  
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: No no Jami-Lee Ross says it was all sorted.  
MELISSA LEE 
: Mr Lees-Galloway I did not hear you sorry.  
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Jami-Lee Ross says it was all sorted. There was no debate.  
Andrew Williams 
: Talk about the Waterview tunnel.  
MELISSA LEE 
: Are you allowed to speak in this House sir? Have you done your maiden speech?  
Andrew Williams 
: Yes thank you very much.  
MELISSA LEE 
: OK thank you. As I was starting earlier before I actually greeted everybody—happy New Year everybody. I think I should actually greet everybody in the traditional way that we do in this House: xin nian kuai le. Happy New Year and se hae bok mani baduseyo. I think I have actually done that. As I said this is my first speech in the House—I should actually get that out of the way.  
National is committed to simplifying and modernising New Zealand’s transport operations so that they are cost-effective efficient and fair for all users. I like that being fair for all users. Say my colleague sitting next to me was driving a big truck that was I do not know costing this country a lot of money and I was driving a tiny little car. If we had to pay the same cost it would not be fair would it? National is focused on promoting a road-user charge system that is fair balanced and well managed.  
This bill gives effect to the Government’s decision arising from the recommendations of the  
Independent Review of the New Zealand Road User Charging System 
. I actually found out that the road-user charge system goes back to 1978. It is almost as old as me. I have updated my knowledge and whatever but for the road-user charge that has not actually happened.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That would have been a very short meeting. 
MELISSA LEE 
: Sorry? Where are you a member for sir? This particular bill aims to bring the road-user charge system into the 21st century. I think that is a fantastic thing—bringing it into the 21st century. We do not want it back in the 1970s where this system was at. It is about reducing compliance costs for transport operators and ultimately reducing transport costs for our businesses and exporters. I think that is a key thing—reducing costs for exporters—because you do not really want New Zealand export items being so expensive because road-user charges are actually adding extra cost to these exporters. These changes will also make the system easier to understand and fairer for all who actually use the roads I guess.  
As I said earlier when you actually modernise the system so it becomes fairer for all users it has to be a good bill. I would like to thank everybody who actually took part in the select committee process particularly those members who actually sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which was not me. I would like to thank them and I commend this bill to the House. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 A win is a win according to Melissa Lee. I have a question for her: how would she know? How would she know after her stunning results in two elections: a by-election and then a general election in Mt Albert? David Shearer wakes up every morning and he thanks God for Melissa Lee. He is absolutely delighted. One of the best things that ever happened to David Shearer was having Melissa Lee put up against him in the Mt Albert by-election.  
I want to know from Melissa Lee though about road-user charges. How many of those road-user charges are for the people speeding through Mount Albert on their way from South Auckland through to the North Shore? I want to know how many of those road-user charges are for the people who are trying to avoid all those criminals as they speed through on that new Waterview Connection which she wanted to avoid building.  
Jami-Lee Ross 
: Trevor’s a bit slow on his bike. He can’t speed. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Trevor cannot speed. You cannot actually ride a bike on a motorway—sharpen up sharpen up. I am sure he will get there. One does not need road-user charges for a bike yet. I am sure given long enough that that is something the National Government will want to implement.  
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: I think Trevor might be diesel powered.  
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Best not get into what powers Trevor. I have to say though that the wider question for the Government is whether this is it. Here we are in the second week back in the National Government’s 100 days of action following the last election—it has only a few weeks to go—and the best it can come up with is the Road User Charges Bill. This is the economic transformation that we have been waiting for. 
Hon David Parker 
: The 120-point plan. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: And the 20-point plan— 
Hon Members 
: The 120-point plan. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The 120-point plan. Well it may as well have been only 20 points. I do not think anyone could name the 120 points. Nobody has got any idea what they are. I have not heard National name one but apparently the Road User Charges Bill is one of them. This is what is going to contribute to our massive economic transformation under the second term of a National Government! And things are going to get so much better now that the truckies have to pay more for carting empty truckloads than they used to have to pay! This is what is going to lead to this great transformation: all these extra jobs that are going to be created by the Road User Charges Bill which we are debating in the House tonight.  
And I have to say I agree with some of the drivers of the milk tankers—the people who work for Fonterra—who are going to end up being done over by this bill but I also agree with the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association which is concerned about the massive increase in costs that this is going to lead to for those who have motorhomes. I am interested in the views on this of the Minister of Tourism John Key. I would like to know what he has to say about massively increasing the road-user charges—and thereby the costs—for those tourists who hire motorhomes to travel around the country. I am interested that the Minister of Tourism has not had anything to say on this. He does not really talk about tourism much these days. Perhaps that is because not much has been happening in tourism since he took over doing it.  
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: How’s that cycleway? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: How is that cycleway coming along? In fact perhaps if the Government had done a little bit more on the cycleway we would not be so worried about road-user charges. We might have a few more people in jobs in this country. It never quite turned out to be that though. Of course the cycleway was going to be a big part of the economic transformation agenda as well; it was going to create all those extra jobs. We are still waiting to see those extra jobs eventuating—still waiting. And I suspect in another 2½ years’ time when the next general election rolls around and this Government’s scorecard is put up people will still be waiting for the extra jobs that the Government has been promising. The Road User Charges Bill is certainly not going to create the extra jobs that this Government has been promising. It is just fanciful. A lot of the Government’s bold projections are simply fanciful. 
I also have a question for the Government. In the week that John Key has been talking about modernising public services and having a technological solution to make public services more responsible why are we not seeing evidence of that in the Road User Charges Bill? Because actually by their very definition road-user charges are incredibly arbitrary. You are paying the maximum road-user charges for the entire time that the truck is driving whether it is empty laden full or whatever. Why can we not have a technological solution so that people actually pay for what they use? 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Elegant solution. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That would be an elegant solution to quote the Prime Minister’s favourite line. That would be a modern public service. That would be something that this Government should be looking into if it is really serious about creating a more responsive Public Service. But of course it is not; what it is interested in doing is making arbitrary cuts and saving money regardless of whether or not that makes public services better or worse. I think New Zealanders can rightly say they would like to see more responsive and more efficient public services. I do not think they are going to get them under this National Government. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is good to take a call on the Road User Charges Bill. I have a pretty hard act to follow. We have had comedy hour from Melissa Lee and then Chris Hipkins in the House. I would like to acknowledge you Mr Deputy Speaker and all the new members. I would like to acknowledge the new Minister of Transport Gerry Brownlee. I called the last Minister of Transport the “Colossus of Roads” but I will not say what we will be calling the new Minister of Transport. 
This country is facing a debt crisis an unemployment crisis and a climate crisis and what do we hear from the Government? We hear “Drill it mine it sell it.” and about the Road User Charges Bill. I mean at a time when we have got so many important issues facing our country this bill really does define “tinkering around the edges”. The Greens will be supporting this bill however because there are some marginal environmental and economic benefits accruing from it. I am surprised that New Zealand First is not supporting the bill. I think that had New Zealand First been here through the select committee process it might have taken a different approach. We are glad to be supporting this bill but in the end this is the story of missed opportunities.  
Annette King asked a very powerful question which was whether we are going to see protests when the regulations are formed and the new road-user charges increase. I say I doubt it. I doubt it because we know that the road lobby is the single biggest donor to the National Party. We know that the Government is borrowing $19 billion to pour into motorways benefitting truckies. This Government has made decisions from the juggernaut heavy trucks through to delaying the petrol and fuel excise and road-user charge rises accruing from rising international oil prices. If the trucking industry has a best mate it is definitely the National Party. So I do not think we will be seeing protests from the trucking industry like we saw under Annette King’s watch but when it comes to the regulations around small cars—those 200 small light diesels—I think we might in fact see protests from those small efficient diesels around the country because what they are going to see is their road-user charges increasing. By how much we do not know because that is entirely up to the new Minister of Transport to decide. What the officials in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee advised us is that the charges are going to be increasing.  
