Volume 684 Week 24 - Wednesday 26 September 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 684 Week 24 - Wednesday 26 September 2012 
[Sitting date: 26 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5647. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 26 September 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network Commonwealth Parliament 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network Committee from the Parliament of Australia led by the Chair Robert Oakeshott is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Actions 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to Kim Dotcom and the inquiry into the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my full statements in the context in which they were given. 
David Shearer 
: When did the Government Communications Security Bureau begin surveillance of Kim Dotcom and when did it realise it was acting illegally? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the memorandum spells out exactly when that work began—if the member gives me a moment. It was 16 December 2011 and it ended on 20 January 2012. The Government Communications Security Bureau recognised the error a few days before it told me—I think it was about 5 to 7 days before it told me. 
David Shearer 
: Who first told him of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s illegal surveillance and approximately what date was that? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It was Monday 17 September when the Government Communications Security Bureau came over to advise me there had been an error. 
David Shearer 
: Is he aware of any involvement by staff from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the SIS or the National Assessments Bureau in the Dotcom case; if so what involvement was that? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not sure about the latter two the SIS and the National Assessments Bureau. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet may have been advised. I do not know that—I would have to go and check that—but it is possible it would have known in that period when I was told on Monday the 17th. 
David Shearer 
: Did he receive any advice from those agencies in the past 12 months in relation to the Kim Dotcom case? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Not in relation to this issue. I was informed of that only on 17 September. Whether there was earlier advice on extradition and other matters I am not sure. I do not think so. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the ministerial certificate signed by Bill English said that the Kim Dotcom communication intercepts “would likely prejudice the security of New Zealand” does he feel he should have been told well before by either Bill English or his own department? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. It is important to understand what the ministerial certificate is. The ministerial certificate is essentially a suppression order that was on the basis of an application by Kim Dotcom’s legal team to release the name of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s activity. It is not normal practice for us to do that. So because the bureau believed it had acted lawfully it asked the Acting Prime Minister to sign the ministerial certificate which avoided it having to make that public statement. 
David Shearer 
: Does he think he was providing proper democratic oversight of his agency when he did not receive advice of the Government Communications Security Bureau involvement in the Dotcom case in the past 12 months? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. It would be quite inappropriate for me to be involved in a police raid and if this member wants to one day be Prime Minister and direct the police—well that is a pretty interesting way he is going to go. It is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is sufficient. 
Economic Growth—Sustainable Growth and Higher Incomes 
2. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress is the Government making to ensure New Zealand’s economic growth is sustainable and supports jobs and higher incomes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I can report that the Government is making good progress. Since 2008 we have been working hard through our broad-based economic programme to support business competitiveness in areas such as the tax system exporting skills innovation infrastructure capital markets and resources. We are seeing good results. The economy is now growing moderately well compared with the rest of the world. A net 57000 more New Zealanders now have jobs than 2 years ago. Household saving is positive for the first time in more than a decade and total goods and services exported have increased 15 percent over the last 2 years. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How is the New Zealand economy performing according to the latest official gross domestic product statistics? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Statistics New Zealand last week of course reported the gross domestic product data for the June quarter 2012. They showed that the New Zealand economy grew 0.6 percent in the 3 months to 30 June and growth for the first 6 months of the year was 1.6 percent. The quarterly growth was reasonably broad-based including agriculture up 4.7 percent construction up 3.3 percent transport postal and warehousing up 2.7 percent and manufacturing up 0.8 percent. New Zealand’s annual growth rate of 2.6 percent to June 2012 was the highest growth rate since 2007 before the domestic recession the Canterbury earthquakes and the global financial crisis. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How does current progress in building a more productive and competitive economy compare with the situation in late 2008? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: New Zealanders can be reassured that New Zealand’s current economic situation is much healthier than it was in late 2008. Annual economic growth is up to 2.6 percent compared with negative 1.7 percent in December 2008. The number of people on the unemployment benefit has declined from a peak of 93000 at the height of the global financial crisis to 58000 in July of this year. The household savings rate is now in positive territory compared with negative 3 percent in 2008. The cost of living is flat with CPI inflation only 1 percent in the year to June 2012 compared with 5.1 percent in 2008. The New Zealand sharemarket is at a 4-year high and the average floating mortgage interest rate is 5.7 percent compared with almost 11 percent in 2008. This all shows that New Zealand is in pretty good shape compared with most other developed countries. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What reports has he seen on new projects that would create further investment and jobs? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Minister sees reports every day and just yesterday he has seen a report on a project in regard to the Bathurst Resources escarpment mines project near Westport. This project would apparently immediately create 225 new jobs and incomes for workers and families on the West Coast. Unfortunately it is being held up by ongoing litigation. Yesterday the Minister saw a report calling for objectors to the mine to withdraw their appeals and consider the economic future of the West Coast. It prevailed upon various groups to join the call. As yet the Minister has seen no reports that the Labour Party the local Labour MP the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union or the Greens will support— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think the answer has gone on quite long enough. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the 8 percent decline in exports in the year to August announced by Statistics New Zealand just today and Treasury’s prediction that our external deficit will get even worse when will he accept that his plan is deficient costing exports and jobs and what is sustainable about that? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I would point out to the member that New Zealand’s exports have grown substantially since his Government left office and I would point out that the balance of payments deficit the external deficit is considerably lower than when his Government left office. But I suppose it is all relative. We know that this Government is a better economic manager. 
Hon David Parker 
: When exports are declining local businesses are closing and thousands of Kiwis are losing their jobs and heading to Australia why does he sit on his hands and pretend there is nothing he can do about our inflated currency? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think I hear the printing presses cranking up on the Labour Party side but I would point out to the member that he is incorrect. The decline in manufacturing jobs in New Zealand occurred under the previous Government and through the global financial crisis. Over the last 2 years the number of manufacturing jobs has actually grown. 
Manufacturing Sector Jobs—Confidence in Minister for Economic Development and Effect of Monetary Policy 
3. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Economic Development in light of the fact that there have been nearly 40000 net job losses in the manufacturing sector in the four years to June 2012? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I do have confidence in the Minister for Economic Development. In fact having listened to his answers before I have even more confidence in him. But I would dispute the member’s use of statistics. According to the household labour force survey the number of people employed in the manufacturing sector has actually remained quite steady since the beginning of 2009 fluctuating between 245000 and 255000 people depending on the season. In fact over the last 2 years employment in manufacturing has actually gone up a little. It is true that in the past there has been a decline in manufacturing jobs in New Zealand. That decline was shameful and it happened between 2005 and 2008. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he have confidence in his Minister when Statistics New Zealand figures show that nearly 100 skilled manufacturing workers are leaving this country every week annual exports of manufactured goods have fallen by nearly $2 billion or over 12 percent in the past 4 years and manufacturing’s contribution to economic output has fallen by nearly $3 billion or over 9 percent since 2008? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I would dispute some of those facts but what I would say is I would go back to the most rigorous form of measuring employment in the economy and in relation to the manufacturing sector. That is the household labour force survey. It shows that in the time that we have been in office employment has been pretty static. As I say it has not moved enormously. What I would also say is this Government is actually trying to build competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. That is why we want to have 90-day probationary periods lower company taxes reform of research and development and the likes. And what I notice from that party is that time and again it resists all of those sensible changes to make New Zealand more competitive. So there is no point in crying wolf here in the Chamber and then going outside— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not about the Green Party’s policies. This was a very straight question to the Prime Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members should not interject when a point of order is raised. The member in asking his question inserted quite a lot of information into his question that the Prime Minister has disputed. He is at liberty to do that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Are companies like Nuplex Industries wrong when they say that the overvalued dollar is a reason why they are cutting skilled manufacturing jobs; and are half of the exporters wrong when they say that the high and volatile currency is hurting their business and their sales overseas? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: There is no question that the high exchange rate is hurting some exporters—no question about that. The Government has been actually making the same position quite clear for some time. It is not universal because against the Australian dollar actually we have been very competitive. So if we are to follow what the Labour Party and the Greens want to do we will start printing money to get the exchange rate down. They had better go and tell every New Zealand pensioner what they think of that because that means high inflation and that means an erosion of their savings. If the member wants to be in a Government that prints money well that is an interesting way to go. It did not work that well for the Germans. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When will the Government wake up to the fact that most of our trading partners are taking active steps to devalue their currencies which is hurting New Zealand’s exporters and manufacturers because they are actively intervening to lower their currencies and the fact that the Government’s policy of doing nothing around the currency is a recipe for more job losses and a hollowing out of New Zealand’s manufacturing capacity? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think what is true is that a lot of countries take different positions when it comes to exchange rate management. So when the member says countries are doing all sorts of different things to devalue their dollar well that would vary depending on who you are looking at. In the case of Australia yes Australia has sold Australian dollars and intervened in the exchange rates. In the Reserve Bank’s latest annual report if you have a look at it—I urge the member to go and have a look—have a look at what the market-to-market valuation of those sales are. When it comes to China it happens to have trillions of dollars in reserves and it is not a capital importer like New Zealand. If the member wants to go and have a look at Switzerland and see how successful it has been at defending the Swiss franc at 1.20 against the euro he is welcome to do that. All of these things are voodoo economics that do not work. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a paper from JBWere from the director of the investment strategy group Bernard Doyle which states that New Zealand is out on its own in running orthodox monetary policy. 
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. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a paper from the IMF chief economist who says that the days of simply targeting inflation with monetary policy are over. 
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. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How long does this Government think it can keep playing by the rules of 1980s neo-liberalism—the rules so loved of currency speculators—when the rest of the world is adopting modern policies to develop their economies and create manufacturing jobs? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I say this is a Government that is working hard to create manufacturing jobs. I would have strong issue— 
Hon Member 
: How? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well at least we were not the Government that was collapsing between 2005 and 2008. I would add that I have real issue with the characterisation that the member has that somehow New Zealand’s monetary policy is out of whack with that of other countries. Charles Chauvel chaired the Finance and Expenditure Committee as part of the old Government in 2008 and what it found was we had world’s best practice—world’s best practice. Then there are 20 other countries that have a very similar approach to inflation targeting as we do including all the majors. And the only change that has seriously ever come up with all the reviews—and there has been four of them from memory—about monetary policy in New Zealand has been the view that is held by some people that there should be a committee deciding about the exchange rate rather than a single person in the form of the governor. That is it. There is nothing very odd about the way New Zealand manages monetary policy. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: As the rest of the world moves beyond our rather outdated monetary policy framework and the IMF—the International Monetary Fund—has recommended moving beyond this simplistic and outdated monetary policy that he has does he plan that New Zealand will be the last Government standing on the planet that remains a devotee of the neo-liberal religion or will we adopt modern monetary policy? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I reject the proposition that it is outdated. Secondly I think we need to understand what the member is telling the House just in case he ever gets anywhere near an opportunity to implement things. So he wants to actively intervene in the exchange rate to get it down. That is what he is telling New Zealanders. Well by the way while he wants to talk about people who are involved in the currency market yep when I went into the currency market the US dollar was 320 yen approximately; today it is 80. The Japanese Government has lost billions and billions and billions of dollars intervening the whole way down and that pattern is pretty much the same across every reserve bank. If the member wants to print money and have rounds of quantitative easing which is what the Americans and the Europeans are doing fair enough but just understand what the economic implication of that is and that is basically much higher inflation— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has been allowed to do this not just today but on previous days: to suggest that Opposition parties want to print money. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is not remotely a point of order. The member wishes to debate an issue. He will sit down. The member will resume his seat. That is not remotely a point of order. The member is trying to use—[ 
Interruption 
] The member—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The House will come to order. The member will get control of himself. The member was seeking to debate what the Prime Minister had said by way of a point of order. That is totally outside the Standing Orders and the member knows that. I allowed the Prime Minister to go on a little longer because the question was a little longer but I think it was a sufficient answer in the end. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speakers have long ruled that Ministers are not allowed to make up policies for other parties— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is enough of this. The Prime Minister did not allege. The Prime Minister—if the member checks back on the Prime Minister’s answer—said “if” people want to do things not that they were proposing to do things. The Prime Minister was quite careful. If I heard him correctly he said that if the member and parties want to print money for example this will be the consequence. He was quite careful in his language. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My recollection is that he said that if the member got close to the Treasury benches then he would. That was his assertion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not going to take this matter further. The member has a further supplementary question should he wish to use it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Did he or his Minister for Economic Development instruct the National Party members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to block an inquiry into the crisis in manufacturing or is the National Party attitude of doing nothing so deeply imbedded that they just did it for themselves? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I certainly did not instruct them but this is an instruction I would like to give: why does this House not get behind and clear away all of the objections and let us have the Denniston mine operating so those miners on the West Coast can have a job. But no the Green Party is all— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Now the Prime Minister is accusing—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. Now the Prime Minister is accusing another party of certain things. 
Business Growth Agenda—Effect on Job Losses 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What impact has his Business Growth Agenda had on Nuplex Industries Solid Energy Kawerau and Tiwai Point and how many job cuts have been announced there in the last two months? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government’s Business Growth Agenda is undertaking initiatives in skills innovation natural resources capital infrastructure and market access to assist all New Zealand firms including those named by the member to be more competitive on the world stage after our tradable sector declined through the latter half of the last decade. Of course the impact on individual firms at any point in time depends on the international state of the industries in which they operate. Job losses at the firms mentioned by the member are of course a matter of public record. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Rather than choosing to answer what was quite a straight question of how many job cuts have been announced in specific industries or companies in the last 2 months the Minister chose instead to give an answer about a previous Government—or an allegation about a previous Government. If he had that information he might have sought advice—the question was on notice—and he could have answered the question that was actually given. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has some grievance in that the Minister was asked about how many job cuts have been announced there in the last 2 months. I do not think saying that it is on the public record is actually that informative for the House. I would ask the Minister if he has that information please to tell the House. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do have some information to hand. My understanding is that according to media reports the numbers are 80 440 120 and 100. Of course they are contrasted with recent announcements on the positive side by companies such as Xero Orion Health Tait Communications Methanex The Warehouse— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister is trifling with question time. He deliberately did not provide the answer despite the fact that the question was on notice. He had the information provided to him by the ministry and he had it at hand. Now he is using— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! The member is criticising—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will resume his seat. The member is criticising the Minister. It is up to the Speaker to deal with whether or not the Minister has answered the question. I have done that. I made it clear to the Minister that I was not satisfied with the answer provided to the question on notice. The Minister did go on to put some context around the answer and the figures he was giving and that is not unreasonable lest a false impression be created. Ministers naturally have some licence to put context around answers but I think he had made his point sufficiently. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The way the Minister has been allowed to answer this question effectively means that he has two long-winded answers in respect of one primary question when he should have had the opportunity to answer only once and to do it properly then. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to read the question carefully. It asks “What impact has his Business Growth Agenda had on”— 
Hon David Parker 
: Don’t patronise me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member read the question carefully he would realise that actually it asks an opinion. There is no one who can actually establish any particular facts about the impact of the Government’s policy on those particular businesses. So the question seeks an opinion—and I invite the member to reflect on that—and the Minister gave an opinion in answer. The piece of the question that sought facts was the last part of the question and that is why I required the Minister to advise the House of that information because that was the part that sought the facts. I just invite the member to think through the question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that the Minister has revealed that he does have the information to hand I would invite him if it is an official document that he is quoting from to please table that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member had listened he would recollect that the Minister was quoting from newspaper articles. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did the Minister say that the Spring Creek lay-offs are because “coal prices are on a severe roller coaster around the world” when Bathurst Resources’ Denniston mine faces exactly the same world coal prices yet he thinks that that one is economic? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I would be happy to explain that for the member. There are about two or three reasons why the cost of production is different at the Denniston field and in fact the Buller field more generally where Denniston and Stockton are both located. It is because the coal seams are close to the surface and run laterally and also because they are open-cast mines and as I understand it there is not a lot of methane gas as distinct from the Grey fields which are underground mines by definition. They have very complex geology and are quite difficult. So you have a production cost at the Denniston mine that is much lower than the production cost at the Spring Creek Mine which means that the different mines are much more economic at different prices. I understand that the private sector investors are more than ready to make their investment in Denniston provided of course they get the opportunity to do so. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of the answer the Minister has just given could he please clarify whether he believes that it is more in the national interest to pursue open-cast coalmining on conservation land or to extract the maximum long-term value from an existing deep mine shaft at Spring Creek? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member is actually recommending that in lieu of jobs that would be successful in the open-cast mine he would prefer the Government to subsidise an— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member’s question was fairly clear. What he was asking the Minister was whether he considers it to be more in the public interest to extract coal from an open-cast mine on conservation land if I remember correctly compared with extracting from existing deep-extraction—or whatever the correct term is—low-impact mining. It is an opinion he is seeking: which in the Minister’s opinion is preferable in the public interest? That is what the Minister should focus on. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes I believe that it is preferable in the public interest to encourage companies that can have profitable operations to hire workers from the West Coast to succeed in the mining industry as an alternative to attempting to subsidise mines that have proved to be not economic at current world prices. [ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely. And if the member does not think so then he needs to take the word “economic” out of the title “economic development”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of the answer that the Minister has just given can he explain to the House why he maintains that the Spring Creek lay-offs are simply the result of market forces when Solid Energy’s own documents show that they are a deliberate part of a strategy to ready the company for sale—a privatisation process that is being driven by his own Government—and why did that Minister not do the miners and their families the courtesy of even reading the recovery proposal that they submitted to his Government? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am a bit nonplussed here. He is basically saying that a company that has got $300 million worth of debt and has lost $100 million to $120 million on this mine should somehow keep it operating and yet Labour is not stepping up to join the Government’s proposal to say to the objectors to the other mine which is economic that they should perhaps drop their objections so that they can actually have economic jobs on the West Coast. It is just unbelievable. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I seek leave to table a document called the Solid Energy  
Design Pack 
 dated 29 August 2012 which states very clearly that the key principles of the proposed structure for Solid Energy are to in summary meet the Government’s objectives of its mixed-ownership model. 
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. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon David Cunliffe supplementary—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I say to both—well mainly the National Party front-bench that I want to hear the Hon David Cunliffe’s supplementary question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has he delayed the release date of the natural resources Business Growth Agenda report because after the public relations failure of the last two releases officials have been tasked with urgently adding new content; if he denies that the release date has been delayed then when is the scheduled release date? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I mean I am sorry you are a trainspotter Mr Cunliffe. You really are. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think I can anticipate the member’s point of order. I say to the Minister that that is not the way to assist with good order in the House and not the way for a Minister to answer a question. He has been asked about the release date of a certain report and the Minister should answer the question. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The reason I referred to him in that manner is that there is nothing about that supposition that is correct. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Despite the Minister’s inimitable style the question was quite straight. It asked him whether the release date had been delayed and it asked him if not what the scheduled release date was. He has denied it was delayed. He has not addressed that part of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness with a supplementary question the Minister does have to answer only one part but if the Minister had the information on the release date it would be helpful. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not releasing a date today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He is not prepared to release that date. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question on notice was what the impact of his Business Growth Agenda was on a number of entities including Solid Energy—the relevant report we are told being the natural resources chapter. It was therefore on notice for him to be asked about that. It is perhaps a surprise to the House that the Minister has no idea— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No order! Order! No no there is no reason why the Minister should have anticipated that specific question about a report given that primary question. 
Parole—Reduction in Unnecessary Hearings 
5. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What steps is the Government taking to reduce the stress on victims caused by unnecessary parole hearings? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have today introduced legislation to implement the Government’s post-election action plan to reduce the number of unnecessary parole hearings where the offender has little prospect of release. This will help to reduce the stress caused to victims by having to attend unnecessary parole hearings and relive their traumatic experiences when the offender is not genuinely ready for parole. It is estimated that these changes will mean 800 fewer parole hearings each year. 
Ian McKelvie 
: How will the changes to the parole regime operate? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Parole Amendment Bill increases the time between parole hearings from once every year to once every 2 years and for those serving indeterminate sentences or sentences of 10 or more years the maximum time between parole hearings increases from 3 years to 5 years. Inmates will be encouraged to comply with offender plans which will have agreed goals that aim to reduce the likelihood of future offending. Hearing dates will be aligned with the completion of milestones. Early hearings can be held for offenders who achieve early completion of goals. 
Hon John Banks—Confidence and Police Investigation into Electoral Returns 
6. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House yesterday “The police statement quite clearly said that there was insufficient evidence that there is a statute of limitations and that he has complied with the law.”; if so where in the police statement do they say that Mr Banks complied with the law? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I stand by my statements that the police statement quite clearly says that there is insufficient evidence and that there is a statute of limitations. What I should have said was that I believe that Mr Banks complied with the law. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does submitting a false return which the Prime Minister acknowledged Mr Banks did constitute complying with the law? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well no charges have been laid against Mr Banks. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think that Mr Banks receiving a cheque by hand in an envelope from Skycity chief executive Nigel Morrison having a receipt for that cheque sent to Skycity and then listing the donation as anonymous complies with the law? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Quite possibly. That is my belief. If you look at the police statement that they issued on 26 July it stated that “they established that the return was compiled by a campaign volunteer who assured Mr Banks it was accurate …”. As the police said in their statement there was insufficient evidence and although they concluded yes that the return was false they could not prove that Mr Banks would have known that when he signed it. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is supplying a false return an offence under the Local Electoral Act 2001? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It depends on the timing but there is no particular belief that Mr Banks has broken the law. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that in the past you have been wary of Ministers offering legal opinions but on this particular matter the Prime Minister has offered legal opinions over the past 2 or 3 weeks and I think in that context the question I asked was a direct one and a reasonable one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the dilemma—I mean I accept the member’s point that the Prime Minister has not answered his question. But the issue is that Ministers are not required to—that was a particular question that asked for a legal opinion on whether something complied with the law. If a Minister chooses to give—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! If a Minister chooses to make some comment on it or give a legal opinion that is their business but to ask them directly for a legal opinion I do not think I can force a Minister to give a legal opinion. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why is the editorial writer of the  
Dominion Post  
wrong when they said last week: “Mr Banks has now lost all credibility and Mr Key’s will be steadily eroded the longer he stands by him.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I accept the member at his word. In truth if you want to run the country off editorials then I could pull out a few about Mr Shearer and how he is a lost cause if you want. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why does he not accept the sworn statement of Greg Towers that Mr Banks told him on 8 February this year that he could not help Dotcom because of the election support? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said the other day support can take various forms. Mr Towers as I saw in the  
Dominion Post 
 also said that he was unaware of any donation from Dotcom to Mr Banks. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why is he continuing to protect Mr Banks when sworn statements from the chief executive of Skycity and a senior partner at Simpson Grierson show that he lied to the New Zealand public while he was a Minister of the Crown? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I would reject that as the police statement says there is insufficient evidence. As the police statement also says—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —although the return was false they could not prove that Mr Banks had known and what the police statement says is that they have established that the return was compiled by the campaign volunteer. You see the problem is that those members cannot join the dots enough and they just do not like it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that it is extraordinarily unusual for a Minister in this House or a member to be accused of being a liar or to have lied and for you to do nothing about it from the Chair. That is extraordinary. I have never seen that before. I am asking you: are you going to act in this case or not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point the member raises is an interesting point. The member may notice that it was its use in a question that I did not object to. I did start to object to the interjections accusing a member of lying but I think that in a question the language being used is hugely important. If a member were to construct a question that included the word “lie” or “lied” in a way that was outrageous—that accused a member of outrageous lying or something like that—I would certainly object but I think we can get too precious about some of these things. One should remember that the Minister being questioned has the chance to respond. I think it is a very different situation. Interjections should not be responded to and that is why I do not accept—members should desist from interjecting that any member lied. I will not tolerate that. But I think that the wording of questions so long as the construction is careful and the question does not make an outrageous assertion I have not—the same thing came up last week I think from memory and I did not intervene. Part of the reason for that is that the Minister has the chance to respond in answer but I would intervene if the construction of the question was such that it in my view was outrageous. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot put my finger on this because it is outside of the Standing Orders but if a member of this House is not in a position to defend himself it surely behoves somebody in this House including perhaps you to do that for him if it is capable to be done which is my point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that it is an interesting point that the member raises. But I invite him to reflect on the fact that where a question is being asked and as long as the language is moderate the Minister being questioned has the chance to defend the other Minister if it is involving another Minister and the member may note that the right honourable Prime Minister has done that. He has defended the Minister at some length. So it is an interesting issue. I certainly do not want to hear members accusing other members across the House of lying. I do not want to hear that at all. I do not want to hear accusations like that being made even in debate. In question time as long as the construction is careful and moderate I am certainly prepared to listen to the advice of the House on it but I do not want to keep intervening all the time. To me the important thing is the construction of the question and whether it is making an outrageous assertion. I mean there seems to be where there are questions around the accuracy of information—certainly in this particular document there is a question here; there seem to be some arguments around whether or not the information in it is accurate. To me to pussyfoot too much around the language I think is just being excessively pedantic as long as the use of the language is not outrageous. 
Benefits—Adequacy 
7. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Does she think it acceptable that the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders reliant on government benefits face the predicament each and every week such as the case of Sam Kuha in Kaikohe who is left to survive on $18.00 a week for food? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 To the first part no I do not. But to the second part the information that is being reported is factually incorrect. They are not the circumstances of Sam Kuha. The member in fact puts me in a difficult situation because those members are the first to kind of criticise me when I do put the right correct information out there so I will just state that it is not correct and that is not the amount that he is living on each week. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister agree with the view of Dr Lance O’Sullivan who says that it is an appalling state of affairs that people are forced to take extreme measures such as going on hunger strike to bring to her attention the crippling levels of poverty that her benefit cuts have caused which are leading to more and more poor children going without food every week; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There have not been benefit cuts to start with. The other part is that actually my office has been in touch with the doctor this week to make sure we are giving that right kind of support to Mr Kuha. Particularly they have had at least four different interventions with him. He is entitled to other support. We would like to get that to him. If he could just make himself available I believe they have plans to home-visit him on Friday. I think that is the right thing to do. I hope we can work together so that we find a solution for him. 
Hone Harawira 
: What has she done to ensure that the hunger strike of Sam Kuha undertaken in protest at the Government’s welfare policies which he says are actually hurting children more than anyone else does not lead to a severe disintegration of his health and well-being; if nothing has yet been done what does she intend to do? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think I did just address that but I am happy to again. Work and Income has been in contact actually with his agent and has met with them I believe at least twice but there has in fact been about five meetings from 14 September and a letter was sent out to him today addressing it. I also instructed someone to make contact with the doctor because I thought maybe we could get other supports around him that were not coming from Work and Income. There are issues I think of accessibility because of his disability and there is other assistance that could come actually from other agencies. So we are pretty keen to make sure that that is all coming round him. As I say there is I believe—I have been told—a meeting this Friday where the budget adviser and others are going to meet with him at his home and make sure that he is getting all of his entitlements. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. How is cutting the benefits of the parents of children who are living in poverty and those who are struggling with drug issues a long-term solution for beneficiary dependence? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I suppose particularly up north—because those are the sorts of cases we are talking about—there are jobs up there that people could take on if they were not actually drug dependent. 
Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: Where? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: For many it will be—well particularly in forestry and I can show the member articles in newspapers about employers who say that if people were to pass a drug test they could give them a job. The other part of that is that if they do have an addiction they can get help and this might be the first time actually that their addiction is identified. That might be a good thing as we can get other services around them to help them with their addiction issues. If they have addiction issues their benefits will not be cut. 
Child Protection—Role of Social Workers 
8. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What difference do social workers make in protecting our most vulnerable children from abuse and neglect? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Around 1300 Child Youth and Family social workers deal with more than 400 notifications of abuse and neglect every day in New Zealand. Social workers often bear the brunt of criticism when things go wrong but the fact is they do the job because they care and every day they do the best they can to protect New Zealand. Ultimately they save children’s lives. Today is National Social Workers Day and I think it is our chance to thank them for the job they do on behalf of our children and most vulnerable families. 
