Volume 645 Week 66 - Wednesday 12 March 2008 
Volume 645 Week 66 - Wednesday 12 March 2008 
[Volume:645;Page:14815] 
Wednesday 12 March 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name that incorporates Dr Cullen’s recent Order in Council into the Overseas Investment Act and lists Auckland International Airport Ltd as a strategic New Zealand asset that cannot be sold into foreign control. I ask for this bill to be set down for a first reading on the next available day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Leave is sought to put that. There is no objection? There is objection. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My understanding is that you had already accepted the leave and that therefore the bill should be introduced. It was only after the leave had been accepted that Rodney Hide raised an objection. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Frequently unfortunately because of the level of noise in the House it is difficult to hear. Because I did hear something I put the question again and it was clarified. A member objected and those are the rules so the bill will not proceed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Public Service—Ideas 
1. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her response when asked whether her Government got many of its ideas from the New Zealand Public Service “No. It is a very blunt answer but it is true. We generate the ideas.”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: If the Government does not get its ideas from the Public Service why has the biggest-growing sector of the New Zealand economy since 2000 been Government administration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course someone has to work up and develop the brilliant ideas of the Labour Government like KiwiSaver Working for Families the emissions trading scheme the Energy Strategy 20 hours’ free early childhood education and many others I could name. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports on extravagance in the New Zealand Public Service? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As a matter of fact I have. I did see reports about videos having been made for the Department of Work and Income in which the then chief executive Christine Rankin appeared on one occasion as the mother-in-law at a mock wedding and on another dressed in a full length fur-trimmed silvery coat climbing on to a wharf. The mind boggles. That was in 1999. The employees who saw the video were warned by Mrs Rankin not to talk to the media. She is of course now a very prominent member of the National Party. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister think—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question will be heard in silence. Anyone who interrupts will be asked to leave the Chamber. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister think that all of the reports and strategies being produced by the Public Service are of good value important and necessary? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: They surely are an awful lot better than having no ideas no policy no strategy and not even being able to understand a simple statement made yesterday about an upfront $700 million investment in innovation in the primary sectors which is totally supported by those sectors and opposed by Her Majesty’s Opposition leader. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether on the question of the acquisition of ideas she intends to avail herself of a supplier of ideas as set out in this complaint made to the chief executive officer of APN which is the owner of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which states: “However the potential effect is to portray all New Zealand newspapers owned by APN as subservient to political interference. The risk is that the readers will perceive the Herald … as open to National Party influence.”; will she avail herself of that outlet of ideas—namely APN which runs so much of this country’s print media as everybody knows and as I have told people for a long time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It would be very difficult to borrow ideas from the National Party because there are not any. I hope that on this side of the House we never go down the low road that those members went down in their bullying of a junior journalist and an editor of a regional paper. 
Tim Barnett 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of extravagant conference expenditure by Government departments? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As a matter of fact I did. A quarter of a million dollars was spent by the Department of Work and Income on a conference for staff at a resort hotel in Taupo in 1999. Of that $168000 was spent on chartering planes and the Audit Office found the travel arrangements for the course had a “secretive flavour” which was “inappropriate”. The chief executive who organised those arrangements was none other than Mrs Christine Rankin who is now a prominent member of the National Party and if someone can enlighten us as to where she is on its list we will be all ears. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister think that the report produced today by the Families Commission which is to spend around $500000 on telling people that they should value parents is of good value necessary and worthwhile when Dr Prasad stated: “Such messages might be self-evident but they are still worth repeating.”; and would the Prime Minister like to tell New Zealand families who are struggling to make ends meet that it is far more important that things like that report are produced than that they have an opportunity to make their mortgage payments? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is the only member in the House who does not think that good parenting is important. Better parenting might save us all a lot of money on the criminal justice system down the track. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the quarterly employment survey the number of core bureaucrats has risen from 26200 to 36000 which is an average of about 3300 per parliamentary term under Labour and will she tell the House whether that number will increase; can she confirm that under a National Government where there will not be an increase in core bureaucrats the savings will be over half a billion dollars and what does she think New Zealanders would prefer: more money to be spent on front-line services and tax cuts or more money to be spent on core bureaucrats? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course I cannot confirm any of the member’s figures. I can say that of the total growth in Public Service numbers 15 percent occurred in policy departments and 85 percent was in the front-line departments and agencies. I can say furthermore that the slippery figures I have read about in a certain speech today do not own up to the fact that the Ministry of Education for example grew because the whole of the Special Education Service was brought into it and that the Ministry of Health grew because National’s wasteful health bureaucracy the Health Funding Authority was done away with. Further and finally I can confirm that yes the numbers in Statistics New Zealand were greater in 2006 than in 2000 because it was a census year. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister values the Public Service so much why did she blame Treasury for not letting her Cabinet and caucus know there was room for tax cuts when her own Minister of Finance got exactly that advice in an incoming briefing described it as ideological burp and did not want a bar of it; is it not a situation where under a Labour Government if one works for the core bureaucracy “You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My recollection is that Treasury said tax cuts could be afforded if we were prepared to cut expenditure in other places. That is the National Party’s policy not ours. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the question of the acquisition of ideas does the Government intend to adopt the latest stance of the National Party on KiwiSaver—namely to abolish it despite this country’s serious personal debt problem a move that every journalist is saying National has just announced today? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is inappropriate that Mr Peters raises spurious and frankly wildly inaccurate assertions in a question and it is particularly inappropriate to do so in this question where there is no resemblance between his question and the primary question asked by Mr Key or the questions subsequently answered by the Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The second line of the primary question reads: “got many of its ideas from”. That puts into question where the Government acquired its ideas—[ 
Interruption 
] I know it would not have acquired them from Mr Carter. He is bereft of any ideas. In fact he is a standing joke where he comes from. But my point refers to the line “got many of its ideas from”. That is where the issue was put into question and it is no use being embarrassed by the consequences. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The primary question was very broad and therefore it is likely to attract supplementary questions that are broad. I ask the Prime Minister to address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker I take you to Standing Order 371(1)(b) and ask you for your ruling on that in relation to Mr Peters’ question which makes inference offers imputation and is to say the very least an ironical expression. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That would probably rule out most of the supplementary questions. I ask Mr Peters to perhaps—as some of us may have forgotten what his original question was—rephrase his question in a manner that is consistent with the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker I would be delighted to do so. On the issue of where—and I quote the primary question—“her Government got many of its ideas from” does the Government intend to abolish the KiwiSaver scheme a move that today every journalist is telling me is the National Party’s latest pronouncement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: With the uptake of KiwiSaver fast approaching half a million New Zealanders the Labour-led Government will be backing KiwiSaver all the way not trying to scuttle it undermine it and eliminate it as the National Party would do. 
John Key 
: Is it still her Government’s No. 1 priority that the fastest-growing part of the economy should be Government administration; if so how does she reconcile that with the facts that New Zealand families today are paying very high prices at the petrol pump have not had a tax cut for 8 or 9 years are struggling to make ends meet and are struggling to get by in life—do they not deserve a bit of a break after 9 years? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In case the Leader of the Opposition has not noticed this I tell him 70 percent of Kiwi families have had substantial tax relief under Working for Families. The Government’s highest priority is to grow the economy and to give a charge to the huge food and pastoral sector which generates more than half our export earnings. The Leader of the Opposition now says he totally opposes the fund we announced yesterday and he would disband it. 
Rodney Hide 
: In respect of the uptake of ideas does the Prime Minister believe that a Government should accept good ideas wherever they come from if they are good and that is why this Government supported ACT’s anti - red tape bill the Regulatory Responsibility Bill at least as far as its referral to the Commerce Committee? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: For once I agree with the member. If there are good ideas we should not be embarrassed about taking them up. Good ideas are not something the Government says it has a monopoly on. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s journalists chapel to APN’s chief executive officer Martin Simons complaining about political interference by the ownership in the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s 
reporting. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Fast Forward Programme—Reports 
2. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What reports has he received on reaction to the Government’s Fast Forward programme announced yesterday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Business New Zealand said “The Government and partnership industries involved are to be congratulated for this bold move.” DairyNZ’s chairman former National MP John Luxton said it represented a significant commitment to maintaining the profitability competitiveness and sustainability of New Zealand’s pastoral and food industries. The investment has also been welcomed by Zespri Fonterra the Meat Industry Association Meat and Wool New Zealand PGG Wrightson Horticulture New Zealand and Crop and Food Research amongst others. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What calls has the Minister seen for further investment in agriculture research and development? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report concerning a National Party policy paper that called to “boost research and development especially in agriculture.” I have also seen a call to scrap the Fast Forward fund which came from the leader of the National Party Mr John Key. 
Hon David Carter 
: Can the Minister confirm that AgResearch is New Zealand’s largest agricultural research centre and that it received more money under National in 1999 than it currently receives under Labour in 2007-08 and is this not just another case of rhetoric around this issue because it is driven by desperation around the polls? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You would have heard a complaint by a National Party member on that side with regard to the phrasing of questions. The money that was given to AgResearch in 1999 was in the 1998 Budget. It was not a National Party measure but a New Zealand First measure. I ask the member to get his facts right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was a point of information. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that for many years Governments have tended to switch the priorities in research and development funding out of the agriculture area. What is now clear is that we need a vast boost in funding into agriculture research not least for sustainability reasons given the pressures that agriculture faces. How can National Party members get up and say that this is a bad thing and then call for increased funding for agriculture research and development? How can National members get up and say that we should have public-private partnerships and then oppose the biggest public-private partnership in research ever announced in New Zealand? 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports in support or in opposition to further investment in agricultural research and development? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen continued reports of growing support for these moves. I have also seen various reports that the Leader of the Opposition is now avoiding answering questions on this issue and refusing to admit the obvious—that he got it wrong. Capital will be used as well as interest; the so-called great financial trader cannot work out the difference between capital and interest. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister thought of suggesting to the Minister of Forestry—in fact himself wearing a different cap—that thought be given to the creation of a research fund based on the Fast Forward model for the forestry sector given the fact that we continue to export thousands of tonnes of unprocessed logs and in spite of talking for more than 20 years now about the importance of processing in this country and thereby moving those exports up the value-added chain? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is not under survey at the present time but it is true to say that part of the reason we export so many of our logs in an unprocessed form is that we face very high tariff barriers for processed wood products in a number of key markets. It is therefore crucial to negotiate trade deals that will deal with that kind of issue. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about funding more research by selling State assets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed. The Opposition I understand announced that it would fund increased investment in research and development in agriculture by simply selling off Landcorp. Of course again that is interesting because in selling off a State asset the only thing that makes sense is to devote that result to paying off debt—as I am sure Mr English appreciates and as he himself has said on a number of occasions. 
Hon David Carter 
: How many Landcorp farms have been sold under Labour in the last 9 long years; and why is it OK for Labour to sell such Landcorp farms and not OK for National to do so? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The problem for the member is that National at one point was saying that it would sell Landcorp. What Landcorp has been doing is selling and buying—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please repeat his answer. It is impossible to hear. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Landcorp has been selling and buying in order to consolidate its resources in the land area. 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I quite specifically asked the Minister how many Landcorp farms had been sold under Labour over the last 9 long years. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It may seem like 9 long years to the member; it is actually less than 8½. 
Hon David Carter 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well the Minister I thought originally addressed the question. I asked him to further elucidate. He did so. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I seek leave to table an article from  
New Zealand Farmers’ Weekly 
 dated 10 March which quotes Mr Carter when Minister of Agriculture stating: “I would sell Landcorp …”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. For the sake of clarity I just point out that I rang Mr Alan Emerson the author of that article. That is not a direct quote of mine at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well as members know that is not a point of order. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest Report 
3. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Will he undertake to ensure the release of version 1 of the director-general’s report into conflict of interest allegations at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No I cannot give the member that assurance; the release of any draft copies of the report is entirely a matter for the director-general and the review panel acting on advice from Crown Law. The member is clearly attempting to discredit a time-honoured natural justice process. There is no version 1 of the report. There are draft copies of the report as are required of any such inquiry process. I repeat for the record: I have neither seen the draft copies nor been briefed on them. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister understand that unless he can give an assurance that this information will be released it will be in the public interest for this information to be made available so that the public can draw its own conclusions from this sorry mess of an inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is very difficult to understand how the member could leap to judgment about an inquiry the results of which he says he has not seen and he cannot legally have access to. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is the Minister aware of claims that a draft copy of the report “largely exonerates the board” as the member claimed yesterday? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes—by the member Mr Ryall. But of course that begs the question of how he would know and why he will not repeat the claims outside the House. It is very clear to me that the member opposite is trying to undermine and discredit an independent review process and he is also undermining the integrity of the neutral public servants who are responsible for that process. I repeat that there is nothing unusual or secretive about a review process such as the one being followed. For example I draw the member’s attention to the report of the Ombudsman Mel Smith into aerial spraying in west Auckland which followed exactly the same process of circulating an initial draft for correction of any factual errors. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What does the Minister say to the allegations that the director-general’s review is one big cover-up and that the draft copy of the report is being suppressed? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I repeat categorically that there is no cover-up. Those allegations impugn the integrity of the public servants conducting the review. This is an independent report to the Director-General of Health by an independent panel and I draw the attention of the member opposite to the statement made in 2001 by Chief Ombudsman Sir Brian Elwood. In commenting on draft reports such as this one he said: “it must be remembered that decision-makers are accountable for the advice they act upon and not for early drafts generated …” which they have not seen. He went on to say: “However if the end result of disclosure of drafts is to prejudice the quality of the reports … then the wider public interests of effective government administration would not be served.” Mr Ryall should reflect on Sir Brian’s words. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister consider it an independent inquiry when the Director-General of Health investigated these matters in 2006 and concluded that there was nothing remarkable in Mr Hausmann’s behaviour; and given that the director-general would look a complete idiot if the facts in version 1 were set out publicly can the Minister see why the director-general is himself so keen to suppress this version? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have confidence in the director-general and I have confidence in the independence of this review process. The member might care to take notice of the comments of his colleagues who have been banging on at the Labour Government for the last few months about preserving the neutrality of the public service—something that the member is doing his best to undermine. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can it be an independent inquiry when this is the same director-general whose ministry according to Annette King said it was OK to appoint Mr Hausmann when he was already working on a $50 million deal with the very district health board he was being appointed to; and can the Minister see why the Ministry of Health is using a suppression order to prevent the release of information that will further demonstrate that his ministry was stupid or incompetent? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I draw the member’s attention to the following brief quotes: “Public service neutrality must be fiercely guarded.” That was said by Gerry Brownlee. John Key said: “Democracy can only suffer when appointments are made for political reasons rather than the person’s ability to do a good job.” What a shame it is that the National Party does not apply the same standards to junior journalists or to a director-general’s independent review panel. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why on earth did Annette King appoint Mr Hausmann to the board when there was clearly a massive conflict of interest that should have alerted Mrs King the director-general and everyone else that this was a bad idea? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member cannot have it both ways. He is freely admitting that any potential conflicts were disclosed that mechanisms were put in place to deal with them that the appropriate independent advice confirmed that that was satisfactory and that Minister King has publicly released to the National Party and the news media all the relevant Cabinet documents. How much more transparent can one get? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can it be an independent inquiry when at the core of the inquiry is the appointment of Mr Hausmann to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board on the recommendation of Annette King and the Ministry of Health which is apparently leading this inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have said before in the House the member seems to be labouring under the impression that I carry some kind of torch for Mr Hausmann which I do not. My decision around the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was that there was a board squabbling amongst itself and with its own management team—a situation of chaos that could not continue. But I will judge the members of the board without fear or favour on the basis of the evidence that is produced by an independent process. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister expect the review panel report to comment on the role of management and the chief executive in the conflict of interest issues at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board; if not was it not management conduct which allowed Peter Hausmann to get away with what he did that was the very reason for the review? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although the draft review and the final review are I am told a matter of governance the relationship between a board and its senior management team is no doubt relevant. The member sorely sorely tempts me to disclose some of the many pieces of information that the good people of Hawke’s Bay have sent to me since I made my decision. 
Free-trade Agreement—New Zealand - China 
4. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: How can he give an assurance that the proposed free-trade deal between New Zealand and China will not “provide a threat to the wages and conditions of New Zealand workers” when wage rates in China are so much lower than they are here? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 New Zealand jobs and living standards depend on the exports of our goods and services. By removing impediments to our exports which the proposed China free-trade agreement will do quite dramatically we increase the volume and value of those exports. That will clearly be good for growth and employment and it will be good for wages. That is a benefit not a threat to New Zealand workers. 