What we saw was essentially like a wealth swap with those heaviest trucks giving the most to the National Party I guess. Those trucks will be paying the least amount of road-user charges. But it is those small light efficient diesels that will be paying the most. They might be paying around $32 extra over 15000 kilometres. That is not a huge amount. What we are seeing is that wealth transfer. The smallest and the most efficient vehicles are the ones we should be encouraging in order to conserve our oil to protect our balance of trade to enhance our economy to reduce our emissions and to protect our environment. We should be encouraging those vehicles but they are the ones subsidising—and I do use the word “subsidising”—those heavy trucks that the Government wants to protect so much.  
We do support the bill for the reasons that it is going to be simpler and it is hopefully going to make a dent in that $120 million that massive administration cost which comes from the road-user charges. We support this switch to the maximum weight and this is where our support really comes from. When you have the trucks charged on their maximum weight what we want to see is these trucks being used as efficiently as fully as possible so that we do not see what we have at the moment which is trucks with numerous axles—because of past flaws in the road-user charges regime—being carted around the country empty because that is the way the road-user charges prioritise it. 
We are glad the bill maintains the electric car subsidies. I guess we know all these issues—the balance of trade problems the massive 16 percent oil imports all the problems facing our country—but the Government has got only 40 electric cars on our roads. In the end this is a missed opportunity. The Road User Charges Act is older than I am. We are the only country in the world with a road-user charges scheme. We could have actually embraced innovation. We hear about technology about information technologies this Government is so-called embracing but when it comes to embracing new technology on this bill—when we could be using electronic monitoring or real-time charging—we are instead going away from a smart approach to a dumb approach. We are going to an averaging model that is not going to send those incentives. It is a massive missed opportunity. We are not probably going to see an opportunity to reform this in our generation in a decade. It is a massive missed opportunity. But we will be supporting it for the reasons I outlined. Thank you. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and take what will probably be the final call on the Road User Charges Bill. On the basis that the words “59 votes in favour” do not constitute a speech this is my first offering in the House for the 50th Parliament so welcome back and congratulations on your respective appointments. I also welcome our new MPs. There were four more maiden speeches today—four fairly solid offerings I thought from the Labour members. I want to particularly acknowledge my parliamentary colleague from Dunedin North Dr David Clark who I know despite our political differences will work extremely hard for the city of Dunedin and I look forward to working with him. 
I have a new role of senior whip and I am looking forward to the challenge that it is. I must just make a little point about my colleague Melissa Lee. She was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year she is not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee this year and she is not rostered to speak in the House. Given that they are three reasons for her not to speak on this bill I thought she did extremely well at very short notice. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’re not meant to actually say that in public. You’re not meant to sort of admit it in public. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: It is a bit of mea culpa. It was going to come back to me at some stage. 
I want to just touch on a comment that Mr Horan made because I think it goes to the essence of the submissions we heard on the Road User Charges Bill in the select committee last year of which of course I was a member. He said consultation is one thing; listening and taking heed is another matter. I accept the member’s point. He is a very intelligent fellow I am sure and will quickly come to understand however that consultation and consensus are two very different things particularly politically. One can listen very very carefully to often wildly divergent points of view and then seek common ground as much as possible. But certainly with the road transport industry on this bill that was absolutely the case. 
If there was any example of that it was on that cold July morning in 2008 when I was standing in the Octagon watching the amazing sight of a number of trucks rolling round and round it and stopping traffic because of the drivers’ concerns about the lack of consultation that was then perceived to be the case. I do appreciate Mrs King coming to the House and talking about those experiences but I want to respectfully disagree with her about what the trucking industry was most upset about. Nobody likes a price increase but they were prepared to accept it. What they did not appreciate was the fact that they had been told they were going to be given notice and they were not. They were not given notice because the Minister of Transport at the time Mrs King the previous year had given the industry 3 days’ notice and horror of horrors the trucking industry and the people who needed to purchase road-user charges or RUCs did the rational thing: they went out and they purchased $30 million of charges. 
Well I see no harm in that. I am from that age where we as children listened around the radio to the Budget being presented in the 1970s by the Rt Hon Sir Robert Muldoon who was also Minister of Finance. It was about the smokes and the petrol was it not? It was done on a Thursday night I think in those days. I can tell you that by the time he got to the amount of excise that was going to be applied to fags people were going straight down to the supermarket. We did not have many supermarkets in those days; it was the dairies and the service stations that filled up. 
But here is what happens when road-user charges are paid in that way. The Crown has $30 million more in the bank earning interest—money that it would not have got. So yes there is an offsetting implication to the fact that because the prices are going to go up people buy early. That is the normal rational thing that people do. But the thing that got people most upset was the fact that they had been told that one thing would happen and another thing happened. 
I want to elaborate on that point because of the criticisms that Mrs King made completely irrationally about the lack of a notice period in this bill. Well she clearly has not read it. She was not on the select committee. Her colleagues Ms Fenton and the others on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee last year could have enlightened her but did not. So I will point out clause 79 which provides that regulations made to specify rates of road-user charges come into force 42 days after they are gazetted. So the inference—well it was not inferred; it was absolutely unchallenged; it was stated—that this Government is not giving road users plenty of notice of changes to the road-user charges is simply not true. 
Nor I have to say is the continued wailing and gnashing of teeth from members on the other side at the concerns of the Motor Caravan Association. Indeed the association did come to the committee and express very serious concerns about the implications of the changes in the road-user charges calculation for its members. Its concerns were completely wrongly placed. The officials of the Ministry of Transport worked with the Motor Caravan Association to alleviate those concerns and largely they have gone away except that the people listening to the debate in the Committee and in the third reading tonight will be completely confused. Well I want to give them the assurance that the 270-something percent increases that the association says are going to come are not accurate because the baseline is going to be recalibrated once the move from nominated weight to gross weight is brought in. That in itself is going to be much more administratively efficient. The amount of paperwork done in order for truck companies to record their actual nominated weight and then to have it checked and policed on the side of the road is incredibly administratively inefficient and a gross weight system will be satisfactory to all but people who carry feathers or Pink Batts regularly in their trucks because they go out full and they come back empty. If they are never close to their gross weights maybe there will be an issue but it is around the margins. The Ministry of Transport has worked very carefully with the industry to ensure that those changes affect as few people as possible. 
So with those words it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. It is a good bill. It will improve road-user charges collection in this country. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Road User Charges Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
New Zealand First 8. 
Bill read a third time. 
National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 I move  
That the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill be now read a third time 
. Agriculture is a key industry driving our economy. We must maintain our reputation as world leaders in the production of top quality animal products. The Crown and industry have started to work together since 2004 to ensure that we have the quality information we need about livestock. In that regard I would like to acknowledge and pay tribute to the earlier work of Ian Corney who chaired the initial working-group. His absolute commitment is one of the reasons that this legislation is before the House tonight.  
The National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) scheme will support the electronic recording of locations the people in charge of animals and the movement of animals between properties along with other attributes. With NAIT we can give assurances to domestic consumers and our trade partners that the product is healthy and disease-free. We can manage a disease more effectively and rapidly reopen markets if they are closed. Furthermore the NAIT scheme allows for other information to be held in conjunction with mandatory data and can further support improved productivity and on-farm management.  