Mike Sabin 
: How is the Government supporting more services to families who might benefit from working with a social worker? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I have said we know that social workers can and do make a difference with our families and particularly those who are most vulnerable. That is why this Government has provided extra funding to increase the number of front-line social workers. There will be 80 new front-line social workers with 16 new supervisors and more than half of that number are already at work now. We have also announced an extra 149 full-time social workers in our low-decile schools. Most of them are on board working and making a difference. 
Mike Sabin 
: What have been some of the recent data trends of New Zealand’s child abuse statistics? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It has been quite interesting. In the most recent Child Youth and Family figures we have seen the first drop in substantiated cases of abuse for at least the last 8 years—granted by only 4 percent in findings of substantiated abuse. However notifications have gone up—those that required further action—so follow-up went up but actual substantiated cases have gone down. I think it is too soon to tell whether that will continue whether it is a trend but it would be fair to say that it is if nothing else encouraging. Also Child Youth and Family met or exceeded 97 percent of its targets in the year 2011-12 including notification response compared with in 2005-06 where it was meeting only about 42 percent. So I mean it has doubled its response time and we are seeing fewer substantiated cases of abuse. 
Television Public Service Channels—Captioning 
9. 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: Will he consider using regulation to increase New Zealand’s levels of captioning for free-to-air television; if not why not? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I have considered this but I do not think that regulation is necessary at the moment given the large increase in voluntary captioning by free-to-air broadcasters. For example 100 percent of prime-time Television One and TV2 is now captioned. 
Mojo Mathers 
: Is he aware that Australia has committed to 100 percent captioning for all free-to-air TV channels from 6 o’clock in the morning to midnight by the end of 2012 and will his Government commit to ensuring similar levels of captioning in New Zealand? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I am aware of that move in Australia. It is an admirable move and I fully encourage New Zealand broadcasters and entities in this space to follow their Australian cousins. 
Mojo Mathers 
: Does he believe that a hands-off approach to regulation will achieve full captioning in New Zealand given the low levels of captioning on TV3 during prime time which is only 53 percent according to figures from 2011? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: As I understand the question I do acknowledge that TV3 levels are lower than Television One and TV2 but I also note that total captioning hours have moved from 70 hours a week in 2000 to 240. In a competitive environment and market I am quite sure that those at MediaWorks TV3 will be paying attention to these questions. 
Mojo Mathers 
: Will he rule out pay-to-view companies such as Sky television receiving funding until free-to-air captioning is at an acceptable level? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I do understand that Sky particularly via Prime Television on free-to-view has been in discussions trying to gain assistance to provide captioning. I do also note that of its own volition it has invested funds in captioning in a very competitive market. I will repeat the answer to my previous questions: I am quite sure competitors in this space will take strong notice of today’s discussions and what the competitors are doing. 
Government Communications Security Bureau—Prime Ministerial Responsibility 
10. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he accept that under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 section 8(3) that the performance of the GCSB’s functions is in the absence of any warrant or vested authority subject to the control of the Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I agree on the wording of the legislation but as I said yesterday I am responsible for the direction and priorities of my agencies but I am not briefed nor would I expect to be briefed on every operation they undertake. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is he concerned that it took nearly 40 days for the Deputy Prime Minister to inform him of the signing of the ministerial certificate which withheld information from the public regarding Government Communications Security Bureau operations in the Dotcom raid? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because that was the litigation technique used. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When was his chief of staff first informed about the Deputy Prime Minister signing a ministerial certificate on 16 August which withheld information from the public regarding Government Communications Security Bureau operations in the Dotcom raid? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not exactly know but to the best of my knowledge it was on Monday the 17th when I knew. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordination comprising the police department the Government Communications Security Bureau the SIS the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade know about the Government Communications Security Bureau’s involvement in the Dotcom case; if so when? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am simply not in a position to understand whether those organisations knew that or not. What I do know is that the first I was aware of it was on Monday 17 September. Whether those other organisations had some information I am not sure. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister advised that he learnt of the ministerial certificate on the evening of 24 September. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No Monday the 17th. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. When he was asked yesterday he said “last night”—that was the 24th. It is in the  
Hansard 
. Now he says that the chief of staff knew on the 17th and he did too. Which answer is correct is what I am trying to find out now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well that is a very good question for the member to ask. It is not actually a point of order; it is a question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: All right. Mr Speaker I have got only a limited number of questions—we all know that. Righto. Did he seek an explanation from the Deputy Prime Minister on the evening of the 24th—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! There is a question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am happy for him to clear it up if he wants to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no the member is asking a question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: OK. Did he seek an explanation from the Deputy PM Mr English on the evening of 24 September for his not having told the Prime Minister about the substance of the ministerial certificate he signed on 16 August while acting in the Prime Minister’s stead? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the member’s dates are all wrong. I could be wrong but from memory Bill English met with the Government Communications Security Bureau as Acting Prime Minister on 17 August not 16 August. I was advised by the Government Communications Security Bureau on 17 September. I did a press conference this week which was on the 24th. The reason I did it on the 24th was that on the 17th  at the time I was told I immediately said— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We cannot get anywhere on this because the date on this certificate is 16 August not 17 August. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! There has been a bit of cross-purposes here I think and because I am uncertain I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: OK. Did he seek an explanation from the Deputy Prime Minister on the evening of 24 September as he told the House just 2 days ago for his not having told the Prime Minister about the substance of the ministerial certificate he had signed on 16 August which is the date on the certificate whilst acting in the Prime Minister’s stead? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not sure I would phrase it as I asked for an explanation. Obviously we had a discussion about it. He was of the view that the Government Communications Security Bureau would probably inform me of that matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Deputy Prime Minister in signing out the ministerial certificate on 16 August against a backdrop of Government Communications Security Bureau illegal activity was an attempt by the Deputy Prime Minister to cover up that illegality? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No that is nonsense. The advice that the Acting Prime Minister had at the time was that the Government Communications Security Bureau was acting lawfully. The certificate he signed was a suppression order for the courts. That was the advice and belief of the Government Communications Security Bureau. 
Schools Canterbury—Proposed Closures and Mergers 
11. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Are reports that she intends to write to Christchurch schools within the next fortnight to begin the formal consultation process required to close or merge them correct; if so what was the purpose of the “open consultation” process she began on 13 September? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 In answer to the first part of the question yes. In answer to the second part I made a deliberate decision to announce the proposals and give all 215 schools time to absorb the information before I started the formal consultation process for the much smaller group of schools that are directly affected in different ways. I do not resile from that decision. I am committed to genuine consultation and there have been no decisions made in advance of the full process. I have confidence that having these difficult conversations is in the best interests of the current and future learners of Canterbury and their families. I genuinely believe that we owe it to all students to build better educational facilities than were there before. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who did she consult about the specific closures mergers and consolidations proposed in her announcement of 13 September given the  
Directions for Education Renewal in Greater Christchurch 
 document makes it clear that consultation up to that point had been focused on “the future of education—from early childhood through to tertiary (not the future of individual schools or services/ facilities).”? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: That is what this phase of the consultation is on. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think I heard you ask “Who did she consult” indeed. The question asked who did the Minister consult given the statement made in a certain report that talked about consultation up to that point. The question was asking who was involved in that consultation. The member can repeat his question if the Minister— 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes please. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who did she consult about the specific closures mergers and consolidations proposed in her announcement of 13 September given the  
Directions for Education Renewal in Greater Christchurch 
 document makes it clear that consultation up to that point had been focused on “the future of education—from early childhood through to tertiary (not the future of individual schools or services/facilities).”? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I have made it clear so has the ministry and those documents do too that we have been going through phases of consultation which are becoming ever finer-grained. So those consultations were at the very high level—the first lot in October. They led to directions for consultation which were released in May from which we got further submissions and that has allowed us to put these proposals before these particular schools. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I suspect you know what the point of order is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do. 
Chris Hipkins 
: It was actually a relatively specific question. I know it was a long question but it was quite specifically about “Who did she consult”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is the crucial thing. The question actually contained some quotes in it to identify the period of consultation that the member was referring to in his question. But the Minister still has not answered his question. The only reference the Minister has made is that consultations took place at a high level. But “high level” is not actually telling the House who she consulted. I mean I think it is not unreasonable. The document says consultations took place and the question has asked who did the Minister consult up to that point. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point is that consultations taking place as they are quoted in that document relate to the particular consultations that took place. The member is—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the consultations that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: —took place were on the future of education in Christchurch from which we drew up a document that then went to the kinds of facilities and options that would be desirable— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is not really now a point of order. The Minister has acknowledged that consultations took place on the broader issues involved and the member asked who did the Minister consult in that. It is not unreasonable to ask that and Ministers are accountable for who they consult. That is a very clear issue of accountability. It may be ministry officials it may be school principals—anything whatever happened—but just to say “high level” is not really telling the House anything. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Drawing from the information that arose through the over 700 submissions we received as a context drawing from the data that has been collected by school by school assessments and drawing from ministry advice this next set of proposals has been developed for consultation. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will repeat only the first part of the question. The first part of the question says “Who did she consult about the specific closures mergers and consolidations proposed in her announcement of 13 September”. The Minister has had three goes but still has not actually addressed that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has a legitimate grievance. The question as he has boiled it down now is exactly what he asked. That is the substance of the question: who did the Minister consult prior to the announcement of the release of a certain document to do with mergers and closures and what have you in Christchurch. That is a fair question. Ministers are accountable for who they have consulted. It is not unreasonable for a member to ask that and so far we have not had any indication at all of who the Minister consulted. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: To pedantically use that term “consult” then I consulted specific people—[ 
Interruption 
] Well— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. She just cannot comment on your rulings like that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The Speaker is actually trying to assist the House in obtaining information and he does not need that sort of point of order interrupting. The Minister I think was about to give us some information. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I consulted the submissions that had been submitted. I consulted with ministry staff who in turn had consulted with ranges of individuals across the greater Christchurch Waimakariri and Selwyn districts. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Is she satisfied that a consultation time frame of 5 to 6 weeks as ministry officials have suggested will be sufficient for students parents teachers and others in the community to have their say particularly given it is likely to overlap with both school holidays and senior student exams; if so why? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The specifics of the details of consultation under the formal process will be advised to schools which should be the first to know and then I will take feedback from them. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again that was not actually my question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can see the member’s point of order. The question actually asked whether the Minister considered that 5 weeks was sufficient time for consultation—that is the question that was asked—given when holidays and exams occur. That was the question asked. It is an opinion. There is no specific answer but I would ask the Minister to try to answer it. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Well that presumes that the time period is accurate and what I have said is that the specifics of the consultation process to be engaged in have to be advised to schools and that is what is going to occur. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Ministry of Education and circulated to schools summarising a meeting on 20 September which states that the ministry’s—well I will not quote exactly but it is basically suggesting that the Minister’s time frame will be 5 to 6 weeks. 
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. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Does the Minister have confidence that she has accurate and adequate demographic information on which to base her decisions given the ministry’s own document  
Directions for Education Renewal in Greater Christchurch 
 states that “At this stage it is difficult to tell how many families have moved permanently …”; if so why? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes I am confident of the ministry’s advice because that advice is set in particular times. So for instance roll projections for next year are set on the basis of a specific roll count at a specific time in the knowledge that families move in and out and based on longer-term projections. So there is no one precise time at which everybody stays still except for the 5-yearly census. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: What specific data set or data sets are her proposals for closures mergers and relocations of Christchurch schools under her plans based on? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: They are based on roll returns and roll projections as well as local information provided through the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority as well as some information that has been— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Consultation! 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Thank you—and also from consultation. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I seek leave to table source data provided by the  
Christchurch Press 
 of the results of their online poll that indicate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Is this a press clipping? 
Chris Hipkins 
: No no. It is not available online. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not available—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Chris Hipkins 
: This is the source data of it which shows that 80 percent of the respondents believe that the handling of this situation by the Minister has either been poor or very— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection. Question No 12. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! That question is dealt with. I have called question No 12. 
Fuel Efficiency—Heavy Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Programme 
12. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What progress has the Government made on promoting fuel efficiency in heavy road vehicles? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Last week I launched the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority’s Heavy Vehicle Fuel Efficiency programme which will help fleet operators cut their fuel bills by 10 percent on average with some achieving savings of up to 20 percent. If all heavy vehicle fleets in New Zealand reduce their fuel bills by 10 percent nationwide savings could total $130 million each year. This initiative will help our vehicle fleet to become significantly more fuel efficient with the wider economy and the environment reaping the rewards. 
Mark Mitchell 
: How important is the heavy fleet sector for fuel efficiency? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Transport makes up around 40 percent of New Zealand’s energy use and New Zealand’s heavy vehicle fleet of 127000 makes up about a fifth of this. At an individual company level a fleet of 25 trucks using 1 million litres of fuel annually which is not unusual could realistically make savings of $130000 per annum. With a very competitive industry and with small profit margins these savings are very significant to the bottom line of companies. 
Questions to Members 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Effect on Exchange Rate 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 My question is to the member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill. What will the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill enable—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! I think the member has not finished asking his question yet. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was such a barrage over here that I could not hear—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! Order! The National backbench will come to order. I think the right honourable gentleman has a legitimate grievance. It was difficult to hear because of the level of noise and I do not think that is necessary at least on this first question. Andrew Williams may start his question again—question No. 1. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I actually deliberately stopped and I was hoping to gain your attention— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have invited the member to start his question again. He does not need to waste the time of the House. 
1. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
to the  
Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill 
: What will the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill enable the Reserve Bank to do to address the overvalued dollar? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 Our bill would enable the Reserve Bank to use a range of tools to address the problem of an overvalued exchange rate. The most direct way of course is by intervention. The last time the bank used its powers to intervene was in 2007 when the dollar reached US80c. The bank intervened the dollar came down and the bank made a profit of $411 million. However the bank would have to also make better use of supplementary stabilisation instruments such as for example reserve ratios or mortgage interest levies and other counter-inflationary measures intended to take pressure off the overvalued exchange rate. 
Andrew Williams 
: Is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill “populist garbage”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! Order! I apologise to the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I had actually called the member for a supplementary question but just so that everyone knows what has happened he has chosen to go to question No. 2. So we are now doing question No. 2. 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Commentary 
2. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill 
: Is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill “populist garbage”? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill) 
:  
Of course not. The honourable member who dismissed the Reserve Bank of New Zealand bill that we are talking about as populist garbage has portrayed his remarkable ignorance of New Zealand’s prevailing economic conditions and the issues that our bill is designed to address. On our side are for example the Federal Reserve the Bank of England the European Central Bank and a whole lot of other Governments that have made these substantial changes we advocate. And after 24 years of doing nothing it is well time to act. But of course that is the kind of response you will get from someone who arranged a radio licence deferral— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Order! That has nothing to do with the question asked whatsoever. 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Effect on Export Sector 
3. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill 
: What is the importance of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to New Zealand exporters? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 It is beginning to look like it is the only hope that they have currently got. For us to be internationally competitive the critical thing is the level of the dollar. Exporters have been struggling with a chronically overvalued exchange rate for years. You have got closures you have got cutbacks you have got all sorts of people losing their jobs you have got relocations offshore and you have got 54000 now leaving every year because we have failed to act in the national interest of an export-dependent economy. I hope before 17 October enough of rural New Zealand will have persuaded these recalcitrants to do their duty by their country. 
General Debate 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Meanwhile back in the real world the economy is growing 2.5 percent larger than it was this time last year and there are 57000 more jobs in the New Zealand economy than 2 years ago. Household saving is positive for the first time in more than a decade and total goods and services exports have increased dramatically over the last couple of years and all without getting the printing presses out and trying to print money like the desperate approach suggested by Mr Peters who incidentally never came up with it in all the time he has been in various Governments over the 20000-odd years he has been in Parliament. Nobody has come up with a proposal today that is a solution. The New Zealand economy is actually doing pretty well compared with most parts of the developed world—not as well as we would like. There are upsides and there are downsides. There are some people who are doing well and there are some people who are struggling—we understand that—because of the global financial crisis and what has been happening around the world and what has been happening in our own country in terms of the Christchurch earthquakes. 
 This week was a tough week down the West Coast with the news that the Spring Creek Mine is losing money and is uneconomic to keep open at current coal prices. That is very difficult. But there could be an upside. Just up the coast there is another mining project that is ready to go which is economic at current coal prices. There are private investors who want to invest in a new mine up the coast on the Denniston Plateau. They have consents but they also have appeals against those consents. Roughly the same number of jobs could be created at this new project as are being lost in the uneconomic underground mine in Spring Creek. That is the opportunity. 
So yesterday I called on the objectors to just once—just once in a special case—withdraw their objections to allow this mine to go ahead; to withdraw their objections and to assist. I suggested that the Labour Party supposedly in favour of jobs the Green Party supposedly in favour of jobs—and it wants to have a select committee hearing on manufacturing which is of course including coal—and the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union join me in that call. There has been a deafening silence. The union popped its head up and said: “Oh actually we support the Bathurst Resources mining application.” It popped its head up. I went back to it and said does that mean it supports my call for the objections to be withdrawn and there was a deafening silence from the union. It was not on the side of making the call to have those objections withdrawn. 
Where was the local MP? Where was one Damien O’Connor? Damien O’Connor was nowhere. I asked and there was no sign of any comment from Damien O’Connor about the importance of withdrawing the appeals and getting these jobs going on the Coast. And what about the leadership of the Labour Party the members who were on the steps of Parliament yesterday—on the steps of Parliament talking to the miners—but who have been deafening in their silence on calling for the appeals to be withdrawn? They have not done it. And then there is the Green Party which has cried crocodile tears about manufacturing jobs in the country. Where were Mr Hague and his colleagues when I suggested they talk to their mates in the environmental movement and suggest the appeals be withdrawn? They were absolutely nowhere. Their silence is deafening. It is absolutely appalling that on the one hand they say that they have got an interest in jobs but on the other hand they will keep really quiet—really quiet—when it comes to actually supporting this. Then there is Annette King who has absolutely no interest in it. So it is a very straightforward exercise. I would welcome the support of the Green Party and the Labour Party. The local MP alongside the National Party— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Minister. I will make sure he gets his time. This level of interjection is totally unacceptable. A robust debate is good but this is over the top. Some of the most recent interjections from both sides of the House have been totally irrelevant as far as I can make out. I just ask the House to settle down a little bit so that the public can hear the Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you are upset Mr Speaker but I think you would hardly rule that way when the Minister is complaining about silence from the Labour Party. He invited a response. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that a level of robustness is in order but the member’s own level of interjection was quite unreasonable. The member has quite an effective voice when it comes to volume on interjections and the level is just too much. I ask the House to just come back to a little bit of order and I will make sure that the Minister still has his remaining 35 seconds or thereabouts.  
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I would welcome the member taking a call and saying that he too calls on the appellants to withdraw their objections to the Bathurst Resources mine and if he is prepared to do that I would welcome that. That would be fantastic. But basically at the moment the Labour Party the Greens the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and of course the environmentalists are all very very quiet about viable jobs on the West Coast. This Government is focused on building competitive opportunities for companies to grow and once again we learnt this week that the Opposition is not.  
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 The Spring Creek Mine should remain open. It is going instead to be mothballed. It is going to be mothballed because of this Government’s asset sales agenda. As the documents between these Ministers and the Solid Energy board clearly demonstrate the board has been instructed to prepare the company for sale to maximise the share price. That is why Solid Energy is being denied the opportunity to exercise its normal functions of managing through price fluctuations. 
The asset sales agenda of this Government is going to leave the Government accounts over $100 million a year worse off. It is going to increase electricity prices it is going to lose strategic control of important New Zealand assets and it is going to lose sovereignty for New Zealanders. It is going to cost the jobs and the livelihoods of all of those people who will lose their jobs and their families and it is going to cause a terrific economic impact to my home community of Greymouth. For all those jobs that will be directly lost there will be a knock-on effect and probably there will be two jobs lost for every one directly lost. Those will be felt in ancillary industries by contractors by retailers and in schools. The impact will be profound. 
The profits from coalmining currently all leave the Coast. In Mr Joyce’s preferred option of Denniston and the Bathurst Resources mine they will not only leave the Coast they will leave the country. But the wages spent by those coalminers in our local economy are an important input into our local economy. The reality is that these miners the miners who will lose their jobs as a result of the Government’s actions will tomorrow or the day after instead be on a plane to Australia some of whom having come to the West Coast— 
Simon O’Connor 
: They could be at the mine down the road. 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: —from halfway round the world in order to take up jobs only recently offered to them by Solid Energy. It does not have to be that way—the Government is quite right. It could reverse its decision. It could reverse its agenda of asset sales. It could hold out the hand and assist the miners of Spring Creek and the local mine management who came up with a totally viable plan to in fact keep the mine open. But the Government has chosen not to do that. The Green Party’s policy is indeed for no new coalmines but our policy is to have existing mines continue to be open. That is because there needs to be time for transition—transition for industries to be able to move to new technologies that do not require coal and also transition in local economies so that there are jobs to replace these ones that will be lost. 
Minister Joyce has I believe interfered in proper judicial process by calling on those who have a legitimate case before the courts to withdraw it. I believe that is inappropriate. But Mr Joyce’s red herring is particularly objectionable because it is a bit galling to be lectured on job creation by someone who has presided over the loss of almost 40000 manufacturing jobs in this country. His suggestion of moving these jobs to Denniston actually misunderstands the nature of coalmining. These are specialist skills and most of the jobs are not readily transferable between one and the other. But also rather than being just up the Coast Denniston is not in our community at all; it is 150 kilometres away. So he is expecting that these miners will uproot their families again and move on to Westport. Then after that one is exhausted maybe it will mean moving on to the next one and that might be Canvastown. 
His expectation is that this labour force will follow the booms and the asset bubbles throughout the country. That reminds me of the 19th century economy of this country and of the West Coast. The really galling thing is this: we have a Minister for Economic Development whose entire vision for economic development appears to be more of old 19th century industries and who has no grasp whatsoever of the need to transition the West Coast economy and indeed the New Zealand economy to a new one that actually creates high value quality jobs. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I just want to start today by talking a little bit about the fact that this is Children of Prisoners Week. PILLARS which is a charity that supports prisoners’ families has released the results of a 2-year study into children of prisoners which show that 23000 New Zealand children have a parent who is in prison—23000. They are seven times more likely those children to end up in prison. The National Government has set a target of reducing reoffending by 25 percent by 2017. That includes addressing addiction and increasing education and skills training. The most important thing for those children though is facilitating the employment of that parent back into their communities. That is what is going to make the biggest difference for those 23000 children. Work is happening around New Zealand but I want to particularly emphasise that huge work is being done around skills and employment in Christchurch so that the prisoners can help with the rebuilding of Christchurch. 
I note in a  
New Zealand Herald 
 article today that the  
New Zealand Herald  
has actually gone out and had a look at the Mt Eden Corrections Facility to look at its groundbreaking family visiting rooms with their brightly coloured play areas and kiddie packs of food that parents can buy. These new ideas are all in place in a prison that is run by private enterprise. It is run by Serco. The Opposition parties are against Serco and they are against having new and innovative ideas brought into our prison service throughout New Zealand. 
But we want to talk about jobs here today. On that same note I want to make the point that for the new prison that is to be built at Wiri the first sod was turned last week. We have got a consortium called Secure Future which is a public-private partnership. It is going to build maintain and run that prison Wiri Prison in South Auckland and save New Zealand taxpayers $170 million. That contract with Secure Future will save New Zealand taxpayers $170 million. Do you think the Opposition supports it? No. The Opposition is against it. It is quite happy for New Zealand taxpayers to pay another $170 million to build the prison because it does not support private enterprise getting involved. 
This project in Wiri will create a thousand construction jobs over— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How many? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: —the next 2 years—a thousand construction jobs. Do you think the Opposition parties are supporting that? No of course they are not. Of course they are not. Labour is opposing it and the Greens are opposing it. In fact the Green member who just resumed his seat Kevin Hague has railed against building a prison in Wiri and having a thousand construction jobs in South Auckland. At the height of this project this company Fletcher Building will be spending $25 million a month—$25 million a month. Do you think the Opposition is supporting that? Oh of course it is not. It is against this too. When it is constructed the new Wiri Prison will have almost 300 permanent jobs. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How many is that? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: 300 permanent jobs. Do you think the Opposition is supporting that? No of course not. Anything that this Government puts up to create jobs the Opposition is against. When I was up there last week I heard that a local contractor is providing catering on site for the thousand workers. They are talking between 30 and 50 jobs from the local community providing the on-site catering. Do you think the Opposition parties are in favour of this? 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Let’s have a guess. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Have a guess. Do you think they are in favour of this project? No they are against this project from beginning to end. 
This National Government is focused first of all on making sure the prisoners get a good education get rid of their addiction and get back into our communities and working. Secondly we are about creating a brighter future—a brighter future. Do you think the Opposition parties are supporting that? Absolutely not. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Well there we have it the Government’s new economic growth agenda: a prison on every corner. That is the answer from Anne Tolley. If we just built a prison on every corner in New Zealand we would solve the problems. It is another great economic growth strategy from the Government. 
The Government’s handling of the Kim Dotcom case and the involvement of the Government Communications Security Bureau in that is a circus. We are forced in this House to endure the statement that we have to believe that our spy agency is so incompetent that it could not even use Google and google “Kim Dotcom residency”. If it did it would come up with 6 million hits. There are 6 million pages on Kim Dotcom’s residency but the Government Communications Security Bureau we are told was not even able to identify that he was a resident. This is on the back of an operation that has been so badly botched. There were illegal search warrants. We now know there was illegal surveillance. It has been described as Keystone Kops but if we are to believe just how incompetent these people are it actually should be called “John Key’s stoned cops” because that is how badly it is doing it. 
The ringmaster of this circus is John Key. Once upon a time the casual relaxed John Key was who the public wanted to see but when it comes to having oversight of our security agencies it is not a place for the casual relaxed John Key. Mr Key is the sole democratic check on how these security agencies operate. He is the person charged on our behalf as New Zealanders with oversight of these security agencies and he has failed. Along with his deputy leader Bill English he has failed to uphold acceptable standards of oversight over organisations that have extraordinary powers. 
Many New Zealanders will accept that we need in our society the ability to ensure that we monitor those who would act against our country. I think it is highly questionable in this case whether it meets that test but people in New Zealand will accept that. They will accept that on the basis that there is some kind of oversight—that there is somebody in Government who is making sure that these agencies are acting appropriately. That is the job of the Prime Minister and he has failed to do that. He should be held to account for the actions of this agency. He cannot keep coming down to this House and saying he is not responsible. He is the Minister responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau and he is responsible for the actions of this agency that has behaved so incompetently in this situation. 
The Prime Minister claims that he has had 15 meetings with the Government Communications Security Bureau this year—15 meetings. He says that Kim Dotcom did not come up in any of those meetings. I find it incredible that a situation like this has not been raised with the Prime Minister in that role or in the many other roles that he has. He could not even tell us today whether or not his own department had been involved. That defies belief and it speaks of a Prime Minister whose once casual relaxed attitude is now seeing him missing in action on critical issues for this country. 
The National Government is now so totally distracted and embroiled in its own scandals—scandals of its own making—with John Banks and the Kim Dotcom affair that it is neglecting the core job that it has and that is to help New Zealanders stay in work. Time after time in this House we get the excuses from Steven Joyce and others but the reality is that hundreds and in fact thousands of New Zealanders are losing their jobs every day as this Government stands by and says that it can do nothing. In the last year 54000 people went to Australia and this Government stands by and says it can do nothing. 