Keith Locke 
: Why are we giving preferential treatment to a country that abuses the rights of its citizens lacks basic environmental standards and has children working in sweatshops for a few cents an hour? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If I look at the member’s first question the clear implication is that we should not be trading with countries where the wage rates of workers are lower than ours. That would eliminate our taking of exports from any developing country. I understood that the Green position was to try to close the gap between the developed and the developing world. If we were not to trade with those countries where wages are lower and lock them out of the markets of the affluent countries that relegates those developing countries to being poor forever and unable ever to develop. That does not make sense. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was not about all trade agreements and whether anyone is for or against trade agreements as such; it was about a free-trade agreement with China eliminating tariffs. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The question as set down in the Order Paper clearly talks about why will it be good for us when wage rates in China are so much lower than they are here. The implication of that is clearly that we are endangering our country if we ever trade with countries that have wage rates lower than our own. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I will just ask for your assistance Madam Speaker because it seems to me that the implication of what the Minister just said is that he can continue to answer the first question put to him when other questions are asked. So we ask a supplementary question and he just re-answers the first question. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Clearly the supplementary question was a continuation of the theme in the first. I addressed that theme and I am happy to answer any further questions from the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it was consistent. The supplementary questions have to relate—or should relate—to the primary question. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora. Has the Minister seen comments by the New Zealand Chinese Association president who says there will be little benefit for China in a free-trade arrangement with New Zealand which would remove any remaining tariffs on Chinese clothing and footwear coming here; and given the history of Maori workers suffering severe impacts from the removal of tariff protections in the 1980s and 1990s in textiles clothing footwear car assembly meatworks forestry and railways can he tell the House exactly which sector of Maoridom in this country will benefit from a free-trade deal with China? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If I can just pick up a couple of examples from the member. He mentions forestry fisheries and farming. There are a great many Maori business interests and workers in those areas. Those are exactly the areas that will be the key beneficiaries of a free-trade agreement with China. As the member himself pointed out in quoting the president of the New Zealand Chinese Association at the moment 95 percent of the goods coming into New Zealand by value come in duty-free. That is not the case with our exports to China where most of our major exports are covered by tariffs of between 10 percent and 20 percent. There will be huge benefit to New Zealand industries by the removal of those tariffs and a prime beneficiary will in fact be Maori businesses and Maori workers. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is it part of the Government’s climate change strategy to encourage New Zealand manufacturers to outsource their manufacturing and its jobs to China where products will be made with inefficient and dirty coal-fired power stations rather than with New Zealand’s mainly renewable electricity; if so how will that help reduce global emissions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The answer to the problem of greenhouse gas warming of the world has to be a multilateral answer. That is why we have the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and why all countries including big developing countries like China have to play their part in that. The solution to that problem is through that mechanism not by putting up artificial impediments to trade. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Minister given the inevitable increase in food that will come in from China as a result of this so-called free-trade agreement with China ensure that New Zealand consumers can avoid buying Chinese food if they so wish and support local growers instead by introducing mandatory country of origin labelling of fresh food as supported by 37000 New Zealanders in a petition to this House; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: To correct the member I point out that actually the big flow of trade in food that will occur after this free-trade agreement is likely to be in the opposite direction—from New Zealand to China not from China to New Zealand. In regard to food standards a free-trade agreement makes no difference at all to the stringent requirements that are placed on the importation of food into New Zealand. Whether we have a free-trade agreement or not those standards are in place and those standards will be upheld. In regard to mandatory labelling if that were to be brought in universally the key loser in that would be New Zealand. For example mandatory labelling in the United States of our beef when mixed with products from within the United States would hugely increase the cost to our industry lowering the value of those exports to New Zealand and therefore impacting negatively on jobs and incomes which Keith Locke said before he was concerned about. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister stand by his commendable statement in the House last Thursday that this Parliament will get to vote on the free-trade agreement as a whole or is he reverting to earlier statements that Parliament’s involvement will be narrower and cover only implementing legislation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is well aware of the procedures that occur in this House. There will be tabled in this House at the time of signing the free-trade agreement and the national interest analysis. That will go to the Foreign Affairs Trade and Defence Committee. That committee will then hold hearings on submissions and look at what the implications of that agreement will be but of course before any free-trade agreement comes into effect there has to be enabling legislation for the tariff changes. That will be under the umbrella of a New Zealand - China free-trade agreement bill and unless and until that bill is passed by the House the free-trade agreement cannot come into effect. So what Mrs King said on my behalf last week is exactly right. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a US National Labor Committee document about children getting 55c an hour. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest 
5. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why did the Director-General of Health join Peter Hausmann’s Healthcare New Zealand in seeking to renew a suppression order relating to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board inquiry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 That is a matter for the director-general and it would be as improper for me as Minister as it would be for the member opposite to politicise a senior independent public servant in this way. However I am advised there are two separate proceedings seeking an injunction. I repeat that the review process being followed by the director-general assisted by the Crown Law Office is a proper process in the interests of natural justice. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister understand that the High Court has made it clear that the order of suppression does not apply to fair and accurate reporting of statements made in the House? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The High Court’s judgment is a matter of record and the member should try reading it for a change. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister realise that if I quote from material from version one of the report then that will not be a breach of any suppression order? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member’s relationship with the judicial process is one for the member and not one for which I am responsible. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did the Government agree to one of its political appointees someone who is beholden to the Minister for his job investigating this matter rather than involving the independent Auditor-General especially given that the allegations involve conflicts of interest and various political links—a Labour Party appointee associates of the previous health Minister and the chief executive of the health board who used to work for the Prime Minister? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I can confirm to the House that I did not appoint any member of the independent review panel. The members were independently appointed by the director-general acting in his capacity as a senior and neutral public servant. I have not even been told by the director-general what is in the draft so I am at some disadvantage compared with the member who seems to have obtained some kind of leak. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister see the parallels with the “lying in unison” inquiry whereby an inquiry by the Department of Labour found nothing wrong but an independent inquiry discovered the full sorry mess for which people were held accountable? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No and if the member is going to so desperately clutch at straws he should make sure they are not crooked before he clutches them. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister see the parallels with the Ingram inquiry where for weeks on end he defended a report that was found to be completely inadequate despite his repeated assurances and can he confirm that as a result of that independent investigation Mr Field now faces legal charges? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am no more responsible for Mr Field than I am for Mr Hausmann. I well recall answering a number of futile confused questions from the Opposition that wasted precious House time and got the Opposition nowhere. I must say there is a slight sense of déjà vu. 
Capital and Coast District Health Board—Kenepuru Hospital Emergency Services 
6. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is the duty of a party leader to control his or her troops. The National Party cannot go on with 12 or 13 people every day shouting out when they feel like it. Nobody in this Parliament—least of all me—objects to the rare humorous interjection in particular but this constant barrage is not what this Parliament is used to. Mr Key has a duty to bring them into line. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The chipping across the Chamber when Barbara Stewart was trying to ask her question was unacceptable. If the member had not got to his feet I was about to. We will now hear Barbara Stewart’s question in silence. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Does he support the decision by the Capital and Coast District Health Board to terminate Kenepuru Hospital’s 24-hour emergency coverage; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No I do not. I am advised by the board however that it did not decide to terminate emergency coverage; it reduced the hours as a response to a short-term staff shortage in order to guarantee patient safety. I have received a number of representations from local members—in particular the member for Mana the Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban. I have reflected those concerns to the district health board. I have been advised that the district health board is urgently investigating options to reopen the 24-hour service on a permanent basis. I look forward to urgent progress. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that the new regional hospital is likely to be too small to cope with future demand even before its completion; if so will consideration be given to further developing Kenepuru Hospital; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that with the excellent progress that has resulted from the Government’s primary and preventive health care strategy the hospital on the Newtown site will be adequate when completed. 
Louisa Wall 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Is there any provision for people who attend Kenepuru Hospital at night for emergency services? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I should make it clear that all people presenting to the department between the hours of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m. are assessed by the duty manager who is a registered nurse and if appropriate a paramedic. If any person needs emergency attention he or she will be immediately taken to Wellington Hospital. To date the services of the paramedic have not been needed. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that project plans for the Capital and Coast District Health Board’s medical services have always included “refurbishing increasing and maximising use” of Kenepuru Hospital; will the Government be providing additional funding for that; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The allocation of the district health board’s resources is a matter for the board to decide. It is certainly my view that the Kenepuru site will continue to play an important role in the network run by the Capital and Coast District Health Board. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Will any funds raised by the sale of excess land at the Kenepuru site be used specifically for the redevelopment of Kenepuru Hospital; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There are certain protocols around the use of the proceeds of capital sales which the Capital and Coast District Health Board is cognisant of—rather more I might add than it appears the Hawke’s Bay board was in its similar case. 
Finance Government—Actual and Forecast Costs 
7. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What are the forecast finance costs for the Government in 2008 and what were the actual finance costs in 2007? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Economic and fiscal forecasts including finance costs are based on financial years not calendar years. Therefore there are no actual figures for 2007 or forecast figures for 2008. But to assist the member and the House I shall give figures that are at a point in time: the gross sovereign issue debt at 30 June 2007 was $30.9 billion and it is forecast to be $33.3 billion at 30 June 2008. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the cost of servicing the Government’s debt will be about half a billion dollars more for the fiscal year 2008 than it was for 2007 and does not this confirm the facts elucidated yesterday that the Government is borrowing more money when he is giving speeches saying that borrowing is a very bad idea? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and no. I shall explain the “no” for the member—but I am sure he could find it out if he looked a bit harder. The Government for some years has been following a very consistent and constant bond issuance programme of about $2.5 billion per year. The reason for that is to smooth it over the forecast period in order to avoid market disruption and to avoid variable maturation dates and so to achieve actually reduced long-term borrowing costs by 
a constant programme. But of course the repayments reflecting past borrowings come in lumps. In the current year there is practically no bond repayment and therefore the gross sovereign issue debt rises. On the other hand the Government has more cash on hand so the net position is not affected. So gross finance costs rise but on the other hand the Government’s finance income also increases. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does not that simply underline the fact that the Government is borrowing $2.7 billion this year and it is spending an extra half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money on servicing that debt; why does he not put that in his speeches instead of carrying on as if he has never borrowed a cent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have just explained to the member that the Government in order to actually reduce its long-term borrowing costs has a constant borrowing programme. Repayments are variable. On the current forecast for example in a couple of years’ time the outstanding gross sovereign issue debt will be significantly lower than it is forecast to be at 30 June this year. The money we hold in cash is not actually being kept underneath the mattress where it is not earning any interest; it is actually earning interest at the same time. It is put into the short-term money market. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Government is borrowing $2.7 billion this financial year what is it borrowing it for: its proposed tax cuts its spending increases infrastructure spending or investing on the money market—which one? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am tempted to say it is so that we can build a brick wall that that member can keep hitting his head against. I have just explained that we are borrowing a constant amount each year because that reduces our long-term debt-servicing costs. We are borrowing because we have apart from anything else debt repayments to make from time to time and secondly it has never been the Government’s policy to fund all expenditure in terms of investment out of current income. 
Hon Member 
: A new announcement. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is not a new announcement. If the member looks at every Budget I have presented he will see that over the forecast period we have projected going into cash deficits. There is nothing new. It is just that he has never bothered reading the Budget documentation before. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If we are borrowing to roll over debt—adduced debt at that—over a period of years then are we in fact increasing our borrowings or reducing them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Reducing them. Indeed we have reduced the Government’s gross debt from over 30 percent of GDP to under 19 percent of GDP at the present time. We have moved into a net asset positive position for the first time in New Zealand’s history. Had we put out $11.5 billion of tax cuts as Mr Key called for less than 18 months ago Mr English would be asking how come the Government’s borrowing position had gone up by $15 billion during the current year. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Minister could not answer the question about what he is borrowing for why does he not read page 40 of his half-year update where Treasury states that he is “increasing borrowings to meet the cash shortfall”; and does that cash shortfall arise from promising too much spending from infrastructure spending or from trying to store up cash for his tax cuts next year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I invite the member to read page 40 again. It applies over the 4-year period. Every 4-year forecast has shown movement into cash deficit and therefore borrowing. The Government I repeat has never argued that we should in a normal year cover all expenditure including capital investment out of current income. What National has argued is that we should be borrowing for the Superannuation Fund and borrowing for tax cuts. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Minister say in his speech that any reference to borrowing is always associated with tax cuts when someone else says it but when he talks about borrowing it is apparently normal management of the Government’s books? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because although the member thinks he is very clever right next to him sits the man—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is impossible to hear. Members say “Answer the question.” We will hear the answer in silence so that we can all hear the answer. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will leave the Chamber if he interrupts when the question is being answered. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because Mr Key has argued that gross debt should be lifted to 25 percent of GDP with an increase long term of borrowing costs of $700 million a year—[ 
Interruption 
]—and he has yet to mention any major item of spending other than tax cuts to explain the need for an increase in borrowing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Mr English but you heard me explicitly say that courtesy would be shown—that the answer would be heard in silence so that all could hear it. You deliberately interrupted when the Minister was speaking. I am very sorry to say it but I gave my ruling. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr English was responding to material that Dr Cullen was putting to Parliament under the veil of absolute silence and with apparently no contest that was totally wrong. You cannot expect us to sit here quietly in any circumstances and allow the Minister of Finance the Deputy Prime Minister free range to say something completely false about us and a position taken by members on this side of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry Mr Brownlee. I very rarely ask members to hear questions and/or answers in silence. That comes only after a period when it has been very difficult for members to hear. All members in the Chamber are entitled to hear the answers and the questions. I made that ruling because it was impossible to hear the particular answer because of the shouting that was taking place. Members are entitled to hear that answer. If they do not agree with it there are other supplementary questions—there are other ways to make the interventions. My ruling was done in that context and therefore I stand by it as a warning to members that all members are entitled to hear questions and answers. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling and I will leave the Chamber but I just want to say that I think we are getting into a bit of difficulty here with the arbitrary selection of particular exchanges that have to be heard in silence. It was the method in this House under previous Speakers that questions were asked in silence and answers were subject to reasonable interjection. That has now changed to the situation where barracking is allowed during questions. Every time I ask a question I get consistent barracking from a noisy group of members opposite. Madam Speaker you have this practice now of intervening in particular exchanges. There was no particular tension to the exchange between me and Dr Cullen. Other exchanges today have been so noisy that members could not hear the answer. My suggestion would be that we revert to a predictable and simple rule such as the one we used to have. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order the problem with that suggestion Madam Speaker is that you have—quite rightly in my view—reverted to the former rulings which obtained for many many years in this House. The difficulty was of course that it was a one-sided exchange. The members opposite got to ask their questions in complete silence then Ministers were greeted by a barrage of noise the moment they rose to their feet. That is not exactly fighting on a level playing field. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that was actually the difficulty with that rule. The other thing is that members on the front benches face each. I also look at the members at the back who are about to leap to their feet to say they cannot hear what is being said. As Speaker I have to take account of the interests of all members in the House not only those who sit on the two front benches. 
Hon Bill English withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave to table Mr Key’s statement that National supports “a notional debt of GDP to around about 25 percent so that’s gross debt.” 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The deputy leader of the National Party has obviously accepted your ruling and has left the House. I note though that immediately following question time we have the Budget Policy Statement. Mr English is also our finance spokesperson. It would be appreciated if you could consider allowing his reintroduction to the House in time to participate in that debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. The normal practice is that if members who have been asked to withdraw from the Chamber accept the ruling of the Chair they come back at the end of question time. Certainly Mr English can return at that point. 
Education Ministry—Confidence 
8. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he have confidence in the Ministry of Education; if so why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes but I am sure the Ministry of Education like all of us can always do better. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why did the ministry’s non-attendance prosecution trial launched in 2004 see just four prosecutions last year and only 24 in total over the last 4 years when it released truancy figures last year showing that under a Labour Government truancy had increased by 20 percent since the beginning of that trial which sees 31000 truants absent in any one week? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Once again the House is presented with some statements by the member that under scrutiny do not bear up to the facts. The fact is that boards of trustees choose to prosecute parents and there have been approximately 24 cases where parents have been prosecuted on the decisions of boards of trustees. As for the truancy figures the member quotes they have been disputed and addressed in this House on a number of occasions by me. She has simply made the figure up. In fact we cannot possibly know how many students were truanting because it was not until this year that we established an electronic enrolment scheme that would finally tell us for the first time ever how many students were missing from New Zealand schools. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: How has the Labour-led Government through the Ministry of Education delivered for all New Zealanders? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Labour-led Government has increased funding for education by a whopping 72 percent since it has been in Government. This huge additional investment has enabled us since 1999 to introduce 20 free hours of early childhood education for all 3 and 4-year-olds and increase teachers’ pay by 40 percent. We have employed more than 5000 additional teachers above raw growth built 34 new schools and 1500 new classrooms tripled funding for industry training and introduced Modern Apprenticeships and no-interest student loans. We have invested an amazing $4 billion extra a year into the education system. This is a very solid record of achievement that stands in stark contrast to National’s dismal and mean record in the 1990s of bulk funding demoralised teachers and grossly indebted students. 
Anne Tolley 
: If the Minister is serous about cracking down on truancy why does his ministry not know how many truancy prosecutions were taken by schools last year or how many district truancy workers there are on the ground throughout New Zealand; and why has the ministry’s crackdown on truancy in problem regions resulted in only 24 prosecutions in the last 4 years? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: On the one hand the member says that we do not know how many prosecutions there are but then on the other hand she quotes the figure of 24 which I gave just a couple of minutes ago. I remind the House that boards of trustees make the decision to prosecute parents. Prosecution is the final stage of a very long process of trying to get kids back to school. Of course boards would be reluctant to reach that point without trying other things like mediation and intervention. In the end though that is a decision for the boards not for the Ministry of Education. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is it that a Government that talks tough on truancy does not know how many prosecutions there are does not know how many truancy officers there are and itself prosecutes only 24 cases in 4 years on its new streamlined process yet it watches over a 20 percent increase in truancy which is climbing to 31000 truants in any one week here in New Zealand? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Where does the member get the figure of 31000 from? Does she simply make it up? I remind the House again that for the very first time ever at the end of this year we will be able to tell how many students have been truanting in New Zealand. We have never been able to know that before. Why will we be able to know it? Because this Government has invested in an electronic enrolment system that every school in New Zealand is now on. We have invested in education. We have not bulk funded; we have not cut funding for education. We believe that education is the key to lifting all New Zealanders to their full potential. 
Anne Tolley 
: The Minister asks where I get my information from. I seek leave to table the report from the ministry showing that 31000 truants in any one week— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answer to written question No. 1434 which shows that the ministry does not collect any data on how many front-line truancy officers there are in New Zealand. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table the answer to written question No. 1436 which shows that the ministry does not collect any numbers of the prosecutions— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that of the figure the member has given the House 51 percent of those children were actually found to be at school and another 25 percent were found to be the children of people who had migrated from New Zealand and that actually we had less than 1000— 
Document not tabled. 
Superannuation—Rate Changes 
9. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received on changes to rates for New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have recently announced new rates for New Zealand superannuation that come into effect on 1 April and show that a married couple receiving superannuation or the veterans pension will be better off by $700 a year. Around 510000 older New Zealanders will benefit from these increases. Under our Government superannuation has increased by 8.5 percent over and above the cost of living increases. I am delighted to say that senior citizens really are better off under a Labour-led Government. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Has the Minister read the advice released yesterday by the Child Poverty Action Group which suggests that although New Zealand’s superannuation is a great success story in preventing hardship amongst the elderly many poor children have been left out of the bulk of the Working for Families package by being denied the in-work tax credit—230000 of them—and when will her Government pay as much attention to the needs of its youngest citizens as to those of its oldest? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have read the report the member refers to. It is not true that those on benefits with children do not benefit from the Working for Families package. They benefit from two of the three components. They do not benefit from the in-work tax credit because they are not in work. That payment was to ensure that work did genuinely pay. The number of families who are dependent on the benefit system has now substantially reduced since the living standards report to which the Child Poverty Action Group report referred to. I just remind the House of my earlier point that under Labour the difference for a married couple on superannuation is $34 a week more than it would have been under a National Government. There is the difference between Labour and National on superannuation. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister tell the House how New Zealand superannuation compares with the average wage in this country? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I certainly can. Under the legislation the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act Labour committed to ensuring that New Zealand superannuation for a married couple never dropped below 65 percent of the average wage. Under the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First that percentage has been increased to 66 percent. This year the newly adjusted rate of superannuation will be 66.23 percent compared with what it would have been under National where it would have been 61 percent of the average wage. That is a huge difference. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I seek leave to table a release from the Child Poverty Action Group “Children need to share a poverty prevention success story”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there nay objection? There is objection. 
Inland Revenue Department—Child Support Debt 
10. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: Is he satisfied with the way that the Inland Revenue Department responds to notifications from custodial parents when their former partners with child support debt are either entering or leaving New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 In general yes. 
Judith Collins 
: How does the Minister think the Inland Revenue Department should have responded in the case of a mother who in January this year provided the department with the flight details of her Australian-based former husband and father of her two children who has ignored his child support obligations for 10 years owes over $20000 in child support earns A$86000 a year and comes and goes from New Zealand as he pleases; why despite being handed all the information on a plate did the Inland Revenue Department do no more than meekly ask this man as he was about the leave the country whether he would like to make a voluntary payment? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It depends on the quality of the information provided. In reality the legislation that was passed in Parliament last year which the member’s party opposed will make it easier for us to make those collections in the future. 
Moana Mackey 
: What are the benefits of the changes to allow a partial write-off of late payment penalties and how successful have they been? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The measures I referred to in the earlier answer that the member’s question seeks information on have been extremely successful. In fact as a result of that legislation around 80 percent of liable parents whom we wrote off some debt for in the year to 31 December had actually had a debt that was more than 1 year outstanding. Of those parents a further 70 percent have subsequently reduced their debt levels. What that means is that more child support is being paid and getting through to more children. That has to be successful. 