The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill sets out the legal framework for the collection of information on livestock and their location and movement history throughout their lifetime. It also outlines the governance arrangements and powers for the NAIT organisation that will manage the NAIT scheme. NAIT needs to be mandatory to be effective. The bill will support the introduction of the NAIT scheme scheduled for July 2012 for cattle and March 2013 for deer.  
It was agreed early on in the NAIT scheme’s development that the Government and the industry would share its costs as well as its benefits. The Government funded the building of the database and is to fund a continuing contribution of 35 percent of the system’s operational costs. The livestock industry groups have provided financial support during the scheme’s development and will do so once the bill has passed.  
During the bill’s passage through the House I have spoken about the history of the project and how we got to this point. Initially there was a substantial battle with Federated Farmers which were difficult and that led to unnecessary scepticism amongst many farmers. Thankfully with the new leadership of Federated Farmers realism now prevails. With the establishment of NAIT farmers now have the ability to manage stock at the level of an individual animal rather than as a herd. Farmers are able to invest in automated systems to weigh and draft animals according to the criteria that farmers themselves set rather than having to assess an animal’s condition by eye. Modern farming systems are able to provide labour savings and more accurate responses to market demand. I also expect the NAIT organisation to respond to the demands from its levy-paying farmers. Once the NAIT scheme is well settled and functioning the NAIT organisation and the Animal Health Board will begin to consolidate their governance and functions. I look forward to the efficiencies and cost savings that will result at the level of both individual levy-paying farmers and the livestock industries themselves.  
I am pleased that most of the parties represented in this House have recognised the importance of this bill and of the NAIT scheme. I tonight acknowledge the work of the previous Labour Government in developing the NAIT scheme and Labour’s ongoing support for the NAIT legislation. I also acknowledge the long-term commitment and dedication to a successful NAIT scheme by all the industry parties that have been involved in NAIT Ltd itself which is now in charge of delivering the scheme. I commend the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill to the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Can I just start my speech by acknowledging the role of the Minister for Primary Industries in shepherding this legislation through. It is true to— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Shepherding”! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: You liked that Mr Cosgrove? Yes shepherding. I will come back to sheep in a minute actually as Mr Cosgrove often encourages me to do. But I do want to acknowledge the Minister for his leadership on this issue. As he noted in his speech this was something that began under the previous Labour Government. In particular on the day that the member for Wigram Megan Woods gave her maiden speech it is worth noting that Jim Anderton had a significant role in the development of the National Animal Identification and Tracing system. Mr Anderton saw as others involved in the agricultural sector did that a system of national identification and tracing that was consistent and was not the piecemeal system that we had would allow New Zealand to both avoid significant problems and costs and also embrace opportunities. Those significant costs have been noted throughout this debate. The fact that a major foot-and-mouth outbreak in New Zealand could cost this country in the region of $10 billion makes the cost of actually implementing a system like this pale in comparison and it is quite clear from the various times in New Zealand that we have had foot-and-mouth scares just what impact that would have on our exports. So the idea of an identification and tracing system stopping that or at least significantly limiting the impact of that is something that all New Zealanders and the agricultural sector should be pleased about.  
But also it is the opportunity that this provides that I think is one of the things that causes me to be really pleased to be supporting this National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill tonight in the House and that is the opportunity to be able to sell into markets across the world that are demanding more and more that they understand the origins of the produce that is being purchased. What this system allows us to do—to be able to trace as the Minister has just said to the individual animal; in this case cattle and deer—actually allows people to have confidence about the sustainability of the New Zealand farming system. People can understand exactly where produce comes from.  
Members will be familiar with the Icebreaker brand. This is something that Icebreaker has done magnificently well. Being able to provide Baacodes that people can scan that can link back to exactly where the wool for an Icebreaker product has come from is hugely significant selling into markets that are worried about sustainability concerns and that want to know that the product that they are buying comes from an ethical farm comes from a sustainable farm. This applies to produce as well. In the Committee stage of the debate I mentioned a project I have had a little bit to do with called Paddock to Plate—and Paddock to Plate— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Horrible name. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I still quite like it. 
Colin King 
: Pasture to plate. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —but Paddock to Plate was a project that was about ensuring that the people who were really significant to the New Zealand economy—the supermarket buyers in the UK—would be able to say with certainty: “This is where this produce has come from. This is what we know about it.” I actually think you could take that further than just being able to identify and trace the cattle. What about knowing more about the land the pasture—for Mr King’s benefit—that was involved in the production of these goods. There is technology available now that can tell us about the soil content that can tell us about the way that grass is grown. Let us actually provide to consumers internationally the full picture of how New Zealand is creating a more sustainable farming process. 
Jonathan Young 
: The soil. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The soil—indeed absolutely. This is exactly the kind of thing that consumers internationally are looking for. So that is why I regard this bill as a very good bill because what it does is provide opportunity for New Zealand to be able to take advantage of those markets where people are interested in ensuring that they are purchasing sustainable products. 
 There is some concern on this side of the House around the question of who is developing this technology. There is huge opportunity in this traceability technology and Sirtrack which was one of the organisations that was helping to develop this came out of Landcare Research and has been sold off. Now that is in some ways a good thing for the people who developed the technology but really we do have to ensure that we keep companies like that going inside New Zealand and to make sure that those companies that are developing that technology are supported and understood.  
It is true to say that this bill has had widespread support across the House as the Minister noted. I understand that in the earlier readings the only party to vote against it was the ACT Party. It was the only party. I have no idea why—[ 
Interruption 
] It is lack of freedom for livestock Mr Cosgrove that is the issue here—one law for all. It was discussed earlier in the Committee stage whether or not this would move beyond cattle and deer to sheep. That is the obvious next step and I know that the Minister has discussed that and said that it is a possibility. But it is true to say that there was reluctance from some in the farming sector to adopt this. It is unusual for the Minister in charge of this bill to be one to be pushing compulsion so hard. He is not a man who usually likes to support the idea of compulsion but in this case the Minister has seen the wisdom of the fact that we need a comprehensive system. If there is not a comprehensive system then we undermine the opportunities that I mentioned before and we undermine our ability to fend off accusations if there is something like a foot-and-mouth outbreak. As the Minister said the farming community the Federated Farmers did eventually come on board with this. I am sure Mr Anderton worked very hard on that in the initial stages and it was obviously carried on by the current Minister as well.  
The fact that we have these systems in place now in New Zealand also brings us into line with a number of our other key trading partners. We look at Australia where cattle are already using eartags from a traceability system. They are also looking in Australia at the lifetime tracing of sheep. So clearly New Zealand needs to continue to advance into that market— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Careful! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Cosgrove is an expert on the lifetime tracing of sheep so he too will be able to contribute to the wisdom of following Australia in that particular area. I do think that it is important. This is about market advantage as much as anything for New Zealand and if other countries such as Australia are going into this area then we too need to do that when it comes to sheep.  
So it is with great pleasure that I support this bill. I do not think that it would be—[ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps some people would see it Mr Cunliffe as being unusual that the member for Wellington Central is taking such an interest in this rural issue. But the fact is this is about the New Zealand economy. This is about the strength of the New Zealand economy. It is about applying technological solutions that are developed in New Zealand to be able to establish our sustainability overseas.  