Once upon a time this Government gave some hope to New Zealanders. It said there would be a brighter future. Mr Key said there would be higher standards of Ministers. There is no brighter future. There is no brighter future for the families of the hundreds of people who are losing their jobs at the Spring Creek Mine and in Kawerau and right around New Zealand. There is no hope for those people. This Government has let New Zealanders down. It promised big. It said that it would build a brighter future for New Zealanders. The only brighter future New Zealanders are finding is in Australia at the moment. This Government is missing in action and totally distracted in its own scandals. It has no idea how to create jobs. It has no idea how to grow the economy and it should go. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 There is something slightly ironic and cynical about the Labour Party and the Green Party railing against people going to Australia. Incidentally they are going to Australia to work in the mining and the oil and gas industries and all the while the Labour Party and the Green Party are stopping mining and oil and gas exploration in New Zealand. But there is something more ironic and cynical than that and that is that apparently the Labour Party and the Green Party think it is OK for miners to work at the Spring Creek Mine getting coal out of the ground but they oppose miners going up the road a few kilometres and mining on the Denniston Plateau. 
So what I want to ask Damien O’Connor who is the member of Parliament for the West Coast is this: is he for mining on the West Coast or is he against mining on the West Coast? He seems to support mining at the Spring Creek Mine but not mining on the Denniston Plateau. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I seek leave of the House to answer that question raised by the member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I am. I am seeking leave to make a personal explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Let me be very clear here. I have always supported mining on the West Coast and I will but it must be done in an environmentally responsible way and it must follow due process. This National Government has— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is nothing to do with a personal explanation and I caution the member. The House grants members leave to make personal explanations because members feel deeply about certain issues. It should not be abused. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: So here is the thing. The Labour Party and the Green Party support mining in some areas of the West Coast such as the Spring Creek Mine but apparently oppose mining in other parts of the West Coast such as the Denniston Plateau. In fact what they do is they get out a little map of New Zealand and they draw lines where they want to support mining and where they want to oppose it and it all depends where the votes are. There is nothing principled about it—nothing principled about it at all. 
But what is cynical—and ironic really—is that it points to the bigger picture which is that they wax lyrical in this House week after week and up and down the country about New Zealanders going over to Australia. In fact I get it in the electorate that I represent in Whangarei and Mike Sabin gets it in Northland. Many Northlanders have put up their hands and they have said “Look we are going to Australia to work in the oil and gas and mining industry. We are going to get excellent salaries and by the way we are not going to be actually mining. We’re builders and we’re plumbers and we’re electricians and we’re cooks and we’re truck drivers but because of the mining and oil and gas industry over in Perth in Australia it is happening there and we will go over there and get jobs.” 
Hone Harawira is crying that all his relatives or at least half of them are going to Australia to work in the mining industry and he is crying that the other half of his relatives are staying in New Zealand and they are in the dole queue but he will not support mining and oil and gas exploration in Northland. The Labour Party and the Green Party will not support oil and gas exploration and mining in New Zealand. 
The funny thing about it is that in Taranaki—our only region where oil and gas production occurs—you have got about 4500 jobs directly involved there about another 1500 jobs indirectly and an average wage of about $80000 a year and it has happened for a hundred years. The other 15 or 16 regions of New Zealand over the last hundred years have never heard a problem come out of Taranaki. They have always understood that there is dairy farming and tourism and oil and gas exploration in Taranaki—never a problem. 
But the minute that the National Party and all those in Taranaki who support oil and gas exploration—it has been so successful—say “Why don’t we extend this to some of the other regions in New Zealand? There are about 16 or 17 others. We have been successful in Taranaki for over 100 years. Why don’t we extend it to some other regions of New Zealand such as off the Otago coast the East Coast of the North Island or Northland?” apparently according to the Labour Party and the Green Party and Hone Harawira the sky is going to fall on our head. 
So it has been successful in Taranaki for 100 years with never a whimper alongside dairy farming and tourism but somehow we cannot repeat it elsewhere in the country. So I question Damien O’Connor and the Labour Party and ask why when we have a formula that has been so successful in one of our most highly paid regions in New Zealand Taranaki we cannot repeat it elsewhere in the country. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party position on mining has never been unclear and it has always been consistent. Outside of schedule 4 areas like national parks we have always said it ought to be done on a case by case basis. We approve of mining but people have to get a consent under the Resource Management Act or the Crown Minerals Act. The law has not been changed by National in that regard in any great way and our position has not changed since we were last in Government when we spent $25 million of taxpayers’ money helping to get data to make it a little bit less risky for the oil and gas industry. So although we do not think mining is the whole answer to New Zealand’s economic problems we admit that it is part of it and we do not oppose it outside of schedule 4 areas. The National Party people should do a bit of research. 
Why is it that those members are rattling on about it? It is because they do not want to talk about the economy and they do not want to talk about jobs because in fact all they do is focus on one political disaster after another. Let us list them this year. Well we have had the Dotcom one recently. That has been addressed by Grant Robertson. I will not go into that any further. Go back a little while and we have the Government’s centrepiece of its Budget: improving student outcomes by increasing class sizes. What a nonsense that was and the Government had to back down. It spent 2 months defending that ridiculous policy when it should have been doing things to save people’s jobs. 
Go back a little bit further like just a month before that and we had Nick Smith falling on his sword because of the debacle at ACC which saw not only the Minister resign but also the board resign. The chair was effectively asked to resign and the board followed him because that was so mismanaged. That was another month when the Government was not managing the economy. 
Go back a little bit further and you have the problems with the teapot tape and the Prime Minister’s scandals around that. We have got the Prime Minister’s scandals around his electorate chairperson being appointed to New Zealand On Air called the Broadcasting Commission. 
Simon O’Connor 
: Talk about policy not people. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What was that? 
Simon O’Connor 
: Stick to policy. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That is what the Government is embroiled in every day and in the last month we have had John Banks. What should the Government be doing? It should be doing what it can do to help stop this shedding of jobs—160000 people have gone to Australia since this Government was elected. That is more than the population of the city I come from. Dunedin has about 100000 people—160000 people have gone just to Australia. That is not the rest of the world; that is just Australia. They are record numbers every month because there are no job prospects here. Despite the fact that a lot of the unemployed have given up and gone to Australia we have still got far higher unemployment now than when this Government came into office. The safety valve as Bill English describes the Australian economy has kept New Zealand’s unemployment lower than it would otherwise be because those people have gone to get jobs in Australia. 
What could the Government do? It could save some of these export jobs by doing what a responsible Government would do: back Winston’s bill to a select committee and change the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act so that we do not give primacy to the targeting of inflation ahead of other aspects of economic management. The IMF says we should do that. Nobel Laureates like Joseph Stiglitz say we should do that. Most of the Governments around the world have moved on from— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Joseph Stalin? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —giving inflation targeting primacy. Joseph Stalin. That is what we get: Joseph Stalin. That is just like Steven Joyce. If anyone comes out with an alternative economic policy it is economic voodoo it is snake oil remedy or from Mr Finlayson it is Joseph Stalin when you talk about Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz who is a free marketeer to a certain extent. He is Joseph Stalin according to the National Party. These guys are so out of touch that they have had more people go to Australia than live in Dunedin and they say “Oh we don’t need to change anything.” They do not need to change anything. 
This Government is embroiled in its own controversies. It is not properly managing the economy. We are losing export jobs that will be very very hard to get back and as a consequence New Zealanders are disappointed. They have given up on waiting for the brighter future from the National Government and they are voting with their feet and going to Australia instead. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Can I just take up the challenge of that member who has just sat down David Parker when he said that we do not want to talk about jobs because I do want to talk about jobs because jobs matter. Businesses create jobs and businesses need policy settings that encourage jobs and encourage growth—policy settings around jobs—policy settings that members opposite say no to. Why do they say no to it? Why is it that their policies over there on that side of the House are not about creating jobs or helping jobs or enhancing job growth? What they are about is cutting and reducing jobs. 
Last week we celebrated Women’s Suffrage Day. It is a great day in the New Zealand calendar. We celebrated Women’s Suffrage Day and what was the very first action that the Labour Party did on that day? It had the first reading of a bill that would have immediately cut the jobs—3350 jobs—of women in New Zealand. It would have cut the jobs of 3350 women in New Zealand. That is how much it thinks of jobs and that is how much it thinks of women. By raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour in an unrealistic and unsustainable manner that would have reduced jobs and cut jobs by 5500. Why do those members say no? Why do they say no to any job-enhancing policy that we put up? They just say no. 
Dr David Clark 
: The Minister understands the minimum wage. She’s had the advice. It doesn’t cost that. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Mr Clark does not understand. His first big job in this Parliament was to introduce a bill that would have lost 3350 jobs for women and its first reading was on symbolically Women’s Suffrage Day. That is the shame of that member and that is the legacy of that member. On Women’s Suffrage Day 3350 jobs would have been lost—lost just like that by a stroke of a pen. 
We have the 90-day trial which research has shown is responsible for the creation of 13000 jobs— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How many? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: —13000 jobs. That was when it related to only small and medium sized enterprises—i.e. businesses with under 20 people. It created 13000 jobs. Since then it has been expanded to all businesses. Imagine how many jobs that will be responsible for. And what do those members say? They say no. They say no to a 90-day trial. It is part of their policy to repeal it—13000 jobs just like that all gone. They say no and they talk about jobs! 
My colleague Minister Tolley spoke about prisoners helping the rebuild of Christchurch. Well the 90-day trial is an ideal tool for businesses to have the confidence to actually employ those prisoners to help in that rebuild. What will the Labour Party do? It will say no. 
That 90-day trial is encouraging businesses to take on more staff. It has been used by many businesses. It has shown that the majority of employers keep their staff once the trial is over so that people who are on the fringes—they might be young they might be older they might be women but David Clark does not like them or they might be prisoners—are given the opportunity to get their feet on the employment ladder and get a job. It is a fantastic policy that embarrassingly Labour will repeal. It is a policy that is working really well in these tough economic times and Labour will repeal it because it wants to say no to all job-enhancing policies. I think it is a shame. 
Those members sit there smugly thinking that they have got the answers. All they want to do is say no. They stop things. They would have had  
The Hobbit  
go overseas. The  
Hobbit 
 haters would have had  
The Hobbit  
go overseas. Since then we have had  
Avatar 
 over here—1500 new jobs—and we are looking at a new sequel. Is that not fantastic for our movie market? More jobs—what do they say? They say no. 
We have some great policy settings for creating jobs and for encouraging businesses to actually expand. Successful businesses by expanding will take on more staff which means more jobs and that must be good for our economy. We are about creating jobs; they have policies that say no. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I want to talk about a group of New Zealanders who have already been mentioned this afternoon by none other than our corrections Minister Anne Tolley. This is a group of people who have variously been called the forgotten victims of crime the orphans of justice and the unseen victims of the prison boom. I want to talk about the 20000-plus young New Zealanders who have one of their parents currently in prison. On any given day we have over 20000 young people in this situation and we are doing very little to meet their current needs—their very severe present-day needs—and we are doing arguably even less to try to secure for them a better and safer future and to steer them away from following the line of that parent who may be incarcerated. 
The Minister’s attention might have been brought to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article. I do not know whether before seeing that article she knew that this week is actually Children of Prisoners Week and it is a good time to acknowledge the NGOs. There are groups like PILLARS—Nga Pou Whakahou—that work constantly and very hard and very effectively to try to provide services to these neglected kids and to try to mitigate some of the suffering of and burdens on those kids and their families. 
Before I talk more about that I must respond directly though to some of the comments the Minister made earlier. She was very thrilled to announce that she is saving $170 million on building this prison at Wiri. I am really fascinated by the arithmetic there. The Minister has told us that the total cost will be in the order of $840 million. Serco the private contractor that will run the prison has proudly announced to the British London Stock Exchange that it expects revenues of $30 million a year over 25 years. My arithmetic gives that a figure of $750 million of revenue leaving about $90 million to construct that prison. We know that the average cost of a prison is around $400000 per bed allowing that by the scale of the prison you can reduce that cost. Are we seriously expected to believe that that prison is to be built for $90 million? We would love the Minister to table the contract. Show us the numbers. Be a little transparent about what is actually going on in Wiri and the real cost to New Zealand—not only the social but the financial cost. 
The Minister was thrilled to note that her beloved private prison has been acknowledged as treating better the families and children who are visiting inmates. This Government has had within its power for 4 long years the ability to intervene in terms of the conditions facing visitors to prisons. Is it beyond its collective wit to realise that the application of some paint some toy boxes some colouring books and crayons for children could actually break some of the fear and some of the trauma these kids experience every time they walk into those very forbidding very hostile places? I have visited the prisons and I would encourage more members of the Government to do so. Visiting rooms have rows of plastic chairs bolted to the floor with no privacy and no provision for children. There is no distraction for them while their parents endeavour to maintain a relationship with one imprisoned partner. We know that on average for a couple where one of them enters prison typically the man the relationship might survive for some 18 months. Anybody sentenced to more than that is likely to come out to find their relationship is gone. The children have lost their father—or indeed their mother—and the mother has lost her partner and an income earner. This is an intolerable situation and it is unacceptable that the NGOs are doing a great deal more than Government agencies to actually remedy the situation that is confronting these young people. 
There are major differences in visiting policies from one prison to another. Why is it that a partner visiting a prisoner in one place has a very different experience from another? The very least we could do is improve the situation when these young people and their parents are visiting inmates. We do very little to protect the health and well-being of children of prisoners. We do very little to support their partners. We know that their educational outcomes will be way below optimal. We know that they will suffer serious health and psychological health traumas. We know through all the evidence that comes to us that these are some of the most disadvantaged young people in New Zealand. We are doing very little for them. It is shameful. We need to do more. Kia ora. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 The Chinese have a curse expressing the hope that one may live in interesting times. These are interesting times not just in New Zealand but in every country in the developed and developing world. As the IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said recently the global economy is experiencing a widespread decline of confidence as problems mount in the eurozone and beyond. Ms Lagarde said further that policy makers everywhere must maintain a crisis management mode as risks increase. The IMF is pressing Governments around the world to step up their responses as both advanced and emerging economies show troubling slow-downs. 
Here in New Zealand the Government is resolutely focused on guiding our economy through these troubled times. We are reducing our exposure to overseas debt markets as much as possible while still continuing to cushion vulnerable New Zealanders from the harshest edges of the ongoing financial crisis. We have got lots to be happy about and thankful for. Our GDP grew 0.6 percent in the 3 months to 30 June. This took annual growth to 2.6 percent the highest rate since 2007. The first half of this year has seen GDP growing at 1.6 percent. New Zealand’s economy is performing better than those of Japan the US the UK France and Germany and growth in this last quarter is on a par with Australia’s. We cannot hope to influence the external events that impact upon our small country and relatively tiny economy. What we can do what we must do and what we will do is continue to concentrate on our wide-ranging economic programme. It is an economic programme that will increase New Zealand’s long-term competitiveness and give our businesses the best chance of succeeding. 
We focus on growth that is sustainable and built on higher savings and earnings rather than ever-increasing consumption and debt. New Zealand’s households and businesses are recognising that the cheap finance feeding frenzy facilitated under the supervised neglect regime of the last Labour Government is unsustainable untenable and ultimately a road to nowhere other than economic and social stagnation. The message is getting through. New Zealanders are saving more with a positive household savings rate for the first time in a decade. The ANZ bank’s fancifully named truckometer an index based on traffic volumes and selected roads around New Zealand suggests increasingly robust growth in the fourth quarter of this year. 
This Government understands that sustainable economic growth that creates permanent worthwhile jobs is best achieved by building a competitive economy that allows businesses to trade successfully with the rest of the world. There are 60000 more jobs in New Zealand than 2 years ago. New Zealand needs more jobs and higher-paying jobs. Why? Because jobs give people income to support their families. Jobs give people money to pay taxes to pay for public services. And more and more higher-paying jobs mean that more people will choose to live here. 
Jobs depend on businesses—businesses that are competitive and businesses that sell something that people value something unique and something of better quality or at a lower price. This Government understands that businesses in turn depend on six key things including ideas and innovation to create the opportunity or perceive a niche market. It is interesting that New Zealand is now third in Asia and Oceania after Singapore and Hong Kong in the Global Innovation Index. Businesses depend on money to build the business—in other words access to capital—and access to necessary raw materials and resources. Businesses depend on having skilled people to work in them; infrastructure such as reliable electricity broadband transport and networks like that; and customers who want to buy the products. These are the foundation stones of New Zealand’s competitive business success. 
The Opposition is constantly searching for quick fixes. Its latest stood out like a bishop at a naked billiards party in terms of its inappropriateness. I refer to the Opposition’s calls for intervention on New Zealand’s currently high exchange rate. I ask you: surely the major test to intervention must be whether we can make a difference. As mentioned before a lot of the drivers are international events such as the huge currency flows following quantitative easing large countries’ exchange rate policies as well as the continuing uncertainty and perceived risks around the eurozone. With the tsunami-like size of these external forces any New Zealand intervention would be futile. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I hope you have a life jacket Mr Speaker because we are drowning in crocodile tears in this House today. The only thing the National Government has ever done for mining is stir up a hornets’ nest against the mining industry when it proposed like idiots to go and mine on schedule 4 land in national parks. John Key has said that the economy is not failing. Mr Joyce says that in the real world the economy is growing. Well tell that to the Inland Revenue Department workers who have been made redundant. Tell that to the Department of Conservation workers in the regions up and down the country. Tell that to the roading industry contractors who are starved for funding because the Government is putting money into its “Holiday Highway” and little pet projects. Tell that to the over 350 people who have lost their jobs because the Government has refused to intervene and support Spring Creek Mine. 
Let us get a few things straight. In this document I am holding a document called  
Design Pack 
 from the Solid Energy chief executive officer dated 29 August we see the proposed new structure for Solid Energy. On page 8 it states quite clearly the drivers of the structure and that the three main priorities include to “maximise medium-term cash generation and value uplift consistent with our potential listing objectives from our shareholder—referred to as the ‘mixed ownership model’.” It goes on to say that it is also a priority to prepare “Solid Energy for a potential listing at some stage in one to three years”. That is what is driving the job lay-offs at Spring Creek and at Solid Energy. This Government is determined to push ahead with the asset sales programme. 
In 2 short days a group of miners from Spring Creek sat down with local management and senior management using information supplied by Solid Energy itself and cut $60 million off the projected capital requirements for Spring Creek—$60 million. The chief executive officer said that those were aspirational figures. They were figures supplied by his company to those workers. That plan deserved proper consideration. They had an indication that in the middle of this week there would be some report on that plan. No the National Government decided to intervene and on Monday announced that the jobs had gone. Well Ministers—the same Ministers who say the economy is growing who say that the economy is not failing—tell that to the families tell that to the wives and the children of the 350 people who are going to be directly affected because they have lost their jobs. 
John Key made a promise—he has made a few of them you know—that he would lift the wages of New Zealanders to match those of Australia. What he failed to say is that he would do it by sending everyone to Australia. He has done it quite consistently—50000 per year—and he now expects the people from Spring Creek to go to Australia or as we have heard in crocodile tears to go up the road 140 kilometres to Westport to a mine there. Well there is a proposal for a new mine and the reason why there are objectors is that the National Government stirred up everyone who objected to mining to object to this one and delay the process. I do not think it is good. But the National Government was in large part responsible for that. There are objections and there are proposals. I could stand in this House until I was blue in the face and say to withdraw your objections but it is not going to happen. They are in there now in big part because the National Government stirred up that hornets’ nest. If it goes ahead the planning for that mine will require hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investment. That money has been spent at Spring Creek. The coal they get will be sold into the same market place as the coal from Spring Creek. Yet we hear from Ministers that it is unviable when we have had the capital invested but it is viable up the road when the capital has yet to be spent. It is simply incomprehensible that those Ministers can say without twisting the truth that one is fine but that they will accept that Spring Creek can be closed down just because the price of coal has gone down. Well this document says otherwise. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 Kia orana Mr Speaker. Before I start I want to acknowledge our Pukapuka community in the gallery. Kia ola koutou katotoa enunui matoa ya. 
I rise to speak today in the general debate but firstly I want to acknowledge—we have been talking about jobs this afternoon—that today is National Social Worker Day a day of celebration to celebrate our social workers. Approximately 1300 of them in Child Youth and Family address 400 notifications of abuse and neglect in our country every day. Often as a Government we have been accused of not caring yet in this regard the Government announced funding to increase the number of front-line social workers by 96 last year and around half that number are now at work. There are about 149 full-time SWIS workers—that is Social Workers in Schools—and as was quoted by the Minister for Social Development this afternoon Child Youth and Family target achievements have increased. Non-notifications have increased and we are now being able to address 97 percent of those targets compared with 42 percent previously. So that is a great result. I do want to acknowledge that. I do have family members who are social workers and who are doing a great job. The Social Workers in Schools programme offers early responsive social work and intervention and we are increasing those opportunities of employment where it truly matters. 
I want to talk about the welfare reforms that are coming up because this becomes very important. The purpose clauses that are in the Social Security Act 1964 clearly indicate: “to help people find or retain paid employment;”. The principle and the duty of that Act says this: “work in paid employment offers the best opportunities for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. That is why the reforms become important. That is why this Government is focusing where it should—on providing employment. 
But wait for it—it will come. It is like Tourette’s. You will hear “Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs?”. It often gets spouted out so very quickly from either side of the House. No matter how many times we quote from TradeMe or from SEEK about the 60000 jobs that have been produced by this Government and encouraged by this Government you will still see that it is not enough. Can I say this: with this Government not only are we increasing the opportunities for jobs but also there are about 1000 people who have now come off the unemployment benefit. There are more than 5600 people who have come off the unemployment benefit in the last year. Not only are we increasing opportunities but also we are trying to encourage our people into jobs. 
Dr David Clark 
: There are 1000 people a week going to Australia. 
ALFRED NGARO 
: So here it is for Mr Clark over there across the way. I was in your home town Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson in an area of South Auckland and here is the interesting thing. We were there with the Prime Minister in the heart of Mangere and we met with some of the providers businesses and local trusts. This is what they said. From the Rise Up Trust which works with families around education which is very important to us one of the members the chief executive officer stood up and said to the Prime Minister while we were there: “Prime Minister we want to say thank you for national standards.” Thank you for national standards—that is right. And she said this: “The people of this community the Pasifika and Maori people of this community do want to know how our schools are performing.” That is important to them. This is what they also said: “Not only thank you for national standards but also thank you for your Minister of Education Hekia Parata.” The reasons why? They said: “Because she’s a woman who has a woman’s heart and sometimes we need to have that essence for us for our young people so that they go through an educational journey.” 
Here is the last thing. You will like this. They said “Give us charter schools.” [ 
Interruption 
] We were taken aback too and the reason why they said “Give us charter schools.” is this. They wanted to know how they could bring greater opportunities for training and employment for their young people. Yes they too are sick and tired of the lack of training and opportunities and the underachievement that is happening in their communities. 
 These communities are supposedly the heartland of Labour and this has got to hurt. This has got to hurt because in your Pasifika communities you did not listen to your spokesman on Pasifika who said “Don’t do this because we’ll lose 30000 votes.” Guess what! The Labour Party did not listen. Its spokesman for the Pasifika community said it was a betrayal but it did not listen and guess what happened. That community is beginning to change and they are beginning to say this: “Maybe there’s another option. We have voted for Labour for so long; we haven’t seen all the results.” Guess what! They are coming to our meetings they are standing up and speaking up and they are saying “National provides another opportunity for us.” That is right. You can wave your head from side to side Mr Robertson but guess what the truth speaks louder than words. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call but before I do I would just like to remind Damien O’Connor of Speaker’s ruling 135/2—in particular— 
Hon Annette King 
: No that’s the Speaker’s job. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well I am very sure he did it extremely well. In a general debate it is a general custom not to interrupt a speaker particularly with a personal explanation until the end of it and I am sure Mr O’Connor knows that. But it was even more interesting and more insightful to see exactly what he had to say—in fact the half of a story that he wanted to say. He knows and wants to say deep down that he supports Bathurst Resources and he supports its efforts to create hundreds of jobs on the Denniston Plateau. He did not want to say it. I find that a bit sad really. 
I want to go back to what Mr Parker said about the mining policies of Labour and the monetary policies of Labour. He said two things. He said that the Labour Party’s mining policy is very clear and that it has been unequivocal about it for years. Yet he spent 5 minutes confusing us all about what that policy might be. All Mr O’Connor and Mr Parker had to say was “We support Bathurst.”—three little words that say they support new jobs and growth in jobs on the West Coast—but oh no they could not bring themselves to say that. They are probably standing in line with the Greens who want a $67 million subsidy to help out Solid Energy in these difficult times. We had a very clear explanation about why Bathurst can succeed where Solid Energy and Spring Creek Mine would struggle. 
I want to turn now to the second part of Mr Parker’s speech on the Monetary Policy Statement and on the monetary policy that Labour has not actually revealed yet. It has been 2 years since Labour said “No we’re going to unhook ourselves from the monetary policy accord.” We have absolutely no idea what Labour’s policy is. However we do know what Mr Parker thinks about inflation—that he thinks it is not the evil it used to be and that we can perhaps somehow broaden our inflationary parameters. I want to explain that I worked for a bank giving retail loans for mortgages in the 1980s when the rates were 19.5 and 20.5 percent. 
Scott Simpson 
: I had one. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Do you remember those days? Do you know what the exchange rate was then? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Does the member know what the exchange rate was? 
Scott Simpson 
: What was the exchange rate? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I have absolutely no idea and nobody remembers but they do remember what interest rates they were paying and what inflationary pressures created the spiral of higher interest rates higher inflation even higher interest rates and on and on it went. Mr Peters believes that he can intervene in the exchange rate by taking an economic— 
Dr David Clark 
: The world changes—1980s policies of selling assets are no longer the answer. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: The member says “1980s policies”. Who was in power in the 1980s? 
Scott Simpson 
: That member wasn’t born. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well he probably was to a National family I understand. How many of the fourth Labour Government’s policies did the Clark Government reverse? 
Scott Simpson 
: All of them? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: None. Not a single one. It disowned the Labour Government of the 1984 to 1990 period but did not reverse a single one of the monetary fiscal and asset sales policies. In fact it continued them by stealth I suggest. 
I want to go back to Mr Peters who says that an economic crapshoot is possible and that all we have to do is invest in the New Zealand dollar. He referred to an example that was done in 2004 or 2005 I think— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: 2007. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —was it 2007—where $497 million was made. What are the chances that $497 million could have been lost? It is about fifty-fifty. It was an economic crapshoot that the Reserve Bank came out on top of and has not repeated because it realised the folly of trying to do that in the face of the major economies that print money. Do you know which economies print money? The United States and Zimbabwe. The United States has a tanking dollar and Zimbabwe has hyperinflation. 
I suggest that any move from the very fair and tight monetary policy framework we have would damage not only our export growth but also jobs. And that is the purpose of Government: to create jobs and growth and to steer the economy through very challenging fiscal times. I think this Government is doing an excellent job. We hear a lot about the losses and there will be losses even in the best of times. There will be changes in manufacturing infrastructure technology and food production but there will always be jobs gained. There are I think 57000 jobs already created in the last couple of years with more to come. I think the Government is very much on track in that regard. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 25 September. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 As I was saying last night before the House adjourned there are a number of good things in this piece of legislation and there are a number of things that do concern the Labour Party. We welcome the move for new national park and reserve land to automatically be included in schedule 4. We think that the new two-tier arrangement of allocating permits might make things a lot clearer and might draw a greater distinction between those projects that are going to have a far bigger environmental impact and those that will have a lesser one providing a more robust one for the former and a slightly simpler one for the latter. We will tease that out at the Commerce Committee. It certainly seems reasonable. We think the pre-vetting of applicants first up is good. For those organisations or those companies that we may not want to come into New Zealand—because realistically even if they put a lot of money into resource consents under this legislation they are not going to get through—it is good to signal upfront that that is not likely to happen. Again at the select committee we will have a look at the details of that but I take on board the assurances from the Minister of Energy and Resources that that does not replace the other processes in the piece of legislation. 