Judith Collins 
: Why did the Inland Revenue Department inform the woman on 14 January that it was going to take action and that the father of her children “will be in for a big surprise on the 23rd of January when he tries to leave the country” only to do no more than ask him whether he would like to pay off his debt and why did the Inland Revenue Department not do more when it had exact details of when and where he would be and for weeks in advance? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: As the member well knows I am by law not permitted to discuss individual cases but if she cares to raise it with me privately I am happy to have that followed through by officials. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that a huge number of parents who are categorised as “liable” by the Family Court are just parents who want to be involved in the day-to-day care of their children but cannot because current Family Court law results in denoting one parent as a part-time carer and the other as having full-time financial obligations; does he believe that a presumption for shared parenting—a policy promoted by United Future—would dramatically reduce the number of parents in the child support system as well as ensure that children had more meaningful relationships with both parents after separations? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am not responsible for the Family Court aspect of childcare policy but I do agree very strongly with the member’s contention that most parents do want to be involved in the care of their children and that shared parenting is in fact a very positive step forward. I congratulate her on the work she has done in promoting this and hope that it will be possible to make greater allowance for shared parenting arrangements in the future. 
Judith Collins 
: Why does the Minister not instruct the Inland Revenue Department to make greater use of its existing power to apply for arrest warrants in order to prevent these deadbeat dads from walking away from their financial obligations to their very own children; and why does this particular Government he supports put so-called freedom of movement rights above the rights of good custodial mums and their children—why are those rights more important? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In fact since I have been Minister the department has made greater use of its powers to seek arrest warrants. One of the interesting consequences has been that whenever that has occurred in all but four cases we have been able to get repayments made. Only in four cases have we had to resort to arrests. So the complaint the member makes has actually been overtaken by events. 
Energy—Supply 
11. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What recent reports has he received on energy security? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Transpower has today announced that Pole 1 of the high voltage direct current interisland electricity grid link will be available for service for northward flows at times of peak demand this winter if it is needed. This restores yet another layer of protection in the unlikely event for example that the other Cook Strait link fails. There are many other substantial grid improvements occurring through the country. Capital expenditure on the grid this year is approximately $400 million up from $60 million per annum in the 1990s. This sixfold increase is very substantial and the power system’s resilience is improving substantially year by year. 
Lesley Soper 
: What other recent changes have been made to improve energy security? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This week the Minister for the Environment released under the Resource Management Act the new national policy statement on electricity transmission and this adopted recommendations by the board of inquiry chaired by Justice Salmon. I have today released a revised Government policy statement on electricity governance to the Electricity Commission to implement the New Zealand Energy Strategy as we head towards 90 percent renewable electricity. Of course last week Mighty River Power— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s going down—it’s gone down every year. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No it is not—rubbish! Of course last week Mighty River Power announced it has resource consent for and is proceeding with another 130 megawatt renewable geothermal power station. The Government’s clear sensible transformation of the energy sector to a sustainable and affordable future really is proceeding apace. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen the Marsh report of last September commissioned by Transpower which led to Transpower shutting down the Pole 1 link and in that report has he seen the risks that were outlined of recommissioning Pole 1—those being a major fire in the station with a high chance of spreading mercury vapour into the atmosphere and the contamination of land from oil or mercury spills with a suggestion that it was not a case of if but when those might happen; if so what can he say to the House to assure New Zealanders that should the link be required this winter everything has been done to mitigate against those prospects that were so real last September? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Here we have it again—scaremongering from Mr Brownlee. Last month he was telling us that the lights were going out— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is unusual I know but the Minister is off on the wrong track so I will help him. I have in my possession here a document:  
Risk Analysis 
:  
Pole 1 HVDC Line  
with the words “Transpower Limited” “Marsh” “Final Report” 
dated September which does outline the risks I have suggested. It does talk for example of the release of free mercury following earthquake or fire that will cause vapour to be released to other parts of the substation building and the external atmosphere. This is the reason why the pole was closed down. I have asked the Minister what has changed. I now seek leave to table this document in order that he may answer factually. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. Would the Minister please give his answer. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I have read the report and here we have Mr Brownlee scaremongering again. Last month he told the country that the lights were going out— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have asked that we do not interject too unreasonably when a Minister speaks so I intend not to do that. But it is appropriate Madam Speaker that you keep his answer to a factual basis related to the question. I asked him what has changed. There is no scaremongering in that. I did not write this report; I simply read it. The Minister claims that he has read it so what has changed? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we should just let the Minister give his answer. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I have read the report and here we have Mr Brownlee scaremongering again. Last month— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Points of order are heard in silence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You have asked that we respect the question and answer process; I am doing that. For the Minister to stand up and say that because I am reading a report that has been provided to him—a report that did see the entire operation of Pole 1 shut down last September a report that indicates the huge risks around the operation of this pole—I have asked him simply what has changed. That is not scaremongering; it is unreasonable for you to allow the Minister to answer the question in that light. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can I suggest that the member himself is now starting to become disorderly. He raised this point of order in exactly the same way he raised the point of order on exactly the same introduction to the answer previously given. To do that therefore is in fact questioning your previous ruling Madam Speaker that the Minister should be allowed to answer. This is a robust exchange and if the member cannot take it he should not ask robust questions or try to give his Budget Policy Statement speech by way of a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. I think if we allowed the Minister to continue—the Minister is allowed to give opinions under the Standing Orders—I am sure he will factually address the question if he is given an opportunity to do so. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes as I said I have read the report and I repeat that the last lot of scaremongering from Mr Brownlee said that the lights were going to go out and that cold showers were imminent. His scaremongering was as erroneous then as it is now as were his embarrassing mistakes about Whirinaki. Of course Mr Brownlee’s answer to security of supply— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is addressing a question and he is going into all sorts of stray ground. The reality is that the security of New Zealand’s electricity supply is still precarious. No one other than the Minister would argue otherwise. The fact is that Whirinaki did burn a million litres of oil and he is not answering the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I want the Minister to finish his answer and then I will judge whether it was an answer in terms of the Standing Orders. If there is one more interruption by way of a point of order on matters I have already ruled on the member will be leaving the Chamber. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Of course Mr Brownlee’s prescription in respect of security of supply as being coal is shown in his Web video podcast entitled: “Sexy coal”—I kid members not. If members look at the National Party website they will see the “Sexy coal” podcast. It is unbelievable and it just shows how out of touch National members are. They do not know what they believe in. Nick Smith is calling for decreases in electricity emissions— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My colleague Gerry Brownlee asked a very serious question. The Cook Strait cable is one of the most important pieces of infrastructure that New Zealand has. We know that a failure in another country led to significant mercury poisoning for a significant portion of the population and that because of the insurance risk associated with that the Cook Strait cable Pole 1 was closed down last year. My colleague Gerry Brownlee has repeatedly sought an answer from the Minister as to whether those safety issues have been addressed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The member is repeating the former point of order. I have given the member a lot of latitude on this. It is essentially the same point of order. Obviously the Speaker is not the judge of the quality of the answers. However I would ask members to allow the Minister to finish answering the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Speaker as I said does not judge the quality of the answer. The Minister as I hear him—as much as I can—is addressing the question. It may not be to the satisfaction of the members and I will not take another point of order on the ruling I have already made. I think this was the third or fourth. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A very clear Standing Order states that Ministers are to answer questions within their ministerial responsibility. I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer. He has recited all sorts of things that Mr Brownlee did or did not say. Can you explain to the House—and exactly the same issues arose when you asked Mr Bill English to leave—that Ministers— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I am just asking you to enforce the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I cannot do what the member asks until I hear the answer. If there is one more intervention I will ask the member to leave the House. Before I can rule I need to hear the answer. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I was saying Mr Brownlee’s answer in respect of security of supply is more coal. We have Nick Smith calling for decreases in electricity emissions while National’s spokesperson on energy Mr “Sexy Coal” Brownlee is calling for more. It really is amateur hour on the Opposition benches. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That did not address the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Thank you! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The issues as to the safety of the high-voltage direct current link are well addressed by the detail of the material that has been released by Transpower. If the situation was as dire as Mr Brownlee says it is of course Transpower would not be able to insure against the risk. It can insure against the risk which proves that that risk is not too high. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have not suggested there was any risk; the Government’s own report has said there is a risk. I seek leave again to table that report. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that report. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister read any recent reports by Dieter Helm an Oxford University economist and British Government adviser where putting it briefly he suggests that the effect of rising oil and gas prices is leading to big increases in coal burn in China India and the USA; knowing that and accepting his answer of positive security of supply can the Minister tell the House that there will be in the future energy prices at a reasonable and affordable cost? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have not read the exact report that the member refers to but I have read similar reports and I agree that one of the impacts of higher oil and gas prices has been to cause more coal to be burned internationally. That reinforces one of the points I previously made in this House which is that although carbon capture and storage is not yet here and although it is a very expensive technology and therefore is not central to New Zealand’s interests it is important for the world and we wish that technology development well. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that clarifies answers to a question in which an Opposition member sought leave to table a document from the Ministry of Education alleging that 30000 students were absent from school in any one day. This document clarifies that actually it was a snapshot of that day taken morning and afternoon. It included students who were late for school and who may have been at the doctor or the dentist. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Waiting List 
12. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: How many applicants are currently on the Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting list? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Housing New Zealand Corporation advises me that as at 29 February 2008 the number of applicants on the waiting list was 9875. This figure includes 2435 applicants already living in Housing New Zealand houses who are seeking a transfer. 
Phil Heatley 
: How many of these thousands of needy families are locked out of a home by an official written corporation policy where 6000 market-rent tenants “have no legal responsibility to advise the corporation of the purchase of an investment property”? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I would be keen to hear if that member has any details of cases that he would like to furnish me with how that is being applied and to whose disadvantage. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What initiatives is the Labour-led Government taking to reduce the waiting list? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: We have a targeted acquisitions programme. We are making better use of the State houses that we do have. We are providing housing through the Housing Innovation Fund. In fact there are many initiatives—too numerous to mention here—but it does have to be said that it takes a lot longer to build and acquire Housing New Zealand Corporation properties than it does to sell them. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why is it that if any of the 6000 State house tenants paying a market rent buys an investment property or a holiday home that tenant has no legal responsibility to Housing New Zealand Corporation; or does the Minister think that State house tenants should be able to own rental properties and holiday homes while thousands languish on the waiting list? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I am absolutely clear that the priority for this Government and Housing New Zealand Corporation is to house the most vulnerable in our society. There is no difference to that policy from this Government. If there are occasions that can be called fraud that are to do with subletting—where there are instances of people abusing the privilege that a Housing New Zealand Corporation house provides them—then I would like to know about that so the appropriate steps can be taken. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was about the policy that tenants can have investment properties. It was nothing about fraud. This is actually legal practice according to the Minister. Could I please have an answer about the legal practice of people being able to have investment properties when they are State house tenants? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm that this policy which states: “There is no requirement for the tenants who are paying market rent to declare investments such as interest in properties.” means that up to 6000 State house tenants can quite legally be landlords themselves under the Labour Government rules; if not what does this policy mean? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I draw to the attention of this House the fact that some 94 or 95 percent of State house tenants are on income-related rentals. The remaining few percent who are on market rentals have been tenants for a very long time. They have probably been Housing New Zealand tenants since long before this Government came into power. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I can talk about the policy of this Government which is to house the most vulnerable. If the policy to which the member refers exists within the corporation then I will do my best to address that when I have the appropriate information. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You asked the Minister to address the question. Should I repeat the question so that the Minister can address it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister did address the question. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the reply to written question 10585 which includes “6000 tenants pay market rent”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the financial review containing “Market rent tenants have no legal responsibility to advise of an investment property.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What are we to make of a member of Parliament rising to his feet and seeking to table a page of  
Hansard 
? In respect of the question that member has just asked the first publication was to do with a written question which becomes part of the record. The member is grossly wasting Parliament’s time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What members can do is agree or not agree and they did not agree. It is a matter that is before the Standing Orders Committee as to documents that members ask to table in this House. I personally think it is time we looked at it. 
Questions to Members 
Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill—Submissions 
1. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Government Administration Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill? 
SHANE ARDERN (Chairperson of the Government Administration Committee): 
 The Government Administration Committee is considering the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Annette King. Submissions were called for and advertised in the major daily newspapers on 3 November 2007 with the closing date for submissions— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a very very narrow question which asks “How many …”. The answer is a number; it is not a description of other activity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: One cannot insist on a particular type of answer to the question. I am sure the member will get to how many submissions there are. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I am happy to help the Minister. I am sure he is anxious to hear the answer. The committee received four submissions: one oral and three written. 
Craig Foss 
: What reasons for amending the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 did the person known as the whistleblower in the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board case—a person who had sought protection under that Act—provide in her submission? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think there are two reasons why that question should be ruled out: firstly the supplementary question does not relate to the primary question which asked about a number; and secondly it asked for the disclosure of material that has not yet been reported to the House. Therefore it would be inappropriate for it to be reported in this way. 
Simon Power 
: In fact the primary question related specifically to the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill which is a subject that was being addressed by the chairperson of the committee. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The reference was to the whistleblower who gave an oral submission in public to the select committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. The chairperson of the committee is not responsible for the views of submitters to the committee. The chairperson is responsible only for the process. Any question relating to the process is in order but any question that relates to the substance of the submission is out of order. So that supplementary question was out of order. 
Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table a document from the person known as the whistleblower in order to background her issues in relation to the district health board. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget policy Statement 
. The Budget Policy Statement is published with the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and outlines the Government’s intentions for the 2008 Budget and also for future years. The best thing I can say about this Budget Policy Statement is that Labour will not be involved with it in future years.  
The people of New Zealand are sick of the controlling tentacles of this Labour Government reaching into every aspect of their lives. They are sick of the burgeoning bureaucratic regulation under this Labour Government. They are sick of this Government getting bigger and bigger at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders whose financial position is getting worse as this Government takes more and more tax off them. If members doubt what I have just been saying the submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee covered a number of these issues and I will outline a few of them. 
We at the select committee heard from business and farming interests in New Zealand. They were quite clear when they told the community that they were alarmed—that was the language they used—at the rate at which government spending has been increasing leading to higher inflation higher interest rates and a higher exchange rate. That was their language—they were “alarmed” by it. They said that the higher overall taxation levels we have under this Labour Government are simply crippling the productive sector of this country. But worst of all they said that collapsing productivity growth has got them really worried because that is leading to higher inflation and higher interest rates. 
What we see is a lost opportunity. We have had probably the best international environment for economic growth since the 1950s and 1960s and this Government has squandered it. It had a chance to do something to really raise New Zealand’s productivity levels. The submitters to the select committee pointed out that productivity since Labour came into office in 2000 has collapsed. That was their language—productivity has “collapsed”. When productivity collapses we cannot get growth without inflation and we therefore get high interest rates hitting every mum and dad with a home mortgage in this country and of course those high interest rates push up the exchange rate hitting all of our exporters as well. 
Interestingly though it was not just the business and farming organisations that made submissions. So too did social interest organisations. There was a submission from one group called the Child Poverty Action Group which is actually an interesting name for a bunch of researchers from Auckland University. This group is based at Auckland University and is made up of academic researchers. They told the select committee that the Working for Families package which is the Government’s flagship policy has failed New Zealand’s poorest families. They went on to say that KiwiSaver benefits the better-off interestingly. 
In their evidence on the Working for Families package they told the committee that 185000 children from families at the bottom of New Zealand’s income levels get little out of it. In fact they pointed out in their submission—and it is covered in the committee’s report to the House—that if the mums and dads of those 185000 children try to earn more for their families this Government taxes them on any dollar they earn by over 90 percent—90 percent! And if they try to get off the benefit and try to stand on their own feet the Government taxes them at 100 percent—100 percent! If they dare to earn another dollar under this Labour Government the Labour Government takes it all off them—and Government members say they care about the poorer people of this country! 
What is interesting is that we asked Dr Cullen—because Dr Cullen came to the select committee—whether the Budget will do anything for those 185000 children whom the Child Poverty Action Group identified. Dr Cullen said no. He said there would not be anything in this Budget to help those 185000 children from our poorer families who were identified by the Child Poverty Action Group from Auckland University. [ 
Interruption 
] And Steve Chadwick says Labour cares! We know when Labour members care. They care when they are 15 points behind in the polls. That is the only time they care. 
This Budget Policy Statement covers the vexed issue for Labour of tax cuts. I think poor old Dr Cullen is allergic to the words “tax cuts”. I think Dr Cullen genuinely believes that New Zealanders are too stupid to know how to spend their own money. Dr Cullen believes he knows far better how to spend people’s money and he goes quite septic at the thought of tax cuts. In his Budget Policy Statement he outlines four conditions for tax cuts. He says the Government will cut taxes without increasing borrowing without cutting public services and in a way that does not exacerbate inflationary pressure. He says the Government will cut taxes in a way that does not lead to greater inequalities in our society. 
I think that Dr Cullen forgot two conditions for tax cuts. I am sure he would have included them had he remembered. The first condition is that we have to be in an election year. We know that Labour considers cutting personal taxes only in an election year. The second point Dr Cullen forgot is that Labour will cut taxes in an election year only if it is more than 15 points behind in the polls. Do members remember the last election? Dr Cullen promised the “chewing gum tax cut”. Do members remember that? Well of course that final condition was not met because Labour was not more than 15 points behind in the polls. So Dr Cullen just said: “No. We won’t cut taxes because that final condition was not met. We weren’t 15 points behind in the polls.” So even though it was an election year after the election Labour broke its promise and did not cut taxes. New Zealanders should remember that. New Zealanders should remember that although Labour might talk the language of tax cuts before an election it will find every excuse in the book after an election to cut back on them or cut them out altogether. 
This Budget Policy Statement has a big headline on page 8: “Revenue forecasts are being revised upwards”. That is why Labour promised tax cuts. But of course since this Budget Policy Statement was published in December things have turned to custard a bit. We have had the international financial markets continuing to gyrate. We have had the housing market hitting a thicker wall than people had actually expected. We have had droughts hitting a crucial part of New Zealand’s economy—the agricultural sector. And what do we see? The Government’s latest financial statements to the end of January—the latest financial statements—show that revenue is down. Whoops! The Budget Policy Statement forecast revenue to be up but the latest financial statements show that revenue is down $700 million. 
Already the Labour Government is having to borrow money. The Budget Policy Statement makes that very clear—members should look at the tables on page 57. Already the Government is having to borrow money to fund its operations. Now with revenue down by $700 million it will have to borrow more money to fund the tax cuts and that will breach Dr Cullen’s test about no borrowing for tax cuts. Which will go? That will be the test. Will Dr Cullen breach that test or will he scrap the tax cuts the way he did before? 
The people of New Zealand should be very suspicious of this Labour Government when it comes to tax cuts. New Zealanders right now under this Labour Government are facing climbing house mortgage and rental costs spiralling food and petrol costs and rising electricity prices because of a rushed emissions trading scheme. They are facing an exchange rate that is crippling our exporters. The only thing that is likely to grow under this Labour Government is more bureaucratic regulation. This will be Dr Cullen’s last Budget. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I put a simple question to that member Lockwood Smith or to any member from the National Party: will National keep Working for Families or will it scrap it? 
Hon Member 
: We’re not telling. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Oh National members are not telling us. You see this is the problem. National has said it will not tell us. Do members know what that is called? It is called being slippery. The leader of the National Opposition is saying he will not tell us what he thinks because he knows that people do not want to hear the things he thinks. 
The Budget Policy Statement sets out the guidelines for the Government’s Budget decisions and the priorities going forward. Although the Government is coming up with ideas on taking the country forward—for example the fabulous New Zealand Fast Forward programme launched yesterday which I will talk about in a minute—some very very slippery things are going on in the National Party. The problem is that the party is stuck. It has had to agree with things it does not support it supports things it does not agree with and it is being slippery about things it wants to support but knows the public does not support. 