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Clean green clever! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is about a clean green and clever New Zealand—that is right Mr Cunliffe—and that is why I am very pleased to be able to support it. I look forward to the Government extending the process out further beyond dairy and cattle to sheep to create a fully comprehensive system of traceability from the paddock to the plate and to make sure that New Zealand actually can sell into those overseas markets and to be able to say proudly that we are a fully sustainable country and being able to prove that. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I do not know where to start after that speech. I am suitably impressed I think I should say for a start. You know the member for Wellington Central either has Jim Anderton’s speech notes or he has been talking to the Hon Damien O’Connor—or maybe he has had some advice from Clayton Cosgrove. But I have to say that was a remarkably good speech from the new deputy leader of the Labour Party on this topic so I congratulate him on it.  
The issues canvassed so far are absolutely right. I think that Mr Robertson said that foot-and-mouth could cost New Zealand $10 billion; the last estimate I saw on that was that potentially it could cost $25 billion per year—not one off; per year. That would devastate the New Zealand economy if it were to happen at its worst possible impact. To be able to trace animals in the event of a biosecurity incursion regardless of what the incursion may be is an essential part of having integrity in the system around biosecurity. This National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill is the first step I guess you can say in moving forward into the 21st century technology in regard to doing that.  
The issues that were canvassed in the Primary Production Committee and through the submission process both in terms of the consultation paper that was put together first of all to form the bill and then the process as the select committee went through its work are the issues of retention rates in sheep in particular. That is the reason why the Government at this point has chosen not to have lambs or sheep included in the national identification regulations. So that issue has to be resolved and I think technology in time will find an answer to that. In fact some work has gone on in the US in recent years around implants. Now everyone throws their hands up in the air when you use the term “implant” but basically it is using the same kind of technology that has been used in New Zealand for registration of dogs but in a way that it can be inserted with integrity so that the device itself retains its reliability and also so it does not become a problem in further processing of the carcass of an animal which is quite a challenge.  
That is something that has been worked on. I think it will be overcome in time and when it is overcome then of course the problem with retention rates of tagging devices in sheep will be overcome and the cost then will be reduced substantially. So I think that is probably where we need to start cranking up the research.  
I notice that the Animal Health Board itself is likely to be the group—the instrument if you like the team of people—that will drive a lot of that work and potentially may be the owner and controller of the database in conjunction of course and in partnership with the Government because the integrity of that database is equally as important as anything else that goes with this whole keeping of traceability so that the integrity of the system is maintained.  
It is absolutely essential if we are going to be a First World exporter of high quality protein products particularly from animal production that we have traceability that will stand up to the scrutiny of the international markets. When you look at what is driving growth in—particularly—high quality production areas it is that traceability that the member for Wellington Central spoke of. He used the example of the Icebreaker brand and that is a very good example. But there are many others. If you look at some of the products that come out of our dairy industry now going into nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals clearly the integrity or safety of that product is essential. Well the same will apply with meat products and other animal products that are produced on our New Zealand farms as we speak. So having a solid robust database using the best technology and using the best measurement systems—that is how you scan or read high numbers of cattle or sheep as the case may be in a timely and cost-effective way—is something that this system and this bill is enabling of.  
As we watch that develop I suspect we will see quite a bit of development around the different types of measurement systems and measuring devices. There was a lot of debate at the time of the select committee hearings on this—around the use of high frequency versus low frequency devices. The robustness of those devices was the thing in question. I guess the biggest challenge for the select committee was to make sure that the bill was able to adapt to whatever device the market and the farming users decided to use and not to try to second-guess what would be the best. It would appear to us that having the ability to be able to measure large numbers of animals in a simple way—and if you can just imagine for a moment Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch and I know you may have some experience with this yourself—being able to measure a whole flock of sheep or yard of cattle with a device that is able to scan that area within a reasonable proximity what a wonderful piece of technology that would be to be able to know how many you had in the yard for a start to know each individual animal by number and to know what the ages and various groups and sector groups of those animals were. Think about then being able to feed that information into a drafting system like the Protrack system designed by Livestock Improvement Corporation which I know you have a close family association with Mr Assistant Speaker. That would be a wonderful ability for farming so that you could actually draft animals as you wished by entering the data into a computer in a centralised place. Just imagine how that would simplify the handling of large dairy herds or large flocks of sheep or cattle for that matter. So those things will develop.  
As that happens what you will see is the commercial drivers for such a system will overtake the anxiety that some farmers have now about cost because there will be a financial benefit to them for doing it. Those were the big debating points that Federated Farmers raised in the early stages of the discussion and what they could see was just yet another cost being imposed on the farming sector without any real justification for that cost. So I think we have moved past that point now to where the advantages are overwhelming and most farmers who have been watching this debate and watching the technology develop are now much more receptive to it than they were perhaps 5 years ago.  
The other major issue of course is when we are signing up to international trade agreements to be able to go into those negotiations with a high degree of certainty that what we are about to sign up to will be able to be delivered with traceability back to individual farms individual animals with the safety standards in place. Recently remember the melamine scare in China which had the whole of the dairy industry shaking in its boots for a moment. We of course in New Zealand are able to say that this product comes from this production system it is safe it is reliable and it will not suffer the same fate as that did. It is with those types of issues in mind that it is my pleasure to support this bill through the third reading. Thank you. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I welcome the third reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill back into the House. It is about time I have to say. It started in 2004. My colleague the Hon Jim Sutton was actually in charge of the original development of this concept but it is right that the Hon Jim Anderton actually found the $10 million that the Government was going to contribute to the implementation of this scheme and then it was rejected by Federated Farmers. I have to say that was an outrageous abuse of a position by someone who ended up being an ACT candidate—that is Don Nicolson—who just campaigned against this for cheap political reasons in my view.  
Although there were some issues around the radio frequency and some of the technology the bottom line was that in 2004 we knew full well that we needed to have in place very quickly a proper system of traceability. We had been alerted to the inadequacies of our traceability systems through the foot-and-mouth scare on Waiheke Island. That gave us a hell of a fright and we thought we had better do something. We pride ourselves on being a very smart First World producer of food but the reality is that the countries that have these systems in place include Brazil Argentina Uruguay South Korea and Canada and we are just catching up. So it is about time it was passed through the House. As I said we welcome that.  
Can I just say that I would like to thank my colleague Grant Robertson for his speech. As acknowledged it was a very good speech from the member for Auckland Central— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Wellington. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Wellington Central sorry. I challenge National to put up their member from Auckland Central to see whether she knows as much about it. We hear lots of gibes and accusations from National about the depth of knowledge of rural issues in the Labour Party. Well that speech just goes to show that we do have widespread understanding of the dependence of both urban and rural New Zealand on one another. It was an excellent speech and I will be calling on his knowledge and support as we move forward in Government to put in place some wonderful policies.  
I think many of the points have been covered. This has been a long process. We do claim to be a producer of high quality safe and—now—traceable food. That is we will know where the food comes from. There are some examples of excellence within industries in this country be they meat or dairy where we know which cow basically contributed to which bit of butter or cheese. In meat there are fewer examples but none the less some of excellence in that area. Most of those exporters get a premium for their product and we want more and more of that as this country moves forward.  
I had a discussion tonight with some colleagues on whether we are still the producers of commodity products or whether we are moving up the value chain. Well we do want to move up the value chain and each step requires a huge amount of investment. This is a relatively small investment to move us quite a way up and compete with at least the countries that I named before because if we do not we simply will not be able to sell to them.  