The areas where we have concerns are around the sharing of responsibility for decision making on concessions on conservation land. This is something that we flagged right back when the Government first announced it. And let us be honest it was a knee-jerk reaction to the schedule 4 mining issue where the Government had to back down so as a kind of countermeasure it said “Well now for concessions for mining on Department of Conservation land it is going to be half-shared by the Minister of Energy and Resources and half-shared by the Minister of Conservation.” whereas previously the Minister of Conservation had sole responsibility for that. There has always been a contention in Crown mineral law that mining is treated separately from every other economic activity. I mean tourism creates jobs in New Zealand as well and tourism has to get concessions on Department of Conservation land. But they go through a process under the Conservation Act that involves the public and that involves notification and mining has never had to go through that process because it goes through the Crown Minerals Act. That has always been a point of contention. 
That is why the Minister of Conservation when it came to the issue of Bathurst which members have been talking about said “Well the Government is going to publicly notify these concessions for mining.” I notice in this legislation that it has not gone that far. What it says is that now the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation will have a shared responsibility for deciding whether or not these concessions for mining go to public notification. That is not what was promised and I take on board what my colleague Damien O’Connor said which is that if the Government wants to take the heat out of some of these projects then do not make promises and then not keep them—do not shut people out of a process. That is a genuinely serious comment. A lot of what has happened around the Denniston issue has been that a promise was made and then not kept. So that is our concern in terms of that sharing of responsibility. 
What I have been pleased about as the Minister has indicated is that he is prepared to try to work with the Opposition to find a way through. This has been a line call for us on this piece of legislation. There is a lot in here that is really good—that sharing of responsibility and the introduction of an economic test for mining that does not exist for any other commercial activity. Why should tourism not get an economic benefit test when mining is getting it? These are areas where we think there is a little bit of unfairness and there is genuine concern in the community. But what we are here to say today is that we will support this bill from its first reading to the select committee and we will do that in good faith because the Minister has said that he wants to work with the Labour Party in Opposition to find a way through here. I think it would not be in good faith if we were to vote against a piece of legislation and then expect the Minister to continue to engage. But we do so with reservations. We do so with the reservations that I have outlined here which we will want to see addressed if our support is going to be ongoing. I agree with the Minister when he says that the more consistency the more bipartisanship we can get on these issues—cross-partisanship—the better for everyone involved. So that is why we have taken the position that we have taken. 
I just want to caution the Minister actually. I watched his performance in the general debate today. He is giving himself enormous powers under this legislation. He is having half the say for concessions: whether or not they go ahead on Department of Conservation land and whether or not they are notified. When I saw him doing his merry dance in the House today about how all this mining should go ahead and about how Labour and the Greens are Luddites for questioning anything that is why the Minister of Conservation is now the only one who has responsibility. I do not think it is appropriate frankly for a Minister of Energy and Resources to stand up in this House and basically predetermine effectively the decision-making powers that he is giving to himself in this piece of legislation. 
He needs to be very careful. I know it is a general debate. We all have a little bit of fun. But the Minister is granting himself enormous powers that do not currently exist. He is arguing that conservationists do not have to be concerned about the granting of powers when he comes down to the House on a specific case. We take these things on a case by case basis and we focus on process. That is what is appropriate. To come into this House when you are going to have decision-making powers on Department of Conservation land and basically dance up a storm and say “Well you know this should go ahead. You’re a Luddite if it doesn’t.” then I think the Minister seriously needs to reconsider whether or not that was appropriate behaviour given the powers that he is granting himself in this bill. 
We will support this bill to the select committee with reservations. We look forward to working with Jonathan Young and the Commerce Committee to find if we can get a way through where we are all comfortable so we can have more of a cross-party approach to some of this legislation. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and speak on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I say thank you for the comments from the previous speaker Moana Mackey. Indeed it is important for the benefit of New Zealand that we have a very robust regime that is going to stand the course of time as we look at the sensible responsible and sustainable use of the resources that our country is endowed with. 
Mr Clark made the comment that regarding people who go to Australia we need to understand that they are going across there because of the opportunities through mining and minerals and that is creating such an opportunity for those people. We have similar if not better advantages and possibilities here in our own country where we can enable not only an increase in jobs as we have talked about today particularly on the West Coast but also we can see an increase in revenue into our country so that we can do some of the things that we so often talk about in this House with greater ability. 
We know for example that New Zealand at the moment in terms of oil and gas exploration is extracting from one basin out of 17 and that is the Taranaki Basin—an area in which I am one of the MPs. Not only are there countless jobs and opportunities for people in Taranaki and also around the country but each year $400 million in royalties comes to the Government and $300 million in company tax is collected from the revenue from these resources. So this is not some small amount. This is a significant amount coming from one basin out of 17. 
I believe it is incredibly important that we have a very robust streamlined and very good process in which we handle the Crown estate—the estate that belongs to all New Zealanders. This bill is moving towards doing that. I know that as we come to the select committee process we will receive viewpoints from the sector that supports oil and gas and no doubt we will receive submissions from people who do not. In that process we will discuss the different viewpoints but I think at the final analysis the viewpoint that we need to always consider is what is going to be necessary and needful for the continual growth and sustainability of our nation here in New Zealand. Of course that is environmental but also it is economic. We know at times that these can be competing values but not necessarily all the time. We can balance these issues and do it in a very careful way. 
I think that we can look to Taranaki and see how in that region we have I think very responsibly and carefully progressed oil and gas exploration. We can see that progressing forward with this bill is going to be of benefit to the wider population of New Zealand. One of the things that I did just a few weeks ago was have the Minister of Commerce visit Taranaki. We drove down to South Taranaki where we visited one of the oil and gas installations. It was about a 60 kilometre journey. We had a small wager in the car and the wager was this: if you can see any oil and gas installations during our trip down of 60 kilometres you will get $2. He arrived down there with no coinage in his pocket simply because you would not have seen and you would not have known—[ 
Interruption 
] Exactly Mr Assistant Speaker. If you had been there you would not have seen or known as well because the profile of these installations is so low and environmentally they are so well contained. In fact the only one that he did see was one pointed out on the journey back. 
This is a province—no doubt we will hear Opposition voices and all sorts of allegations coming forward that are unsubstantiated and unproven—that has handled exploration in a very sustainable and a very positive way. As the Minister of Energy and Resources said today we have oil and gas we have dairying and we have tourism happening all in the same space in a place that we love that is clean that is green and that has a beautiful pristine environment and this is what we can do in New Zealand. 
This bill which will be going to the Commerce Committee in due course is going to create a regime where we can do that more effectively and also more responsibly. There are a number of aspects to this bill which is full of detail that are going simplify things. The two-tier system I applaud. I think it is absolutely fantastic that we can concentrate our resources on the more risky areas where we can focus in very closely on that to ensure that every best practice is taking place and that every contingency is put in place. 
I am very happy to support this bill. I look forward to its coming to the select committee where I am sure we will have a very good process in working together to come to an answer and a resolution that is going to be to the benefit of all New Zealanders. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear that speech from Jonathan Young around the question of the importance of balance as he described it. For the Labour Party this is the issue that we previously dealt with within the exclusive economic zone legislation which we had before the House. It is the question of this Government’s view that it is important to insert into this legislation some way of giving economic activity greater prominence. This comes in this particular legislation in what is clause 31 of this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill with the new economic test that will be applied for mining. As my colleague Moana Mackey has said why just mining? Why not other sectors that have to get concessions? Why is mining being lifted out in this way? What that does is it raises concerns for people that once again the Government is trying to tilt the balance. In fact the underlying problem here is the fact that the Government views it as something that needs to be balanced—the economy and the environment. 
What is not understood by members on the other side of the House is that the two things are two sides of the same coin. They are not actually being balanced. You do not get to have the ability to exploit natural resources in a sustainable way if you do not have a sustainable environment in the first place and if you do not actually protect and preserve the environment so that it sits at the heart of the economy and the heart of the natural economy particularly in New Zealand. 
So I guess from our side of the House that is why we are concerned—and my colleague Moana Mackey has already mentioned this—about that particular element of this bill the introduction of this economic test. We certainly on this side of the House would like to see that addressed for our ongoing support for this bill. We had this exact debate in the exclusive economic zone area. We got some movement from the Government in that but we did not get all the movement that our side of the House would have wanted. So that is one of the two very significant issues that give us cause to say yes we will support this to the select committee but we certainly have reservations about that. 
The other matter that we have reservations about which Moana Mackey has also spoken about is the question of the Minister of Energy and Resources having a decision-making role alongside the Minister of Conservation as to whether there should be public consultation on concessions. We on this side of the House have a strong position that that is not the way this should be done. We are telling the Government in the spirit of the good faith that it has come to us in to say it wants this bill to have cross-party support that on this side of the House we find that position difficult. We cannot support the bill through the full stages if that provision is going to remain in the way that it is because we believe there is a reason why the Minister of Conservation has this role. It is conservation land. The Minister of Conservation is charged by the Government with looking after on behalf of the people of New Zealand the conservation estate. 
Yes the Minister of Energy and Resources may well have an interest in it and I think anyone who has been around Government processes— 
Moana Mackey 
: Does the Minister of Tourism? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Exactly. Anyone who has been around Government processes over the last few years will know that in any situation like this the Minister of Conservation will speak with their colleagues and it will not just be the Minister of Energy and Resources. It will be the Minister of Tourism or it might be the Minister for the Environment. It is very important that the Minister of Conservation does that. It is part of doing their job properly. But ultimately the decision should lie with the Minister of Conservation because of the nature of the land that we are talking about. Again as Moana Mackey said earlier the speech we heard from Phil Heatley today indicated exactly why it is dangerous for the Minister of Energy and Resources to have that role given the kind of advocacy we were seeing from the Minister when he spoke today. On this side of the House we have significant concerns about the idea that that will be changed. 
The Government made such a shambles of its work around mining and schedule 4 in the last term of Government that it actually left itself in a position where this was what it felt it had to do. It had to find some kind of way of improving the odds as it were for the extractive industries and it has now come into this House with a bill with two areas where it tried to do this: one around the economic test and one around the role of the Minister of Energy and Resources alongside the Minister of Conservation. We on this side of the House do not believe those things are useful. We also do not believe that they are necessary in this kind of legislation if the Government is prepared to come at this from the point of view that the environment is what lies at the heart of enabling us to do things in our economy. We cannot simply see these things as a balancing act especially a balancing act where the Government puts in place legislation that will weight that balance in favour of the economy and against the environment. So we do have significant concerns on those grounds. 
As other speakers have already noted there are elements of this bill that the Labour Party does support. We certainly like the idea that there will be the automatic inclusion of protected lands in schedule 4. We think that it is something that will be very useful. We think it is a process that most New Zealanders would like to see occur and we think it is the kind of legislation we would like to see before the House. 
Also in relation to the idea of pre-vetting applicants so that they are screened for health and safety and environmental capability this is important. This is important because New Zealanders expect this House to set up the most robust regime possible where there will be extractive industries involved. New Zealanders want to know that if we are going to undertake this activity it happens on New Zealanders’ terms and it happens along with the rules that we would expect to protect the environment that New Zealanders feel so much for and that is so integral to who we are as a country and to our brand overseas as well. So we have to set up robust regimes. Putting in place a pre-vetting process will allow us to make sure that if there are players in the extractive industries who do not meet the kind of standards that New Zealanders would expect then they will not be able to get here. So on that count we think that is a useful provision. The streamlining of processes is also something that obviously we want to look at in the Commerce Committee to see exactly what that means but we obviously support the idea that those processes are clear and also the idea of a two-tier system for mining permits. We need to make sure that in land where there is particular value we have a highly stringent process. We like the idea of strengthening that. If it is still possible to protect those values with a different process for the second tier then we can also go along with that. 
So for those reasons this is a finely balanced call for the Labour Party but Mr Heatley has come to us and said he wants to put in place an enduring piece of legislation something that will actually help develop in New Zealand a shared understanding of how things will work in our natural environment: what role the industry has what role the Government has and how we will ensure environmental protection. We welcome that approach but we caution the Minister that if there is going to be cross-party support for this kind of legislation it has to be based on the idea that the environment that we have is protected and that the role of the Minister of Conservation is understood. The conservation estate is there for a reason. New Zealanders have over generations said that we want to protect this land around us to provide us with the kind of natural environment in which we can both have recreation but we can also support where appropriate people entering that environment and using the resources. But we cannot have a situation where the balance is tipped so far in favour of the economic considerations that we leave those environmental ones behind. 
So on balance the Labour Party is supporting this bill to the select committee but we do so with serious reservations and a clear indication to the Government that if on those issues around the role of the Minister of Energy and Resources and also around the economic test if we cannot actually work together on those and find a solution the Labour Party will be unable to support the bill in its future stages. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe. Tena koutou e te whare. I am very pleased to get up and talk about this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. There are serious issues in it and much of it to use a cliché is in the detail. The Green Party will not be supporting it although there are parts of it when it is divided into different bills that we will support. There are several quite good ideas but unfortunately—more than the issues named by the Labour Party—there are some serious problems in the detail which those of us who have lived through trying to address mining on the ground are not happy about. 
Fundamentally the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is flawed in its key goals which are to promote the Government’s programme to facilitate and promote petroleum and minerals development above all other functions. In fact the Government has a plan via this bill and other measures to make extractive exploration drilling and mining the rescue plan for a recession despite the relatively low employment opportunities high risks and costs. For goodness’ sake this week has shown the risks and costs associated with this industry which are paid for both by the environment and by communities. Those communities are people who have believed in the boom and have been hurt by the bust. 
What is the problem with this bill? There are multiple problems. The Labour Party mentioned the issues around the role of the Minister of Energy and Resources—that is one of the problems—and the issues around maximising economics above all else but there is more. The bill is seen as a key element in the Government’s Petroleum Action Plan. It is the first step which is to explicitly state the position that the Government is pro the development of petroleum resources. The regulatory impact statement for this bill suggests a figure for the future royalty income from yet to be discovered fields based on anticipated new production coming on stream from eight known petroleum basins—eight—and we have currently developed only one such basin. This petroleum development will include risky deep-sea oil drilling—an incredibly unpopular and dangerous move at the moment being advocated by companies who need to be vetted and who have not been vetted such as Petrobras which has many communities opposing it—not to mention the controversial and dangerous fracking which was debated in this House and will continue to be. 
We object particularly to the new functions of the Minister of Energy and Resources under the bill. It is clearly stated that the function of the Minister is “to attract permit applications”—not to look at them on their merits not to look at sustainability but to attract permit applications. The functions of the Minister under the bill fail to require him to consider the appropriateness of those applications at all or to consider the sustainability of the resource that is being proposed for extraction. So this is a huge bias which the Crown Minerals Act already had but this bill increases reinforces and promotes that bias. Whatever the oil gas and mining industries want the Government has made it really clear it is going to do its absolute best except for a few little token things to make sure they get it. Unfortunately this will not result in the economic nirvana the golf course nirvana that “Planet Key” wants to create. What it will do is put at risk the fact that our economy is our environment and that our people deserve real sustainability in their employment which is not ever to be found if you have any ability to study history in terms of mining. 
In response to the Government’s request for feedback on a discussion document on schedule 4 in 2010 submitters—and there were thousands; more than 30000—requested that in future all national park and high-value conservation areas should be automatically added to schedule 4. This bill does this and I think some people have gone “Great progress! Fantastic!” and we wanted to believe this too. But we had a look at this because it is not as simple as that that land will just be included. The land is going to be included through a process by which it is granted conservation status but the decision making in classifying this land was solely the responsibility of the Minister of Conservation under the conservation reserves and wildlife legislation. My colleague Eugenie Sage will talk about this more. However this bill now makes it a process by which the Governor-General will perform this role by Order in Council. 
I talked to my colleague the former member of Parliament Jeanette Fitzsimons about this today because I wanted to understand it. She has lived schedule 4 she wrote the amendments to schedule 4 and what she told me is that this effectively means that Cabinet will now have input into the decision making over this land. Therefore that means that instead of it being the Minister of Conservation having a primary role whereby it is automatically added to schedule 4 if advocated for by the Minister the Minister of Energy and Resources and other Ministers especially of higher status in Cabinet can now determine using economic criteria rather than conservation criteria whether that land should be protected or not. So sadly although it looks like progress it is not. It is about changing the process for what would have been a good idea and giving Cabinet through the Orders in Council power that previously belonged to the Minister of Conservation. 
That is actually similar to the whole issue of joint decision-making. It is in line with and it is consistent with the idea that the Minister of Energy and Resources should jointly decide the future of the conservation estate an issue that caused an outcry when it was first mentioned by this Government. I can see the Government’s consistency in this bill. It is completely consistent; it is just totally wrong. It is absolutely not going to help us make good decisions for the future of our country because it takes away the idea that conservation has any intrinsic value and that our land should be protected for future generations. There is only one driver and that driver is maximising profit. 
When it comes to the tier one and tier two stuff we are not objecting to that at all so long as tier two is robust and we do not have any exploration faking as hobby mining—things that do go on in our experience. We do see the value in separating out those tiers. 
We are very interested in something the Government has made up in this bill called iwi engagement reports. New section 33A talks about how a company is required to annually produce an iwi engagement report. What is it? What does that mean? What do tangata whenua now have to respond to? Is this some kind of—there is no robust Treaty framework around them. It is just an engagement. You ring up someone; they are engaged. Is that an engagement report? Do you tick the box? What does it mean? We are not satisfied with that. That is not robust and it is not as strong as the Conservation Act. So we are very concerned about what iwi engagement with absolutely no clarity and no robust principles actually means. The former Crown Minerals Act talks about the Treaty of Waitangi principles; it does not go into any detail. This is worse because it just talks about iwi engagement. Engagement is not marriage. The Treaty is supposed to be about a relationship that is actually binding on the Crown and this is certainly not it.  
We are also concerned about the durations of permits as set out in new section 35 where it talks about extending permits for exploration and prospecting which might seem like a minor detail. I have lived through this personally; it is not minor. They can prospect—from 2 years—for 4 years now and they can explore now up to 15 years. That is not minor for communities remembering that communities under this bill do not have any power to participate in decision making which is very concerning.  
The extension of permits also is very interesting. It talks in the same clauses about extending permits. If it is wished the Minister gets discretion on these things and you just sort of see that the extension for the permit can be for any period that the Minister considers necessary to enable the permit holder to carry out more work. So there are lots of little clauses like that where the Minister and the mining permit can just be extended. There can be an appraisal extension and it is all in the hands of the Minister so long as the Minister has regard for things like maximising economic return and maximising economic recovery. My other favourite one is: “Any change to a work programme determined by” the negotiation between the miner and the Government possibly using this mythical person called an “independent expert”—I do not know who that is I would love to meet them—“must be limited to what is reasonably required to ensure that economic recovery … is … maximised.” Get my drift. This is about maximising economic return doing anything the industry wants to make sure that it can extend permits so that it can do this.  
So when people say there are only a couple of bad things in this bill they have not read it. I know they have not. They have not read the detail because the detail is extremely interesting. The royalties detail—well the royalties are not really going to be defined in the bill. They will go through the regulations process and we will have less control of them but there are interesting provisions on how you can renew a permit but still pay the same amount of royalty even if the rate of that royalty has changed. This is again like a continuation of the ludicrous situation we saw with Newmont Waihi Gold where it did not have to pay any royalties because it got its licence in 1987. Again the royalties are there to facilitate the miners. They have a permit and they only have to go to the modern royalty rate if they change the mineral. Well how often does the miner going after a particular mineral actually change a permit for a new mineral? It does not happen. 
We would just like to say that we are very concerned about Part 1B because although we like the idea of notification and we like the idea of moratoriums significant money proposals will be decided and defined by two Ministers. This is not it and we cannot support it. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 Sat sri akaal Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. Every time the Green members stand up in this House they keep complaining about what the Government is doing for job creation and the growth of the economy and whenever the Government tries to do something they will again stand up and object to it. 
I would like to congratulate the Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Phil Heatley on bringing in this bill which will help to create jobs and grow the economy. I commend this bill to the House. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the first reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill which was introduced by Minister Phil Heatley yesterday in the House. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to the select committee stage. Like some of the other Opposition parties we do have some concerns in some respects to it but there are areas where we do fully support it. 
This bill is all about the natural resources and the Crown-owned minerals of our nation which is a very very important part of our economy. New Zealand First does recognise that economic development and economic growth is required for our country to succeed and prosper and for the benefit of the people of New Zealand. Therefore it is most important that we get this right and it is most important that this Parliament passes legislation to get this right. In terms of Crown minerals we heard from the Minister that since 2008 something in the order of $2 billion in royalties has been paid to the Crown which is a very very significant amount of money. It is about the same amount of money as the taxes that the National Government gave back to the wealthy and the rich but it is a huge amount of money so we do have to be very cognisant of the fact that royalties from our extensive potential mineral wealth in this country will have a significant impact on the prosperity of the people of New Zealand. 
We are supportive of the fact that there will be a two-tiered system for the permit management so that the higher-risk higher-value minerals where there are perhaps more significant effects will have a higher level of permit management requirement rather than those that are of a lower risk and lower value which do not present the same effects. Swift and decisive action is also possible under this bill for non-compliance and therefore it is a good thing that non-compliance will be acted on and that there is swift decision-making to address that. 
The bill will also have a process to sift out applicants that do not meet the standards and it will basically vet applicants in a sensible manner in the early stages so that people do not waste time do not waste Resource Management Act time and do not waste a lot of Crown time or ministry time or time of the courts—the Environment Court or whatever—in terms of applications that simply will not fly. 
 It is interesting that the bill includes a requirement to report the engagement with iwi and hapu called the iwi engagement report each year. We were wondering whether the iwi engagement report was another name for the engagement between the National Party and the Maori Party because they seem to have very much an iwi engagement between those two parties. We do wonder whether had this sort of iwi engagement been in place in some other legislation such as around the State-owned enterprises with the sale of the power companies and the energy companies of the country—had there been a bit more iwi engagement—perhaps the Government today would not be in its embarrassing situation of the water rights issues with the rivers of New Zealand with iwi and hapu. Perhaps had there been more iwi engagement in the early days the Government would not find itself in strife now wondering how it is going to succeed with its asset sales programme when basically most of those power companies are now subject to potential court litigation by iwi and hapu throughout New Zealand. 
This bill streamlines the system for industry and community. Community consultation and the aspects of that in this bill are good as it provides for and ensures community consultation in relation to Crown minerals. It also complements the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act which was put in place just a few weeks ago in this House and which came from the Local Government and Environment Committee in terms of our 200-mile zone and the continental shelf. In that respect it is most important that this legislation is complementary to that legislation in terms of the potential of minerals in the exclusive economic zone. 
As an example of supporting our economic development in this country we were given illustrations at our select committee of the vast potential out there in the economic zone if it is done environmentally and sustainably so as not to affect the environment in any major or significant way. One of the aspects that I certainly noted was the likes of the Chatham Rise between Canterbury and the Chatham Islands. The vast Chatham Rise which is one of the world’s largest depositories of phosphate has sufficient phosphate there so that even if only 1 percent of the Chatham Rise is mined and taken it would make New Zealand 100 percent self-sufficient in superphosphate for our agricultural industries. It would be a huge huge bonus for New Zealand to be able to do that compared with the present time when most of our phosphate comes from Morocco Algeria and other sources. You never know what those sources are going to be like in years to come and when our agricultural system is so dependent on those sorts of fertilisers and things to become self-sufficient in those minerals would be a huge bonus for our economy. There will be many other similar examples. 
However New Zealand First’s position is always that although we support economic development and we want to see appropriate development of the minerals in this country—and New Zealand does sit on significant mineral reserves—we want to ensure that it is done in an environmentally sustainable manner. It must be done in an environmentally sustainable manner because we are but the temporary guardians of New Zealand. We are very fortunate to be in a very unique part of the world—one of the most remote countries in a sense in the world—in the South Pacific. We pride ourselves on our tourism and on visitors coming to this country—and indeed on our own people living here—and on the clean green “100% Pure New Zealand” image. In fact that whole image results from our economy having massive input in terms of tourism the dollars and the economy that benefits from that tourism and from the funds that flow from our environment. So we cannot in any way put that at risk in terms of Crown minerals being abused or taken in such a manner that would put that environment at great risk. The last thing that I think all New Zealanders regardless of your political position and regardless of your stance would want to see would be the image of New Zealand the wonderful vistas and scenery and the wonderful environment we have—and the unique environment in so many ways around New Zealand—being put at risk because of exploitation and inadequate controls over how minerals would be harvested. 
New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to the select committee stage. We are doing that so that this bill gets a full and robust consideration so that people will have an opportunity to have input on this—so that the people of New Zealand will have full input in this—and so that basically any of the pitfalls any of the negative aspects of the bill any of the risks and any of the oversights perhaps that may not have necessarily been included in this do have an opportunity to be fully fleshed out. I am sure that our Local Government and Environment Committee will put a lot of effort into ensuring that that happens in order to ensure that the people of New Zealand come out of this and that the Crown comes out of this with a very good outcome in an Act that is sustainable and has legs. Thank you. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. I would just like to say that New Zealand’s economy is a small economy and this sector already makes a significant contribution. However it could make a greater contribution. 
The general debate today was about jobs. We often talk about Kiwis having to leave New Zealand to pursue jobs in the mining sector in Australia. Well we actually have an opportunity to continue to grow this sector and provide more jobs for Kiwis back in New Zealand. Growing this important sector and looking after our environment are not exclusive of one another. 
I look forward to receiving this bill at the Commerce Committee. I commend this bill to the select committee. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the first reading of the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill and to confirm as my colleagues have done that Labour will be supporting the bill’s referral to a select committee but with some very serious although perhaps not fatal reservations pending further consultation with the Government in an effort to find a way through because there is also much in the bill that we think is sensible pragmatic and worthy of support subject to submissions being received. I would like to give just a quick background on the purpose and nature of the bill and then some more detail about Labour’s approach to it and I would like to then turn to some of the broader economic development issues around the mining sector at the current time. 
This bill as members will be aware amends the Crown Minerals Act to make several important changes. It adds a new purpose section to promote the efficient allocation of minerals. The word “efficient” is always an interesting one in legislation because in economic terms there are many different definitions of “efficiency” and they often have to be balanced against welfare and competition issues. Productive allocative and dynamic efficiency all have different effects and different meanings in law. 
Two tiers of minerals permit are created with more stringent than current requirements for high-value mining and less stringent requirements for less valuable mining. We will be looking carefully at submissions to see whether that might have the undesirable effect of creating a race to the bottom by incentivising less valuable mining practices and there may be some precedents to take note of in the fishing industry in regard to so-called low-value catch. 
The initial assessment of health and safety and environmental capability is going to be added on top of current requirements which seems reasonable. Tier one permit holders must report annually on engagement with iwi. Royalty rates will be amended. The bill makes it automatic for new protected areas—for example national parks—to be added to schedule 4 which is sensible enough it would seem. 
The bill provides for the joint ministerial approval of the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation for mining on Department of Conservation land and that is one of the provisions that we have very substantial reservations about. The current system which requires the Minister of Conservation to consult and then make a decision is in our view not broken. It may well be that there is a way through for the parties to come together to achieve the sensible fine-tuning of the system through this bill without that requirement and that remains to be seen. But without movement on that point I think my colleagues have already signalled that Labour would find it very difficult to support the bill at the second and third readings. 
Labour sees the environment and the economy as essentially two sides of the same coin. Of course interests must be balanced but really often they are interdependent. If we do not value our environment and the services that it provides to us over time our standard of living will degrade and our economy will degrade with it. We are dependent on our land our water and our air to sustain our life our society and our economy and we should protect them for both their intrinsic and their instrumental value. 
Labour does not oppose mining. There has been a bit of phooey. I mean not even the Green Party opposes all mining and Labour certainly does not. As members have noted some of Labour’s history—our DNA our birthplace—is from the mining communities of the West Coast of the South Island. So we feel it pretty keenly just as we felt passionate anger really and sadness for the workers being laid off from Spring Creek Mine and for the families that are being dislocated. We could see the despair in their eyes when they came to Parliament yesterday and the Minister for Economic Development would not do them the courtesy of even reading the paper that they had prepared to try to save their jobs. I have to say I found that extraordinarily arrogant and insulting to hundreds of families who are just at their wits’ end. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Even by your standards? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Well there is “The Maestro” sticking his head up. How many screw-ups does that member need to make before he is a little bit more judicious about interjecting in this House? Good judgment does not come on the end of a cigar Mr Coleman. 