This is precisely the problem the National Party has and it was summed up beautifully in a cartoon in a recent  
New Zealand Herald 
 entitled “Flight of the bumble-key”. In this cartoon we see the Leader of the Opposition as a lovely bumblebee buzzing round and round in circles and not able to make up his mind whether to fly off to the left sign “Expediency” or to the right sign “Principle”. He buzzes round and round in circles and cannot decide what to do. 
Let us look at all the things the National Party does not like but has had to agree with. Mr Key said New Zealand was missing in action in Iraq but then went on to say National would not have sent troops there. He said climate change was a complete hoax and a little later on he said he firmly believed in climate change and always had. His comments about student loans were a beauty. He said interest-free student loans were unaffordable and an irresponsible cost to the country. Then in January this year he said National would keep interest-free student loans for tertiary students. He said being nuclear-free was bad news for economic growth but then said National would stick with anti-nuclear legislation. When commenting on State housing he said the public housing planned for Hobsonville was economic vandalism and that National was committed to cancelling it but in February this year he said: “I’m in favour of the affordable housing they might be building there.” When KiwiSaver was set up he said it was fundamentally flawed and a glorified Christmas club but last August he said it was probably going to be successful and not too bad. In terms of Auckland airport and strategic asset sales he said National would not have changed the rules as the Government did but 1 day later he said: “We’d put a new one in that says that there must be majority ownership held in New Zealand.” On Treaty settlements he said National had no firm date for a deadline but would like to see them cleared up by a certain time. Then just 12 hours later he said: “I gave the impression that National did not have a date. That was wrong.” 
The National Party is being found out and that is why the answer to the question I asked earlier about whether National would keep Working for Families was so good. The member down the back said: “We aren’t going to tell you.” That is part of the problem. We know what that statement actually means. It means that National members know they cannot tell us the answer because the public do not want to hear it. 
There is a whole litany of things that the Leader of the Opposition has said about Auckland International Airport but regrettably I do not have time to talk about that. Another classic example is Mr Key’s comment yesterday about the New Zealand Fast Forward programme. The programme is an investment of $700 million which with interest will probably go up to a billion dollars. With dollar for dollar from the private sector it will probably go up to $2 billion investment in research and development in pastoral and food industries. What did the National leader call the programme? He called it a “gimmick”. He was the only one who opposed it. Everyone else said it was a good idea. Then a little bit later he said: “National will be rolling out a comprehensive research and development policy closer to the election. We will make long-term funding commitments that provide certainty to the sector because we see it as a way of lifting productivity and helping to make New Zealand a smarter nation.” Pray tell me what is New Zealand Fast Forward all about? That is precisely what it is about. So Mr Key opposes a good idea that was announced yesterday and then waffles on and tells people that National is serious about research and development funding. That is simply not believable and that is a problem for the National Party. 
What about the fiasco over Treaty settlements and Maori seats? The problem here is that Mr Key is trying to placate two groups at once. He is trying to placate the Maori Party by saying that the Maori seats could go at some stage but not just yet. This is because he wants to go into coalition with the Maori Party. But then again he wants to placate the rednecks in the National Party who want to get rid of the Maori seats. The problem is that he cannot say both things at the same time because someone will catch him out. That is the rule of politics. It is much better to be principled much better to say what one believes and then take the consequences. The public will honour and respect a person for that but they will not respect people who slip and slide and say things they think the public want to hear. It is exactly the same with Treaty settlements. Mr Key did not say there was a date—I think he had forgotten. He said he could not remember he did have a date. Once again he did not want to offend the Maori Party by saying National would sort this out and get it over with quickly but also he wanted to placate the rednecks in the party who do not think there should be Treaty settlements full stop. The problem is that one cannot say different things to different audiences when everybody is listening. 
Of course we know what will happen if the National Party should ever get into Government—not in my lifetime mercifully. If it ever did we know what it would do. National would scrap the 20 free hours’ early childhood education. We know this because it argued against it. We know that National wants to privatise the health system. Members opposite got in a mess when they were asked about this because they really did not want to say they want to privatise health so they tried to say something else and got caught out saying both things. KiwiSaver would be gone but National members cannot bring themselves to say that. As someone down the back said: “We’re not going to say; we’re not going to tell you.” I think this comment that National is not going to tell us what it would do about Working for Families is a code for saying that would be gone too. We remember that a previous National Government cut national superannuation so we can say that New Zealand superannuation will be cut again if the National Party ever gets near the Treasury benches. Lord knows what National ultimately thinks about transport. 
The  
Listener 
 has a beautiful cartoon showing John Key saying: “Would we sell airports? … We would love to see wages drop. Want a $200m meat subsidy? State housing will lower property values. I want to lead the Labour Party.”; and two people in the corner saying: “It’s the pressure of saying only what people want to hear.” I say: “When the cartoons are having a go at you when the cartoons are pillorying you you know that your time is up.” National members thought they would sleepwalk to victory but we now have a decent fight on our hands. Suddenly people are working out that those members are trying to say two things to two different groups and those members have been caught out. Thank goodness that slippery slipping National Party has no show of getting into Government at the end of the year. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 It is a bit rich for that member to be quoting a cartoon when the Prime Minister of New Zealand blames the problems of the Labour Party on Minhinnick the cartoonist who I think left the  
New Zealand Herald  
30 years ago. That shows just how out of touch she is with the public mood. That is the contrast we are seeing here. Labour plays all these fancy little political games. Dr Cullen sets trapdoors makes traps and dreams up clever little moves like how he is against the Auckland airport deal when he is for it. But the public are facing the reality of 8 years of mismanagement of economic growth. [ 
Interruption 
]  
I invite the member Jill Pettis to turn up in Wanganui and take responsibility for the fact that she is part of the problem that has caused 10 percent interest rates. She should explain why that is to people in Wanganui with mortgages. I think that is why she is retiring. She has figured out that there is no way she could get voted in in that seat. The member sitting beside her Steve Chadwick knows she will not be representing Rotorua for the very good reason that people in Rotorua are facing 10 percent mortgage rates their morning tea discussion is about the price of butter and cheese in our supermarkets their tax rates have not changed for 9 years and they see Dr Cullen on the TV saying “Don’t worry folks. My borrowing is low. My bank account is in surplus. But your borrowing is way up. It has never been higher. Your interest rates have never been worse. One of the reasons is because I took much more tax than I needed.” 
Every time Dr Cullen is on TV Labour loses support. People know that when he is boasting about what good shape the Government’s books are in it is at the expense of their overdraft and now their house price. If Labour thinks that will work when people’s house prices are starting to drop and when even if the Reserve Bank drops interest rates it may not drop mortgage rates then it is mistaken. It is not all Dr Cullen’s fault but that is the reality that people are facing. What is happening is that the events of the last 8 years are starting to look a bit different from how they looked even 12 months ago. Dr Cullen used to portray himself as the magical manager of the economy over that 8-year period. Now that it is starting to look a bit gloomy I think we will find him arguing that he was not really there; it was someone else’s fault. 
I want to raise just one example with the Labour members. They have claimed relentlessly that they are totally responsible for the drop in unemployment. They have claimed that relentlessly. Well the Reserve Bank forecasts that over the next 3 years unemployment will go up by 60 percent—from 3.4 percent to well over 5 percent. Who takes credit for that? 
Pansy Wong 
: Cullen? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not see Michael Cullen getting up and saying: “I’m responsible for the rise as much as I was for the fall.”—no not at all. That rise in unemployment is a direct result of his management of the economy. It is likely to be the case that if National has the privilege of becoming the Government we will have to deal with that mess—with sharply rising unemployment that is partly a result of 9 years of mismanagement of the economy. 
The problem now is that the public do not believe anything Dr Cullen says. We have had a few questions in the House over the last couple of days about debt. Dr Cullen has been obsessing about debt for the last 6 or 7 years. As we know he has been looking for any excuse to make sure he keeps up his punishing rates of taxation of middle New Zealand whereby people on $39000 pay what used to be the wealthy tax rate of 33c in the dollar. We know that is a problem because after Kevin Rudd’s tax cuts in Australia someone on the average wage in Australia will pay half the tax rates that someone in New Zealand pays. 
Dr Cullen has kept pretending that there is a big problem with debt. Just a couple of days ago he gave a speech in which he said: “Anyone who talks about borrowing money talks about it only because they want it to finance tax cuts we cannot afford.” A little light bulb went off in my head. I thought “I wonder whether Dr Cullen is borrowing money.” And he is. This year Dr Cullen is borrowing $2.7 billion. I will ask Labour members to answer the question that he has asked us: “What is he borrowing $2.7 billion for?”. Is he borrowing it to finance the increase in the number of teachers in our schools? Is he borrowing it to finance the army of useless policy analysts who served up the analysis behind the Fast Forward fund? It was 10 pages of Cabinet paper waffle that we will absolutely not put up with. Is he borrowing it to finance his tax cuts? I will tell members how tricky Dr Cullen has been. One of his tests for tax cuts is that he says: “I’m not going to borrow for tax cuts.” So what he has done is borrow this year before 1 July so that after 1 July in the run-up to the election he can then say: “I’m not borrowing for tax cuts.” He is borrowing $3 billion this year but none in the next financial year. He is hoarding the cash now; borrowing now for the cash he needs next year. He will go on TV and say: “I’m not borrowing for tax cuts.” 
Fortunately our public accounting system is transparent enough that Dr Cullen has been uncovered. One of his tests is that he said: “I’m not borrowing for tax cuts.” We can confirm that Treasury has put in the accounts that he is borrowing for tax cuts. Not only that but also Treasury has said—and I will quote because journalists do not believe me— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What do they say? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Treasury says: “The Government is increasing borrowings to meet the cash shortfall.” How could it be any more blunt? Cash surpluses become deficits because of the tax cuts and those deficits are going to be “met by borrowings”. Dr Cullen is working on the principle that if he shouts loud enough that someone else is burning down the house someone else might burn down the house but no one will notice that he is burning down the house across the road. 
The man has no credibility. He has gone on for months about how he is not borrowing and he is. Then today he claimed that he has reduced gross debt. Actually he has not. I will quote from the financial statements of the New Zealand Government which show that in the time he has been in office—2000-06—gross debt has not dropped a dollar. He has not repaid a cent of debt but he has spent 7 years saying that he has done nothing else. Sure as a proportion of the economy it has dropped because the economy has grown; it is not because he has paid it off. He has told taxpayers he needed all that extra revenue to pay off debt and he has not paid off a cent. This year after 8 years debt will go up by $2.7 billion. The man is a fraud. He has given up any pretence to competent economic management because only one thing matters to him: the re-election of the Labour Government. At any cost to anyone at any time the Labour Government must be re-elected. The very heartening thing is that out on the street they know that. It will not matter if he throws the kitchen sink at them. 
In fact after the announcement yesterday which tried to make the numbers look big my constituents have been ringing up and saying: “Why is he spending $750 million to get my vote?”. In fact one of them said: “He could have got it for $1 million; why is he spending $750 million?”. The bigger that Labour members try to make the numbers the more cynical the public will be. The New Zealand public know what is going on. They do not actually need us to lay it all out. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 For those who are not aware who that last speech was from it was from the desiccated coconut of the National Party. What I am told happens to the desiccated coconut is that the insides are torn out— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member cannot— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member’s point of order is about. It is a personal reflection. The member will withdraw. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. Mr Key is not the only slippery political version of a conger eel on that side of the House. Mr English is in a very very difficult position. He has to stand up and try to articulate some sort of National Party policy when his leader cannot even get it straight. 
But in fairness we should not focus just on Mr Key. I am going to talk about asset sales. I am not going to talk about the particular sale of Auckland International Airport Ltd because I have some responsibility for it. I will confine my comments to State-owned assets. Mr Key is not the only slippery individual in the National Party. I find it ironic that Mr English finished the last part of his speech by accusing us of saying that we will say anything to win. Well we have had a litany from Paul Swain today of the flip-flops the greasiness the slipperiness and the movements. “We do not believe in climate change.” Mr Key said. Then he changed his mind. “We do have a date for Treaty settlements.” then it was “No we do not.” And on it goes. But these issues are not confined just to Mr Key. 
I will read as we talk about State asset sales from a transcript of the  
Agenda 
 programme on 23 September 2007. Guyon Espiner asked: “Are there any state assets that National thinks should be sold?”. The response from Mr English was and this is a cracker: “Well if the nation says we want to retain control of these state assets then we can’t expect to be a government and say we’re going to go and head off in the opposite direction …”. Now not a day later not an hour later not a minute later but about three paragraphs into the transcript later Mr Espiner asked: “What about the electricity companies they’re big assets and what about giving Kiwi mums and dads a shot at owning some shares in those?”. Mr English said in response four paragraphs later: “Well I mean I wouldn’t exclude any”—he was talking about the electricity companies—“clearly those kind of assets are very topical at the moment …”. Then we go to a day later I think it is 24 September on National Radio Mr English said: “So partial sell-downs of SOEs is one way the Government can build this savings culture.” 
So what we do know is that the conger eel of the National Party “old slippery” over there is but only one. Mr English has flip-flopped more times on asset sales than anyone can count. 
Then we fast forward to last week’s proceedings on another particular issue concerning an asset which I will not talk about. We know what the National Party’s position is on that. Mr English—and people ought to be reminded of this—is the man who tried to have it both ways. He said “Well we will not sell the country’s assets because we got in the poo last time and it is unpopular.” Then he said “Well actually we do believe in a partial sale of State assets.” We asked what that meant and he said “Well this KiwiSaver the superannuation fund and these funds are trawling around looking for assets so here is an opportunity for good old Kiwi mums and dads to buy those assets and have them invested.” 
Mr Swain said that there is one problem with that though—and he is right. Kiwi mums and dads through the ownership stake that the Crown has in those SOEs have already purchased them through their tax. Mr Key and Mr English would then have them sold off and recycled through the system regardless of whether there is a Crown stake to generously—says the National Party—give these Kiwi mums and dads the wonderful opportunity to spend their own money for a second time buying back through the superannuation fund or whatever what they already own. 
I would ask members how many ways we can slice the State-owned assets onion. How many storylines do those members think people will or will not believe? I think it was Mr Swain or another speaker who made this point. We cannot go down to one end of the public bar and say one thing to a group of folk then go down to the other end of the public bar or the workingmen’s club and say the opposite and not be stupid enough not to realise that those two groups will probably get together over a beer and have a chat and compare notes. The communities are not silly. 
We ought to remind the communities of what this Government inherited when we came into office in 1999. That crew over there left behind a moribund inward-looking industrial graveyard when it came to the New Zealand economy. There was high unemployment low growth and low investment. Then they say to us desperately looking for doom and gloom that they believe employment rates will go up. We know of course that Mr Key got caught—ankle tapped or crash-tackled—by the Whangarei  
Bay Report 
 newspaper when he admitted he would like to see wages go down. The facts are that he said it it was proved and then in that petroleum jelly slippery kind of way he tried to back out of it. He tried to get around it. He tried to say that it did not happen. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Like your hairdo. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: There is the low-altitude flyer of the National Party Mr Finlayson. He is the man who came here as a superstar. He is a barrister of course who was denied being appointed a Queen’s Counsel and has never got over it. He has never come anywhere closer to the front bench than he is today. 
But National left this country an industrial graveyard—industrial archaeology. We now have the lowest unemployment rate in over 20 years— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Here we go. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh they do not like it. “Poppa Smurf” from the West Coast does not like it and old “Albert Tatlock” does not like it either. But we are going to say it anyway. We have the highest and longest period of sustained economic growth since the Second World War and some of the lowest Maori unemployment we have seen for years. Then those members stand up and say they are for families. The National Party stands up as if its members know something about families that no one else knows. They say they are for families but what they are against is having any support for those families. 
What National is for is an $11.5 billion tax cut and I could not believe my luck when Bill English started talking about borrowing. In the last election Mr Key as Opposition finance spokesperson admitted on the record on the radio that half of the $11 billion for the tax cuts was to be borrowed. We know that last week Newstalk ZB got Mr English on the record admitting that he would borrow for a tax cut. He would not borrow to build a hospital. He would not borrow to build a school. He would not borrow to build a road or a public transport system. [ 
Interruption 
] Let them go Mr Speaker. They make fools of themselves every time they open their mouths. 
Mr English would not borrow for infrastructure. But oh no he would borrow for a tax cut. That is National’s stated policy. That is what its members said last time. That is what they will go with this time. 
Let us compare the record. National abolished the Apprenticeship Act—I think it was in 1995. Apprenticeships were denied. Every young person was denied a chance at trade training. What is our record? There are 14000 young people in Modern Apprenticeships now—a year ahead of time. 
Bill English talked about pensions. I forgot to read out one quote on asset sales. Of course the National Party would like to hoodwink the pensioners and ensure they forget about the three cuts that National made. Graham Stairmand the national president of Grey Power when quoted on 27 September 2007 about Mr English’s admission that he would sell assets said: “This will seal the fate of the National Party … Nobody will be naive enough to believe that this is not going to be a step to full privatisation.” I do not know what Mr Stairmand’s politics are but I think he has summed it up. Of course it was National that cut the pension three times. It is Labour that has restored it and increased it. It was National that pulled the rug out from under every elderly person in the country. 
So we know today that the low-altitude flyers are over there. Mr English squirms every time Mr Key opens his mouth because Mr Key does not know in which direction of policy he should go next. Mr Key thinks that he can say anything to anybody and that they will not know that he talks out of both sides of his mouth. But the point today is that he has a deputy leader who is on the record off the record and all over the record on one primary issue that is central to the hearts of Kiwis—that is asset sales. We now know what the agenda is. He does not want to admit it but he would sell the family silver and sell out every New Zealander like he did last time. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is in favour of the Budget Policy Statement and when the Budget comes around we will be voting in favour of that as well. But I will take the unusual step of pleading with Dr Cullen and Mr Parker who are the Ministers in charge of the Overseas Investment Office. I will plead with them publicly on behalf of the farmers down in South Canterbury who are about to lose a dairy company called New Zealand Dairies Ltd. They are to lose that company to a group of Russians who want to increase their investment beyond what they already have. They will do that under the auspices of a so-called rescue package with which they say they had to put money into the company a wee while ago to save it. In fact the farmers and shareholders in that area have the money to ensure that the company lives and prospers. It is appropriate that the previous couple of speeches in this debate have been about asset sales as we would ask Dr Cullen and Mr Parker to please please please turn down the application to the Overseas Investment Office from Nutritek for it to take a major shareholding in this company because we do not want to see any part of the great New Zealand dairying industry going to overseas owners. It is not just the fact that these people are Russians; it would be the same situation if they were Americans English Chinese or anybody else. New Zealand belongs to New Zealanders. The sweat of those farmers’ brows should earn them a return and if it is their intent to set up a dairy company to enhance that return then so be it. We do not want to see the Russians coming into this country in an overseas ownership situation that ensures that this company New Zealand Dairies Ltd continues to produce commodity products that are then shifted to Nutritek the Russian-owned company in Singapore for further processing into baby food thus enhancing its value throughout Asia. 