One of the big issues and it is still one of the contentious things going on at the moment is the management of the database. I must mention this. There was some fear in the minds of some farmers driven by misinformation from Federated Farmers for the most part that this database was going to be used to calculate methane emissions and charge farmers etc. etc. It was just outrageous quite frankly and as I say was driven by a person who ultimately became an ACT candidate. That speaks for itself. But the database is important. We currently have two good databases—the Animal Health Board has one and the Livestock Improvement Corporation has another for dairy—and they operate pretty well. The question was whether we should merge those databases or create a new one and I think that there was concern from officials and from farmers that a new database would cost a whole lot of money and maybe was unnecessary. In the end that is what was decided and as long as people in NAIT Ltd and developing this do a good job hopefully we will end up with one good database that can be used by other sectors.  
Hopefully we can add in sheep and although sheep farmers might get spooked about that at the value of their ewes now getting up close to between $150 and $200— 
John Hayes 
: $300 in the Wairarapa. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Three hundred dollars? Any more? More on three three three—going four four no? I would suggest that in fact good quality sheep good quality livestock—cows deer—will be worth a lot of money. If we put our protein in the higher value brackets in the supermarkets around the world then we will want to know where those animals are their genetics whom they are traded to and whom they are sold to. It will become part and parcel of normal livestock and farm management in this country—that is full traceability of all our animals. We might even end up with all the dogs being microchipped but anyway that is another debate. My colleague in front of me will chuckle on that one but I am sure we will get to the point where every animal on a farm will have to be microchipped. We will have to know exactly where they are so we can prove that any disease or any possible infection can be signed off and we can tell our customers what they are getting when they buy that protein and they pay more for it.  
I am not going to speak for too long. I was disappointed when farmers turned their backs on the $10 million offered by the Labour Government at that time. The cost of implementation now has been estimated by officials going forward but the benefit has been calculated at close to $40 million—I think $38 million—per year. I think that would be a fair estimate. The rough annual cost is $6 million; it will cost $15.7 million to set up. Labour in power offered $10 million. I am not sure that that is the amount that the current National Government is going to give but none the less it is committed to implementing it and that is great.  
Before I sign off I say that the Primary Production Committee had a look at the issue of high and low frequency. We wanted to ensure that we were futureproofing whatever system was put in place and that we were not imposing an unnecessary cost or duplication of costs on either the farmers the saleyards the meat processors or anyone. The jury is still out I have to say so we have left the door open. I think it will be a low frequency system implemented first moving to a high frequency one; we are told the high frequency tag can hold more data and can be read at a greater distance.  
In terms of the things that Mr Ardern was talking about—knowing how many animals are in your herd where they are going and to what part of your farm—many farmers in fact now expect to know that. It is part of normal management systems. They are the most efficient farmers. They are at the forefront of technology and this will enable all farmers to potentially reach that high level of management. I must say and put on the record that with such technology I am sure we will be able through satellite management to have fenceless farming systems where animals will be encouraged to graze one part of a farm today and then another part tomorrow. There will be proactive management and stimulation through satellites. It all seems rather far-fetched but I would suggest that within 10 years we will be looking at those kinds of systems. If we are not then we will be falling behind other countries.  
In conclusion Labour supports this legislation. We initiated it in 2004 we offered to pay for it in 2008 and we welcome its passage through the House. This is a big step for New Zealand agriculture and it will give assurance to the customers who buy our food in the future—initially beef and venison but moving forward hopefully and taking in the others—that we know where the animals came from we know what they ate and that consumption will be absolutely safe. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in this third reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. The Green Party has supported this bill at every stage moving through the House. It was covered by my portfolio in the last Parliament. It is now within Steffan Browning’s portfolio but he is unable to be here tonight. Other speakers in this debate have canvassed many of the advantages of the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system and I just want to run very briefly through those that we see because some of those are the same that others see and others are some different ones.  
I guess the first one I want to highlight and I do not think anyone has mentioned this tonight is the usefulness of this system in the event that we encounter a food-borne human disease. I am thinking of something like bovine spongiform encephalopathy—mad cow disease—and other prion diseases that are spread through meat and where traceability of meat and meat products plays an incredibly useful role in best promoting human health. 
Others have mentioned a couple of the animal health issues. One example that has been mentioned tonight is foot-and-mouth disease. I think of what might happen in that disastrous biosecurity situation. Some colleagues may not like me mentioning this but let us say that one of those palm kernel shipments comes in from a country where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic and the bacteria is found in the soil that comes with that palm kernel and we face an outbreak in this country. Actually being able to trace the animals that may have been affected by an outbreak is going to be incredibly important for our economy as well as for dare I say it the animals themselves. 
The other important use in relation to animal-borne illness that occurs to me is around control of stock movement. In this country as we try to get the cap on TB in our animal herd actually having a tool that assists us with better control of stock movement—and NAIT will provide that—has to be a really helpful weapon in the armoury. So some really important benefits there. My colleague Damien O’Connor has spoken about some of the innovation and stock improvement for example that this new technology will facilitate. I think you will find that his musing is not far from the mark. I agree with him that actually that is the kind of technological improvement we will need to make to keep adding value to our products to continue to have an export agricultural economy.  
Traceability—and other members have spoken about this—is important as one of those value-add components to our agricultural economy. Simply exporting raw commodities is no longer the way our economy needs to go. The future for agriculture in New Zealand is around adding value to those products and again NAIT is one of the fundamental tools for achieving that. 
Someone has mentioned Icebreaker. I am a great cyclist and tramper and I decided long ago never to walk into the hills without being clad in Icebreaker. Indeed that is the choice that many people both in this country and around the world have made. It is a great example a great illustration of the kind of economic value that is associated with traceability. Certainly there is an international movement of consumers along the lines of that Paddock to Plate initiative that Grant Robertson spoke about earlier in this debate. They want to know where their food comes from and they are prepared to pay more to know that. That is the future for our food export industries. So it is part of our way of creating a higher quality export sector by adding value. 
On the flipside we have raised a number of concerns at different points in this debate. These are not concerns that cause us tonight to reverse our position and to oppose the bill. We support the bill. We believe the positive attributes outweigh the concerns. But I just think in this third reading it is appropriate to recap some of those issues that we were concerned about. The first one of those was the lack of consultation with the organics sector in the development of this bill. We believe that that was a significant gap and we hope that in the development of future legislation we will not see that kind of gap. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the organics sector is already a part of our agricultural sector that has considerable experience in the business of adding value and in targeting those consumers who have a very great concern about where their food comes from how the animals were raised and what the conditions were like on that farm. So involvement of the organics sector should have been a really important thing that was done in preparing this bill. 
The second issue that I want to raise which we have raised previously in debates on the bill is around the governance group. To our way of thinking it has yet to be satisfactorily explained why the original intention of a Crown company or a Crown entity was abandoned and replaced with the governance group that now appears in this bill before us. We do not see a rationale that would justify that change and we do not believe that that has been satisfactorily advanced in the debate in this House. So that is a concern for us. It is more than something that is an academic or abstruse kind of concern because the nature of the entity changes its responsibilities. So a Crown company or a Crown entity for example would have obligations under the Official Information Act which this governance group may well not end up having. The Animal Health Board is a great example of where the model that is used for the governance of an operation can change that. In the consideration by the Local Government and Environment Committee of the performance of the Animal Health Board in the last Parliament one of the major concerns that was raised by submitters was around the opacity of the Animal Health Board and the difficulty that one had actually getting information out of that organisation. It is a needless problem and it is one that we could have avoided in this case. 
Our related concern is that in this entity that is not really an arm of the State we have also chosen to vest quite considerable search seizure and related powers and we have an abiding concern that the extent of those powers outweighs the nature of the problem that those powers are created for. We think that is a real problem. We have signalled that we will be watching the performance of this Act in practice to see whether problems arise and we will bring them back to this House if they do.  