Grant Robertson 
: Putting the smoke into smoke and mirrors. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Smoke and mirrors my colleague has suggested—an apt title for “The Maestro” of Mt Albert but that is another matter. 
Labour supports mining where it is done in a responsible safe and environmentally friendly way but we are concerned that some of the provisions of this bill may run counter to that objective. Labour’s bottom lines on mining are that there must be capacity to respond to accidents quickly as well as to prevent them wherever possible; there must be clear liability established so taxpayers do not foot the bill for mistakes; there must be robust protection for the environment; there must be good strong benefit to the local economy—not only the jobs—and the royalties system needs to be appropriate etc. 
Labour is opposed to there being joint ministerial responsibility for mining on Crown land. The conservation estate is given to the Minister of Conservation to ensure that land is protected and that role should not be confused by the addition of joint responsibility. Consultation already occurs and is required between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources— 
Grant Robertson 
: Tourism? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —and for tourism and for other purposes. That occurs at the moment. The system is not broken. It does not need a radical shift of this nature which would drive the outcomes away from a conservation and economy balance and much more towards an open-cast future and that is not something that we think is desirable or appropriate. 
We are also concerned about applying the economic benefit test to mining on the conservation estate. Mining on the conservation estate should occur only where there is an adequate environmental offset so that the net environmental value of the land is not damaged as a result. The reason for that is death by a thousand cuts. The accumulation or the cumulative effect of repeated development activities can simply undermine the value of the estate over time. It is very important that the conservation estate is protected. That is what it is there for and the policy framework has to reflect that—a far cry members of the public who are listening would observe from the shambles that was the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Here was a magisterial attempt to bring large tracts of the southern oceans within our jurisdiction yet the paucity the weakness of the environmental protection embedded in that bill was a shocker and it was not saved by a big late Supplementary Order Paper. It is still a matter that is going to require a big bold fix-up when the Government changes in a couple of years if not before. 
Labour would also like to see that any concession agreement for mining goes up for public consultation whereas the current bill proposes joint responsibility for the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation to decide whether there should be consultation. I cannot think and Labour cannot think of any scenario where we would build a new mine without it being a notified activity. Mining is just too substantial. 
Parts of the bill that Labour does support include making the inclusion of additions to protected lands such as national parks automatic. The pre-vetting aspect is useful and the streamlining of the process to make it more understandable is useful. I really do not think that any reasonable member of this House would disagree with those provisions. The key to the select committee process and hearing from the public will be to see whether members of all parties can come together to do what is sensible and to resist what might be tempting but ultimately unwise. 
This debate is occurring—if I might make a quick aside—in the context of Spring Creek Mine being mothballed effectively closed for the time being and a large proposal from Bathurst Resources to mine on land on the Denniston Plateau. The Government has argued that Spring Creek Mine is closing because of world coal prices. The same coal prices of course apply to Bathurst Resources so there is no logic whatsoever in that argument. In fact what has happened is that documents provided from Solid Energy make absolutely clear that what is going on here is that to maximise its short-term value it is being dressed for sale. It is in black and white. Board documents prove it. Therefore those 300-odd mining families would not be in the horrible position they are in now if it were not for the privatisation programme. It is wrong. It will stop under Labour and the public still has time to sign the petition that would end it now. 
This is a useful bill potentially but it is a bill that will challenge members on all sides of the House to come together to do what is wise and to compromise so that we can do what is in the public interest without ruining our environment. Thank you very much. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 The Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill is an important bill to help progress the Government’s Business Growth Agenda and the Petroleum Action Plan which is about encouraging the development of Crown-owned minerals and helping to unlock the economic opportunity for New Zealand through Crown-owned minerals. By streamlining and simplifying permitting regimes making it easier to access these minerals we help to further progress economic growth. 
We know that the energy and resources sector is very important to this country. Oil is our fourth-largest export with approximately $3.5 billion of exports going through that sector. It also employs a lot of people and it is important to make it easier for opportunities to be explored and for further employment to happen through this sector. 
If there is a perfect example of an opportunity that is being held up through a regulatory mechanism it is the Bathurst Resources project which would see 225 people gain employment. Many of those people have just lost jobs and would benefit significantly if a particular project was to be expedited through a regulatory regime. 
It is appropriate that through this bill we re-examine the regulatory regime and make it easier to simplify and progress important projects that have huge economic potential for the country. I endorse the bill and look forward to it coming back from the Commerce Committee in due course. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand that the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 As my colleagues have said Labour is supporting this bill the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill with considerable reservation. We are willing to support its referral to a select committee at this stage because we feel that the issues the bill is ostensibly dealing with are important. They are important to New Zealand’s economic development they are important for the stewardship of our natural environment and we intend to hold the Government to account. We will be subjecting this bill to scrutiny at the select committee and we look forward to having debates there. 
This bill comes to the House against a backdrop of political debate about two huge issues for New Zealand: jobs and the environment. As Grant Robertson was saying earlier this Government’s philosophy about economic development and the environment is that you trade off one for the other and if you want jobs then you have to be willing to sacrifice the environment. It is a 20th century philosophy or maybe even a 19th century philosophy. Let us look at those two issues and let us look at the Government’s track record because that is the context in which we should consider this bill. 
 On jobs the Government wants to say that if you want more jobs and if you want economic development then you should support mining and you should support extractive industries at any cost. This is the Government that has presided over the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and it is absolutely unwilling to countenance a range of policy options that have been discussed in this House over the last few days and the last few weeks that would give more support to our manufacturing sector which delivers thousands and thousands of high-value skilled jobs. But this Government is apparently content to allow them to haemorrhage away as one industry after another announces mass lay-offs and skilled New Zealanders leave this country for jobs across the Tasman. The Government has—you just look at the statistics for the last 4½ years—an appalling record on job creation. Its idea of job creation is hiring more people in Work and Income to harass people who are on welfare benefits. That is this Government’s idea of job creation. 
Let us look at the environment. This is the Government that gutted the emissions trading scheme. We are no longer a leader. We are no longer a fast follower. We are just a kind of disinterested passive observer when it comes to dealing with the challenge of climate change. 
The Government brought in some ridiculously weak legislation to deal with the environmental regulation of the exclusive economic zone. It spent months and months in its first term of Government trying to engage New Zealanders in a debate about mining conservation land mining of schedule 4 land and was firmly rebuffed by the public on that issue. It has systematically underfunded the Department of Conservation and this is the Government that refuses to do anything significant about protecting the last few remaining Maui’s dolphins. So it does not have a leg to stand on when it comes to environmental issues and the environmental stewardship of our nation and yet it comes to this House and says to New Zealanders: “If you want jobs if you want economic development then you have to support our agenda on extractive industries.” Well I do not think that is the way New Zealanders see it. It is pretty clear that most New Zealanders want economic development but they are not prepared to sacrifice the natural environment that we treasure in this country. They want safeguards in place. They want reasonable controls in place. 
I think that when this bill is debated at the Commerce Committee the public will see that there are provisions in this bill that are simply about tilting the playing field all the way downhill to Rio Tinto - Zinc and other mining companies. As my colleagues have said there are two issues that we are particularly concerned about and unless they are resolved we will not be supporting further progress on this bill. The first is joint ministerial approval and the second is the economic benefit test. My colleagues have discussed both those issues. Unless we see satisfactory resolution we will not be supporting the further progress of this bill. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will ring the bell at 4 minutes. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is opposing this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill because it makes a fundamental attack on conservation legislation. In the schedule 4 debate in 2010 when 50000 people marched down Queen Street in support of protection of national parks and not opening them up to mining the National Party sought to get out of the can of worms it had opened by promising that there would be public consultation on access applications on conservation land. Certainly this bill introduces and makes provision for that but the bill substantially weakens the process for considering access applications on conservation land because of its provision for those decisions to be made jointly by the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources and because of the introduction of the economic benefits test. 
We have seen this week that Ministers Joyce and English were putting pressure on conservation groups and environmental interests that are quite legitimately involved in a case before the Environment Court on the resource consent applications for the Bathurst Resources mine on the Denniston Plateau. The Ministers have been putting pressure on those objectors to withdraw. It is obvious that the Ministers and others on the National benches have not been to Denniston are not aware of the outstanding landscape and biodiversity values on the Denniston Plateau and are not aware of the significance of those coal measure ecosystems which are protected as conservation land. The risk is that if you have a joint decision-making power as the bill provides you will have the Minister of Energy and Resources and his views overriding those of the Minister of Conservation and the Department of Conservation. We have already seen that with the Maui’s dolphin decision and the Minister for Primary Industries and that department’s views overriding the Department of Conservation’s views about the need to protect Maui’s dolphins. Where you get that joint decision-making power the user department’s views prevail. 
The other major defect in the bill is the way in which it amends section 61 of the Crown Minerals Act. It is section 61 that sets out the matters that the appropriate Minister must have regard to in considering whether to agree to an access arrangement—that is the objectives of any Act under which the land is administered and the purpose for which the land is held by the Crown. The bill in clause 31 introduces an economic benefits test and requires the Ministers to consider “the economic and other benefits of the proposed activity in relation to which the access arrangement is sought”. That is a fundamental weakening of conservation legislation because it means that the Ministers will be weighing up the economic benefits as well as the conservation purpose for which the land is held. 
We know under this Government that economic benefits always triumph over nature and that the short-term gains of opening an open-cast coalmine on the Denniston Plateau would potentially triumph over the biodiversity values. That is despite the fact that the Denniston Plateau is becoming increasingly popular as a mountain biking destination and as a place where people go to recreate and to look at the outstanding landscapes—the rock tors the gullies and the stunted vegetation—that are special to coal measure ecosystems. By introducing this economic benefit test that will override conservation values. That is why everyone particularly conservation groups and anyone concerned about the future of conservation land should be concerned about this bill because it cuts across the protective provisions that exist in the Conservation Act. 
Yes the public may get the opportunity to make a submission on access arrangements if the proposed mine is significant in the Ministers’ opinions but this weakening of the application of the Conservation Act potentially means that it will be much easier for those mining access applications to be approved. That is one of the reasons the Green Party is opposing this bill because it is an attack on our conservation legislation. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I am privileged to take the final call on the first reading of this Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. Roughly 2½ months ago I was fortunate to be up in Northland. I was attending the Northland economic summit there. My honourable colleague the MP for Northland Mike Sabin had organised an economic summit where over 250 people from the community in the business sector the iwi and the local community were present. There in the afternoon we had an opportunity to hear from Minister Heatley and he began to talk about the opportunities of this Government and it was in line with the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill. He talked about the opportunities for business growth and the agenda of this Government. In particular he also talked about the Taranaki example: that mineral exploration boosts the economy and creates jobs and that mineral exploration also contributed $2 billion to the Taranaki community. He talked about improved regulation to encourage responsible exploration. This is a great bill. I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 14; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill be reported to the House by 30 January 2013. 
Motion agreed to. 
National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill 
In Committee 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I seek leave for all the parts of this bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none. 
Clauses 1 and 2 Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 There is only one brief call I want to take. It concerns a question as to whether or not this bill the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill requires a Treaty clause and I think Mr Flavell is interested in the proposal. This is an empowering bill dealing with a whole lot of mechanistic matters and I just do not think that the Treaty is engaged. Certainly at some stage I am interested in looking at the war memorial council bill which will have a number of responsibilities over and above this park. That bill probably appropriately needs a Treaty clause in it but certainly not one dealing with the mechanisms required to enable this park to be completed by Anzac Day 2015. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I have several matters to raise in this call but I just want to pick up the point that the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage was just raising. The question of whether or not there should be a Treaty clause in the bill was dealt with in discussion at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and there certainly was some discussion about whether that was needed or required in this bill. 
One of the important things to note and it is one of the issues that I certainly myself raised in the select committee is that the bill’s title does include in it the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill and that is a reference by the inclusion of the word “Pukeahu” in here to the way in which that land is known to particularly the Taranaki Whanui and those who are part of the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. I do believe it is incumbent on this House to have some recognition of the important role that the Taranaki Whanui have played in this particular area. We were given in the select committee an excellent submission on behalf of the Port Nicholson trust by Liz Mellish and she did go through some of the history of this area and the significance of the area for the Taranaki Whanui. 
What the committee did was make specific recognition in the commentary on the bill around the important role that the Taranaki Whanui and the Port Nicholson trust have played in this area and certainly our belief that they must continue to play that role. They are involved in a number of places in this bill in their role as a landowner. In particular the land immediately beside the Carillon is owned jointly I think by Massey University and the Port Nicholson settlement trust. So they do have a significant role. They should have a significant ongoing role in the way that this park is developed and I certainly hope that is something that the Government will pick up given the support that the trust has given over the years for the war memorial and obviously now we hope for the park. So on this side of the Chamber we would certainly like to note that an important part of this bill is the recognition of the role of the Port Nicholson trust and the Taranaki Whanui and they certainly will have a role in a number of areas. 
Now that we are taking the debate on this bill as one question I just wanted to pick up several of the key changes that have been made throughout the bill. In a sense for me as the local member where this park will be built I have had concern throughout this process to make sure that yes we do everything that we can to see it built in time for the 100th commemoration of Gallipoli in April 2015 and that is an important thing. This park has widespread support in the electorate that I represent and everyone who sat through the select committee process would have seen with a couple of exceptions that the submissions that came before us strongly supported getting this park built and strongly supported getting it built in as quick a time as possible. 
As I said in my second reading speech this is not ideal legislation. I do not like the fact that the Government is passing empowering legislation that goes over the top of other Acts of Parliament but from time to time there will be sufficiently nationally significant projects that require this for whatever reason and I will not rehearse those arguments again around how it is that we find ourselves in this position. We on this side of the Chamber feel more activity could have happened in the last 3 years but it has not. We are now in the position of wanting to support the bill and get it through. But we do in that context have to make sure the community is as involved as it possibly can be. 
The significant changes that I want to highlight are in particular the expansion of the role and the number of meetings of the community forum established under clause 36 of the bill. The two organisations that the committee has included are the owners of the Mount Cook Police Barracks and the Tasman Garden Body Corporate which is on the other side of the intersection of Buckle Street and Tasman Street from the barracks. It is important that the local residents have a role in the development of this park and a significant change we have made in the committee is to include that community forum having a role in the final design of the park. That is important to the people of the Mount Cook community. They want this park to be in their community and they strongly support the reasons for it but it will change their community and in the process of it being developed it will severely disrupt their community. Therefore they deserve the chance to have a role in its development. 
So we are pleased that the community forum is being expanded. We are pleased that the number of meetings has gone up to at least three and I would urge the Minister to make sure that that community forum meets as often as is needed and that there are other opportunities. The Minister and I discussed this in the second reading. There have already been some community meetings. I want there to be more. There was actually another community meeting last night which discussed this in some depth—the Mt Victoria Residents Association annual general meeting which the Minister in the chair was to have attended but did not. He was not there. He will be thrilled to learn that a fake Mr Finlayson attended the meeting and offered a number of positions on his behalf. I am sure that he would warmly endorse those positions. There is a great deal of community interest in this bill and I think that if we can see the community forum playing that key and important role members on this side of the Chamber would be reassured. 
The other area that I want to raise is the whole question around Orders in Council. Certainly going into this bill this was something that we on the Labour side of the Chamber wanted to ensure—that is there were the right protections in place so that Orders in Council are seen as what they should be which is as a last resort in the event that the extensive provisions contained in this bill are not enough to achieve the goals of the bill. That may occur from time to time but if it does the process of Orders in Council is such that we need to put all the protections possible in place to make sure that they are used only in that way. 
That is what new clause 24(4) is about. It is the last resort clause. It mentions the fact that the Minister can go down the path of Orders in Council only if they have “considered all other reasonably practicable ways relevant to the particular circumstances to achieve the purpose specified …” in the legislation. The key phrase there is “all other reasonably practicable ways”. What that is signalling to the Minister under this Act is that they can use the Orders in Council process only when it is absolutely necessary as an absolute last resort. I would hope that there will not be a great deal of need for that because the schedules of this bill outline a very extensive set of regulation powers and consenting powers that are given under this Act. But if it is needed that is the last resort clause. 
The other part of that Orders in Council process is making sure that this Parliament has a role if that is done. The Minister has wisely set up a review panel so that any Orders in Council must go to that review panel. What we wanted and what I am pleased to say is now in this bill is that there will be a report back to this House every 6 months about what that review panel has done what Orders in Council have come up. That is important. It will allow members of Parliament to know what is happening. 
The other change that we made there was an extension around the disallowance process. This is actually to give members of Parliament the right to be able to oppose any of these Orders in Council to actually give some proper time for that to be considered so we have extended that out to 12 sitting days from the 6 sitting days that was originally in the bill. 
From our point of view on this side of the Chamber we are strong supporters of this memorial park. We believe that it will give New Zealanders the kind of place to reflect on the sacrifices people have made in war to reflect on the impact of war. It will give green space to Wellington where it much needs it. It will be a place that Wellingtonians will be proud of. In terms of this legislation we have to make sure that in giving the power to make this park happen we also protect the rights of Wellingtonians and of New Zealanders more generally. I believe the changes that the committee has made make that happen and on that basis we are happy to be supporting this. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I would like to pick up where my colleague Grant Robertson has left off and say that there is widespread support for this bill the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. When Grant Robertson was talking about how important it is to his electorate because it actually is in his electorate I need to reinforce the fact that I think it is important across the whole of Wellington. But even greater than that because it is a National War Memorial Park it is of significance to all New Zealanders and I think it was made so by the return of the Unknown Warrior and the burial of the Unknown Warrior in that spot signifying for all New Zealanders a place where we honour and we commemorate the loss of many lives during many wars. 
There was widespread support during the hearing of this bill including from the community but also from the Wellington City Council and I think that was significant. My understanding is that Celia Wade-Brown the Green Mayor of Wellington supported this bill. In fact there were only two councillors who opposed it. I think that probably shows the depth of feeling here in Wellington for this park and for the completion of this park. 
I think it was unfortunate that during the select committee stage although concerns were raised about the process the Greens did take the position that they would oppose the bill. They want the park but they oppose the bill. It seemed to me that that was a bit like having a bob each way—you could say you wanted the park but you were not prepared to vote for it. I think it would have been really tremendous if this House could have had unanimous support for this bill. I understand the concerns about the process but when I look at the work that was done in the select committee and the changes that were made to make the bill in terms of the Orders in Council as robust as possible and as transparent as possible the Order in Council would be considered only as a last resort and all other reasonably practicable ways must be considered before an Order in Council. I think that the work that was done in terms of the review panel and extending the consideration up to 12 sitting days helped to strengthen the bill. I do not think there are many members in the House who want to see us not use proper process but every now and then in my experience an occasion does arise where you can have a process that is not ideal but will be for the greater good. This was one of those cases when there was a need I think for the Parliament to say that this is a very good thing to do. This is good for Wellington but it is also good for New Zealand. 
Something that did concern me was that we could not get support across the House. It is no good saying you support it but then saying let it be built sometime in the future. There is a date required for the building of this and we could argue and we did argue in the select committee stage that it ought to have been started sooner that it ought to be finished in time for 2015 without the need for this legislation. The reality is it will not. We do want it for the 100th celebration commemoration of Gallipoli and to do that it may require that there has to be some action taken to speed up the construction of this park. 
It is also of interest to me that in the original proposals and discussions with the former Mayor of Wellington there was an idea that in fact the council would like to enhance Taranaki Street which comes off Buckle Street perhaps with a tree-lined avenue so that there would be a wide avenue that leads into the park. I would hope that at some time in the future that could be considered by the council. In fact although you would still be driving up that avenue it would kind of blend into the whole idea of the National War Memorial. I am not sure where the council sits on that now but it was something that Kerry Prendergast was pretty keen on. 
I think the work as I said done at the select committee has strengthened this bill. We strongly support it. We would like to see it passed as soon as possible. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 My contributions to the debate around the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill I suppose have come from the perspective of veterans and what I have heard from the different veterans’ organisations about the necessity of completing the National War Memorial Park by 25 April 2015. It was instructive for me today being again at the war memorial with the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Nathan Guy the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister acknowledging the contribution that New Zealanders made as part of Bomber Command and particularly acknowledging those veterans who were not able to travel to the UK to participate in the commemorations over there. Again today it was acknowledged by senior RSA representatives just how important it was to them that there was now certainty that the final addition to the National War Memorial would be completed and it would be completed on time. Again it was passed on to me personally how much it was appreciated that this was being supported by multiple parties—not just by the Government but by many of the Opposition parties as well. That is what we should be focused on. 
 I suppose what I wanted to say is that having come to this debate with that perspective it is important also to acknowledge the perspective of the other people who are involved in this as well and that is of course the community who live around the National War Memorial and the wider Wellington community. In a way I suppose Wellington is a place that all New Zealanders feel we have a stake in. There are many buildings and spaces of national significance here in our capital city and I can imagine that the Wellington community must sometimes feel a little put upon that everybody feels they have a stake and an interest in what goes on in Wellington and want to have a piece of any decision made about Wellington. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s not a problem Palmerston North has. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well Mr Mallard makes a disparaging comment about my home town. I actually think there are many matters of national significance that go on in Palmerston North and maybe that is something to address in another debate. 
But it is important to acknowledge the perspective of the Wellington community. I think it is helpful to know that there is widespread support from the Wellington community not only for this bill but also for the way in which it is proposed that the community will be engaged through this legislation. There is a wide range of organisations and people who will participate in the community forum. Massey University Mt Cook School the National War Memorial Advisory Council the New Zealand Historic Places Trust the Wellington City Council the Greater Wellington Regional Council the Tenths Trust and the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust are just some of the organisations that will participate in the community forum and there is an ability for the Minister to ensure that the interests of local residents and local road users are taken into account as well. That is important to ensure that that community engagement is maintained. But what we have already seen through the select committee process is that there is broad support. So it is important to acknowledge that and at this time that is really all I want to contribute. I may want to contribute more at some later point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. Can I have a temporary Chairman? I will ask Phil Twyford to take over. There is just a process here members. We have to go back into the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Are you going to put the motion? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I will put the motion. The motion is that we report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
House resumed. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 10 to Minister 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question asked during question time today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly can I just thank members for accommodating me. During question No. 10 today I was asked a supplementary question about when my chief of staff was informed about the Deputy Prime Minister’s signing of a ministerial certificate relating to the operations of the Government Communications Security Bureau. I mistakenly thought the member asking the question was asking about when we first were aware of the Government Communications Security Bureau involvement rather than the signing of the ministerial certificate. The answer to the member’s question is in fact Monday 24 September which is when I was first advised. I should also clarify that the ministerial certificate was dated 16 August 2012 when in fact the meeting at which the certificate was signed was actually held on 17 August. That will probably clear up the member’s confusion in that regard. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I declare the House in Committee for consideration of the National War Memorial (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill for further consideration of the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill and for consideration of the Legislation Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I have just had a procedural hiccup but I seek the leave of the House notwithstanding the earlier approach for us to do exactly what you have asked. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you. Is the House happy with that? Thank you. We are not putting a motion. You have seen what I have done and if you are happy with that that is how it is. We are moving into Committee. 
National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 to 4 and 6 to 10 ( 
continued 
)  
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I just want to add a short contribution to what I said before that brief interruption. I just wanted to finally say that for the local community it is really important that we follow good process as closely as possible and it has been discussed by a number of members that the process around this bill is not ideal but has become necessary due to various circumstances which have been well rehearsed. 
I just want to say that through engagement from Opposition parties and support of the Government and assistance to the Government we have been able to strengthen the process and to ensure that those Orders in Council are perhaps the least desirable process by which the Government will progress the matter of the Memorial Park and the construction work that has to go on around it. The introduction of the review panel meeting more regularly the extended consideration of Orders in Council in the event that those are required and the explicit reference in the legislation to make it clear that Orders in Council are the very last resort those things possibly may have been introduced by the Government without support from the Opposition but they were ideas that were generated by the Opposition and I think they are in the bill because of the constructive way in which parties across the House have worked together to build the most robust and sensible process in legislation around this that is possible. That is one of the valuable parts of Opposition parties engaging in a constructive way around legislation like this. 
Just in closing it is pleasing to see that this legislation will be progressed. It will certainly make the veteran community very happy. I am sure it will make all New Zealanders very happy to see that the Memorial Park will be built in time for that centenary of the Anzac Day landings. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair me tatau e wananga nei i tenei o nga pire hei whakanui te ahuatanga o te hunga kua haere ki tawahi. Kai te pirangi au ki te whakatakoto i etahi korero mo Te Pati Maori ka mutu mo te Supplementary Order Paper 131 i whakatakotohia ki mua i te aroaro o te Minita i tenei ra. Tuatahi me ki kai te tautoko ake i te hiahia te tumanako kia tu tenei o nga Whare hei tohu mo te hunga i haere ki tawahi kare he raruraru kare he manukanuka mo tera o nga take. Kai te ahua rongo ake i nga awangawanga a wetahi mo te tere o tana haere me te kore whai me ki te huarahi e tika ana engari na runga i te ahuatanga o te kaupapa nei ehara i te mea he nui nga raruraru o tera. 
Ko te tino putake o taku tu he korero mo te wahi ki a matou mo te Supplementary Order Paper ara kia hangaia tetahi wahanga hou ko tera wahanga ko te 3A. He aha tona putake? He whakauru korero e pa ana ki te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko te tikanga o nga korero e penei ana: “All persons exercising functions and powers under this Act must take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”. Me ki kei te whai tenei wahanga o te ture i enei kupu korero tonu i era i roto i te Resource Management Act 1991. Me ki i tangohia mai ai tera wahanga o te Resource Management Act ka metia atu ki tenei pire no reira ehara i te mea kai te noho taupatupatu nga kupu. Kao. E orite ana nga korero e rite tonu ana nga korero o roto i te Resource Management Act me tenei o nga kaupapa. 
He aha te take o tera? Me ki kia whai wahi te ao Maori i roto i nga nekeneke whakahaere me ki o tenei o nga kaupapa. Kua tae mai wetahi korero me ki o te hunga kainga o te mana whenua o tenei kainga tenei ta Grant Robertson e korero nei kai te hiahia ratou ki te whai wahi i roto i nga korero e pa ana ki te wahi nei; ka tahi. Ka rua e hia ke nei nga momo iwi nga iwi kaua ko te tangata whenua engari ko nga iwi kua eke mai ki roto o Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara. Kai te pirangi ratou kia whai wahi i roto i tenei o nga kaupapa ano hoki. No reira ma tenei o nga kupu korero ka whai wahi tuatahi ko te mana whenua tuarua me ki ko nga iwi kua haere mai ki te Whare i Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara.  
Ka toru naku i whakapa atu matou ki te Port Nicholson Settlement Trust me te Wellington Tenths Trust ahakoa kai raro ratou tetahi wahanga me ki o te Port Nicholson Trust i te raruraru hoi ano waiho tera ki te taha. I tona mutunga mai kua ki mai nga ropu e rua nei ara nga runanga me ki e rua nei kia tautoko Te Pati Maori i tenei huarahi ara te whakatakoto i etahi kupu tautoko ko te noho a nga iwi kainga ki roto i nga nekeneke o tenei pire. Ehara i te mea he nui te Supplementary Order Paper he pakupaku noa iho. He ruarua noa iho nga kupu engari ko tona tuturutanga ina ke te nui o te ahuatanga o nga kupu nei. Kua kite atu tatou i tenei rarangi korero i roto i wetahi atu pire a ka mutu he aha tona putake tuatahi? He whakanui i te ahuatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i nga ture o te motu ka tahi i tona tuturutanga ko tera o nga hiahia o nga mana whenua o nga iwi Maori kia whai wahi i roto i nga korero i roto i nga whakahaere i roto i nga whakaritenga e pa ana me ki i tenei wa tonu nei ki tenei o nga wahi ki tenei o nga Whare ki Pukeahua ka rua.  