I will just take a minute here to correct some noddy who wrote in a newspaper that the processing of New Zealand dairy products could not be taken over by overseas owners because we would have to put in a pipeline for the milk or we needed something else. The people who make those sorts of statements have not a clue. The first process is to reduce the water from the milk producing powder. It is that unrefined powder we are talking about. It goes off our shores and is further refined in other countries. We want that to be done here. That is what New Zealand Dairies Ltd was set up to do: to take the product to its final stage and thereby reap the benefit in a vertically integrated fashion to the farmers in that area. They have the money to take this company back. It was a vote of their board which unfortunately got the majority to take the money from the Russians instead of taking the money from the bank. It was a dumb decision. I cannot in any way excuse it but that decision was taken and this company should be bought back by the farmers in that area. They want to do it and for that to be able to happen we need Dr Cullen and Mr Parker to turn down the application made by Nutritek to the Overseas Investment Office. We in New Zealand First take these things seriously. This is a precedent-setting decision. I ask what we will see going to overseas owners next. Will we see Synlait AFFCO and companies like that going to overseas owners? 
I will just reply to a letter that I received today—I will reply formally but I want to reply publicly—from Mr Peter Lavery the chairman of New Zealand Dairies Ltd. He said that he wants to give me a briefing on how the company was formed and how it operates. I would just tell Mr Lavery—and members must excuse me if I do not pronounce the name correctly—that it is not the way the company is run that New Zealand First has concerns about. It is not about any of that. It is about ownership and only ownership. Furthermore it is about New Zealand ownership. It is not about whether this group of farmers or that group of farmers owns this company; it is about New Zealanders owning this company. Those are the concerns we have regarding this issue and I want to make that absolutely clear. I am not involving New Zealand First in the running of the company or criticising those who are running it in any way for that. If I was to do that then I could criticise the previous board for letting the issue get into this state. But the matter is in the Government’s hands now and we plead with the Government to protect New Zealand’s interests. 
Exporting is what this country is about. The success of our exports decides our standard of living. The New Zealand dairy industry as we all know contributes in excess of 20 percent of those exports. So to set a precedent by selling off a little bit of it to another country is a bad precedent indeed and it should not and cannot happen in our view. I made these statements again when Fonterra was talking about listing that company on the stock market and we said then—publicly as well—that there was no way we could hold that company in New Zealand ownership if it was to be listed on the stock market. It appears that Fonterra has backed away from that ridiculous proposal and I say “Thank heavens!” for that. 
In talking about asset sales I say that only one party in this Parliament has an unbroken record of opposing asset sales and it is great to see that other parties are now coming on board with that stance. New Zealand First has been talking about the need for us to hold the wealth of our companies in New Zealand hands. Previous speakers have talked about Auckland airport today so I do not need to go on about that but that is just another case in question. With New Zealand Dairies Ltd we appeal for reason and we appeal to our Ministers to keep this company in New Zealand hands. The local farmers have the money and they need to buy this company back. 
Just in the last couple of minutes I have remaining and on the same sort of subject I will address an editorial in the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 11 March in which we had a most amazing diatribe from the editor who said in effect that even if a policy of asset sales into private hands failed it was still a success. That is absolute nonsense and it is just absolutely outrageous and sad that a newspaper especially one with the coverage the  
New Zealand Herald  
has is joining in an argument that has been proven to be wrong by successive Governments. We are going to the expense of buying Air New Zealand back we have gone to the expense of buying New Zealand’s rail network ONTRACK back and it seems that it will be the same situation with the railways themselves the rolling stock. But for this newspaper to set out as I said to my leader a form 6 diatribe—and he said that it was more like standard 6—is upsetting in the extreme. If the  
New Zealand Herald 
 staff think that they are helping the National Party in some way with that sort of editorial then I have to say to them that the opposite is true. There is no will in this country for us and whichever Government of the day to be selling assets and it should stop. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am going to do something a bit radical—and I hope it is within the Standing Orders—in that I will actually speak about the Budget Policy Statement. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is in the Standing Orders. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Just last December the Budget Policy Statement forecast an increase in tax revenue this year. Now we know just 3 months later that tax revenue is actually $4 billion less than predicted. That figure of $4 billion is from the end of January before the drought had even properly kicked in. The Budget Policy Statement forecast once again falling oil prices and this week we note that oil prices are nudging $110 a barrel. 
We are facing a year of significantly reduced Government revenue with the likelihood of a US recession affecting our markets with worse numbers still to come in when the effects of the drought work their way through and with steeply rising oil prices and the No. 1 priority for both of the old parties is tax cuts. Are we debating today the impacts of the Budget Policy Statement and the policy responses to it? Not really; no. I have listened to name-calling and personal denigrations from both sides of the House and to some robust debate about who did what when and what they said they would do instead but there has been nothing in the debate that takes us forward into how the country will respond to these very considerable risks. 
Is this a good time to reduce Government revenue through further tax cuts on top of the $4 billion reduction already noted another $1.5 billion from tax cuts and probably worse to come? Is this a good time for such a policy? Nobody is really addressing that question either. Labour tells us that we will have tax cuts only if certain criteria are satisfied: the tax cuts will not be funded from borrowing there will be no service cuts to fund them and they will not be inflationary. We would sign up to that; we think those are good criteria. We say “Good on you!” to Michael Cullen. But it does not look as if the criteria will be met. 
The Reserve Bank in its Monetary Policy Statement from just last week has already made allowances for an extra 0.3 percent inflation because of the likelihood of the generosity of the tax cuts putting more money into the economy. It says that the likelihood of tax cuts is delaying the time at which it can reduce the official cash rate and therefore interest rates and therefore—what will follow from that—the exchange rate. 
I want the Government to tell us where that reduced $4 billion revenue and the $1.5 billion of tax cuts will come from. Just how will it be funded? Will anybody tell the House that? We desperately need capital investment in our rail system; we desperately need more investment in public transport. The Child Poverty Action Group came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee when we were looking at the Budget Policy Statement and said there are still 185000 children living in poverty in this country because they are children from beneficiary families who do not get the in-work tax credit. Those families are facing higher food prices higher energy prices and higher transport costs and the Government cannot think of anything better to spend this money on than tax cuts. 
The Budget which is due in a couple of months will be interesting. Will the Government borrow or will the sustainability deficit and the social deficit remain unfunded? National on the other hand has no criteria at all. It will just give tax cuts regardless. For National tax cuts are a higher priority than public services and it will borrow if necessary. Well that is a clear position; at least we know where National stands. That is what National has said for a long time. 
Let us look at the other forecasts made in the Budget Policy Statement. One thing is becoming a really regular pattern. Every time the Budget Policy Statement comes I just flip through until I find the appropriate graph and sure enough the graph does exactly the same as it did last time: it notes that oil prices have increased. They have increased throughout the whole year in fact. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You’re absolutely right on that. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Once again the Budget Policy Statement predicts that oil prices will fall sharply and it is absolutely wrong on that I say to Mr Woolerton. It notes that oil prices are around $90 and predicts they will fall to below $75. Today oil prices are nudging $110. This has been going on for at least 4 years and during the whole of that time oil prices have been rising and Treasury has not noticed. 
Four years ago the Budget Policy Statement forecast that by now oil would have fallen to $19 a barrel. Whoopee! Three years ago Treasury reckoned that by this time oil would be $40 a barrel 2 years ago it reckoned that right now oil would be $50 a barrel and 1 year ago it reckoned that right now oil would be $67 a barrel. Members can see that the Government is gradually adjusting to reality but it is a long long way behind. How long will it take it to catch up? When will it get a grip and put some resources into planning an economy that has to not only withstand climate change but become much less dependent upon oil and when will it involve business and the public at large in that planning? Surely that is the most important economic issue facing this country. It is completely ignored by both sides of the House. Neither of the old parties shows an interest in dealing with this issue. It will be left to the Green Party—and I have to say to the Maori Party which has also shown interest in this issue—to lead the country when we return from the next election in much larger numbers. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I have been wondering whether this Budget Policy Statement 2008 will be top of the pops on the 6 o’clock news bulletin or will the really pressing issue for New Zealand be naming the MPs who are travelling on the so-called taxpayer junket to Eastern Europe—and good luck to them. Meanwhile across the world all eyes are on the controversial list published in  
L’Osservatore Romano 
 the Vatican newspaper. After 1500 years the Vatican has added seven new sins as having appeared on the horizon of humanity. Alongside lust gluttony avarice sloth anger envy and pride we now have ruining the environment carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments social injustice that causes poverty and the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few. 
When I looked at this report on the Budget Policy Statement for 2008 I wondered whether Pope Benedict XVI had received an advance copy for there are certain areas within the small print that make us query whether this Budget Policy Statement has the balance right. The Maori Party is particularly concerned at the information in the report relating to the supposed growth in household incomes. Earlier this morning the Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia issued a press release in which he said: “What we need to do is get out into Maori communities and show whanau the real benefits of saving.” In the interests of cross-party communication I would like to suggest some pointers to the Minister about this critical issue of savings. There is absolutely no point in going out there and scolding Maori whanau telling them what to do and how to save for a rainy day if there is nothing in the piggy bank to start with. The reality is that the income levels for Maori come nowhere near the new deadly sin of excessive accumulation of wealth. 
The New Zealand Income Survey shows that Maori aged over 15 years earn just 73 percent of what Pakeha earn. In dollar terms Maori earn $197 less a week. Although this Labour Government may crow about the participation rates for Maori growing to 68 percent we always have to ask for the fine print—what does that mean in terms of putting bread on the table? The fine print means for example that when on another day Labour puts out its policy on affordable housing that requires homeowners to earn at least $70000 a year to service a mortgage in an “affordable home” the constituents in my electorate laugh—or maybe they just cry. What it comes down to is who is being factored into the average. Which New Zealanders comprise low and modest-income earners? The 2006 income data for my Tamaki Makaurau electorate counts us out. Median family incomes in my electorate are just $60000—$10000 short of meeting the grade for low and modest-income earners. 
Why does all this matter? Remember the Pope’s new sin: social injustice that causes poverty. A month ago the Early Childhood Council came out and agreed with the Salvation Army that the availability of early childhood education is heavily biased against poorer urban communities adding that it was “madness that we are not targeting more substantial resources at these children.” The council’s chief executive Sue Thorne was outraged by what she described as “pathetically little” of the money given to early childhood education being targeted at the most needy of children making the clear link between low access to early childhood education in the most needy areas with Maori children being 2.7 times more likely than Pakeha children to be stood down from school for disciplinary problems and that there were wide achievement gaps between low and high-decile schools. 
A fortnight after those comments the Canterbury District Health Board’s Executive Director of Maori and Pacific Health Hector Matthews declared that the gross disparity between Maori and non-Maori health was largely due to socio-economic conditions. It was his analysis that more than half of all Maori are located in the poorest three deciles in Aotearoa meaning that the cost of their primary health care for conditions like asthma could be out of their reach. Maori children were also more likely to live in cold damp houses and as a consequence hospital admissions for very young Maori asthmatic children were a horrific 60 percent higher than for non-Maori. So when it comes to the Minister’s wisdom in showing Maori families the benefit of saving he may like to tread a bit more carefully. 
I return to the comments in the Budget Policy Statement that outline three different scenarios in just one paragraph related to the growth of household incomes. First we have the Prime Minister’s promise that household incomes will increase by 25 percent over the next 4 years. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update indicates a real increase in wages of 2 percent over the same period. Then we have the Salvation Army forecast of 5 percent growth over 10 years. What is it: pick and choose or the best offer on the day? There is a world of difference between 2 percent 5 percent and 25 percent when people are looking at whether they can afford to get the car registered or to stay living in a house where the rent has dramatically increased. It is exactly these types of questions that we the Maori Party will continue to raise in differentiating between the fiscal priorities of how much total income we seek from taxation and the expenditure. We have always argued that the pattern of expenditure and the allocation of moneys should be fair and determined by both signatories to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
In determining whether we have a surplus or a deficit it is incumbent on both parties to take account of the methodology we have promoted within the genuine progress index. Such an approach would question the scope of negative expenditure say on monitoring punishing and constraining youth as opposed to investing in their development prospects. It would throw open the question of establishing a new entity Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand financed out of the wallets of Maori Trustee beneficiaries but for the benefit of Government ratings. It would ask why the Government is exerting considerable efforts into offering iwi assets such as forests to top up funding in line with the relativity clause of settlements or making a huge deal out of new arrangements for foreshore and seabed territorial deals when in the first instance the basic foundations of either policy are fundamentally flawed. The fact that iwi have made the best of the current legal situation and have negotiated agreements under the law does not alter the fact that the law is unjust and should be repealed. It is quite consistent to support iwi agreements under the Foreshore and Seabed Act while at the same time seeking the repeal of that Act. The Maori Party already supports iwi to get the best deal they can from the Treaty settlements process even though it believes that the process itself breaches the Treaty. 
Budgets are times for weighing up both sides of the ledger for attaining a true and accurate record of the state of the nation a genuine indicator of the health and well-being of people. We cannot escape the irony that the Budget Policy Statement gives lip-service to the concept of our unique national identity and states a commitment to foster a cohesive society when in reality in the lives of tangata whenua the inequities are painfully apparent and ongoing. It is not acceptable it is unjust and it is unfair. We know that the incomes of low-income families have been allowed to erode and that our youngest and most vulnerable citizens are continuing to live in severe or significant hardship. We agree with the Child Poverty Action Group that what we need most is a poverty prevention success story. This Budget Policy Statement is not that. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I begin by responding to some comments made by an earlier speaker about the recent forecast figures in terms of overall revenue. It is not correct to say that the most recent set of statements indicated a $4 billion shortfall in tax revenue. What those statements indicated was that the largest contributor to the shortfall was a drop-off in earnings on some of the equities that we have invested in internationally through bodies like the Earthquake Commission the Accident Compensation Corporation etc. The actual tax component of those figures was approximately between $400 million to $700 million dollars. To put that into its correct context in terms of overall forecasting that is within the general margin of error. As far as we are concerned the good news is that the tax cut programme that the Government has committed itself to as announced in this year’s Budget can proceed and can proceed on a staged basis. 
As someone who was the Minister of Revenue the last time this country had personal tax cuts which was over 12 years ago I am particularly keen to see personal tax cuts advance now over a 3-year period in order to build on the business tax cuts that were introduced in last year’s Budget. They will give New Zealanders a dividend for a number of the costs that they have borne over the years of economic restructuring and they are the fruits of the progress of that restructuring that we have seen in the last few years. I am looking forward to what the Minister of Finance may outline in that regard because the case is overwhelming. New Zealanders are increasingly saying: “We cannot carry on paying more and more and getting less and less in return and we expect some dividend from the Government for the contribution that we have made.” On a rolling basis tax cuts would be a very powerful signal in that regard. 
There is another lesson to be learnt from our recent experience. What New Zealand tends to periodically do is go through a process of reducing taxes and then put them aside as having done that to be forgotten for a time in the future. A moment ago I said that the last time we had personal tax cuts was 1996; it is not good enough to have to wait over a decade for the next round. The business tax cuts which take effect in just a few weeks’ time are the first business tax cuts in nearly two decades. It is not good enough to have to wait 20 years between business tax cuts; rather we need to be embarking on a programme of smaller and more regular cuts so that New Zealanders can keep in touch with the rest of the international community. That is certainly something United Future is keen to focus on and will be looking to see achieved in this year’s Budget. 
I will talk about a couple of other issues that are important to New Zealanders as a whole on which there is the scope this year to make some significant change if the political will is there. Every day we hear stories of waiting lists for elective surgery in the public hospital sector. We have various scandals in some of our smaller district health boards. Yet at the moment around 150000—over half of all—elective surgical procedures are carried out each year in the private sector and only about 2 percent of the total of those procedures are funded by public hospitals. We have the absurd situation of waiting lists in the public sector and underutilisation of capacity in the private sector. A country like New Zealand with just over 4 million people is simply not big enough to run and sustain two competing health systems in the way we do at the moment. There needs to be integration; there needs to be far more cooperation. What we ought to be doing—and the only thing stopping us at the moment is ideology—is utilising the overcapacity in the private sector to fund some of those shortages and reduce those waiting lists in the public sector. That is not an ideological statement; it is actually a statement of fact and common sense and through astute utilisation of management and planning it can be attained. We see that as being a far more productive way ahead than the continuation of this artificial division we have got into in recent years. The upshot of that is that the public sector would then be enabled to focus on the high-end medical procedures—the very specialist acute surgery the breakthrough research and so on and so forth that keep us at the top end. But we cannot do that while we have the problems we have at the moment. So we want to see significant steps taken this year to allow for greater integration of the public and private health sectors. 
This is not about privatising the health system or any of that sort of rhetoric; it is simply about ensuring that New Zealanders get access to the operations they need at the time they need them. You know if we look at the statements from the Ministry of Health about its expectations and about what a New Zealander can look forward to in terms of elective surgical procedures we see that those are not bold ringing or inspiring; it is simply a statement that it will endeavour to get a person the surgery he or she requires within a 6-month period or if it cannot do that it will explain to that person when he or she might be getting that surgery. If people are hanging out there for serious operations—if they have painful hip or knee joints requiring replacement—and are being told that hospitals will try to do them within 6 months and if they cannot then be told when that might be happening it is hardly a ringing endorsement. United Future says that New Zealanders deserve better than that particularly elderly and vulnerable New Zealanders who do not have the luxury of saying they will queue-jump by going private. We ought to be enabling them to get access to their surgery in a timely manner and we ought to be doing that by utilising that overcapacity in the private sector. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Don’t look at us; look at them. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is not a matter of looking at either side of the House. I know that I have support on the Opposition side of the House for this policy but it is certainly something that can be achieved and ought to be achieved regardless of party lines. This is simply common sense not ideology. 
I will say a couple of other things because they come into the same category. Earlier today there was some criticism of the Families Commission because it announced its intention to undertake a $500000 programme—and I get very angry with our total fixation always on dollars rather than on quality—about promoting parenting. Parenting is the most important task any one of us can take on. It does need to be affirmed and it needs to be affirmed loud and clear and often and clear. Parents will tell us—they have told the commission they have told the Government and they have told every single one of us—that they feel undervalued they feel under-appreciated. The best way we can strengthen and enhance families in New Zealand and break down the cycle of dysfunction that so many are suffering from is to enhance parenting to boost parents and give them a pat on the back for what they do and to make it clear that we as a Parliament and a Government stand alongside them in that important responsibility. So I applaud the commission for the work that it is doing and I hope that as a result of this year’s Budget it will be in a position to carry on with that programme rolling out support and encouragement to New Zealand parents and giving to the parents of today and the parents of tomorrow confidence that they will be supported in the difficult task they undertake. A number of parents feel that their ability to be effective parents is compromised by the student debt their children incur. United Future is looking forward to this Budget and to the achievement of one of our confidence and supply agreement objectives about a better deal for students through lowering the age at which the parental income test applies for student allowances. That will be a very positive step also that we will look forward to seeing come through as part of this Budget. 
I will raise one other issue as time runs out on me and that is the issue relating to our overall approach to climate change policy. There is general agreement around this House and around this country that we need to develop a clear and coherent response and it is generally accepted that an emissions trading regime is the best way of achieving that response. But the difficulty we have is that the headlong rush to put that into place may get in the way of resolving a lot of the individual complexities about the particular industry sectors be they forestry agriculture transport or the household sector. I made the point when the bill was introduced—and it has been borne out by subsequent events—that unless we get the buy-in of those sectors for the achievement of those policy goals the real fear is that we will end up in a situation where firstly the objectives cannot be obtained so there is uncertainty and secondly where the only certainty is that there is ongoing uncertainty and the need for further amendment. The consequence of both of those leaves us exposed unprotected and not in a position as a country to make forward progress. 