Finally I want to just mention the very big feature we see in this bill—that is providing value for our export industries by providing consumers overseas with information about where their food comes from. It is about time New Zealand consumers had that same right. It is time for mandatory and comprehensive labelling of food in New Zealand. Thank you. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is fair to say that the bill as it stands has been well canvassed during its third reading. But I would just like to make one or two points before I sit down again. One concerns the complexities that we are facing as we implement this very worthy bill the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. One has to stop and think about the million or so cattle that are on lifestyle blocks and are going to have to come into this system. That starts to illustrate the complexity. We can start talking about sheep and already stud breeders are doing it with their high frequency identification systems. But we have just got to be mindful that it is appropriate that the introduction of the National Identification and Tracing Bill deals with cattle and deer—effectively cattle on 1 July 2012 and then deer on 1 March 2013.  
It is appropriate to give a bit of flavour with regard to the difference between the low frequency and high frequency transponders. The low frequency can be read only at about 1 metre and that is where that debate crept in with regard to the high frequency where it was possible to read the animal’s tags out in the middle of a paddock about 200 to 300 metres away. There is still a wee way to go before we actually see innovation around this area.  
I would imagine that we certainly do need to keep a very close eye on what the rest of the world is doing because we do sell to the 5 percent of the world that have the incomes to choose what they eat and are prepared to pay for it. So it is very important that we protect New Zealand’s food safety record and its credentials. They are at the platinum level and that is something we cannot take for granted. There is no doubt a lot of potential within the National Animal Identification and Tracing system and the farming technologies that will be applied in the future and I know that our farmers and our community of New Zealand are very quick in the uptake of modern technologies.  
That having been said this legislation is important. There is a view out in the farming community—or there was a view for a while—that if it was this good or that good why is the industry not driving it? One has to think a wee bit long and hard to answer that question but the answer is that there are a lot of people in the meat industry whose main financial drivers are not the meat. You have only to look at the dairy industry. There are hundreds of thousands of tonnes of beef going through to the market that come off dairy farms and their main driver and their whole breeding systems are geared around milk production and butterfat production—milksolids. So to give it the integrity and credibility that it needs from an international point of view it was important that we draw up this legislation.  
We have overcome those obstacles. I do not find anything overly offensive in farmers being concerned about costs being heaped upon them. They have to run very very challenging operations in challenging economic times and it is good to see that although this legislation is to be implemented it is during a time when farmers are able to see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel. This is very good legislation. It has been well handled by the Primary Production Committee members on both sides of the House and it is high time that it quickly passes into law. It is a pleasure to support this bill. 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 As others have done I would like to congratulate some of the other new members of the House whose fine maiden speeches we were able to enjoy today. I am encouraged by the intellect and sincerity displayed by those members and I am looking forward to working with them over the term of this Parliament. 
I am pleased to speak to the House on this important piece of legislation the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party. We are opposed to the passage of this bill in its present form. We have not had previous input into the construction of this bill or the debate subsequent to its introduction due to our party’s unplanned sabbatical from the House which I am pleased to say is now thankfully completed for all eternity. 
New Zealand First understands and fully supports the importance of the agricultural sector to New Zealand’s economy and way of life and we appreciate how critical the success of this industry is in terms of our exports and international reputation. It is indeed testament to that reputation that we as a nation have been able to maintain access to both our traditional and expanding markets over the past 8-year gestation of this bill in spite of our not having such a system of record as this bill proposes and which many of our trading partners have adopted themselves or are in the process of developing. Amongst them are Australia the United Kingdom Canada the United States of America South Korea Japan Argentina and many of the member States of Europe—the European Union. All agricultural nations live with the risk of animal disease and epidemic and their faith in our existing systems of inspection and assurance thus far is I am sure appreciated by the Government and industry alike. 
As a trading nation New Zealand must take all practicable steps to protect its borders and export base from unwanted threats and to be a responsible international citizen by ensuring that such threats do not leave our shores. It is true that the march of time and technology makes it likely that consumers and regulatory authorities alike in our crucial overseas markets may come to demand that even known suppliers with impeccable track records such as New Zealand choose to bring themselves into line with what is more and more becoming accepted as international best practice in terms of safeguards and accountability in record-keeping. It is worthy of note however we believe that the aforementioned countries have had incidences of foot-and-mouth disease whereas New Zealand by good management effective biosecurity and the grace of God remains thus far free of it. 
It is a reality that the maturing of what were ground-breaking technologies even a few years ago means that what may have been an arguably prohibitive cost when this bill was first proposed has become for the sections of the industry initially intended to be covered by it at least a far more financially acceptable proposition. Indeed the utilisation and further enhancement of the identification technologies in question by New Zealand will certainly contribute to the increasing accessibility of those systems quite possibly to the point where their employment in other sectors of the industry such as sheep is able to be made financially viable. It remains a pity as other members have noted that the disposal to overseas interests of New Zealand’s own leading supplier in this field means that this country will not be in a position to profit directly from any such expansion. 
 New Zealand First supports the promotion of measures that enhance the ongoing success and stability of our most important industries. However we would ask in addition whether New Zealand consumers are also to be afforded the reassurance of traceability as Mr Grant Robertson referred to earlier from paddock to plate. We hold some concern that certain meat products are currently imported into New Zealand from nations whose systems of recording and accountability fall far short of those that we employ even today and that in itself is without the benefits of the technology heralded as being the great advantage that this bill will supposedly afford both ourselves and our overseas consumers. 
But it is of concern to the New Zealand First Party that too great a reliance may come to be placed on this new technology at the expense of existing systems of record-keeping which are proven and which have served and continue to serve New Zealand well. Some aspects of the radio frequency identification chips in question as other members have alluded to are still in their infancy or developmental stages. Some may have crossover or interference issues with other high frequency radio equipment which is increasingly being utilised in farming today. We are concerned that a system based on radio frequency identification eartags will provide no tangible improvement in traceability over and above that provided by existing numbered plastic eartags once the animal has reached the stage in the processing chain where the head is removed from the body. 
However the use of radio frequency identification tags does open doors to the possibility both of counterfeiting once our product reaches certain less trustworthy foreign markets and of the theft and rechipping of stock. It is possible in fact that what appears on the surface to be a more high-tech and therefore safer and more secure system may indeed prove to be less so in both regards particularly when the human propensity for placing great trust in advanced technology is taken into account. I am reminded indeed of the response of a well-known criminal gang to the introduction of vehicle identification number plates some years ago in an attempt to prevent the resale of stolen cars. The motorcycle enthusiasts club in question availed themselves in reasonably short order of a supply of blank plates complete with an impressing machine the combination of which allowed them to continue their business with little interruption. In many cases the cleverer the intended system of security the easier and ultimately more persuasive are the means found to circumvent it by those with nefarious intent. 
New Zealand First does not support this bill for several reasons. In addition to the aforementioned we do not wish to see our farmers and consumers unfairly disadvantaged by any financial or compliance burdens placed upon them in the absence of a similar required standard being applied to comparable imported foodstuffs. In the light of the inherent weaknesses of the technology as it is proposed and the inevitable decline of the present system as it is progressively replaced we see the direction of the bill with regard to the mandatory adoption of the National Animal Identification and Tracing system as being precipitate. It is our view that this may be one occasion where the market should be able to speak in that demand from foreign buyers rather than dictates from our own Government should be the driving force leading the adoption of this technology.  