No reira koi nei te whanui te wharoa o te Supplementary Order Paper me te tumanako ia ka tautoko mai nga taha o te Whare i tenei o nga huarahi. Ehara i te mea he uaua he mama noa iho tona putake engari ina ke nga whainga ka puta mena ka tapirihia atu tenei Supplementary Order Paper ki te whanuitanga o tenei pire. Koi nei te inoi atu ki te Whare kia ata aro mai ki tenei o nga kaupapa ka mutu ki te Minita tonu tera pea ka whai wahi a ia ki te tautoko i tenei o nga wahanga. No reira huri noa kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Greetings Mr Chair and to us debating this bill that honours those who went overseas. I want to outline some views that the Maori Party has on this bill and about the Supplementary Order Paper 131 that was submitted to the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage today. Firstly we support the wishes and hopes of the House on the parliamentary complex that this stand as a memorial shall we say for those who fought and fell overseas. We have no problems or concerns with that issue. We are hearing concerns from some about how fast the bill is moving and not shall we say following due process but it is not as though there are many problems with that.  
The main reason for rising to take the call was to put forth our position on the Supplementary Order Paper and to have a new 3A section created for it. What would it be for? To have a statement about the Treaty of Waitangi included in it. The wording will go like this: “All persons exercising functions and powers under this Act must take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi)”. This makes it consistent with the actual wording in the Resource Management Act 1991. In fact it was taken directly from that section of the Resource Management Act to include here. Therefore there is no conflict in the wording—none. They are the exact words in the Resource Management Act and this one of the Acts.  
Why is that? Let us say so that Maoridom can participate in the mechanisms of this one of the Acts. Word has come to me from locals from local tribes like what Grant Robertson states that they want to participate in the consultations relating to this place; that is the first one. The second is that there are several other ethnic groups and tribes quite apart from the home people who have settled in Wellington over the years. They too would like an opportunity to participate in this Act as well. Therefore it is by this statement that the local tribe and other tribes or ethnic groups who have come to the House in Wellington be able to participate. 
The third point is that I have been in contact with the Port Nicholson Settlement Trust and Wellington Tenths Trust on behalf of our party. Despite the problems among them namely the Port Nicholson Trust part—but we will leave that situation there. At the end of it all these two entities have endorsed the move by the Maori Party to include references to the Treaty of Waitangi in this bill to ensure local tribes’ involvement. It is not as though the Supplementary Order Paper is a huge one; it is quite a small one really. There are only a few words involved however the depth and significance of these words are immense. We have seen these words in other bills but in the end what is its first priority? In the first instance it is to magnify the Treaty of Waitangi in the laws of the country and to authenticate it. Secondly it is to satisfy the wishes of local tribes and Maoridom to participate in discussions and arrangements let us say in the first instance about this place and this House of Pukeahua.  
So that is the extent and long-standing nature of this Supplementary Order Paper. The hope is that all sides of the House support it. It is not as though it is a difficult thing to consider; furthermore there are numerous benefits that would accrue should this Supplementary Order Paper be added to the broader part of this bill. This then is the plea to the House that it really take due note of this bill and finally to the Minister that he finds favour with this of the provisions. So to us throughout thank you. 
] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call to finish my contribution in the Committee stage of the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill because we are taking this as one question. I just want to note one area that I did not mention in my previous couple of calls and that is that there are extensive schedules to this bill. It is important to note what they do and what they involve and it picks up some of what Te Ururoa Flavell just mentioned. A number of different organisations and people are drawn into how this park will develop through the schedules and that includes the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and the wider Taranaki Whanui because they are a landowner within this park. So I just want to make the point for the member that within the schedules there are a number of places in which they have a role in the development of the park. 
One of the more curious matters that arose during the select committee process was around the maps that are in schedule 10 of the bill. I just want to note for the record that although these maps are indicative of what will happen they are not of course exactly to the exact centimetre in terms of scale of what will happen. 
One thing I want to note about these maps is that this is the place in which local Wellingtonians will discover that over the next couple of years they are to face significant change and disruption in their movement around the city. Annette King’s constituents as they come in from Rongotai to the bright lights of Wellington Central and come round the corner from Sussex Street behind the Basin Reserve will discover that they will now be driving a little further before veering left and heading up towards Aro Valley and so on. This will be disruptive. There needs to be an intensive community engagement programme to ensure that not only the residents of the Mount Cook area but also the residents of wider Wellington and those who visit Wellington will be aware of this. 
I know that the officials and Mr Finlayson are working on that engagement programme. I just urge that it is as open as possible and that it uses all the new technology that is available to ensure that people are kept involved and kept informed with those changes and disruptions because they will be significant and they will last for some time. Mt Cook School which Mr Finlayson and others have been working closely with is aware of these changes because State Highway 1 will now angle beside its back fence. We need to make sure that the school continues to be kept engaged and kept informed and that any changes or improvements that are needed during this time are acknowledged. 
In the schedules we have these plans. They are exciting and they will deliver us this wonderful green space and National War Memorial Park but we need to recognise that there will be significant disruption for Wellingtonians. 
The last thing I want to say is just to give some credit to the Wellington City Council for its involvement and cooperation in this project. It is not only contributing a significant amount of money but also needing to work very closely with the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in order to ensure that the law is upheld and the processes are done properly. We are very grateful for its contribution to this. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call on the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill as we are only 5 minutes away from the dinner break. I spoke in the House on this bill yesterday and on the merits of this park and certainly New Zealand First is very supportive of this as the National War Memorial Park. However today I would like to bring to the attention of the House an aspect that we also must not forget and that is the welfare and the interests of our veterans. 
It is all very well as a nation spending $12 million on this park and it is a wonderful thing that we are doing to commemorate the many hundreds of thousands who have given of their lives for this country over the last century but we still have a lot of veterans alive today in this country who are suffering and are in need of care from the State. Many are suffering from all sorts of ailments as a result of their service to the country and in many cases they are in a perilous state. Many are getting very very aged and frail. So although it is wonderful that the veterans are supportive and are very appreciative of the fact that this war memorial park is an honour to them in respect of the living and of those who have fallen on behalf of our country I think it is also important at this time that we remember that we still have a duty of care to the many many veterans who are still with us today. There are both old and young veterans who are in various states of ill health and have problems that are as a result of having gone overseas on behalf of their country fighting in various theatres of war and who now as a result have medical problems ailments and the like as do their family members as well. 
If I could say just one thing it is that I hope all parties in this Chamber can also remember that we should not just be building monuments and parks; we should also be very much remembering those who are here today. I think that would be an even greater honour to those who have fallen. Those who have fallen would always want to ensure that their friends and comrades who are still living but suffering as a result are taken care of by this country. I implore and say to the Minister and the Government that although there was a war pensions review 2 years ago by the Law Commission there is still a lot of outstanding work to be done on that for the War Pensions Act review and there is a lot of work to be done in terms of veterans’ affairs. I just hope that between all of us in this House all MPs we can get around this and get in behind what is a physical stone structure and also a green park but at the same time put a lot of emphasis— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call at the Committee stage of the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill. May I start by saying as I believe my colleagues have at other stages of this bill that the Green Party is strongly in support of the objective of a National War Memorial Park at Pukeahu and that we share the desire if it would be possible for this to be completed in time for the Gallipoli centenary and Anzac Day 2015. We believe the proposed memorial park will provide New Zealanders and overseas visitors with a dedicated space in which to reflect on the loss and sacrifice of life in numerous armed conflicts to pay respect to the dead to contemplate the causes for which those conflicts were fought and also importantly to consider the cause of peace and to reflect on how future armed conflicts may be avoided. It also would provide a haven of much-needed green space within the busy environs of the capital city. 
However we have found ourselves unable to continue to support the bill despite some of the amendments made at the select committee because of our fundamental concerns about the extraordinary powers granted by the legislation. 
But I would like at this point to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which I sat in on for the duration of this bill. I think the first point to note about that select committee process is that it was an extremely constrained one and very challenging for the committee to do its work within the time frame and indeed for the officials to do the work within the time frame allocated and that is part of the concern that we have with this bill. But within those constraints I think the committee did work well and I enjoyed my experience on the committee. 
I am pleased to say that some of the amendments that the committee has made are minor improvements to the bill—for example the adoption of changes recommended by the Regulations Review Committee which somewhat improve the transparency and accountability of the Order in Council process by making sure that Ministers have to explore every other available option relevant before moving to making Orders in Council and indeed to beef up and improve the community forum and improve the number of times that that community forum is delegated to meet. 
So there are some changes the committee made that do improve the bill but unfortunately the fundamental concerns that the Green Party has with the legislation remain despite those changes because not only does it remove and replace normal planning processes which limits the ability for the public and key stakeholders to participate in decision making about the park but also it grants the ability for the Crown to make wide-reaching changes by Order in Council without the usual parliamentary scrutiny. We in the Green Party are very concerned about the precedent that these powers set about the primacy of the rule of law in New Zealand. We heard at the committee a particularly interesting submission from the Legislation Advisory Committee which expressed concern that if we put aside the rule of law in the case of this legislation in order to expedite what is indeed a noble goal in the National War Memorial Park it will become easier to put it aside again for future legislation. Indeed we believe that that is what has already taken place with the fact that we have this legislation this extraordinary legislation in front of the House in the first place. 
This legislation is based upon the provisions provided for in response to the Canterbury earthquake which was a national emergency. We were told at the time that those provisions for Order in Council and those extraordinary powers granted to the executive by that legislation were necessary only because it was a response to a drastic national emergency and were so extraordinary that we need not be concerned about their use elsewhere. Yet here not so very long after that we have a piece of legislation effecting those same powers for what is absolutely not a national emergency. In fact it has been foreseen for a very long time that we might want to commemorate the centenary of Gallipoli in some appropriate way in 2015 and indeed the plans for this particular memorial park have been in place for a long time. The urgency with which this legislation has been addressed was necessary only because of a decision to halt funding for the project—a long pause in its progress—and then a very rapid decision to advance with it after all. That is not good process. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 131 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to insert new clause 3A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 3 agreed to. 
Schedule 4 agreed to. 
Schedule 6 agreed to. 
Schedule 7 agreed to. 
Schedule 8 agreed to. 
Schedule 9 agreed to. 
Schedule 10 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Excise and excise-equivalent duties on tobacco products 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. What Part 1 of this bill does is allow for four substantive 10 percent increases in the excise duty on tobacco products. This is being done in the name of harm reduction to reduce the harm caused by tobacco smoking in New Zealand. It is being done in a way that as has been discussed in earlier readings of this bill actually follows the evidence for using tax increases or price increases to reduce the prevalence of smoking in a much stronger way than previous increases have done. That is because it allows for four successive increases in price. What the evidence tells us is that each time we have a price increase then associated with that is a spike in quitting activity whether that be people contacting organisations like Quitline whether that be acquiring nicotine replacement treatments—or a whole host of quitting activities. We also know that as a result of those quitting activities many people do remain tobacco-free as a result of those quit attempts although the nature of addiction being what it is many people also go back to using cigarettes and other tobacco products after those quit attempts. But what we also know is that there is a brief period of activity after each increase which then tails off and we return to a steady level of tobacco consumption albeit hopefully lower than what it was previous to the increase. So with these consecutive increases what we should then see are consecutive periods of quitting activity from people who are currently using tobacco and they will assist in progressing New Zealand towards the goal of being smoke-free by 2025. 
But it is important to also note that this being a tax increase does generate additional revenue for the Government. Treasury estimates that this legislation will raise an additional $528 million for the Government over the next 4 years. What I found interesting is that for a piece of legislation that the Government has proposed in the name of health and in the name of harm reduction this bill went not to the Health Committee but to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and in fact the reports the regulatory impact statement and the departmental report were prepared by Treasury not by the Ministry of Health. That is more appropriate for a bill that is designed purely as a revenue-gathering exercise rather than an exercise in improving the health and well-being of New Zealanders. The chair of the Health Committee is looking at me a little bit perplexed and is perhaps concerned that I might be suggesting this is not a health measure and is in fact just a revenue-gathering exercise. I do not believe that Mr Hutchison. I do know that this is being done with the best intentions—the right intentions. But it does also raise money for the Government and it comes at an interesting time. 
It is interesting that the Government has chosen now rather than the year before or the year before that or even going back to the days when National was in Opposition to support a bill like this. Of course what we do know is that the Government has been having a lot of trouble raising the revenue it requires because the economy is so sluggish at the moment. So this does have a positive benefit for a Government that is having a lot of trouble in its economic management at the moment. It is having some difficult getting the economy moving along. This measure does have an additional benefit for the Government in that it does raise some more revenue. That of course then begs the question of what the Government ought to do with that revenue. It is true that there are a number of measures that the Government could be undertaking in order to further tackle the prevalence of tobacco smoking and to further advance New Zealand towards that goal of being smoke-free by 2025 that in fact would be a very very good use for this money. 
There is a range of things that the money being raised from the sale of tobacco could be used for whether it be through GST and whether it be through excise tax. Obviously there is the expenditure on the treatment of people who have diseases that are related to smoking. There is of course tobacco. We know that tobacco is related to all the big four killers—not just the big four killers but the big four creators of cost in the health system—cardiovascular disease diabetes respiratory disease and of course cancer which is well documented. Of course a lot of the money raised from the duties excises and GST on tobacco products needs to be used to pay for those treatments. It also needs to be used to boost the health promotion activities that the Government ought to be carrying out in order to convince people to not start smoking in the first place and also to quit. 
Of course what we know is that one of the other initiatives that has a strong evidence base behind it is social marketing which encourages people to quit. In fact if that social marketing was aligned to these tax increases it would have an additional effect in encouraging people to give up smoking. Unfortunately the truth is that the Government has reduced its spending on those social marketing initiatives despite the fact that it is increasing its revenue from the sale of tobacco. 
There is a third area that needs to be covered as well and this perhaps does not get as much consideration or debate in the public. That is the fact that people who do get a disease that is related to smoking of tobacco products are less productive. They are less able to work. They therefore pay less tax. So there is a burden on the New Zealand taxpayer because of that loss of productivity that is related to tobacco smoking as well and that ought to be covered off by the money raised through tobacco taxation too. 
There is an important question that the Government ought to answer: what is it planning to do with this additional money? Is this just making up for its economic failures? Is this just a way of filling the hole created by its unaffordable income tax cuts as we have seen with the range of other levies and costs placed on the New Zealand taxpayer through indirect taxation that does not come through income tax and making up for that loss of revenue from income tax or will this money be used to get us closer to that goal of making New Zealand smoke-free by 2025? I would appreciate an answer from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Energy and Resources on those questions because I think they are important questions. 
People do accept that increasing the revenue that the Government takes from tobacco is an effective method for reducing the harm caused by tobacco but it does have an impact particularly on low-income people who are addicted to tobacco products. And I note that Treasury actually acknowledges in its regulatory impact statement that the nature of addiction is that even if a product becomes more unaffordable people may continue using it because they are addicted to it and they do not necessarily make what most people might consider a logical decision about their use of that product. So given that that is the situation it would be fair for the Government to do more in terms of supporting people to quit encouraging people to quit and making sure that the types of replacement therapies social marketing and all the other things that go along with encouraging less use of tobacco amongst the population of New Zealand would all be good things to be funded out of this money. So I do ask the Minister if he feels inclined to get to his feet to answer those questions on Part 1 of this bill. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. We spoke on this bill yesterday and it is back in the House again today. Some of you will recall that yesterday on behalf of New Zealand First I expressed our concerns that this would be simply a tax take. As we have heard $528 million over 4 years—a huge amount of money over half a billion dollars—will be going into Government coffers. We certainly are hopeful and expect that it will be the case that a significant amount of the funding that comes out of this measure will go into the required health measures to actually help with the reduction of smoking in our country. 
 While I was sitting in for the Rt Hon Winston Peters on the Finance and Expenditure Committee on a few of the days we did actually flesh out some of the unknown factors in all this. One of the ones that somewhat surprised me was that this always does refer to New Zealand becoming smoke-free by 2025. So there is the feeling out there that there will be no more smoking in another 12 or so years. In actual fact the definition of “smoke-free” from the officials was that by that stage it would mean that where there is currently something like 16 percent of New Zealanders who smoke it would be slashed by about a third down to something like 5 or 6 percent of New Zealanders who smoke which would still leave 50000 or 60000 people in this country smoking. So it cannot really be called smoke-free because even at 2025 there will still be 50000-plus people who are defined as being smokers in this country. 
In that situation it is perhaps a little bit more levelling in terms of what the true situation is. But we do also have a situation with foreign tourists. Of course New Zealand is promoting itself heavily in markets like China Taiwan Japan Korea and all through the Asian countries and that is a potentially huge growth market for tourism to New Zealand. Of course they do have a high percentage of smokers coming from many of those Asian countries. So again New Zealand will always have a situation where we cannot become 100 percent smoke-free because if we are going to expect to have several million tourists a year coming to this country and a significant chunk of those tourists are coming out of many of those countries where there is still a reasonably high level of smoking then that will not be the case. If we were to turn it off flatly many of those tourists simply would not bother coming to New Zealand and that would be a huge problem. 
I think we have to be a little bit realistic here. It is an admirable aim but what we are basically saying is that we are trying to cut the rate of smoking of domestic residents in this country of New Zealanders in this country by about a third from 15 or 16 percent down to about 5 percent. At that point in time that would significantly reduce by more than 100000 people the amount of people who are smoking. In that respect I would certainly hope that if you multiply those 100000 people out across the health system and consider the effects of smoking—we have the chairman of the Health Committee here Dr Hutchison and I know that this is a subject dear to his heart—over the next decade and the next 12 years if that can be significantly reduced in terms of the effects on their health the reduction in what happens in terms of their health the extension of their lives and increasing their life expectancy then that certainly is a good thing. 
It did worry me a little bit too that this bill was being seen only by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and it seemed to be being seen only in terms of dollars but I certainly hope that Dr Hutchison and the Health Committee will take it on board. Actually I hope that his committee monitors this. I have known Dr Hutchison for many many years because he was a doctor in Mairangi Bay and I used to go to his practice. I know how he is committed to good health. So I certainly hope Dr Hutchison that you will follow this through and that you are fighting with your Minister of Finance Bill English for an allocation of increased funding—the increased funding that comes out of these taxes year on year 10 percent year on year—for the necessary health projects to reduce smoking. Thank you. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to contribute to this Committee stage debate on the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Yesterday when I spoke on this bill I talked about the numbers of New Zealanders who die from smoking-related illnesses or from passive smoking—the inhalation of other people’s smoke. It sits at somewhere around 4500 to 5000 people per year who die prematurely because of the effects of tobacco. So I applaud the Government’s efforts to make tobacco harder to purchase which is what this bill will do. 
This bill amends the Customs and Excise Act—and I am speaking to Part 1—to increase by 10 percent the excise on tobacco every year for the next 4 years. So effective from 1 January 2013 1 January 2014 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2016 there will be a 10 percent increase in the excise on tobacco. That will help to put the product itself further out of the reach of young people and that is an important step. 
But I have to go back to some points I made yesterday and which my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has made again this evening that if this were truly a health measure with health-related objectives in mind perhaps the first objective in the regulatory impact statement written by Treasury would not read: “This analysis assesses options to increase tobacco excise to help achieve the objectives of responsibly managing Government’s finances to achieve its fiscal strategy goals;”. Objective number one: to achieve its fiscal strategy goals. This is a tax grab. This is not about health. Had it been about health it would have come to the Health Committee. It might have been introduced by the health Minister. It is in the name of an associate health Minister the Hon Tariana Turia but even she was not present. She was clearly involved in some other activity and was not able to move the second reading of the bill herself so it fell to the Hon Chester Borrows. 
There are a number of people in the National Government who will be hoodwinked tonight into getting up and saying how good this will be for the health of New Zealanders. I expect Dr Hutchison the chair of the Health Committee to be one such hoodwinked. I am anticipating Dr Hutchison’s speech. In fact I will be seriously disappointed if Dr Hutchison does not get up and tell us how good this is for people’s health. He used to be a doctor—he used to be a doctor. So I would expect him to get up and say that. 
I am very pleased for health reasons—and so is the Labour Party—to support this bill but the thing I find missing in Part 1 of this bill which is the part currently under discussion is the thing that might persuade me that the Government had health measures in mind and not simply managing the Government’s finances to achieve its fiscal strategy goals. Certainly secondly it does have “achieving the Government’s goal of making effectively New Zealand smoke-free by 2025;”. Treasury had such trouble with that sentence that it could not even express it properly. The syntax is all skew-whiff. But anyway the first objective clearly is about achieving the Government’s fiscal strategy goals. If it were not that if it were seriously a health measure—and I am pleased that Dr Hutchison is coming up to the Table to get a copy of the bill so that he can prepare his arguments in rebuttal of this—it would say in Part 1 of the bill surely would it not: “We are going to take this money which Treasury calculates will be a substantial amount”—that amount that my colleague quoted before and I am just struggling to find it— 
Dr David Clark 
: $528 million. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: It was $528 million over 4 years. It would say in Part 1 if it were serious: “A proportion”—I am not going to be greedy and say all of the $528 million over 4 years but a proportion; let us say a tenth—“would be dedicated to assisting people to give up smoking.” Assisting people to give up smoking—in other words putting money back into Quitline putting money back into the products that assist people who are addicted to nicotine to withdraw from it to manage it in the course of that withdrawal and to successfully give it up. That would be something to really praise the Government about had it been serious about this being a health measure. But for all my examination of Part 1 I cannot find anything that says that these four substantive 10 percent increases are going to be put back into health. They are not. They will be used to paper over the cracks of a disparate and an unsuccessful economic strategy. 
Although we support the bill for health reasons—and I am sure that there will be one or two well-intentioned members of the Government who support this bill for health reasons—there are others who are simply saying: “Here is a tax grab. Here is something that we can do because we are falling terribly short in our projections on what we are going to get from asset sales. So we are not going to get the money that we expected to get the market is low our assets are depreciating by the day and we are not going to get the funds that we thought we would get from asset sales and therefore we need additional forms of revenue. What can we do? We will hike up the cost of tobacco make cigarettes more expensive and we can do it under the guise of it being good for people.” 
This is a cynical measure. However having spotted the cynicism which one could spot at 500 paces—at 500 paces—we are prepared to support the bill for all the right reasons and in fact recognise that what should be in here is some mechanism for delivering the revenue gathered from these four 10 percent increases back into health and health protection for New Zealanders. 
There is more to be said about this. The bill is currently inadequate. It serves one purpose and one purpose only as a tax grab. If we are lucky it will have a by-product that will be good for New Zealanders but it was not drafted with that in mind. If it had been it would have been drafted differently. Thank you. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a short call on this Committee stage of the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and I am saddened that the Opposition think that members of the Government would be cynical about this in any way. This is a bill that is designed purely and simply to improve the health of New Zealanders by reducing smoking. This Government is committed to reducing smoking harm in this country. This is about increasing tobacco excise taxes by 10 percent as Part 1 of this bill outlines in detail. The increases over the next 4 years which altogether will add up to a very significant additional burden send a very clear message and a strong incentive to smokers in order to encourage them to quit. In the meantime the Government is providing in Budget 2012 $20 million over the next 4 years for the Pathway to Smoke-Free 2025 fund which helps fund programmes to discourage smoking and help smokers quit. I think that what we are hearing from the other side is— 
Scott Simpson 
: Claptrap. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: —claptrap. It is time that we focus on some of the details. So I will be looking forward to some other speeches that focus more on the details of Part 1 coming forward. Thanks. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call and in particular to follow up on the contribution from Paul Goldsmith because he did state—and he is the first Government member to speak in this debate—that the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill is a bill intended to improve the health of New Zealanders. That has been one of the topics that has been debated in this Committee stage of the bill and also in the second reading debate that we held earlier this week. 
I think it is interesting is it not that there does seem to be general support from the House for this bill. I think all parties will be voting for it—I am not sure about New Zealand First but all other parties will certainly be voting for it. 
Brendan Horan 
: Have to wait and see. 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: We will have to wait for someone to come back. But despite the general support for the bill none the less there are many suggestions about improvements to the bill that have been canvassed both in the debate and also by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and by many of the submitters. It is an unusual thing it seems to me that in the select committee’s report it refers to amendments to the bill that it would have made had they been in scope. I think that is an interesting point is it not because it suggests that there are further public policy measures that we as a nation ought to be taking around control of tobacco-related harm and that this bill does not do the things that we need it to do. Iain Lees-Galloway has mentioned that it is a better approach than has been used to excise tax increases in the past and I would agree with that. I think it is a step forward. But given the opportunity that the bill presented it is unfortunate that it did not go further. 
I quote again from the letter to the  
New Zealand Medical Journal  
from Associate Professor Nick Wilson and George Thomson from the Otago school of medicine from earlier this week. They very clearly raised the question that has been raised by several speakers over the debate in this stage and earlier about what the purpose is of the bill. In fact what they said in their letter was: “We suggest that Parliament makes it explicit in the tobacco tax legislation that: the primary purpose of the current Bill is to reduce smoking so as to prevent harm to health and to prevent premature deaths rather than to increase Government revenue.” They also say that the purpose clause that they suggest would say that “The Bill is a key part of the Government plans for achieving a smokefree nation in 2025.” So that is placing into statute in fact that goal. 
If indeed the linkage that Paul Goldsmith has mentioned tonight is the Government’s intention—that that is what this Government is about—then I invite the Minister in the chair to bring a Supplementary Order Paper to the floor of the House to add exactly that kind of purpose clause. It has been drafted for the Government by the professors at Otago medical school. 
I think it is apparent is it not why that confusion has arisen. Those who believe that the bill is or ought to be about reducing smoking-related harm would then look at the options that were canvassed by the various agencies who were supporting the select committee on this bill and note that the option that was selected for inclusion in the bill and which is reflected in the bill that has been reported back was the option that actually had the least positive impact on improving New Zealanders’ health. So either there is some kind of goal confusion going on and one suspects that that may be the case—and if that is the case then perhaps a purpose clause along the lines suggested by those Otago professors would be helpful to everyone to the public and to the Government and would be clear about what it was that it is trying to achieve—or else there is something more insidious and that is certainly the theory that we have heard espoused in the debate tonight. The Government is able to settle that point if it was to take up that suggestion about inserting a purpose clause. 
The select committee rejected the more aggressive measures that would have had a more positive effect on health and in doing so it also made some further comment in its report to this House about in fact its doubt about whether the measures that were being passed into law would be adequate to meet that 2025 goal. It suggested that there should be some ongoing monitoring by the Government of progress towards that goal with a view to determining whether further measures are required. Again the Minister in the chair may or may not be in a position tonight to indicate what the monitoring regime is that the Government intends to put in place to determine whether or not progress is adequate towards that goal. Again that would be a useful insertion into the bill by the Government—the monitoring regime that it intends to use to determine whether or not these measures are achieving the goal. There is certainly a lot of doubt about that point. It was raised by virtually every submitter to the select committee and certainly all of the experts. Indeed the advice from the officials themselves suggests that the measures in this bill will not be adequate to achieve that purpose. I am certainly very keen to hear from the Minister about what that monitoring regime will be. 
I also want to touch on one other point in relation to Part 1 and that is the matter of duty-free tobacco concessions. This is the issue on which the select committee said that had it been in scope it would have recommended an amendment to the bill to change the duty-free concessions. I think what that suggests is that the recommendation that the select committee does make which is that the Government needs to consider this matter—to consider the consistency of the duty-free concessions with that smoke-free Aotearoa goal—is clearly another point that we want to hear from the Minister on. What is it that the Government is going to do to assess that consistency? What is the legislative programme that we might expect to see to close that gap? 