I am looking forward to this Budget giving some strategy and some direction in terms of how we will face these issues in a reasonable and coherent way and not simply to rush headlong to put in place a regime before this Parliament rises because it suits the Government of the day’s political advantage to do so. Climate change is not a partisan political issue; it affects every single one of us it is long term and it will outlast us as individuals and outlast Parliaments. It needs to be approached on that basis. A strategy on climate change will not work in this country if it is simply seen as the property of the Government of the day to introduce and pass as it sees fit and then to be amended by the next Government when it sees that what was put in place has not been working. So it will be important as this legislation goes through and as this Budget takes effect that that strategy is produced in a coherent and clear manner. With those thoughts I conclude; if the Budget reflects those New Zealand will continue down the path of reasonably steady growth that it has enjoyed over the last decade or so. But what is increasingly important now for people is that the quality of life they enjoy is recognised and becomes a greater part of the consideration of those issues. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I for one thought it was great that John Key has announced policy today and says we should cap the number of bureaucrats in this country. I say that that is a great start because when I go around the country talking to New Zealanders I ask them what they want: “Do you want extra dollars spent on your health? Do you want an extra bed or an extra desk?”. 
Tim Groser 
: They want desks. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well the Labour Party appears to want desks and defends desks but New Zealanders want beds. They find it a bit ironic that sick people are piled up in hospital corridors unable to get a bed yet there are extra desks in the bureaucracy counting how many are waiting for a bed. That is the problem we have. 
Here is the other thing: I ask people what they would like—an extra doctor for their health dollar or a spin doctor? Do members know what they want? They actually want a doctor—a doctor who makes them well not one who makes them sick. When I ask whether for their health dollars they would like some dialysis or some policy analysis do members know what the answer is? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What is the answer? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is dialysis; that is what New Zealanders want for their health dollar. So I think that John Key is knocking it on the head when he says that we have had a bit too much growth in bureaucracy and not enough growth in productivity. We have seen the dollars go in; we have not seen anything come out. 
 I feel that John Key has not gone quite far enough with his policy and I guess that will be ACT’s role happy role that it is. 
Tim Groser 
: Astonishing! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I know that seems astonishing to the National Party but I think we can set our sights a bit higher. When we look at the bureaucracy our interest is not just in the number of bureaucrats. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Or what they do. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Or what they do not do. Our interest is also in the total spending of the Government. 
When Labour came to office 9 years ago it said it would fix the problems of the health waiting lists. Labour members said they would put up the tax on the rich fellas—knock them a bit harder. But we were not to worry because they were only 5 percent of taxpayers—it turns out they are now 15 percent—and Labour would then get on top of the health waiting lists. We saw a couple of billion dollars poured into the health system. We saw the billions poured in at the top but what we have not seen is anything out the other end. When we look at the spending we see that it has been rather poor quality. I think we have learnt from this experiment that pouring more money into the bureaucracy does not guarantee a better result. So I think we should be going further than just capping the number of bureaucrats. What we should be doing is putting a cap on taxes and total Government spending. 
I think I would also observe as we head into this election—and under the regulated period we are in an election period right now—that New Zealanders want to have a greater say over the direction of their country. They do not want to live in a world where a few people turn up to this place each week and tell them what they can say and cannot say how they should bring up their kids how much money they will have to pay to the Government and how it will be spent. They want to have a say over it. They also want us as politicians to exercise the same discipline in spending the dollars we take off them in tax as they have to apply in their businesses at their places of work and to their weekly budgets. The way to do that is to cap total Government spending in real terms. That means as John Key says that we would not cut one bureaucrat cut any budget or cut one dollar out of the current Budget. What we would do is hold it. 
What would happen if we held the current Government Budget in real terms is that we would actually have to have as politicians as a Parliament as a Government a discipline on our overall budget. What happens now is that as New Zealanders work harder and harder and produce more we take more. We do not just take more as a dollar amount; we take more proportionately because as they earn more they go upwards in the tax brackets. The harder New Zealanders work the fatter and richer the Government becomes. So there is an automatic escalator if you like that increases Government revenue to the advantage of politicians and to the disadvantage of taxpayers. 
Taxpayers have another problem in that every now and then we come along with a new tax or a new charge and very seldom do we eliminate them because Governments particularly this Government like getting hold of the money and spending it rather than returning it to taxpayers. In fact to hear politicians talk in this House one gets the sense that the money is the Government’s and does not belong to the people who earned it. It is Government money that the Government might think to return to taxpayers rather than money that is taken from taxpayers through the tax system and held in trust to spend to their benefit. 
So if we cap Government expenditure in real terms it would put a discipline on us because if we came up with a new bright idea for spending money we would actually have to find out where we would get the money from rather than just enjoy the surpluses of Kiwis working ever harder and paying ever more tax. I say that if a Government wants to spend above that cap that is OK. I think Governments should be allowed to do that with a simple proviso and that is that they get taxpayers’ permission and consent because it is taxpayers’ money after all that we are spending. So we fix the Budget as it is now adjust it for inflation and if we want to go above that we need a referendum to explain why and to get permission. 
If we had done that and had held Government spending in real terms since 1999 when Labour came to office Government spending would be $9 billion less than it is now. That is a whopping sum. The budgets would be exactly what they were in 1999 adjusted for inflation and population growth. We have to cast our minds back to 1999 and ask ourselves some questions. Was our health system really that bad? Was our education system really that bad? Have we got an extra $9 billion a year worth of extra benefit? I do not believe we have. I think the money has gone in but the service has not come out. 
I ask members to think of this: if we had that $9 billion and had not spent it it would be sufficient to drop for example the top rate of personal tax to 20c and to drop the company rate of tax from 33c to 20c. If we had done that over 9 years we would not be looking now at a 2 percent rate of growth; we would be looking at a 5 percent rate of growth. People would have more money in their pockets because taxes would be lower and they would have higher productivity higher wages and more prosperity. And picture this: a Government also has an interest in a stronger and more profitable economy because ultimately that is where our tax dollars come from. That is what we need—ACT’s Taxpayer Rights Bill. Thank you very much. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 For a little over 8 years now we have had to live with a political fiction this Government has been promulgating to New Zealanders. That political fiction could I guess be expressed in different ways but it generally takes the form of arguments that we have never had it so good and that the Government has a coherent strategy for dealing with New Zealand’s long-term structural issues. I think it is apparent and not just to people who spend their entire lives in this Chamber watching politics 24/7 that this is becoming a bit threadbare. I think it is abundantly clear that other New Zealanders are also regarding it as threadbare. If the members of the Labour Government cannot sense there is a mood for change out there I think they are living in a parallel universe. 
It is not hard to understand why there is a mood for change. Let us just survey briefly some of the principal internal and economic factors bearing down on the state of the country and on what should be shaping the Budget in the next few weeks. I mention first of all the growth picture. We now have anaemic growth. The Reserve Bank is saying that it will be 2 percent but the risks will be on the downside. Translated from the jargon that means essentially 2 percent at best. On the inflation side it is the other way around. It is above the band with the risks on the upside meaning in plain language that it is already outside the band of acceptable behaviour and it is likely to be worse. 
We have falling productivity. I think that this is the single largest issue facing New Zealand. Paul Krugman the great American economist said: “Productivity isn’t everything you know.” Then he corrected himself and said: “It is almost everything.” We have falling productivity which is a crucial issue facing this country. 
We have the highest interest rates in the developed world. That is not some minor academic point; it feeds through into the actual pockets of New Zealanders. When this Government took over in 1999 it took 41 percent of the average wage to buy the average house on the median New Zealand income using standard mortgage tables. That was a pretty hefty amount but just manageable. We now have the second least affordable housing in the developed world. It takes 81 percent of the median wage to service the average price on a standard table mortgage basis. 
On top of all this is the statistic of real concern about the outflow of New Zealanders—75000 of them last year 80 percent of whom were under the age of 40. We have about half a million New Zealanders in Australia and 1 million New Zealanders in the South Island. About 50000 of them have gone to Australia. If we do not arrest this departure it will mean that more New Zealanders will be living in Australia than in the South Island in about 10 years’ time. We should just think about the implications of that politically for the sustainability of this country. 
In external terms—well we had excellent weather economically in the first 5 years of this 3-term Government but the picture is becoming uncertain to say the least. There is division of opinion amongst experts internationally on this but quite clearly we are in a very difficult situation as the subprime crisis feeds its way through the world economy and as the possibility of a US recession sits out there. Talk about the end of the golden weather! This is a very much less benign environment for New Zealand with those internal statistics to be looked into. So it is not hard to understand why the public senses that a change is needed. If the Labour members of the House cannot sense that they are living in a parallel universe. 
I know it is very unfashionable to use rugby clichés this year but I will go ahead and use one anyway. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Go on! 
TIM GROSER 
: I will; thank you colleague. I think when the history of this 3-term Labour Government is written it will literally be a tale of two halves. The first half is the period from late 1999 to—well we could argue about this—probably late 2004 when the Labour Government was playing with a stiff and favourable breeze behind its back. Labour inherited power and had an arrogant cocky “we won you lost” attitude with the ideological disposition to deny the reasons why so much wind was in the sails of the New Zealand economy that it inherited. 
Hon Member 
: It was all their good. 
TIM GROSER 
: Yes—apparently New Zealand woke up one day with a Labour Government in power and everything turned rosy! That is unbelievable political fiction when we know for example—off the top of my head and going back to my favourite point about productivity—that the average rate of labour productivity growth in the 3 years from 1997 to 2000 was 3.5 percent. That was absolutely stellar and had we been able to maintain that type of labour productivity growth particularly with rising participation rates coming through in the labour input side this country would indeed be moving back into the first half of the OECD. 
So we had the first half with the wind behind the Labour Government’s back but the second half has not been so rosy. The Government has sat there and milked the economy for everything it could with essentially mediocre policy frameworks and nothing I would argue that was absolutely disastrous or catastrophic. I do not use adjectives like that to describe Labour Government policies which are much more akin to “death by a thousand cuts” material. The chickens economically are starting to come home to roost and politically I believe they will well and truly come home to roost in a little over 6 months’ time. 
All of this has of course been masked by forward-looking rhetoric. Those members who have followed the debates over the last 9 years will remember that firstly we had the knowledge wave economy. What could be better than the knowledge wave economy? We then lost track of that so we got into the growth in innovation framework—the “GIF” framework. I remember that inside the bureaucracy we could get any type of expenditure through the system as long as we said it was part of the “GIF” framework. Then that fell by the wayside and we had economic transformation as the latest clothing we were asked to wear. And now we have sustainability. We cannot have a statement from the Prime Minister that does not have sustainability mentioned any less than 24 times in a 10-minute speech. I do not have any problem at all with any of that rhetoric—it all sounds like the right stuff—but what is it backed with? 
I was pleased to hear Rodney Hide refer to our leader John Key’s speech today. In the middle of John Key’s speech there was a statistic that I think is truly awesome: in the 8½ years of this Government there have been 250 strategy documents. All of them are beautifully written with polished pictures of happy Kiwis riding bikes through the pine tree forest—you name it it is all there—but it is absolute rhetoric. They are not worth the dust now covering them on the bookshelves of Government departments throughout Wellington. I must say that Wellington is having a golden time in terms of rentals if one happens to be lucky enough to own a commercial property here. But I am afraid that the first half of the summer is well and truly over. The summer of very favourable external and internal economic conditions—we had stellar productivity growth just at the point of political change and high economic growth from 1992 onwards with inflation falling dramatically and unemployment falling dramatically—is all turning a little bit darker now in its second half which I would argue started in late 2004 or perhaps in early 2005. 
I have to worry a little bit about a couple of things that happened last week in our political debate. I thought that the happiest man in New Zealand politics last week was Michael Cullen. He was partly happy because he discovered a deficit for the first time. Given the restructuring of the New Zealand financial accounts it would be easier to find a yeti in the Himalayas than to find a deficit in the New Zealand fiscal envelope. But Michael Cullen finally found his yeti last week—he found a deficit. 
Jacqui Dean 
: A hairy monster! 
TIM GROSER 
: It was quite a hairy monster really. It was called “OBERGAL”. Just when we were getting used to “OBERAC” along comes “OBERGAL”. They sound a little bit like the names of Viking maidens but then we know that the Labour Party likes Scandinavian myths. In fact these are accounting identities. I was very pleased that Peter Dunne understands how irrelevant this mythical deficit is when it is to be used as a metric for the fiscal envelope for tax cuts. Actually Peter Dunne understands perfectly how irrelevant it is because when we strip out the revaluations as a consequence of the collapse in world equity markets through this subprime crisis we find there is not a deficit at all and there is still scope for proper comprehensive reform. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 This is an interesting debate following on from question time earlier when I watched the Leader of the Opposition questioning the Prime Minister as if he cared about low-paid families and worried about them being able to buy butter and cheese. He is the man who said on 20 December: “We would like to see wages drop.” 
Unfortunately for the Leader of the Opposition—the man who would be the Prime Minister—that statement was recorded by a young man with a tape-recorder who was sitting in his vicinity. The young man who recorded Mr Key’s comments is called a journalist and journalists are inclined to write things down and print them in newspapers. Of course Mr Key said he was only joking—that was his excuse—and that he actually wanted to bring down wages in Australia. We are still waiting for the National Party’s policy on how it will lower wages in Australia. We are very interested in hearing what that is because it was Mr Key’s second excuse. He said that it was a joke; it was about bringing down wages in Australia. 
That same man Mr Key expressed concern in the House today on behalf of average families and asked how they cope with the cost of living. When we read the list of flip-flops and changes we can understand why this man is saying these sorts of things. Members should contrast that with this Labour Government’s actual record. Let us look at the graphs that show what real household incomes have grown by and let us look at the 7 years that this graph I am holding deals with. It is a real household income graph that shows that real household income has increased by 25 percent under this Government’s policies. You see we have policies for the future. One need only look at the record of the last 7 or 8 years to see that they have worked. One need only look at that statistic alone—real household incomes have increased by 25 percent. 
The National Party leader said: “We would like to see wages drop.” Well I can understand that. He does not like the fact that we have got wages up. He would like to drop wages. When that got reported—and he did not like it being reported—and he could not get the media to go away he had to contact the publishers of the newspaper to get them to tell the journalists to retract it. What we have now is a letter from the workers—the journalists—who work for the  
New Zealand Herald 
 to their boss to the owner saying that this is unacceptable. I agree with them. 
I was a journalist and you Madam Speaker have family members who were journalists and who were proud of their craft and proud of their principles. One of those principles which is longstanding in a free and open democracy is that the owner or the publisher does not interfere in editorial freedom. That is exactly what the  
New Zealand Herald 
 journalists are telling the paper’s owners right now because of John Key and the National Party standing over the owners to get his words retracted. 
Well John Key might like to retract a whole lot of words because there are a few here. In July 2007 John Key said: “We wouldn’t have sent troops to Iraq.” and many people reading those words which I have written down in front of me would say: “That bloke has the right ideas.” He said he would not send troops to Iraq. Who could disagree with that? This Government made that decision and New Zealanders are proud of it. It has proved to be the absolutely correct decision as we see Governments in the UK the US and Australia struggling with their decisions around that issue. So one would have to say that that was an excellent statement made by John Key. He said in July 2007 that he would not have sent troops to Iraq. But whoops! In September 2003 Mr Key said that New Zealand was missing in action during the invasion of Iraq. 
He changed his views conveniently. Was that a joke or was he talking about somebody else? Was he talking about the Australians as he was with the wage gaffe he made? Then he said we should have had New Zealand troops in Iraq—or maybe he was talking about the Australians. Maybe it was really a joke and he did not know that somebody was next to him with a microphone and a tape-recorder. 
It is the same when we look at the words he spoke on 6 November. He said he firmly believed in climate change and always had. Well that is a sound statement. That is decisive leadership from a man who would be the Prime Minister. But whoops! Somebody was there with a tape-recorder in May 2005 when John Key said that climate change is a complete and utter hoax. Can this man make up his mind? Is he joking? Is he talking about New Zealand or Australia? We have just heard Tim Groser talking about a parallel universe. Well he described his leader very well because in May 2005 John Key said climate change is a complete and utter hoax but in November 2006 he said he is and always has been a firm believer in climate change. 
The list goes on. This is a very good statement: “We will keep interest-free student loans for tertiary students.” said John Key just a month or two ago. But in 2005 he said that interest-free loans were an unaffordable and irresponsible cost to the country. That was the Leader of the Opposition’s opinion just 3 years ago. He said in October 2003 that the anti-nuclear legislation is bad news for economic growth and for our job market. But by September 2007 he said that National will stick with the anti-nuclear legislation. That was said by Mr Key whom we are allowed to call slippery because everybody in the country is calling him slippery. Every piece in every paper I have read in the last few weeks has called him “Slippery Mr Key”. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why do they call him slippery? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Well because one hears about those sorts of things. And it is a real problem when as a local member of Parliament he comes in here and asks question after question—and he gets his man down the back from Whangarei to ask them if he has not got the energy himself—about affordable housing. We have just heard about that from the previous National speaker too. 
When we made sure that the land in Hobsonville was retained so that we could in fact have affordable housing—at the time I was Minister of Housing—it was outside the urban limit so we could not immediately start building on it. We had to wait for the proper processes. It was described by John Key as economic vandalism. He said National was committed to cancelling it. That was said in June 2006 by the local member for Hobsonville one John Key. But then “Slippery John Key” said in February 2008 that he is in favour of the affordable housing that might be built there. In fact I heard the interview where he was criticising the Labour Government for not getting on and doing it quickly enough. It was economic vandalism back in June 2006 and now we are being criticised for not doing it fast enough! Well it is no wonder they call him slippery. 
John Key cannot actually hold a position on some things for more than 12 hours. He told the media at 7 o’clock one morning that National had no firm date for Treaty settlements—absolutely no firm date. He was on national television telling everybody that National did not have a firm date on Treaty settlements but by 5 p.m. that night he had gone back talked to the people in his office and they had said: “But John we do have a policy. We do have a date.” At least on that occasion he was big enough to say he got it wrong. 
How much more does he need to get wrong before people realise that he is a person who if put in charge of a Government could not keep the same opinion for 12 hours? He could not understand a brief from the people who work in his office and tell him what to say. He could not get out of the fact that someone had a microphone next to him when he said he wanted New Zealand workers’ wages to drop so he went and heavied the owners of the newspaper—who have been running a campaign about freedom of speech and who use their paper every month and every week to have freedom of speech—and the owners of that newspaper stood over the journalists and told them they had to retract what they wrote. The owners were at the beck and call of the National Party. I want to know what self-respecting journalist in this country would put up with that and sit back and accept it. Thank goodness the  
New Zealand Herald 
 journalists have said: “Enough.” 
In my last comments I will talk about the latest announcement by the National Party on public servants. National has said it will take an “enough is enough” approach. It sounds a bit like the Destiny Church—it was the Exclusive Brethren last time now it is the Destiny Church. National says that enough is enough and John will take the axe to them. Oh but not really. National will just go and have a look and see whether there are too many public servants doing too little.  
Moana Mackey 
: They won’t tell us which ones. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: National will not take one out it said. But it will look and see whether it can have a sinking-lid policy. 