We are concerned that the introduction of microchips for deer and cattle may be beset by some of the same shortfalls that have been the experience of the introduction of microchips for dogs. It promises a great deal with little in the way of proven benefits comes at a measurable cost with no guarantee of improved return and carries the potential to weaken the existing system which even the bill’s authors agree will have to continue in parallel with the new methodology until such time as the application of radio frequency identification technology can be made economically viable for sheep and other stock animals outside of the two species initially specified. We would very much not like to see the implementation of a policy and a technology that seek and promise to reduce costs and improve performance but that in their application achieve entirely the opposite result. We oppose the passage of this bill in its present form and urge members from all sides of the House to do the same. Thank you. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I would like to just draw perhaps a backdrop behind this National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill of events that happened as we will remember some time ago particularly in the United Kingdom where the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy or what is called mad cow disease created such a furore amongst the industry there where 180000 cattle were infected and 4.4 million head of cattle were slaughtered during the eradication programme which is something that I think is a horrific thought to farmers and agriculturists here in New Zealand. The National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill will enable the establishment of a tracing system that will control and prevent animal disease and product contamination. This is an investment in current and modern technology that is going to protect an industry that is contributing over half of our annual export volume to the rest of the world.  
The global consumption of meat since 1961—and this is one of the major areas that this legislation will touch on—has tripled and it does continue to increase rapidly. It is fuelled by rising living standards in nations such as India and China. As consumer incomes rise there is the tendency to buy more protein. We understand that; we know that is why our exports and our commodities in this country have seen such a tremendous lift in recent years. Indeed people who live in developed countries consume four times as much meat as those in developing countries. You would be interested to know that since 1961 average consumption has risen from 56 kilograms to 89 kilograms per person per year in India and from 89 to 124 kilograms per person in the US according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. In 1961 the Chinese consumed only 4 kilograms of meat per person per year but that figure has reached over 55 kilograms and is still rising. So we see an international demand driving growth in this particular area in this particular industry.  
 It is incredibly important that management around disease prevention is hugely enhanced. We understand that nations that New Zealand competes with are progressing in these particular areas and current animal-tracing schemes here in New Zealand are falling behind the systems used by our trading partners. We live in a time of global opportunity in this particular area and it bodes well for us that we provide adequate information for responding to biosecurity risks and incursions so we do not place our market access at risk. The Food and Agriculture Organization reports that import bans on meat produced in disease-afflicted countries in early 2004 for example affected approximately a third of global meat exports or 6 million tonnes. This is the sort of thing that happens when disease or diseases can affect animals. From 2002 to 2006 alternating disease outbreaks and recoveries resulted in rapid shortages and increases in exportable meat supplies led to considerable fluctuations in international prices.  
The National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) system is a very reliable up-to-date information system on individual animal locations and movements. It is going to enable New Zealand to respond quickly in the event of a biosecurity threat such as a disease outbreak or a food safety threat such as residues being found in animal-derived food products. Such a quick response will help limit the spread and reduce the economic impact of such an event. This is incredibly important in order to protect not just the economic well-being but also the social well-being of our country. These things are incredibly important. National wants to grow the economy in order to deliver greater prosperity security and opportunity to all New Zealanders. We want to deliver—and are delivering—longer-lasting solutions for our biosecurity and primary sector to boost productivity and to protect those exports. We are very proud of the history of supporting our primary sector and our rural communities.  
The NAIT system would enable rapid and accurate tracking of animals from birth to death for live export. I recall speaking to a manager of one of our food processing factories in Taranaki and he stated that if it came across a biosecurity threat it would instantly be able to identify not only the animal but where it came from and the animals that were associated with it that came from the same locality. That would enable it to very very quickly isolate that biosecurity threat. That not only protects all of the farms or the animals that live in proximity to that situation but it also stops unnecessary wastage because of doubt about where that biosecurity threat may have spread to. So it protects our economic base. Also with this sort of technology that is proven it gives a degree of confidence to our markets so they can continue to purchase our products knowing that we have a very strong system in place.  
The NAIT scheme is a partnership that started before 2004—we understand that and we have heard that this evening—between industry and the Crown recognising the public interest and the private good of identifying and tracing animals. Industry across the board is highly supportive of this bill. The NAIT scheme brings the New Zealand primary sector up to speed with those of most other agricultural producing nations that already have in place such schemes. It is effectively an insurance policy to support New Zealand’s uniquely high livestock health status and biosecurity infrastructure and can enable other attributes of livestock to be recorded to improve productivity and on-farm management. This is I believe a tremendous step forward that will enable our primary sector to have great confidence as it forges ahead and continues to have a dominant place in the world market. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I begin the pleasurable task of speaking on the third reading of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill by acknowledging the Minister for Primary Industries the Hon David Carter. I want to express a little bit of disappointment in the House though having commended the Hon David Carter. He is exempted from this frustration.  
During the Committee stage of the debate—you Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch were actually present in the Chair at the time I recall—I mentioned to the Committee that David Carter and I had stood against each other in every election bar one since 1993 and I thought that may have been a record. I thought it was worthy of note. You know if it is in the  
Guinness Book of Records 
 we would both like to share that glory. I said to members of the Committee that actually I could not be bothered researching the issue. David Carter indicated the same lack of interest in researching it. We just want to take the credit. I asked some other members to take the time to do the work for us. You know not one single member has come back and said that David Carter and I hold the record in the New Zealand system for standing against each other. So we will just have to leave that at the moment as an unanswered question.  
In addition to that though the Hon David Carter did acknowledge former Ministers of Agriculture. That is not often done in this House and I think it was a good way to start the new parliamentary term particularly by acknowledging the Hon Jim Anderton who put a huge amount of effort into the initial stages of this work as did his predecessor the Hon Jim Sutton as well. The bill was as we have heard around in ideas stage only in 2004. It went through a lot of consultation. We had at that time an ACT takeover of Federated Farmers. Don Nicolson—oh the Hon John Banks is awake! You just have to say “ACT” and the eyes light up. That is good; he has remembered he is an ACT member of Parliament at the moment. One of your colleagues Mr Banks—Don Nicolson—was running Federated Farmers at the time. When he heard about this scheme to track animals he went ballistic. It was like a declaration of war on farmers throughout New Zealand and that raging continued until he became an ACT candidate. Fortunately for Federated Farmers he moved out of that position and fortunately for the good of the country he did not get elected to sit alongside Mr Banks in Parliament. But there was huge opposition at that stage; nevertheless the bill continued.  
David Carter picked it up it was referred to a select committee and from my reading of the Primary Production Committee report very rigorous consideration was given to this bill. I want to note particularly the chairman of the select committee Shane Ardern who has spoken earlier in this debate. My recollection of reading the report is that four members of that select committee who in my view—even though I was not on it but from reading the report—worked quite hard on the detail of this legislation are no longer in the House either through their own choice or the choice of the voters in their electorates. So I want to acknowledge my two parliamentary colleagues from Christchurch Brendon Burns and Jim Anderton also my colleague Ashraf Choudhary and National Party MP Sandra Goudie. They were on this select committee at the time; they are not here in Parliament any more. Obviously they cannot contribute in the debate and I think their work should be at least noted.  
We have looked at the content of the bill in some detail but the area that I think we have not looked to enough is the future potential of this legislation not just across deer and cattle which it will currently cover but across a much broader area: positioning New Zealand to be at the cutting edge and leading in what consumers actually want. I think it was Jonathan Young who just resumed his seat who mentioned this fact as well. I think more could be made of it. It is really important for the New Zealand economy that we are seen not to be following other countries—as we unfortunately are in this particular tracking process—but actually leading a response to what consumers want because they are the people who are going to make us successful or not. If we are not providing product in a way that consumers want and look to in the future—if we are not what they seek—we will have much harsher competition than we already have.  