I think the evidence is pretty clear as New Zealanders move through airports or otherwise access duty-free stores or duty-free supplies that the availability of duty-free tobacco and tobacco products is increasingly an anachronism in an environment where our strategy as a nation is to denormalise tobacco. Well the massive stands of cigarettes that we see in duty-free stores—I guess we do not see them now but that we are used to seeing—actually are the epitome of the normalisation of that product. This is a point that does not perhaps affect very large numbers of people but it is an important symbolic step towards the goal that the Government has adopted of having a smoke-free nation. I look forward to the comments from the Minister in the chair on exactly what it is that the Government will do to close that gap. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 This Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill is a tax-grab. The Government needs to be commended for sticking with this and coming this far. 
Certainly what is interesting is the regulatory impact statement by Treasury. It is quite fascinating. It says: “It does not assess and compare tobacco excise increases with other revenue savings and expenditure options Ministers have considered in preparing the 2012 Budget.” That clearly tells you that they do not want to measure it or benchmark it against anything. Two other parts are very interesting: “Analysis to inform a decision on tobacco excise increases for Budget 2012 has included: the impact of recent excise increases on Crown revenue and on consumption patterns; likely revenues from options to increase tobacco excise; initial information on likely distributional impacts … The analysis has not included”—has not included—“a range of other issues due to time and resource constraints.” 
I wonder how serious the Government is about this. It has no information here on the “overall economic and fiscal impacts of smoking (eg: health and other welfare effects on smokers their families” and other impacts and so on and so forth and “disability services linked to smoking … impact on the economic welfare” and so on and so forth. We know full well that there are screeds and screeds and summaries of information on the impacts of smoking. So the Government is just clearly trying to offset this take the money and run—$528 million. 
We heard the “Minister of Prisons” today going on about saving $170 million. I am not too sure how you comprehend not expending money on people’s welfare and trying to avoid smoking and going and building new prisons. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Rubbish! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It is more than rubbish. It is this new edict of the right expecting that they can take money off the working class and just do what they like with it. 
Tobacco in this country was a tool of the colonisers—that is what it was—and it has continued to be a tool of the colonisers of the Government. It seriously was—it was. I say to this person over here Andrew Williams who was talking about the Asians that it is well known and scripted if you are enough of an international scholar and understand what happens to indigenous peoples that when people in a settler society are being oppressed or dominated by the majority they do three things: they drink beer they go for sugar and they smoke. That is the poor man’s correction the working class’s correction. The big-time colonisers grew bigger cigars and they smoked cigars because it was a pecking order thing. And I can assure you that in a lot of these modern countries that are coming into their own that is the first thing they do—they chase sugar they smoke and they drink beer—because it is the poor man’s way to say that they are going up in society. And we would be damned by a Government that does not recognise that and wants to stop you know any brave movers. 
I want to commend the great doctor over there Dr Hutchison because he stuck with us when we knocked the smoking out of those restaurants and bars when Simon Bridges wanted to carry on smoking in restaurants in Tauranga. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Oh! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes you did. I remember you saying that. And does it matter now? It is a great thing. So why do we not get serious about Part 1 and ensure that it is knocked right out. We should be working towards that. 
You know Quitline and Auahi Kore cannot even pay their phone bills and you are going to flog the money off them—$528 million. Auahi Kore—there are a lot of volunteers who run around in those cars. They tell me that it takes 4 weeks to disconnect a heavy smoker and for them to even start to practise and be honest about not smoking—4 weeks. It takes a lot of money. But you take it from me sonny—that is what happens. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Oh sorry Mr Chair. Kia ora Mr Chair. Dear sir be assured that that is what people do when they come out from the boondocks: they chase beer they eat sugar and they smoke cigarettes—and we should be aware of it. There are more than enough Maori and Pasifika people who have respiratory diseases and who have smoked themselves to death and it will continue—it will continue. The worst situation in relation to this bill is that there is not any money being put back in to help correct it and to help support the correction. The doctor knows that. That is why he is chewing on his glasses. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 It is a delight to follow my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia who has put his finger on a number of important issues addressed in the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. He has really brought home some of the issues that continue to affect many members of our population and he has drawn attention to the need to have those issues addressed more seriously than in the kind of haphazard way that the National Party has sought to address them over the years—or not address them. I remind us all that it is not so long ago that Bill English himself opposed such a revenue increase by the then Labour Government saying that “the Government did not ever say it would do it … that is the Government’s standard not ours.” He washed his hands of it. He labelled it a tax increase and said that “It is a tax on the poorest people of New Zealand it is an increase that is far too large and that is why we voted against it.” So the finance Minister not so long ago was voting against this kind of measure. There is a certain irony in his supporting it now. 
We see it for what it is: it is a cynical tax grab—$528 million over the next 4 years Treasury says will go into the Treasury coffers. We know that is why the Government is doing it. We know it is concerned about the revenue hole left by the 4 percent revenue drop during its term in office which is largely due to economic conditions being poor. This Government has the worst economic record of any Government in 50 years. It had hoped for better. It described its 2010 package as broadly fiscally neutral and it has proven to be anything but unless one uses the term “broad” in the broadest sense. 
We know that smoking remains the single biggest cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in New Zealand. Around one in five adults currently smoke. The Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill directly affects a significant portion of our population. It is an issue that needs to be tackled. Labour will be supporting the bill because this is a measure in the right direction. We have had a principled stance on this right the way through. It is not about a tax grab as far as we are concerned; it is actually about addressing the health issue that lies behind it. 
Maggie Barry 
: Holier than thou. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: Labour continues to support this we continue to be consistent in this regard and Maggie Barry will acknowledge that this is the right thing to do. I do not think she would say it is the wrong thing to do. Her Government is now supporting this measure. 
What we see is that equally in the papers that we have had before us in the Finance and Expenditure Committee the regulatory impact statement from Treasury explains the effect of this legislation on smokers. In 2010 Cabinet favoured the sequence of three 10 percent steps rather than a one-off 30 percent increase because it considered that it would offer a repeated set of messages to smokers. That is what is contained in the regulatory impact statement. It goes on to say that “The Treasury does not have any evidence available to support one approach over the other as being more likely to be effective in prompting sustained reductions in smoking.” I think that what sits behind this particular choice is that this Government does not want to deal with it on multiple occasions. It wants to get this dirty Act over with. It wants to get the revenue banked in the coffers. It does not want to address the health issue too many times so that is why it has chosen the 30 percent over the 10 percent when it has had direct advice from Treasury that it makes no difference whatsoever. 
The effect on smokers of course is significant. An average smoker smokes 12 cigarettes a day we are told. Assuming a current price of $16 for a packet of 20 that amounts to $3500 per year. Continuing to smoke those 12 cigarettes per day we are told will cost the average smoker an additional $1130 more per year. This is a significant measure. It will affect behaviour. It will make a difference because we know that price and marketing is the most effective way of dealing with addictions. We know that from the alcohol sphere. We see the Government avoiding those measures in the alcohol sphere currently but to its credit it is taking on the price issue here albeit for perhaps the wrong reasons. 
Certainly the University of Otago presenters who came to our select committee identified that. They portrayed this bill although in more polite and academic terms as a naked revenue grab. They advocated for some changes in the bill. The first was to clearly establish that the purpose of the bill is to save lives rather than to increase Government revenue—to make the purpose absolutely clear. Secondly they advocated for clearly establishing the bill as part of the Government’s plans for a smoke-free nation in 2025. That is an interesting point that I will come back to because if it were adopted as part of the Government’s plan for a smoke-free nation in 2025 we might see some additional measures because Treasury also tells us that this measure alone is unlikely to achieve that goal. They also advocate for increasing the tax rises to 40 percent in the first instance and at least 20 percent in subsequent rises. 
The researchers from the University of Otago—whose specialist topic this is who have done the research who understand what would make a change and who are people based and educated largely in New Zealand’s finest city—would recommend that we also reduce duty-free allowances for tobacco products to one pack of 20 cigarettes or the equivalent. They would also urgently investigate establishing a minimum price for tobacco. These are measures that the select committee did not decide to adopt. They would further suggest that we ensure tax increases are implemented with co-interventions and they outline a series of ways in which that could be done effectively hypothecating the additional tax take. Perhaps it is a dirty word to Treasury—the “h” bomb hypothecation—but it is actually a way of having the changes accepted by the public. We know that the public will accept positive changes and particularly smokers in the general public when they know that they will be provided with assistance to help break the habit as a part of that package. These researchers note that the overwhelming evidence is that tax increases are one of the most effective means to reduce smoking prevalence. They cite the modelling work carried out by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research for the Ministry of Health that demonstrated that substantial tax increases would be an important component of achieving the 2025 smoke-free goal. Treasury advises that the increases proposed will not be sufficient to achieve that goal on their own. 
We note that there is a paucity of other policy being brought forward by the Government and all of that of course highlights the fact that as far as the Government is concerned this is an attempt to fill its revenue hole the 4 percent loss of revenue in the Government books—1.5 percent of which is attributed by the Inland Revenue Department to the global financial crisis but 2.5 percent of which is attributed directly to Government policy changes. This is an attempt to begin to fill that revenue hole because the economy has not grown. The policies the Government has adopted the tax policies we are discussing here and other policies the Government has adopted have not grown the economy sufficiently that the revenue is there to afford the public services that we all value. We see this bill as a tax grab. Unfortunately it is not achieving the 2025 goal that we would hope it would. 
We also note that Treasury’s advice is that the social policy objectives will not be met because excise increases should be considered as part of a broader package. They also note that the stock of current smokers will still be the majority of smokers in 2025. Even aggressive increases in tobacco excise rates alone are unlikely to be sufficient to achieve the smoke-free goal in this time frame. I put it to you that this is clearly a measure that is a tax grab. It is going to achieve positive results so we will support it. We do wish the Government would go further and I look forward to hearing from the next member who will speak and I hope it is Maggie Barry. I hope she will enlighten us as to the wider Government policy on this issue and not just tell us about the naked tax grab which this current bill represents. Thank you. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I rise knowing that that botanical expert could visit upon me a form of mother-in-law’s tongue a well-known weed that grows up in and around the gardens of Auckland. But I want to talk about a far more serious subject. 
Maggie Barry 
: Don’t be so prickly Shane. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I was relying only on the modest botanical knowledge I inherited from the Anglican Church while I was at St Stephen’s College. Then I went to the various Anglican churches around Auckland—and I must say the padre did smoke so it is actually relevant—and I recalled that line. I am not entirely sure whether that member actually spoke about that botanical pest otherwise known as the mother-in-law’s tongue but from time to time she evinces those qualities. That is reflective of how much botanical knowledge she had inversely related to some of her political contributions. Kei te pai. 
I would like to start with a small story—very instructive. I come from the very far north Ninety Mile Beach and the name of our tribe is Te Aupouri. It means the dense smoke. How it arose was that we were surrounded by some of Hone Harawira’s relations and we were a far more modest humble sort. In order for us to escape the ravages of their foul designs we lit a big fire. We waited for the smoke. It was early in the morning and it settled just above the current of the water. We managed with a level of sleekness and a sort of waka that was not a “Tupperwaka” to sneak away. 
 Unfortunately in more recent times that story—a grand story about pre-colonial times—is visited upon us as more and more of my own matuas have died with a cigarette Park Drive in the mangai one in the damn hands and one in the ear. Those images—unfortunately they were Maori Battalion returnees so it is probably not the most sensible contribution in terms of the rather romantic image we have about our matuas who went to the Maori Battalion—were a feature. 
When we went to hui because I grew up right next to the marae—my dad was a dairy farmer which may cause some of the members on the other side of the Chamber to ponder as to how I ended up where I am. Well it was truth in justice it was truth in justice—truth in justice. However part of what we contributed on the marae with our old grandmother who whangai-ed me brought me up with my parents etc.—she was born in 1892—was that we used to go and get bales of hay and spread this hay out because there were very few mattresses etc. We would spread this hay out and put out a thing called a kuta mat made out of this golden reed growing in the lakes; our whaeas used to make these mats out of it. So that was the mattress. Well I have vivid memories of these Maori Battalion returnees sitting there with their Park Drive with a small flask of whisky arguing about land. 
Unfortunately not much has changed but at least there has been an improvement. The tone has changed and the norms have changed. There is no more smoking in that particular marae. We actually have mattresses. I think they come from “The Ware-whare” otherwise known as The Warehouse. Unfortunately fewer of us actually know how to make those mats. They are one or three long-suffering individuals who from time to time have been misguided enough to support the Maori Party in the mistaken belief that its politics are going to revive our culture but that is another matter. 
So this is just another step on a long-term journey. Yes the tax is regressive and yes I have been out once or thrice with my matamua the matua of Aotearoa Tuatahi and yes I have seen him with my partner enjoying a cigarette now and again. It is free will it is everyone’s choice etc. and may they enjoy the opportunities that smoking and drinking afford them. I enjoy drinking and something else but not smoking but it is a free life and it is free will. It is free will. 
It is regressive and a lot of our Maori voters they are hoha. They are hoha that we are supporting this but we have to say to them: “It is in your best interests and please reward us appropriately when voting comes around.” So we know that there are occasional difficulties. I think it is inevitable that the flinty rather mean-spirited side of the Chamber—that side of the Chamber—will remind us that this is about tax and revenue but it is how it is applied. I would actually like to see a hypothecation model—a rather sensible word brought to the fore by Annette King as she reformed our transport policy which is currently being squandered by that side of the Chamber. So this revenue is dedicated to working with young parents. In our world in Te Ao Maori unfortunately a young parent of 16 17 18 or 19 in “Strugglers’ Gully” is often very stressed so the challenge that Treasury— 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This relates to an incident that occurred early in Mr Jones’ speech. I did not want to interrupt his speech so I ask you just to reflect on it. There are a number of Speakers’ rulings relating to interjections but I could not find one that actually relates to the matter of a member standing whilst another member has the call in order to interject in the way that Maggie Barry did during the previous member’s call. The nearest one I can get to is Speakers’ ruling 61/5 which says: “A member may not make interjections while standing or leaving the member’s seat.” although I assume that means getting up and walking around and making interjections. I just wonder whether we could get a ruling from you on the practice of standing in order to make an interjection on a member who has the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I shall reflect on the matter. I think that in general interjections are to be discouraged and anything that gives the interjector or interjectee—the person doing it—any kind of advantage is to be seriously discouraged. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Excluding price increases from required CPI indexation of or related to social assistance 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill relates to excluding price increases from required CPI indexation of or related to social assistance. I was not on the select committee that considered this bill being a member of the Health Committee not the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I have to say it is a pity that the chair of the Health Committee used his call to take a closure motion rather than to offer a substantive contribution to the debate on Part 1. Maybe he will offer more substance on Part 2. 
What I understand the point of Part 2 to be is to ensure that the excise tax increases result in a significant real-term increase in the cost of tobacco for the people who receive income in any of the ways captured by Part 2 of this bill. The income that we are talking about here concerns people who receive income that is related to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act or to the Education Act 1989 with that being student allowances; people who receive money through Working for Families; people who receive money through New Zealand superannuation and retirement income; people who receive social security money; and people who receive money through the War Pensions Act. 
So what this aims to do is to ensure that the increase in the cost of tobacco is not factored into any increases in those benefits or allowances and thus will not offset the increase of the tobacco so that in real terms the price of tobacco goes up. That is a perfectly fine concept except for the fact as Treasury points out that one of the unfortunate aspects of a tobacco tax increase is that it is regressive. It affects the people on the lowest incomes the most and indeed it will certainly affect the people who receive their income through any of these measures. 
However it will also affect people who receive their income through wages but who are also on low income. However people who receive their income through wages will be able to argue that the increase in tobacco excise results in an increase in the Consumers Price Index and they will be able to bargain for a wage rise as a result. It will certainly be factored into wage bargaining around the country. So what you get in effect— 
Dr David Clark 
: Two tiers. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —is a two-tiered system. Exactly—thank you Dr Clark; you knew what I was going to say. It is a two-tier system whereby people who receive an allowance or a benefit or a pension that is funded through taxes are going to have their ability to offset this increase in the cost of living reduced or in fact negated whereas those people who earn wages are not. 
I guess it is similar it is analogous in a way to the way the Government is behaving around other people who receive a benefit. So for instance the Government has said that women who receive a benefit will be able to get free contraception. In fact in an interesting act of eugenics their daughters will also be able to get free contraception. But it is not all women on a low income or indeed all women. It is singling out people who receive a benefit. Likewise parents who receive a benefit will now be required to send their children to early childhood education. It is not everybody. It is not making early childhood education compulsory for everybody but it is singling out for special treatment people who receive a benefit and this is another instance of the Government doing that. It is singling out people who receive a benefit stigmatising the fact that they receive a benefit by treating them differently from everybody else. It is unfortunate that this bill continues that theme that we have seen from this Government. 
One thing that I find particularly interesting is the fact that this bill will pick on our veterans who receive a pension by way of the War Pensions Act. Interestingly the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs is in the chair at the moment and he might have some thoughts on this. This amendment to the War Pensions Act precedes much more significant amendments to the War Pensions Act that veterans have been calling for for some years now. In fact the Government has had a report in its hands for more than 2 years indicating how it could carry out the amendments to the War Pensions Act that are required in order to make it more equitable and fair on those veterans who served before 1974 when ACC was introduced. Those are the types of amendments that veterans want to see made to the War Pensions Act not this amendment which will curtail any increase that they might get to their pension to offset the increase in tobacco taxation—the increase in cost for their cigarettes. 
I understand what this part is about what it is trying to achieve. It is trying to ensure that these tax increases result in a real price increase. I appreciate that but once again rather than ensuring that is the case for everybody this Government is ensuring that it particularly picks on the people who receive a benefit—not just the people who receive an unemployment benefit or a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit but even the people who receive New Zealand superannuation and even the veterans who have served our nation overseas put themselves in harm’s way and received injuries or illnesses as a result of serving our nation over many decades and in many conflicts around the world. This Government is going to pick on them by telling them it is going to make sure that their pension cannot be increased as a result of the Consumers Price Index indexing that would be linked to this bill. It comes as no surprise—no surprise—that once again this Government picks on anybody who receives their income in that way. It is stigmatising them and singling them out in the way that this Government knows how. 
Although we understand the point behind this part we have to point out the inadequacy of the way the Government has done it and the fact that once again people who receive a benefit or Government assistance are being singled out by this National-led Government. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I want to start by labelling this part of the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill as what it is: it is a cynical political move. It is a very very cynical political move. Part 2 of the bill is shameful. Government members should be embarrassed by this. We know they are embarrassed because they have not taken any calls. We have not heard a word out of the Minister in the chair all evening. We have not heard a word about this part of the bill. We saw no one attempt to get up to speak to it from the Government benches. They know that this is simply cynical politics and that it is difficult to defend. 
How do we know that it is cynical politics? Well we need look no further than the regulatory impact statement which was published in April 2012 in order for Ministers to consider this legislation. In April 2012 the advice was written and the policy that the Cabinet considered appears to have no mention—no mention at all as far as we can see—in the regulatory impact statement of this measure to target those who are dependent on welfare to feed their families and to go about their daily business. We know that this has been added on subsequently. It has been put in place to make sure that an extra kick is put in to distract from the wider impact of this bill. 
This is not atypical of the Government. We know that this is a pattern. We have seen it happening. We know that whenever bad news comes around there is more drug testing for beneficiaries there is compulsory early childhood education and there is a range of other measures which the Government has subsequently admitted it cannot actually put into place but it uses as a distraction. Here again we have a targeting measure for beneficiaries one that makes sure they will suffer the most. They will suffer the most. All of those who are smokers will suffer as a result of this legislation. All of them will face increased prices. But this Government is determined to make sure that those who are on hard times are kicked while they are down because it believes that that is what is necessary in order to change the world. 
Well we disagree. We on this side of the Chamber have a more optimistic view of human nature. We think people actually want jobs and if this Government had not lost so many jobs if it was not sending 50000 New Zealanders a year to Australia then actually people would have jobs and they would not be affected by this Draconian measure which will make it much harder for those on benefits than for anybody else to afford the substantial increases in tobacco prices that are proposed in this bill. 
Treasury in its regulatory impact statement recommends the revenue grab of $528 million which the Government conveniently wants to adopt because it is well aware that there is a hole in the books as a result of the worst economic record in 50 years which this Government has perpetrated. The regulatory impact statement says that “The Treasury favours a sequence of regular modest and well-signalled increases in tobacco excise. This is likely to contribute most to a long-term and sustainable strategy to reduce smoking rates.” There is a little bit of inconsistency with an earlier part of the advice but for the greater part this is good Treasury advice. The regulatory impact statement does say that “In taxing a group of consumers that are addicted and disproportionately drawn from Maori and lower-socio economic communities the Government should ensure that programmes to educate and support smokers to make successful quit attempts are adequately resourced well implemented and effectively designed and targeted to reach high-risk groups.” 
That is not what we see here in this bill. We do not see anything here going towards meeting the needs of those most affected. In this bill which is cynically targeted at those who are struggling the most we do not see any additional measures signalled—none whatsoever—to make sure that those groups that are targeted are given assistance to give up smoking which we all know and accept is so harmful. So that is why I say that this is a cynical political move. We have seen so much of it from this Government. It is very good at sideshows and distractions because it is very nervous. It is very nervous about what the polls are showing. The polls are showing that its poor economic record the scandals around the Dotcom affair the scandals in the ACC system the inability to tackle the big issues and the focus on tinkering are doing it no good—doing the Government no good whatsoever. That is why it is coming back to these cynical strategies which target and kick those who are down. 
The Treasury advice was to put additional measures to support those— 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Malo ni Mr Chair. To use a word that David Clark used Part 2 is a cynical and poor attempt by the Government to make it look like it is trying to do something for the public good in this bill the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill to stop New Zealanders smoking. It is a poor and cynical attempt at trying to make the Government look like it is trying to do something to cut down smoking within New Zealand. 
It was an honour and a privilege to sit in the 49th Parliament on the Health Committee chaired by Dr Paul Hutchison—I look around me and I see Iain Lees-Galloway who was on that committee and Kevin Hague who was on that committee—and to take some real action against tobacco companies and actually remove tobacco displays from our shops. As you see if you go to a service station or a dairy today you will notice that there are no longer any displays for tobacco or for cigarettes. It was an absolute pleasure to be on that committee as we worked across this Parliament—apart from the exception of maybe a couple of ACT MPs who voted against that legislation—to take some real action to reduce the number of Kiwis starting to smoke and to make sure we get as many Kiwis quitting smoking as we possibly could. 
But this bill and especially Part 2 of it is not motivated by trying to reduce the number of smokers or to stop people starting smoking. As a number of my colleagues have said this is simply a cash grab. It was said that this Government is trying to get its mitts on $528 million over the next 4 years because of its failed economic policies and the fact that it could not and has not raised enough money to come through with its policies. So that is what this part Part 2 and what this bill is really about. Is it motivated by cash revenue by trying to raise revenue or is it motivated by trying to reduce the harm that smoking causes in our communities? 
I want to take a quick look at the Pacific smoking numbers. As Iain Lees-Galloway said in Part 1 of the debate just below one in five New Zealanders are smoking and unfortunately for the Pacific community it is over-represented in the smoking statistics because 27 percent of Pacific adults are smokers. Unfortunately for Pacific men that number is 34.5 percent so one-third of Pacific men smoke and one in five—just over 20 percent—of Pacific women smoke. In terms of the revenue that is going to be gathered from this bill it is surely the Pacific community by its over-representation in the numbers of smokers that is going to be over-represented in this. Every year 100 Pacific people die because of heart disease come about because of smoking in that community 30 die of lung cancer because of their smoking and 23 Pacific people die from strokes because of the fact that they have been smoking. So smoking does have a disproportionate effect on the Pacific community and that is why we want this bill to actually take some strong measures motivated by public good—public health good—to make sure it takes some swift action and decisive action to make sure at least from the Pacific perspective that those numbers could be reduced. 
We could actually use some of the $528 million that is going to come via this bill by increasing the excise tax by 10 percent in those 4 years and hypothecate it to make sure it is going into smoking cessation programmes and into preventing young Pacific Islanders taking up smoking. Those statistics that I pointed out before are just awful. Being a Tokelauan it is the worst of all Pacific nations in terms of smoking because 42 percent of the Tokelauan population are smokers. So as someone from that community I think we really need to make sure we are targeting our Pacific people—a large and growing population in New Zealand—to make sure we are doing as much as we can to use some of this money that we are raising to target them to say “Don’t start smoking.” or to take steps to reduce or stop smoking. I do not think that this bill is motivated by trying to decrease those numbers. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to have a short call on this Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. I would think that every perceptive member of Parliament would be celebrating the quick passage of this bill Parts 1 and 2 rather than being cynical about it. 
I want to talk just on Part 2 for a moment. If one looks at the general policy statement it says this: “Continuing these exclusions ensures that recipients of social assistance are not reimbursed for the increases in tobacco duties. Any reimbursement for those increases would contradict the reason for making them which is to discourage smoking.” And we all know that an excise tax is probably the most effective measure in diminishing smoking in this country. 
But I want to say a little bit more. This bill is just another step forward in many steps towards achieving a smoke-free New Zealand and under National there have been some very significant steps. Firstly there is the fact that we have made diminishing smoking one of the very successful health targets. This has had a huge impact over the last 2 to 3 years. Secondly we have put more money into Quitline funding and counselling. Thirdly as I speak tobacco displays are disappearing throughout the shops and supermarkets of New Zealand. And fourthly of course we have backed that up with 4 years—one year after another—of 10 percent increases in the excise tax which will be a hugely significant step towards diminishing smoking in this country. 
This bill is not to be viewed cynically; it is to be celebrated as a great public health measure. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 Part 2 of this Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill is what is currently under debate at the moment in this Chamber and I need to raise some questions about Part 2 because my colleagues have raised some significant points in previous contributions but I am not sure that everybody watching this debate understands what the significance of Part 2 is. 
Part 2 of this bill excludes the price increases on tobacco—these ones that happen the 10 percent increase on 1 January every year for the next 4 years. It excludes that price increase from the basket of goods that are considered when calculating the Consumers Price Index. When calculating how much the cost of everything has gone up this year and therefore what the Consumers Price Index should be in order to bring up people who are on benefits whose benefits are CPI indexed people go out and they work out what people spend their money on. What do people spend most of their money on? Well they might spend most of their money on food they might spend some money on petrol they might spend some money on childcare they might spend some money on clothing they might spend some money on alcohol and they might spend some money on tobacco. And so in this legislation the basket of goods whether it is fruit and vegetables chicken or meat or all those other things that are put together in order to calculate what the Consumers Price Index should be will leave out the expenditure on tobacco. And who for? For people who are receiving payments under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act—payments to the people or organisations that are providing care for children—so that is the caregivers. It will take out anybody who is on a student allowance. It will take out anybody who is getting Working for Families entitlements. It will take out anybody getting New Zealand superannuation. It will take out anybody who is receiving any of the main social security benefits. It will take out anybody in long-term residential care and it will take out people whose income comes from veterans pensions. 
So the point of this if I understand it correctly—I am just looking in the direction of the officials for a moment—is that the CPI basket of goods that is assessed on what most people spend their money on and how much that has gone up compared with last year will exclude tobacco for people on benefits those benefits I have outlined and those other payments and entitlements I have just described. In other words if you spend a lot of money on tobacco or if people generally spend a proportion of their income on tobacco that will not be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the CPI and thereby raising people’s benefits. 
This is a device. It is something that could be excused that could even be justified but my question to the Government is where is the consistency? Where is the consistency? If tobacco is bad for people and this is a health measure then why not exclude it from the CPI indexation across everything not just the benefits that people are going to have to live on in order to survive? 
The CPI is important for wage negotiations. Unions go into wage negotiations on behalf of their members wanting to compensate for the Consumers Price Index and the increase in prices that have happened in the previous year because unions do not want their members’ incomes—wages and salary—to fall behind prices. Therefore the Consumers Price Index is important. It is important to wage and salary earners as well. So why is this tobacco provision being applied to beneficiaries only? I ask the Minister in the chair Anne Tolley if it is a good thing to do then is it not a good thing to do for everybody? If this is a health measure would it not benefit everybody’s health? 