When we became Ministers in a new Government we found that there was no capacity to do the work that was required to figure out how we could overcome an infrastructure problem in New Zealand because National had not built any roads in Auckland for a whole 9 years. National had not spent any money on public transport and it did not have policies on anything that would in fact make our economy grow. So “slippery” is probably too polite a term for the nonsense we hear coming out of the mouths of Opposition members and particularly from their leader John Key. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker I advise the House that this speaking slot the twelfth slot is split into two speeches of 5 minutes. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Members of the public will be highly interested to know that that was Mark Gosche a senior member of the Labour Party who spoke then. He is not only a senior member of the Labour Party but a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The reason I know that is not only that I am on the select committee myself but also that Mr Gosche’s name is in Appendix A of the Budget Policy Statement which is in fact the reason for this debate. 
This debate is to discuss the Budget Policy Statement and one would have thought that Mr Gosche being a senior member would focus on the Budget Policy Statement and on the wonderful accolades he would be giving on behalf of the Labour Government. But did he talk about the Budget Policy Statement once? Did he discuss the amazing things it is doing? Not once. Why would one not take that opportunity to discuss one of the Government’s key documents—to advocate for the wonderful things the Government is doing? Why would one not take that opportunity? Whom did Mr Gosche spend the entire time focusing on? He spent it focusing on National’s leader. You know when a senior Government politician spends his entire 10-minute speech focusing on the Leader of the Opposition instead of on a document that should be a key document for the entire Labour Government setting the vision for it then we know the Government is in trouble. 
 Why did Government members not focus on that document? Here are a few questions that show the key reasons for that. Why after 8 years of a Labour Government are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world? Later on I will explain why that is the case when I focus on some of the expenditure listed in this document. Why is the wages gap between New Zealand and Australia and other parts of the world getting bigger and bigger? Mr Gosche did not focus on that issue. Why does Labour give tax cuts only in election year? Tax cuts are budgeted for in these accounts but Mr Gosche did not want to focus on that. He focused on the National Party leader. Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof? Mr Gosche did not want to talk very much about that either. Why as Mr Groser asked are hard-working Kiwis unable to afford to buy their own home? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why not? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Because the cost has moved from 41 percent of the average take-home pay to 81 percent. In no way did Labour speakers want to focus on that issue. 
Why when Labour has an aspiration that New Zealand will become carbon neutral are our greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise at an alarming rate? Government members did not want to focus on that but the Budget Policy Statement has key issues around the cost of Kyoto now and going forward and around what needs to be budgeted for. And why has the health system not improved despite billions of dollars extra being poured in? 
The answers to those key questions are revealed in this Budget Policy Statement seriously and if we look at page 36 and go forward to the summary of financial indicators we see costs going up and up. That is why that senior Government member did not want to focus on the Budget Policy Statement. 
When the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen came into office in 1999 he had high aspirations about putting a lid on spending. He made a virtue of declaring that the Labour Government would achieve the lowest level of spending as a proportion of GDP since 1978. Yet by 2005 the ratio of spending to GDP was higher than in 1999-2000 when the Government came into office. Although Dr Cullen had good intentions at the start core Crown expenses have risen significantly under this Government and have continued to rise. The Budget Policy Statement shows a $53 billion spend for 2007 projected to be $70 billion in 2012. On top of that core Crown expenses are expected to increase by almost another percentage point of GDP. Expenditure is going through the roof. 
In the remaining minutes I want to focus on another set of accounts that were obtained in January. They show how much expenditure the Government has taken on. This is a year-on-year perspective; it is a comparison with last year. The January 2008 accounts a full year on from those for January 2007 show total core Crown expenses have gone up from $29 billion last year to $32 million—a 9.7 percent increase. Inflation is floating at around 4 percent a year. The key expenses like those for core Government services are up from $1.2 billion to $1.7 billion—up by 33 percent in just 1 year. This Government is incurring massive increases in spending and it is no wonder that Mr Gosche did not want to focus on this Budget Policy Statement but spent his entire speech focusing on John Key. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 What a typical Tory speech that was from Chris Tremain. There was no policy and not a single thing about what he might do if he ever got a whiff of the Treasury benches. There was nothing. I say to that member that if ever National manages to grab the Treasury benches he may well learn how easy it is to pick holes in everything and how much harder it is to be a serious Government planning for the future of one’s country and planning to make sure that all citizens are looked after—in their youth middle age and old age. That is the challenge of a real Government and that is what this Government is doing. 
I put my support behind the announcement made yesterday of $700 million up front—and with interest added to it it will be nearly a billion dollars—being put up by this Government for research in pastoral and food sciences. That is the single biggest investment we have had in this area. It is an area that we know we have to get smarter in. It is a risk area for New Zealand in the future. As other countries come on with high-volume low-cost products we need to be doing things better than everyone else and we need the science to back it up. This money will go a long way and not just that; it will be matched—dollar for dollar—by industry. Two billion dollars over the next 10 to 15 years is an extraordinary investment in the science capability of this country. 
We heard from the Food and Beverage Sector Taskforce that New Zealand needed to do better in this area. We heard from the Pastoral 21 research consortium that we needed to do better in this area and last year at the Primary Industries 2020 Summit run by the Hon Jim Anderton in Christchurch we heard again that this was an area that industry felt we really needed to get serious about. That is a forum by the way that the National Party opposed. National asked why money was being spent on the forum because of course National does not think it needs to talk to anyone else about these issues. National thinks it knows everything; it knows best and it does not need to listen to the sector. 
That is extremely evident when we see that the National Party is opposing this funding. Every single other industry group in the sector supports the funding; every single other industry group in the sector says it is long overdue. In the words of Dr Andrew West the head of AgResearch it is a paradigm shift in the way we fund science. I welcome that. I want the people of New Zealand to know that the National Party has said it will scrap this fund. John Key said on Radio New Zealand: “New Zealand does not need such a fund.” I suggest that National might want to go out and talk to the rest of the industry—the agricultural pastoral and food sector—and to the people on the ground about what they think they need. I know what the answer will be. 
National has announced another policy which my colleague Mark Gosche touched on briefly. National has said it will cut the number of public servants. We have been hearing for a long time—about 9 years—that National will fund tax cuts by cutting the fat out of the public sector. It will cut the number of public servants. We heard a speech made by John Key today who stood up intending to be forceful. He was asked whether he would cut the number of public servants and he said: “Ah we don’t know. Maybe not; we’re not sure. We’re going to review it then we might look at it then we might focus-group it a little bit and see kind of where the public wind is shifting to. Then we might keep numbers exactly the same but then we might cap them.” That was interesting given that every single member of the National Party caucus is currently travelling around the country telling people that their projects will be picked up and paid for by Government departments. I do not know who National thinks does that work. I think like Mr Tim Groser said they think it happens in some parallel universe where they put an idea up and somehow magically the policy forms itself. 
Also it is important to point out what the Prime Minister mentioned in question time today. National talks about the growth of public servants under this Labour-led Government but 85 percent of them are front-line public servants. We are talking about doctors teachers nurses police and social workers. If the New Zealand public think that those jobs are not under threat then they need to think again. History tells us that this slippery National Party will say anything to get into Government and then do exactly the opposite once it gets there. I ask members opposite to name the types of public servants that they think are useless and do not need to be there. They should name those who are sucking off the public teat not doing any work and not providing any benefit. 
Chris Tremain 
: We said we’d cap them. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Tremain should name which ones. He should get beyond the rhetoric stop being slippery and name the public servants that National thinks do not need to be there and are completely superfluous. Maybe they are the people in our public hospitals who are booking operations so that the doctors and nurses can get on with being doctors and nurses. 
I am proud of this Budget Policy Statement. I am proud of the work Michael Cullen has done. This country is in fine hands and it will continue to be beyond this election. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 20 February 2008. 
Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 3 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill which discusses amongst other things local authorities having to monitor and report on certain matters relating to the heritage area. I will speak a bit more about that monitoring and about how that reporting can happen. 
One of the concerns that National wants to raise at this time is around local area plans local area management plans and long-term council community plans. Just so everyone is clear— 
Mark Blumsky 
: That’s too confusing. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: It is a little bit confusing as my colleague says. When it comes to reporting one of the important things for the community is that it has spent a lot of time on long-term council community plans. Those plans have been done independently and under huge consultation. I commend the councils for the work they have done with the community to come to some sort of agreement as to what it wants in a long-term plan and how it can be achieved. 
When this bill was first introduced it stated that the councils would have local area management plans which were then changed to local area plans. Now we have local area plans instead of local area management plans—just so we are all clear. How the local area plans will be reported on and how they fit in with the long-term council community plans is what I think should be of importance to the region. What is of most concern is that the community has already worked out what it wants in a 10-year plan. Members of the community have already set down what direction they want. They have voted in an appropriate council and their concern is how what they want will actually be achieved. 
It is quite interesting; I was reading a press release from the Waitakere City Council on 10 March—just 2 days ago. The council is quite clearly talking about its budget deliberations. Councillor Janet Clews is quoted throughout the press release. She is a councillor whom I have a lot of respect for and she has earned a lot of respect throughout the community. She is chair of Waitakere City Council’s long-term council community plan and annual plan special committee. She talks about budget deliberations and about what needs to be done over a period of time. The press statement quite clearly states: “While the Annual Plan sets the council’s budget for the coming financial year the long-term council community plan (LTTCP) outlines the direction and spending intentions for the next 10 years.” She then says: “It is important that the public know this is the third year of the LTCCP … We are reviewing work and projects that have already been consulted on and agreed so we can’t deviate a long way from that plan.” The council cannot deviate a long way from the plan that was decided on in 2006. Yet it now wants to introduce a law that will deviate from the plan. It is so concerned about this issue that it will deviate from the long-term council community plan which it spent so much time consulting its community on. That seems absolutely ludicrous and National certainly has questions around how it can be possible and how it can make sense. 
Looking at how the councils will report back—under Part 3—I found it ironic to be reading an email from our mayor Bob Harvey. He is a good man and a gutsy man and always puts a smile on someone’s face even though he is a former president of the party on the other side of the House—but good on him. He says point-blank in the email that ONTRACK owns this land that it tends to be a law unto itself and that there is nothing we can do. The council is trying in this bill to have legislation that will state point-blank what people can do with private land but in another breath the mayor is turning round and saying about ONTRACK with which the community has a huge issue with regards to the proposed railway maintenance depot: “Sorry we cannot do anything. It’s private land. It’s not owned by us.” 
Gordon Copeland 
: It’s a double standard. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: It is; it is a complete and utter double standard. It is hypocrisy at its best when the council turns round and says it cannot do anything about something that the community does not want that will actually disturb residents in a local area because it is on private land owned by ONTRACK yet in the other breath— 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I will take a brief call. The first thing I will do is acknowledge Janet Clews as Paula Bennett did. I quite agree that she is a very well-respected councillor as indeed are all councillors in Waitakere. I point out to the Committee that all of the councillors were returned at the last election and there was overwhelming support from those councillors for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. 
In Part 3 the clauses are actually quite clear and simple. It is a little annoying that Paula Bennett tries to confuse matters in this Committee but that seems to be her strategy. The first clause is about local authorities having to monitor and report on certain matters relating to the heritage area. That is about accountability. It is saying that we want a report on the state of the environment in the heritage area we want accountability across the councils and we want to make sure that the reporting is done every 5 years. I think that is a very sensible common-sense thing to do. Why are they doing it? Because they are committed to ensuring that the ranges and the heritage area are preserved now and for generations to come. They will make a commitment to checking that progress every 5 years. 
The second clause of Part 3 is about reassurance. Clause 29 is about the preservation of existing rights. We have heard many many people from the National Party—and I am sorry I know that Dail Jones has just recently joined the House but unfortunately Dail seemed to be quite confused as well—banging on and talking a load of rubbish. It is quite clear that the bill does not limit or affect any title or right to ownership. That makes a mockery of the claims made by Nick Smith and Paula Bennett that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill was confiscation by stealth. As I was driving through the beautiful ranges of Waitakere the electorate I live in and am very happy to represent I saw—very overgrown by bush I have to say—one of those “confiscation by stealth” notices to use the Nick Smith line still sitting on one of the fences. I think this preservation of existing rights definitely gives reassurance to the people of Waitakere who like me are fortunate enough to own land in the ranges. 
Clause 30 “Transitional provisions” is about consistency. The clause says quite clearly that any applications for resource consent for an activity in the area that have been lodged and not yet determined will continue to be considered as if the heritage area legislation had not been enacted. People in Waitakere can be assured that they are not going to be gazumped. Unlike what Opposition members have said nothing is going to be imposed on them and if they are part way through a process that process will continue. 
Part 3 is made up of a number of simple clauses but those clauses add up to accountability reassurance and consistency. I commend those clauses to the Committee. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill is about the Waitakere Ranges of some 17000 hectares. The land is currently owned by the people of Auckland and it cannot be dealt with in any way regardless of a single word that is contained in this bill. But as we are owners of that land we will preserve it. We do not need Wellington interfering in our affairs. I have to congratulate Lynne Pillay on ably trying to carry out the work of the Waitakere City Council as any local member must but we do not need the Waitakere City Council coming to Wellington to get Wellington’s authority to do things in the city. In Auckland we own the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park and we do not want Wellington interfering in our business. That is No. 1. 
This bill is really about the remaining 10000 hectares that are owned by private people. As I said last time this bill is socialism by stealth. This bill is the Waitakere City Council stealing the property rights of those people in that area. If we ever want to see confused legislation Part 3 sums it all up. In Parts 1 and 2 various rights were taken from the owners of the 10000 hectares. What does Part 3 do? Clause 28A(2) states that the local authorities must jointly produce a report. The local authorities are the Auckland Regional Council the Rodney District Council and the Waitakere City Council. What happens if they cannot agree? They have to produce a report in 5 years. What happens if they cannot agree in 5 years and there is no report? What happens? Nothing will happen. What penalty is on them to produce a report? There is nothing. Clause 28A(2) is absolutely meaningless. Can members believe that all the members of the Auckland Regional Council all the members of the Rodney District Council and all the members of the Waitakere City Council can ever be unanimous and agree on an issue? Clause 28A(2) is doomed. It is meaningless. It is not worth the paper it is written on. It cannot happen. 
Clause 29 “Preservation of existing rights”—what does that mean? It is a meaningless clause. We know that anyone who has rights now has those rights preserved by law. We do not need it in this bill. We are just stating the obvious. The clause is superfluous. Everyone who has a right now continues to have that right. However that right is now subject to whatever is in this bill. This bill in a resource management consent restricts those people’s rights to for example put on a garage to extend their home or do anything like that because this bill restricts development. That is what this bill is all about. [ 
Interruption 
] The member agrees with me. She agrees with me that this bill restricts development. From the way I look at it that does restrict our rights as such but it does not restrict our title to the land. We still own the land. We all know that. That is why we do not need clause 29. 
As far as clause 30 is concerned unfortunately if anyone had a real feel for the area and wanted to do what Lynne Pillay wants to do clause 30 destroys that. I believe that people who are true developers who want to rip into the lower lands will have lodged their applications with the council by now. I say to Lynne Pillay not to shake her head. She should be nodding her head. They will be advised by their lawyers to get in there to lodge their applications—to make sure they lodge any kind of application they can—so that they can get stuck into the lowlands and do whatever is possible. In that sense clause 30 gives the game away. It will not protect the lowlands if that is what this bill intends to do. Clause 30 as the member Lynne Pillay has indicated will not affect anyone who has lodged a current application. She is nodding her head in agreement now. 
As a lawyer myself I say that if I had been acting for people who wanted to develop the area—and I am not so I have no personal interest whatsoever—and who can still now before this bill is passed want to put on a garage or want to cut land up into 1000-metre or 1500-metre blocks I would be telling them to get stuck in and lodge their application now. The transitional provisions say they are protected and they can go ahead and do everything they like because once they lodge their application they are saved. This bill and the transitional provisions protect them. 
It is confused legislation. New Zealand First opposes it—not only because it is socialism by stealth but it has been badly drafted; it is contradictory drafting. There are clauses in it even these three clauses we have here that are contradictory. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 Madam Chairperson what a delight it was to bow to you as I walked into the Chamber. It is a small world and can I say well done. [ 
Interruption 
] I am looking forward to it. I want to be the first person she chucks out of the Chamber. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I’ll second that. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: I am sure the member will. I want to comment on clauses 28 to 30 and in particular focus on clause 28. A word was used by the member beside you Madam Chairperson and I think it was “simple”. Lynne Pillay said the clauses in Part 3 are simple. We have to watch out for the danger in the simple words. I quote from clause 28A: “(1) The local authorities must jointly monitor—(b) the progress …”. Then it states: “(2) The local authorities must jointly produce and each adopt a report on the monitoring …”. 
I suppose the concern I have is that if we are to monitor and produce reports in 5 years’ time then we actually have to have a starting point. We have to have a benchmark. We have to have a report already done that sets out all of the conditions the status and the how to and where to of all of the objectives that the councils will have to monitor. I have not heard of seen or heard talk of those reports being done. We are asking these councils to fund and do these reports. They have a monitor. Have they had that discussion? Have the councils had a talk about how they will do this? Have they measured how many trees are there now? Will there be more trees or fewer trees? What is it that they are monitoring? 
When we look at the words—and the previous speaker talked about them—they are very big and bold statements. How do we monitor the protection of a “landscape of … local significance”? What is the starting point? How do we monitor “restoring and enhancing degraded landscapes”? Now does that mean that if a landscape that only has 52 trees on it has 42 trees on it in 5 years’ time that is really bad but if it has 110 trees on it in 5 years’ time that is really great? We do not have a benchmark—the key performance indicators. The concern I have is that I do not know where all that goes because there is so much in this bill that is very broad all-encompassing and very much able to be read by lawyers in 25 different ways. 
Then of course we have to cost the effect of this bill. Somewhere along the line these councils involved have to put in their annual plans what this impact will be on the ratepayer. I have seen no figures so I do not know. I know that the cost to the ratepayer of bringing this bill into the House must be phenomenal. There have been some lawyers involved big time— 
Dail Jones 
: $2 million. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: It would not surprise me. Was that taken through an annual plan? I do not know. I suppose where I am going with this relating to clause 28 is: has this work been put out in front of the ratepayers? Is it in the annual plan? Is it in the LTCCP the long-term council community plan—just to chuck in some letters like my colleague Paula Bennett did? We have to watch the simple pieces of legislation. The MP Lynne Pillay says the bill is simple. It is simple but it could be bloody expensive. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 3 but before I do Madam Chairperson I offer my congratulations to you on assuming the position of Assistant Speaker. I know that you will do a great job and I must say it is very nice to have a Wellingtonian in the Chair for the first time since I came into Parliament in 2002. I offer my congratulations. 
Let me say at the outset that I am pleased to be able to make a speech on this part of the bill because my parliamentary duties prevented me from speaking when the Committee stage of this bill was last debated in Parliament a few weeks ago. I have taken a deep interest in this bill including accepting an invitation to address a public meeting in Waitakere City on the issues it raises. I strongly oppose the bill. I have voted against it and will continue to vote against it at every stage. 
Clause 29 “Preservation of existing rights” in Part 3 refers to “any title or right to ownership of any land or natural resources within the heritage area whether conferred by enactment [of Parliament or] at common law …”. If I were to ask the proponents of this bill why it is necessary to include such a clause they would tell me that it is to protect private property rights. Their answer however is wrong. The provisions of this bill as set out extensively and in the lofty words in Parts 1 and 2 apply equally and without distinction to both public and private land within the heritage area. As Dail Jones has outlined 58 percent of the land in this area which is now the Waitakere Ranges heritage area is private land. The majority of it is private land. 