What consumers want to know is where the product comes from. They want to know that it is safe they want to know if we are talking about meat that it has been raised in a way that meets their ethical standards and they want to know that it has not been raised in a way that causes huge damage to the environment. That point I think we miss out on quite substantially. We already do it in other areas. We do it in respect of apples. If you buy an apple overseas eat it and say “I think this apple is contaminated. I think it might have some residual spray on it.” you can take that apple in get it tested for the residual spray and our New Zealand marketers can trace the apple back not just to New Zealand but actually to the very row of the orchard that that apple came from. That can give overseas consumers huge confidence in the safety of our product and that is the sort of marketing that we could use for the National Animal Identification and Tracking system and apply it to what consumers will want now and in the future.  
My colleague Grant Robertson talked about a project that he worked on with the Hon Simon Upton some years ago at a very pleasant university in Dunedin Otago University doing what I think was a particularly tastelessly named project called Paddock to Plate—but as a vegetarian I would see that as a little bit tasteless. But actually it was very very substantial and good work that Grant Robertson and Simon Upton did and again it was looking at the traceability of various products and how that could be used to give consumers both within New Zealand but also overseas a higher level of confidence in the ethical standards the safety the security and the environmental standards of the product that they were eating. 
 We can do the same with Icebreaker. Icebreaker can tell you where the wool came from for any garment that you purchase from it and it says that is a huge marketing tool for overseas customers. And we know tragically that Fonterra is very well aware of the importance of being able to trace the source of its milk and milk products due to the disastrous situation that we had in China not very many years ago. So this is a model that is initially set up to provide just basic safety standards.  
We know how important this industry is to us. If we do have—and heaven forbid that we ever do have—an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or any other sort of disease within this farming area we will want to know as quickly as possible where each animal has been and any of these traceability elements are of course important to that. But from my perspective this is much more important in looking at future opportunities and the needs of consumers.  
Members of the House will recall last year or the year before a programme on television that has been quite harshly reviewed since its initial outburst into the conversation particularly in the social media. It snuck filming equipment in to a pig farm and exposed some of what we would call the more unethical practices in farming pigs. What every single consumer—according to reports anyway but jolly near every single consumer—of pork after that programme asked their butcher or their supermarket was “How are these pigs raised? Are they raised like in that dreadful programme on television?”. So even in the New Zealand context—where we are very familiar with our own farms we know the high standards that are kept on most farms and we are familiar with farming even if we are city-based people—having that familiarity raised an important ethical issue and people started saying “Where did this come from?”.  
In conclusion I am a little surprised at the contribution from Richard Prosser. I want to congratulate him on his election to Parliament—we need more Cantabrians boosting up the quality within this House—but I was puzzled at his contribution. I actually thought he said at the start that he was standing in support of the legislation and then he rapidly moved on to explain why he was opposed to it. I could not understand the logic. Well I actually could not find the logic in the argument that he presented to be honest. I do think that this is something that is— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member; her time has expired.  
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch for the opportunity to speak tonight on this bill the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill and I do so in support of the bill unequivocally. Reflecting on the comments from colleagues across the House and the importance that Jim Sutton and Jim Anderton played in initiating this bill I would like to inform the House that 2004 when these people had these very original ideas was the year that this sort of system was introduced in the European Union. It has a system called TRACES the Trade Control and Expert System which tracks movements of livestock both within the EU and from third countries into the EU.  
It is also worth reflecting that around this time the Australians had their own system. It is called the National Animal Identification System. It traces animals from birth to slaughter. The Australians do this because—as some members have already mentioned tonight—having a system like this improves access for Australian produce to export markets and also contributes to food safety.  
The Americans also have a system and I reflect on Damien O’Connor’s list of countries that he mentioned and that have systems like Argentina Mexico and Korea. All of those countries export into America. So if you want to do that you have really got to abide by American rules which cover cattle poultry horses donkeys sheep goats pigs and all other animals. It is worth reflecting that we are talking about just beef and deer in this legislation at this point but other countries manage to include all of their productive animals except household pets. 
 Of course Jim Anderton was the Minister of Agriculture who in 2004 said “Don’t worry about the productive part of the economy. Let’s microchip dogs.” and that caused a furore at least in my electorate. The goal in the American system is to be able to trace within 48 hours of identifying an animal that is unwell where that animal has been and how it has been moved and therefore contribute to disease control. So I support this bill because it is critical for our export markets and being critical for our export markets it is going to give us higher export returns.  
I would say to my colleague in the New Zealand First Party who was standing to oppose this bill and said we should be responding to market forces that this system already operates among many farmers in the Wairarapa in my electorate and particularly for exporting into the American market. Those farmers who supply traceable meat right back from an individual farm to the American market get a high premium for doing so. So the returns are already there for the innovative and progressive farmers who have introduced this system without legislation.  
I think it is really important that we encourage farmers to engage with traceability because if you are going to get a higher price for your product you are going to get a better return at your farm gate. If you do that then you are going to contribute to growing the economy and that is a clear priority of this Government. We want to grow this economy we want the boat to go faster and we want that because we want a better standard of living for everybody in this country. We will all benefit from that outcome.  
It is worth keeping in mind that this scheme will become compulsory for all farmers—myself included—for their beef animals on 1 July of this year and next year I think on 1 March for deer. I think it is probably inevitable that within the next few years we will see this scheme being extended to other animals in this country particularly those that we need to push into export markets.  
It is interesting for a second too to just recall the comments of my colleague in the Labour Party Ruth Dyson talking about apple traceability. She is absolutely right in what she is talking about but I have begun to get complaints from apple growers in my electorate who are complaining about the high cost of meeting biosecurity requirements in exporting products into the Australian market. Basically I am told it costs you $200 to get an 18 kilogram carton of apples through into the Australian market. That is the cost of meeting the biosecurity system.  
We do not want to get into that situation with beef and sheep meat exports and I think that this bill and the system that is being implemented is really going to be very cost efficient for livestock animals. It is going to increase the returns for export markets. That will benefit all New Zealanders and I have no hesitation in supporting the bill. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to take this call on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Bill noting that the MP for Wellington Central Grant Robertson previously took a call on the Labour side to underscore that our support for this bill reflects our caucus position right around the country. So as the member for New Lynn in west Auckland can I say that I am delighted to be able to support it too for a number of great reasons including that we have plenty of animals in west Auckland to trace. Just watch  
Outrageous Fortune 
 and you will know what I mean.  
Now we did challenge earlier the member for Auckland Central to take a call on behalf of National and we have yet to hear from her. We assume that National members in the inner city are similarly committed to this bill but we would love to hear from her too.  
It is a few years ago now that I visited the AgResearch institution at Ruakura and was able to see some of the early development of this project then based on the application of radio frequency ID tags to livestock. It was around 2004 when the then Labour Government first seriously kicked this off with AgResearch and it is a delight to see this now maturing to the point that we are passing legislation on a multipartisan basis today in the House.  
There are a number of really good reasons why we support the bill and I could not agree more strongly with the previous speaker Mr Hayes who said it is because we all want to see the boat go faster. We all want to raise New Zealand’s standard of living and we want to see our primary sector in particular increase in productivity and value. It delivers that because of quality assurance because of pest and disease management because of a brand premium and because of the basis of further innovation in the future. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.