I can understand the import of excluding it from the CPI calculation but what I cannot understand is simply targeting benefits in that respect. That to me does not make sense. If any member opposite says that I am wrong about this that I have got the wrong end of the stick would they please get up and take a call because it needs explaining. I ask whether the Minister who moved this bill Tariana Turia could get up and make some explanation as to why only beneficiaries are going to have this item excluded from the basket of things that go into a CPI calculation—in other words their benefit will go up by the CPI but not by as much as it would if it were taking tobacco into account. 
So I can see that the Government saves money in the process but why is this being applied only to beneficiaries? This is the kind of discrimination that I thought we were not tolerating in this country but now perhaps that the gap between the rich and the poor in New Zealand has become so pronounced and the people on benefits are so much at the bottom of the heap these days the Government has decided that it does not really matter how they are treated any longer. All we hear about is social obligation; all we hear is what people ought to be doing for themselves. When their lives hit some rough patches the Government’s expectation is that they will pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and correct their own circumstances which is not always possible. 
However the Government is blind to that kind of consideration and simply makes this exclusion of the price increases from the required CPI indexation related to social assistance. In fact those are the words on the page “related to social assistance”. If a member opposite can contradict that for me please get up and tell me I have got it wrong but that is what I read on the page. I see all the members opposite studiously looking down and busy doing work so that they do not have to look as if they are responding or listening. I would like somebody a Minister any Minister— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Are you voting for or are you voting against it? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: —Mrs Collins—any Minister not just the Minister in the chair although I would welcome her participation but also the Minister interjecting I would welcome her clarification around this as well. It seems to me that it is discriminatory. It is not fair. It is bashing the people at the bottom of the heap again and somehow this Government is going to turn it into a health measure. When you are at the bottom of the heap and you are struggling to survive on care payments or benefits then quite frankly the health inequalities that descend upon you are insurmountable and they become almost the last thing you are able to contend with as you are busy trying to make ends meet. 
I would welcome the intervention of any National member here to correct me in this respect. If I am not wrong then this is discriminatory. This is not reasonable and it is simply another example of this bill being a tax grab and not a health measure. Thank you. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I just want to follow on as I said in Part 1 from that great speech from Maryan Street by saying that this measure is more than cynical it is one of the most outrageous alignments of officials under Ministers’ directions in not recognising that. I want to go with what I read out in debate on Part 1 in relation to this: “The analysis has not included a range of other issues due to time and resource constraints. Key gaps in the information include—overall economic and fiscal impacts on smoking (eg: health …” and it goes down to “the fiscal costs of publicly funded health and disability services linked to smoking; or fiscal offsets such as reduced superannuation and aged-care expenditures due to the lower life expectancy of smokers)—impact on the economic welfare of smokers and their families;”. 
As Maryan Street says and suggested this is an incredible situation where beneficiaries are being more than bullied they are being separated out. Why do we not do the same thing to the lawyers and accountants in this country? They all have lips and lungs that suck in the smoke. Why is it so different that it should be left to beneficiaries? In the sense of the redistribution if you are going to hold $528 million and the $170 million that the Minister in the chair Anne Tolley said in a speech today that she saved from building the big prison where the hang are we going? That is nearly $700 million. Where is that going to? Is it going to fill up the potholes on the way to the golden mile above Auckland? Is it going to do other things? I join with Maryan Street and say that this is callous— 
Todd McClay 
: That’s not a picture I would like to see Pare. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No no there are people in Rotorua who smoke and people down in Clendon who smoke. There are a lot of people there who are beneficiaries and you have not done too well as— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Those people there have not done very well. When you are running at an unemployment rate of 15 percent for Maori and Pasifika people and 74 percent of them are smokers where do you get the relief or the recognition in relation to ensuring that the tax grab is at least redistributed amongst some of those people? 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Are you for it or against it? Which one? I’m just checking. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member over there can chortle and laugh and chatter and clatter but at the end of the day this is outrageous. This is terrible. 
I want just one of them including the Minister to take a call and tell me why—as Dr Hutchison will always suggest—beneficiaries and superannuitants are sorted out in isolation. Why not the other people? Why not the lawyers and accountants in Parnell? Why not the ones who live around Massey University all those academics? Why not them? Why just the beneficiaries? Their life is so tortured anyway that they jump on the plane and they go to Australia. You just slip this through. 
 I want to mihi to the officials. They are hard-working people but they are clearly under the Minister’s directions because that is the same Minister who said that he did not support this—“Wiremu Pakeha”. That is what he said. He did not support the smoking issue when we were trying to put it through. I want to thank the past Labour Government for ensuring that all those people who puffed smoke around you in restaurants and bars had to comply and we were bold and game enough to do it to everybody not just the beneficiaries. We made sure that everybody who went in there had to comply and it was recognised that this was everybody—as the great preacher says all the sinners. So let us not deny it and say that some are and some are not. That is what is happening in this Part 2. 
It is outrageous. Poor old beneficiaries poor old solo mums and poor old superannuitants. And then there is this callous statement that there could be some fiscal adjustments because of lower life expectancy. What the hang do you think if you let people carry on smoking? You cannot have Quitline when you run around the country saying: “Yeah we’ve got broadband in.” but it cannot even pay for its phone bill. That is the free 0800 number that these people have. So I think Part 2 of this bill is one of the most— 
Todd McClay 
: Dastardly. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: —interesting parts—advance your vocabulary “Mr Dastardly”—in relation to setting to on those who have— 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Ka pai. It is an honour again to follow the Hon Parekura Horomia. I have certainly drawn the long straw tonight in getting to follow his fabulous speeches which get to the nub of the matter and the discrimination that is being put forward in this particular part of the bill the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Of course we should not lose sight of the fact that this is actually a step in the right direction in terms of the overall bill. But this part for those who are listening at home is a part of the bill that is aimed at targeting beneficiaries and making sure that life is tougher for them than for anybody else. 
The overall bill of course attempts to make sure that the increases in tobacco pricing reduce the incidence of tobacco-related harm and that is the good part of the bill. We know that National opposed such measures when it was in Opposition so we are a little bit suspicious of course of the timing now that it has a great big fat revenue hole that it is trying to fill. We have heard no word at all from the Minister in the chair through the whole debate and we are beginning to wonder whether there is no response to the accusation that this is a revenue grab. It seems to be pretty jolly clear that it is and I guess the Government is too embarrassed to even try to argue otherwise and that is consistent with what this Government is doing. 
We have heard about the tax on paper boys the tax on cleaners in schools and so on which are the moves the Government has taken in order to make sure that it is grabbing taxes wherever it can because it does not have a plan for the economy. The Government does not have pro-growth tax policy proposals. It is not proposing to put taxes in place that would support manufacturing industries and would support our exporters. Instead the Government is determined to get tax where it can off the vulnerable and to run down our public services through a reduced tax take and ever-reducing budgets. We know that the Government has the worst economic record in 50 years and so it is no surprise in some ways that this tinkering bill is a little bit cynical and nasty at points. 
We know also and this is in some advice that we received in the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the tobacco industry of course will find ways to mitigate the impact of tobacco tax increases. It will smooth the transition to higher prices introduce lower price brands and so on. It is documented behaviour that the researchers put in front of us in the select committee hearings. Unfortunately those on the very lowest incomes those who are beneficiaries whom this part of the bill targets will not have the luxury of riding out price increases in the same way. We know it is likely that some families will suffer. When we live in a situation where a large portion—25 percent—of the children in this country are living in poverty it is disastrous that no commensurate measures are put in place to address this issue in the beneficiary population. The fact is that the budget will be tighter again for them but no additional measures are put in place to ensure that they have the tools and support necessary to kick this damaging habit. 
I want to put on record again that the Labour Party does support this bill overall because it is important that we reduce tobacco-related harm. We are glad that the scales have fallen from the Government’s eyes. It is a shame that it took a great big revenue hole to make that happen but the scales fell from its eyes in order to see the need to increase the excise on tobacco thereby reducing over time as the research tells us the incidence of tobacco-related harm. We know that where there are support measures in place the public and those affected by this kind of legislation will support it. We know that the Government is choosing in Part 2 to put an additional burden on those who are struggling the most but choosing not at the same time to put additional support measures in place. That is why this part of the bill is an embarrassment. We know it was a late political fix a late political addition because it is not spoken about in the regulatory impact statement that was considered by Cabinet. It is not considered in there. It is a cynical move to target the most vulnerable. 
I would really like to hear some attempt at justification from the Minister in the chair. We have heard nothing all evening from the Minister in the chair about this measure. We have heard very little from the Minister in the chair indeed— 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 The title of this bill is the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Actually often what the Opposition does in these debates is we offer alternative titles to the bill—what it might more appropriately be named. But in this case I think this is an appropriate title. In fact the title reveals what the actual intentions of the Government are in this bill because specifically it is about excise tobacco products and Budget measures. It is a Budget measure. The Budget measure of course that this bill relates to is trying to find ways to fill the hole left in the Government’s revenue sources both through its inadequate work on the economy and through its unaffordable income tax cuts that it made which it told the nation were going to be fiscally neutral but have actually left a huge hole in the Government’s revenue. As the debate has gone on tonight we have come to understand the real significance of this legislation because it does two things—in Part 1 and Part 2. 
 The first part is a massive increase in revenue for the Government to make up for some of that lost revenue with no hypothecation into any smoking cessation measures or any treatment of diseases that are related to smoking. Part 2 of course limits the Government’s liability for paying out benefits not just the sickness benefit and invalids benefit but also pensions also payments to people who are caregivers and also to people who receive a veterans pension. So actually as much as we on this side of the House are really pleased to see the Government doing something—we know one of the results of this bill will be to have an impact on the number of people who are smoking and the amount that they smoke—the more and more that we analyse this piece of legislation the more it is revealed that this has got more to do with trying to increase revenue for the Government and limit its costs than it has with anything to do with health. 
Let us look at the facts. It was not introduced by the Minister of Health. It did not go to the Health Committee. In fact if it had gone to the Health Committee perhaps some more of the changes that would be useful in this bill would have been recommended because it would have been viewed through the lens of a health initiative rather than a financial initiative and rather than a tax bill which is simply about increasing revenue and limiting liabilities and costs for the Government. So indeed the title of this bill and in fact the purpose of this bill as well are absolutely accurate—they are absolutely accurate—because the bill makes no mention of health measures it makes no mention of trying to reduce the incidence of smoking it makes no mention of trying to ensure that fewer people die of tobacco-related diseases every year it makes no mention of improved funding for tobacco health initiatives—it makes no mention of any of that. All this bill does is increase revenue and reduce costs. 
Also if this was a health initiative and the Government was focused on ensuring that everybody every smoker was going to be properly impacted on by this legislation then we would not see the deliberate targeting of people who receive a benefit in the way that we see in Part 2 of this legislation. The Government had an option. It had the option to remove the tobacco excise increase from the CPI calculation for everybody but it did not do that. It could have but it did not. It chose instead to deliberately pick on people who get some form of Government assistance whether it be through Working for Families whether it be through a veterans pension whether it be through superannuation or whether it be because that person is a caregiver. For a whole host of reasons if that money came from the Government then that is the person that the Government has chosen to pick on. It did not need to do that—it did not need to do that—and that is what this bill is all about. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Dr David Parker. 
Dr David Clark 
: David Parker? That’s new to me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: David Clark. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Mr Chair I hope you will excuse me. I am working under a pseudonym. I rise to speak to the—perhaps appropriately addressed—title debate. I want to go a step further than my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway although I support the sentiment entirely in his address on this topic. He suggests that the bill the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill is perfectly named because it does not mention the health benefits. It is a tax bill so therefore we might well view it as an appropriately labelled bill. 
I think I would want to go one step further to make a little more explicit what the purpose of this bill is. I would like to see it renamed. I guess we will ask the Government to consider this suggestion and you know present its argument as to whether it is a useful one or not. My suggestion is that we rename it the “Fill the Revenue Hole but Decrease Smoking as an Unintended Consequence Bill’ because I believe that that is what the bill actually does—that is what the bill actually achieves. 
The reason why the bill is an unintended consequence is that the facts line up and say that increases in revenue actually do discourage smoking and we know that smoking remains the single biggest cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in New Zealand. There is good reason to address this problem especially when half of all long-term smokers die as a result of smoking-related illness. That is about 5000 deaths each year that are attributable to smoking either directly or through an indirect route like second-hand smoke. But unlike National when it was in Opposition Labour has supported Government moves to reduce smoking in New Zealand. Labour has been consistent in supporting moves to reduce smoking in New Zealand and that is why we see if we look back that this title highlights I guess the irony in the National Government moving this bill. It says that the decreasing of smoking is an unintended consequence and that it really is about the revenue-grabbing. 
How do we know that? We know that because when in Opposition Bill English who is now obviously concerned about the revenue hole that this Government is facing said that it was a tax increase when Labour moved measures. When Labour moved extraordinary urgency to increase the excise on tobacco in the early 2000s Bill English said “It is a tax on the poorest people in New Zealand. It is an increase that is far too large.” So he labelled it a tax increase. That is what he thought it was nothing more nothing less—nothing more nothing less. So that is why we know that it is an unintended consequence that it is actually addressing smoking and why the title “Fill the Revenue Hole but Decrease Smoking as an Unintended Consequence Bill” is a far more fitting title than the one that the Government has proposed. 
So I move that we consider that title. I do not formally move it. I move it in the sense of having a debate about it and inviting the Government to consider that as a more fitting title a more honest title and as a title that would reflect the content of the bill which is presumably what a title is designed to achieve so that we could have a bill that reflects the Government’s real intention which is about filling this revenue hole which it has no other plans or means to do so. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in relation to Part 2 of this bill the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. This does come as— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Sorry the member cannot refer to Part 2. That debate has gone. We are now debating clauses 1 2 and 3. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Yeah. OK Mr Chairman. OK. Sorry Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is wide-ranging—title and commencement clauses. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: It does concern us what has been dropped on us here in terms of this bill in relation to beneficiaries superannuitants and those in the country. This is a pretty miserable late-minute thing that the Government is doing here in terms of just sliding something through that is again an attack on beneficiaries and those who are in need of support from the State. 
The reason I was a bit slow getting to my feet was that I was just doing some calculations on this in terms of the CPI and was looking at the effects of the CPI on superannuitants and on beneficiaries. When you are looking at a single-income beneficiary on about $400 a week or a couple on a bit over $600 a week and if you are looking at the difference in the CPI effect because of taking tobacco out of the CPI or keeping it in it is such a small amount of money from the point of view of the Government’s revenue but it can actually have an impact on the beneficiaries. Although to us it might not appear a lot of money every few dollars every week adds up. I think it is really very much a situation of penny-pinching again on the part of the Government that a few dollars out of every beneficiary’s pockets could be affected through the adjustment in the CPI by not including tobacco in the CPI. 
 It really is back to the “Fagin Budget” that I have mentioned in Parliament on a few previous occasions. The Government has already taken money off the paper boys and the paper girls—taken $14 million off them. Having taken $14 million off the children of this country now it is going to adjust the CPI so that the CPI also reflects that tobacco is not included in the CPI. It is really getting down to real miserable penny-pinching - type budgetary constraints. In that regard it is creating a situation in New Zealand where you have a CPI for some and you have a CPI for others and where the CPI applies to those with money on a higher level of CPI and those who are on welfare support have a different CPI adjustment. 
In particular in regard to the senior citizens in this country and those on superannuation—many of whom are not smokers; many of whom have not smoked—why should they be penalised and have some sort of alteration to the CPI adjustment and an increase simply because this Government wants to be miserable and claw back some money because of the 10 percent annual increase each year for the next 4 years on cigarettes? You know it really is starting to bite close to the bone in terms of our senior citizens in particular and those with disabilities and those on welfare who through no fault of their own and in times of difficulty due to ill health or disability or because they are aged are requiring support from the State. 
New Zealand First will not be supporting this part of the bill. We do support the overall thrust of the bill in terms of the health aspects and reducing cigarette smoking and tobacco consumption but when it gets down to starting to penny-pinch to attack those who are the most vulnerable in New Zealand society— 
Denis O’Rourke 
: And the elderly. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: —and in particular the elderly who would be affected by a reduced adjustment on their superannuation increases from the CPI being cut back in terms of beneficiaries—then I am sorry but this is another case of the Tory Government being very miserable to people who deserve better. So New Zealand First will not be supporting this part of the bill. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 112 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 8 
New Zealand First 8. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Education (Student Allowances Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Income Tax (Working for Families Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Social Security (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and the War Pensions (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill pursuant 
 to Supplementary Order Paper 129. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 129 moved on behalf of the Hon Tariana Turia. What this Supplementary Order Paper does is that it divides the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill into a number of bills. This will separate out all those separate pieces of legislation that need to be amended in order to discriminate against different people who receive income from the Government. 
The Labour Party will be voting in favour of this Supplementary Order Paper to separate the legislation but I would like to indicate at this point that it will be our intention when it comes time to vote on those separate pieces of legislation to vote against the individual bills that will relate to that specific measure that the Government is taking. We will vote in favour of the new Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill but we will vote against the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Education (Student Allowances Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Income Tax (Working for Families Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill the Social Security (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and the War Pensions (Indexation—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill because we believe that the Government has taken completely the wrong approach in discriminating against a certain set of New Zealanders who will not have the ability to be reimbursed I suppose for this increase whilst allowing others to be able to do so. 
We understand what the Government is trying to achieve in increasing the cost of tobacco in real terms and ensuring that there are fewer opportunities to offset that. However if the Government’s true intention was for that impact to be spread fairly across all smokers then it would have taken an approach whereby the CPI calculation for all smokers would not include the tobacco tax increase. Rather it has taken the approach that only those who receive some form of income from the Government will be affected. That is why the Labour Party is certainly happy to see the separation of these bills because we want to be able to vote for the parts of this bill that we think make sense. 
We agree that increasing tobacco taxation is one way of reducing the harm caused by tobacco. We suspect that the Government’s real motivation behind doing that is to make up for its lost revenue but we do appreciate the perhaps unintended consequence for the Government of doing so—that it will reduce tobacco-related harm. So we want to be able to vote for that aspect of the bill but we actually appreciate that this amendment will allow us to vote against those measures that we think are rather insidious and create just one more division between people who receive income from the Government and other New Zealanders. That is certainly what this Government’s approach has been over the last few weeks: to drive that wedge between some New Zealanders and others as hard as it can. It wants to see people fighting amongst themselves. It wants to see people pointing the finger of blame at the victims of poverty rather than trying to do something about it. This bill in its own small way has been found out tonight as being part of that Government programme to continue to discriminate against anybody—anybody. It is a broad brush in this bill; even the poor veterans are getting hit with this bill. So we certainly support— 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Superannuitants. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: And the superannuitants—you are absolutely right. The superannuitants the families who receive Working for Families—a whole range of people are going to be unnecessarily discriminated against with this legislation. So it is good that this bill will be separated out into its component parts by this Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia. That will give the right-minded parties in this Chamber the opportunity to vote for those aspects of the legislation that will do good and against those aspects of the legislation that will do harm. 
It is a noble idea to ensure that the excise tax increase results in an increase in real terms in the cost of tobacco but it is not noble at all—it is as far from noble as is humanly possible to be—to determine that one group of New Zealanders will be hit by that methodology and others will escape from it. 
The Labour Opposition is very happy to support this Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia. We think it will be useful—it will be quite useful—because it actually will allow Parliament to reveal what some of these measures really are what their true intended purpose is and will give Opposition parties the opportunity to cast their votes accordingly. As I have said I want to signal that tomorrow during the third reading debate on these bills as they will be by then the Labour Opposition will certainly be voting against those measures that discriminate against people who receive a benefit or an allowance from the Government. 
Motion agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 18 September. 
Part 5 Amendments to other Acts and regulations ( 
continued 
) 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: When this bill was last being considered we had reached Part 5. The Hon Damien O’Connor had the call. He has 25 seconds remaining if he so wishes. I call the honourable member the Rev. Dr David Clark. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Such full recognition. I rise to speak to Part 5 of the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill. I think it is probably appropriate after such a pause in the proceedings to remind members what Part 5 of this bill contains. The bill as a whole we know is essentially tidying up a range of tax measures. Labour will ultimately support it. There is little to disagree with in the bill. There are some things that we think are fairer than others but on balance this bill is aimed at ensuring that loopholes in the tax system are tidied up. It does nothing adventurous. It certainly does not introduce any pro-growth tax measures. 
As we come to this part of the bill we see the provisions in clause 154 “Contribution rate”—that will give effect to the changes in KiwiSaver that are promoted in this bill. They are very modest changes; certainly changes that are in the right direction. Labour welcomes National’s road to Damascus experience on KiwiSaver. It is far from a universal scheme the kind of scheme that we would need to see our economy grow. We know we need more savings. We know we need pro-growth tax policy. We know we need proper monetary policy that would make sure our export industries are supported. 
This Government seems to be firmly and actively pursuing policies that involve it sitting on its hands rather than actually making changes that would support business. It talks a big game but we see again in this legislation very little change. It is designed to maintain the status quo to ensure that new loopholes are not seen or spotted or exploited. That effort we must commend but we must also note that there is no real change of any significant proportion that is going to make our economy run better than it is now. That is why we know that many New Zealanders are finding times tough. They are disappointed in the efforts made by Mr Key. Even those who supported him are now saying that they are disappointed they feel let down and the economy is not growing so we understand their need to let out those feelings those of us who have a different vision who believe that the Government can do something to create jobs and who believe that positive things can be done—as opposed to this Government which just says “no” “can’t” and “won’t” and will not change. 
Our Government a Labour Government in the future would make the changes that would grow the economy. We would be more vigorous in our approach to KiwiSaver. The change proposed here in clause 154 “Contribution rate” is: “In section 64(1)(a) in the words before the subparagraphs ‘2%’ is replaced by ‘3%’.” This is the big change in this part of the bill—2 percent is replaced by 3 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: And it’s reversing one the other way. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: My colleague is quite right. The Hon David Cunliffe points out that this is a reverse of a change. This is the reverse of a change that this Government made. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Go big National. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: It is a timid reverse. It is a flip-flop but it is— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It’s a half reverse. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: It is a flop I guess. This flip is in the right direction. The Government cut the minimum contribution rates for employees and employers to 2 percent. The Government is the reason that this 2 percent is in the legislation in the first place. The rate had been progressively raised to an 8 percent of gross income default rate for employees by 2011 and a 4 percent default rate for employers. But this Government took it and capped the employer’s superannuation contribution tax exemption at 2 percent where it was 4 percent. So the Government took it from 4 percent to 2 percent and now it is taking it from 2 percent back up to 3 percent. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Flip-flop. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: Whoa there we go. It is a flip-flop. It is progress. It is reversing out of a change it has made but it is hardly visionary stuff. It is hardly visionary stuff. It is what we have come to expect from this Government. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: It’s damaging. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: It is the kind of thing that we have come to expect. It is actually damaging. My colleague Rajen Prasad points out that this is actually damaging to confidence in the scheme this kind of trading. This kind of change does erode confidence in the scheme. It follows along similar lines. 
 The Government also previously discontinued the fee subsidy of $40 per annum. Again it shows that it does not really have confidence in the scheme. Well it does. Maybe it has a little bit more now. Maybe it has 3 percent confidence rather than 2 percent. It has got that little bit more confidence. We could say that it has 50 percent more confidence than it had before but it is half of what it was previously when it was 4 percent. 
We see a Government that is switching around with small numbers in this part of the bill. It is trying to address KiwiSaver. It is certainly a move in the right direction but it is not bold enough. It will not change the fundamentals. It is not going to be the savings policy that cracks it that reverses this trend—this increased unemployment the thousand people a week leaving for Australia and the worst economic record of any Government in 50 years. These are not the changes that will actually make that difference. 
If we move further through Part 5 we have the clauses on unsuccessful software development and we see that these are designed to ensure that people feel comfortable investing in software development and are not placed in a position where they are carrying too much risk and are then unable to make the confident business decisions they need to make to develop new technologies that will take our country forward. 
Interestingly there has been no doubt some confidence eroded in that sector recently with the Government’s spying illegally we understand on Kim Dotcom as he went about his software development business in his own private home. So there is a certain contradiction in here. We see the Government’s actions on the one hand dealing in an illegal way with a resident of New Zealand who is going about software development and then on the other hand in this bill we have a measure designed to encourage software development. You know we are seeing a little bit of tinkering here and there. We will see the Government no doubt reverse this decision in a wee while. We would not be surprised— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Half. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: —or half reversing it as it did with KiwiSaver. It will probably say that mildly successful software development will develop some kind of bonus but completely unsuccessful will not. 
 We will see some amendment in due course if it is consistent in its inconsistency— 
Maggie Barry 
: Asset sales. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: —but there is not much more in here than tinkering. Maggie Barry is suggesting that we bring asset sales into this debate because her Government wants to sell off the assets and 80 percent of New Zealanders oppose that. In this bill I do not see a relevance to asset sales other than perhaps I guess we might see software development as developing new assets the kinds of assets that might be profitable and therefore something the Government might like to hock off if it owned any share in them if it was to be consistent. But again we are seeing an inconsistent Government that is tinkering through this bill. 
Clause 165 deals with livestock valuation and I would be interested if the Minister in the chair can explain because I am just not certain whether this is relevant to the provisions and changes around putting livestock into one class either as capital or revenue items in different years in order to— 
David Bennett 
: They’re already capital. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: —change the tax treatment. That may have been covered previously. Mr Bennett is shaking his head. I am sure he will take a call and explain in due course whether clause 165 has any relevance to that measure because we have not heard anything from the Minister in the chair yet. 
Clause 170 in Part 5 talks about certain repairs to fishing boats. I speculated in a previous call about whether that might also be expanded to cabbage boats and whether there are any repairs provisions in respect of cabbage boats. But we are not quite sure what cabbage boats are. We know that Mr Banks is fond of referring to them. He is fond of discussing cabbage boats coming down rivers and whether he was in the last one or not— 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Not from watching fireworks. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: Well you would not watch fireworks my colleague Megan Woods explains because it would be a dangerous place and then you might need this provision for repairs to fishing boats or cabbage boats as the case may be. We know John Key would probably not have been in that cabbage boat that went down the river where the fireworks were let off because he seems to not know—he tells us today that Kim Dotcom was a resident of New Zealand. Finally— 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It was not that long ago that New Zealanders were told by the National Party to “Wave goodbye to higher taxes not your loved ones.” Does anyone remember that? Do you know what? National lied. It lied. What have we had since then? We have had the income gap with Australia widen from 30 percent to 35 percent. We have had the numbers of young New Zealanders— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I delayed somewhat on the basis that you were going to pull up the unparliamentary comment by that member. I would ask that you do so now and that he withdraw it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I was actually thinking about it at the time. The member knows that you cannot use the word “lie” because it actually reflects on all of the House. I ask the member to desist. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr Chairperson I certainly take your guidance on that matter notwithstanding the fact that it was a factual statement and the delivery—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! To the member on my right you cannot use a live microphone. I just ask the member to go straight to the debate. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is no doubt that New Zealanders have not waved goodbye to higher taxes. That is clear from this bill the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill which deals with GST because GST went up not down for all New Zealanders. The tax package of which it was part which was promised to be fiscally neutral was not. I am not sure what you call it when you campaign on moving in one direction and then you do the exact opposite. It is should we say an anomaly a discontinuity an untruth perhaps in the eye of the beholder. 
This bill shows not the ineptitude of the current Government not the abject failure of the current Government but the errant timidity of this Government. Surrounded by lay-offs from manufacturing plants each and every week; surrounded by unemployment that is going up not down; surrounded by a median income that has fallen 3 percent since it took office— 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the National War Memorial Park (Pukeahu) Empowering Bill without amendment; the Customs and Excise (Tobacco Products—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill without amendment and that the Committee had divided it into seven bills; progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates Returns Filing and Remedial Matters) Bill; and no progress on the Legislation Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.