That central issue is the major defect in this entire bill—the fact that it applies not just to public land which would be perfectly acceptable but also to private land. All of the lofty sounding words contained in the bill refer not just to public land but as clause 29 reveals they also refer to private land and that is entirely inappropriate. The preservation of heritage areas for the common good of all people is great. If this bill referred just to public land as I mentioned it would have my support. As it is clause 29 does not strip title and ownership entirely from the people who now own the land but it is still entirely inappropriate to have private land of this sort in the bill because Kiwis in Waitakere will now be subject to the public land impositions in the bill even on their private land. Private homes gardens lawns backyards or front paddocks should not be included in a heritage area unless we are prepared to fully and justly compensate those private owners. Instead in this bill we strip their rights to the use and enjoyment of their homes and then tell them not to worry because they will retain ownership. That misses the point and it is wrong. That is unjust. 
To treat private and public lands as if they are one and the same thing simply will not do. This bill creates a wedge in the door. If it applies to private land in Waitakere today then why not to my private land in Wellington tomorrow to another person’s land in Christchurch the day after or to somebody’s private land on the West Coast the day after that? This bill sets a very very unfortunate precedent in terms of New Zealand law. By all means we should protect the Waitakere Ranges. That will be great for the people of Waitakere of Auckland of the nation and internationally. But let us decide as a principle that this measure should be limited to publicly owned land or we must decide to do the decent thing and pay compensation to protect and safeguard the rights of the private landowners involved. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I rise with great pride to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. I feel well qualified to comment on the bill because I think I am correct in saying that I am the longest-serving constituent MP in the House from west Auckland. I am a proud westie. I owned a property in the Waitakere Ranges for many years. In 1983 my partner and I bought 10 acres on Bethells Road right in the heart of the area we are seeking to protect and 3 years later we bought a larger block of 28 acres. We lived there for many years and in recent times we moved into Te Atatu south. So I see this from a local resident’s point of view as a proud westie and a person passionate about west Auckland and about protecting our unique natural environment in west Auckland and as a former Minister of Conservation. For 5 years I was privileged and lucky enough to serve as Minister of Conservation for New Zealand. Just recently about 3½ months ago my portfolio was changed to education. During my time as the Minister of Conservation this legislation was drafted by my colleague Lynne Pillay who is in the chair tonight. She is also a proud westie who lives in Titirangi and is passionate about this legislation as is our friend and fellow colleague David Cunliffe. 
Part 3 which we are discussing now is about accountability around local authorities monitoring heritage areas. There could be no more important heritage area for west Aucklanders than our iconic Waitakere Ranges. They are ranges that have seen great land-use change. When European settlers arrived in New Zealand the Waitakere Ranges were clothed in some of the greatest kauri trees that grew anywhere in New Zealand. Te Henga Valley where I had a farm for many years had what were recorded as the largest kauris ever found in concentration in New Zealand. These were ripped out by the early settlers. True they were seeking to create a new life. True they were dedicated to their families and used the timber for building and for farming. They did not realise what they were doing to the natural environment. Luckily through the foresight of some of the early administrations in Auckland the Auckland Regional Council now administers a large area of parkland. I say to Gordon Copeland that by far the greatest area of the Waitakere Ranges is an Auckland Regional Council park and thank goodness that it is now protected. But nibbling away at the edges there is still inappropriate land use taking place. 
This bill is about protecting that heritage area. Mayor Bob Harvey and his team particularly our former deputy mayor Caroline Stone and our current deputy mayor Penny Hulse and others on the council have been fantastic in pushing for this legislation. Like Lynne David and I they are passionate about protecting the ranges. Graham Campbell and his team of officials at Waitakere City have done a great job in making sure that this legislation not only achieves its aim which is to elevate the status of the Waitakere Ranges and to give them greater protection but also gives reassurance to landowners in the Waitakere Ranges—the people whom Gordon Copeland was just making reference to—which I believe the bill does. 
This bill does not take away property rights. When I was privileged to hold the job of Minister of Conservation I visited many heritage areas outside New Zealand in the UK and elsewhere. What happens to property in those heritage areas is that it becomes more valuable because it has a greater status and a greater protection on it. People want to live there. I say to landowners in the Waitakere Ranges that this bill will actually increase their land values. Sure they will not be able to carry out any inappropriate subdivisions and nor should they be able to but the value of their land will be increased by this legislation. It will elevate the whole status of the ranges themselves and make them an even more special place. 
You know the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society—John Edgar and his team—has done a fantastic job. It polled Auckland and over 75 percent of Aucklanders wanted this bill including well over 80 percent of the residents of Waitakere City. It is a great bill and I thank Lynne Pillay for the excellent work she has done in protecting a unique place in our city. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 John Key gave a keynote speech today outlining the mushy nonsense that is driving Government. We are seeing an extra 10000 policy advisers and bureaucrats and over 250 mushy strategies with which bureaucrats run round and round in circles achieving very little. The problem with this Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill and with Part 3 is that it is more of this mushy bureaucratic Labour nonsense. People cannot explain what the bill means. Repeatedly through the select committee and the Committee stage of this bill we have sought to hear from the sponsor and its supporters an answer to the question of what this bill means. 
When the member opposite Chris Carter said in his speech that the bill would stop inappropriate subdivision I peered through the clauses. I went all the way through Part 1. Did it say that there? I went all the way through Part 2. Did Part 2 tell me that the bill would stop inappropriate subdivision? I have been all the way through Part 3 and I cannot find a clause that says the bill will remove inappropriate subdivision. You see the member— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Wait for the jurisprudence. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well that is it. Mr Jones just sums it up. Mr Shane Jones says we should wait for the jurisprudence. So we will do exactly what that Government has done with the Resource Management Act: pass fuzzy amendments with no idea what they will do; pass the ball from this Parliament to the courts; then wait years after millions have been spent on lawyers to establish what the heck Parliament meant. Members on this side of the Chamber say that is not good enough. 
The previous speaker Chris Carter said that the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society had polled Auckland and that the majority of people wanted the Waitakere Ranges protected. Of course they do. Who would answer that question by saying: “Well I don’t want it protected.”? That is not the argument. The argument is between Lynne Pillay’s mushy bill which will achieve very little and the very sensible proposition that has been put forward by National’s Paula Bennett saying that the public lands of the Waitakere Ranges should be a national park. It would be the first national park in Auckland and it would be an excellent choice. 
I also want to focus specifically on this part. The parallel legislation of this Parliament is the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act. I challenge this Parliament 7 years after that legislation was passed to tell me one thing that Act has done to improve the protection of the Hauraki Gulf—just one. Has it protected an extra jetty or a species—anything? 
John Carter 
: One fish. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Not a fish; not a bird. It was just more bureaucratic mush. 
I read in clause 28A of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill that we will have to have a monitor report. I refer members opposite to the monitoring report that is required under the Hauraki Gulf legislation. Yes it is a big heavy document. Again has it saved a bush? Has it saved a beetle? Has it saved a fish? Has it created an extra blade of parkland anywhere? The answer is no. 
I want Lynne Pillay to explain something to the Committee. The transitional provisions in clause 30 of this bill parallel those of the Hauraki Gulf legislation which got us into an awful mess in Whitianga. I know that my colleague Sandra Goudie from the Coromandel electorate—[ 
Interruption 
] No I refer to the mess that this legislation caused for her community. We have in the transitional provisions of this bill exactly the same problems. I will ask the member a simple question. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Is this confiscation by stealth? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What I said— 
Lynne Pillay 
: That is what you said. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want the member to answer some questions for us. We will have local area plans we will have district plans we will have regional plans and we will have national policy statements. Of those four sets of wordy strategies which overrides which? I ask the member in the chair because lawyers and landowners want to know. There are four strategies. I would love to know from the member in the chair what the priority of that mesh of documents is. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 The member Nick Smith knows full well that the priority is that this bill does not override any of the strategies he mentioned. Rather the bill works within that framework. The member is quite aware of that. This is the member who rode into town stood before a meeting and said: “This is confiscation by stealth.” He had never even seen the bill—never even seen it. Dail Jones has taken this up even further. He says the bill is socialism by stealth. 
All this silly nonsense is about scaring the people. I have met with a number of people who live in the Waitakere Ranges who said they felt much more reassured after seeing the bill and the report because they had been told by the National Party that someone would take their land and rights away. I say for the benefit of Dr Nick Smith because it is difficult for him to comprehend this stuff that the reality is that within the Waitakere Ranges under the Waitakere City Council most activity— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Be more condescending. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The member asks me to be more condescending. No I will try to explain—as I have many times and as the Local Government and Environment Committee had explained to it—that this bill sits over the Resource Management Act. It does not undermine it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Sits over! I thought you said under? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Over under—members can have it whatever way they want. This bill does not supersede the Resource Management Act; it gives guidance to councils in decision making. I will repeat that: this bill gives guidance to councils in decision making. When there is a district plan where there are resource consents going this bill gives guidance to the council to look at the big picture and the unintended consequences. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: More mush. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Nick Smith would rather just have gay abandon because that is the National Party style. The slippery National Party in one breath says residents will lose every property right they have and in the next breath says the bill is waffle and has no teeth. National members should make up their minds. They are slippery—that is the theme of the National Party. It slips around. 
Nathan Guy 
: Is that your word of the week? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is my word because National members slip around. They put fear into the local people good landowners who are committed to the land by telling them they will lose their rights— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s what the judge said. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —and then they say the legislation is waffly and means nothing. The judge now endorses this bill. Thank you Madam Chair. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I have to say that if ever there was a muddled contribution it had to be that. I am sitting here listening and the member in the chair Lynne Pillay says that this bill does not override anything but it sits over the top. Well hang on a minute. If the bill does not do anything and it does not affect anything but it sits over the top what is it sitting over the top of? In the next breath she says: “No no—hang on a minute. It is not over the top; it is underneath.” I got confused at that stage and I was not sure whether I should be standing up on my feet or on my head to see which is up and which is under. I did not understand it. Then I thought I must be on the rugby paddock trying to catch an up-and-under so I could be over and under it—that is what it would have been. 
What an absolute mess. The problem with the member who is sponsoring this bill is that she does not understand what the bill means. That is the first problem. The second problem with this bill has been concerning me all the way through its passage through the House. Right from the very start I asked why we need this bill what it will do and why we cannot do what this bill will do within the confines or the powers of the Resource Management Act and the other legislation. We were told that we could. So the next question asks why we need the bill. If we can do it within the Resource Management Act as it is now and within the district scheme the fact is that we then have to ask ourselves why we need these parts and schedules that we are debating here. The officials said the bill does not do anything. They said: “It has to be here because we need it.” So I asked myself why we need this bill—especially Part 3—if it will not be doing anything. 
 Finally—and this is what really upset me and it is one of the reasons I am more determined than ever not to see this bill pass—we got a concession out of the local authority officials that they wanted the bill as it was presented to us to be wider than the Resource Management Act and to give the local authority more powers. Quite honestly in my view they lied to the select committee—not just misled but deliberately lied. That really upset me. 
Even worse I was at the local government conference and I was talking to the mayor Bob Harvey. I explained to him what had happened. I said: “Bob I had asked and asked”— 
Nathan Guy 
: What did Bob say? 
JOHN CARTER 
: —hang on a minute and I will tell the member—“whether this had any wider ramifications. We were told that no it did not. Then finally your officials said that yes it did.” Bob said he did not believe that they would have done that. I saw a couple of officials nearby and said that we should go and ask them. Bob went over to them and said: “John Carter tells me that initially you were saying it doesn’t go any wider but now it does. What is the answer?”. The officials said: “Yes your worship. Actually the bill as intended did go wider but that is not what we told the select committee at the beginning.” Bob was horrified. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Rubbish! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well Bob Harvey is an honourable man. He will tell you that that is exactly what happened. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee had to go back and put clauses in to make sure that the bill did not override various Acts. I know that it is not in Part 3 but I refer members to for example page 32 where we had to put in a clause to make sure that the bill did not have authority over the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act. We had to bring it back. Then we ask ourselves the question: if we have to restrict the bill’s powers why do we need it? The member in the chair says it is because it allows the local authority to look after the Waitakere Ranges. I ask why in the world the local authority could not do this under the Resource Management Act anyway. Nobody has been able to tell me why it could not do so—not one official not the mayor not the councillors and not the member in the chair. She has not been able to tell us that. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Northlander who realises as I do when I look at Kerikeri what can take place when planning is not well conceived and when we do not have a scheme or a strategy for our heritage that gathers momentum amongst the people. 
First I must acknowledge the unstinting efforts of Lynne Pillay supported by Mr Cunliffe Mr Chris Carter and Darien Fenton. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: She’s gone too! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I say to Dr Smith that the full value of this legislation lies in the future. In the future our mokopuna will remember the efforts that our MPs supported by the three councils have put in to produce a vision and a plan that protects the valleys the gullies the trees and the creatures throughout the Waitakere Ranges. We will not see creeping encroaching ill-conceived developments into areas that are irreplaceable. 
I wait to hear from my whanaunga—and possibly my tuakana I do not know; thousands of genealogists will debate that point—Tau Henare on why he will not support the tangata whenua of that area in ensuring that the wahi tapu of the tangata whenua are looked after and that my ancestry and heritage from the Tararas—the Dalmatians scattered through all those areas—are not forgotten turned to dust and eaten by the creatures the moths and the butterflies etc. [ 
Interruption 
] I also wait to hear from Hone Harawira; he needs to stand up and be counted. On every street corner he will find that our whanau in the west are happy that the kukupa the ruru and various other creatures in the ngahere in Waitakere will sleep soundly knowing that this bill is about to find a place as reflected in Part 3 where the state of the environment and the heritage area must be regularly monitored by not only the elected representatives but also the professional advisers. 
Dr Smith does have his point in terms of oratory in the House—unfortunately it is inversely related to accuracy. He does have a point that it is easy to exaggerate potential problems. I say to Dr Smith that there is no great problem with small legislation that has the simple but admirable purpose of enhancing the ability of the current legislation to care for a specifically valuable area. I say to Dr Smith that we do that with national areas such as our national parks. We do that with areas of the marine environment and that is why this legislation will put a duty on the council to care for the heritage and the taonga of Waitakere. Kia ora tatou. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next member I want to remind members that the last three speakers have very broadly attempted to discuss Part 3. At the end we have a summing up discussion on the first two clauses. If members are going to make these wide-sweeping generic statements can they please stay on board. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I acknowledge the last speaker because I think he is very well qualified to speak particularly with his Maori and Dalmatian ancestry. They are the people who used to be up north digging kauri gum and they have come back and bought large blocks of land in the foothills of the heritage area we are talking about. 
I will take a short call because I do not want to bore listeners with the repetition that has been going on in this Chamber in respect of this bill. Last year the opportunity arose for me to visit the foothills. We have talked about the mountainous terrain and the bush area but I will mention the foothills because that is where the real concern is particularly in relation to the quality of soil which I inspected with the council officials. It was clear that the area was not suitable for high-density housing. Those foothills require some protection because they are absolutely not suitable for tiny subdivisions that will carve up the land and create all sorts of environmental issues. I was surprised to hear Nick Smith rambling on about private rights. I would have expected him as an environmentalist and a conservationist to be giving a different message this evening about the need to protect important heritage areas. 
To the Committee I say that what we are doing tonight shows absolute common sense. It ensures the rights of landowners and it does not take away from the Resource Management Act. It ensures that those areas that need to be protected are protected and that those who apply for resource consents have their proposals properly evaluated in relation both to those important environmental issues and to sustainable development. I am talking about opportunities where I can see people making millions of dollars by carving up their land into little bits and pieces with no regard for the sustainability of that subdivision. 
I think Part 3 is important not only for the people of Waitakere but also for the people of Auckland and New Zealand. I am very pleased to support this bill and to ensure that it passes through the Chamber this evening. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I respond to the contribution from Mr Phillip Field about protecting the soils in the Waitakere Ranges. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I ask the member to address me correctly by my name as registered in this Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I wonder whether Dr Smith could do that. It is Taito Phillip Field. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I apologise. Mr Taito Phillip Field. He raised the issue of the soils in the lower Waitakere Ranges. He is under the misconception that somehow this bill is going to protect those soils. Well if we actually look at those soils we see that over a hundred areas of New Zealand have similar soil types. Are we to have a special bill of Parliament for every one of those areas? Is not the very purpose of the Resource Management Act to protect them? If the member genuinely believes that the current Resource Management Act framework does not provide the mechanism for the protection of those soils but provides for inappropriate subdivision as he called it let us fix the general Act; let us not have these sorts of piecemeal bills that are more about politics than they are about substance. 
When I look at Part 3 I ask this question: how many times do I hear people say that we need to simplify the Resource Management Act? How many times do I hear that the Resource Management Act is too complicated? How many times do I hear that there are too many word games around the Resource Management Act? I genuinely ask the question of this Committee: do we think this bill will address those very legitimate concerns about the statutes as they are now without these extras? Do I hear anyone saying: “What we need with the Resource Management Act is more plans.”? I never hear that yet I see in this Part 3 of this bill the creation of even more plans and more complexity as we try to work out how national plans regional plans district plans and local plans— 
Paula Bennett 
: LTCCPs— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: LTCCPs! 
Paula Bennett 
: LAMPs. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well LAMPs—but the rhetoric is just killing this country— 
Sue Moroney 
: The member can’t keep up. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is not a matter of keeping up. I tell you what—the people of New Zealand have had enough of the wishy-mush law that those members are proposing with this bill which takes New Zealand nowhere. I do not think that the member in the chair Lynne Pillay actually understands at all what this will do. 
Lynne Pillay 
: The member in the chair does understand. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I ask the member whether this bill will allow the erection of farm implement sheds. That is a fair question. I have heard from people— 
Lynne Pillay 
: You’re being pathetic. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No no. She says I am being pathetic; I have to tell her that I have met with people in the Waitakere Ranges who want to know under the transitional provisions of this bill whether they will be able to build a farm implement shed. Will they be able to build granny flats on their sections? Will they be able to plant vineyards on their properties? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Part 3. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the member is not able to answer any of those practical questions. She does not know and this law creates even more fuzziness. One of the constant arguments we hear in this Chamber is to do with the increased costs we impose on ratepayers and local government for no good. In fact that is the very reason that John Key’s speech really struck a chord with New Zealanders today in talking about excessive bureaucracy. In clause 28A we see even more bureaucratic reporting requirements on councils. If councils want to and if they support this sort of idea there is absolutely no reason why right now they cannot produce a 5-yearly report on the state of the Waitakere Ranges. Why do we need an Act of Parliament to do that? Can the person in the chair tell me that? She has no idea as to why we have to put this into law. 
This bill is about everything that Labour is doing and there is nothing about good environmental policy. It is not about good government; it is all about crude politics. And Lynne Pillay believes that the people of west Auckland are so stupid that if she can somehow run around the patch and say “Oh I protected the Waitakere ranges.” somehow they will be fooled whereas this bill takes us backwards. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I will concentrate on a couple of things in Part 3. One under clause 28A is that “Local authorities must monitor and report on certain matters relating to heritage area”. Under anybody’s district plan—under the Auckland Regional Council’s district plan and under the Waitakere City Council’s district plan—local authorities already have to monitor the state of the environment. They already have to make progress towards achieving the objectives. They have to take account of a whole range of issues that are already in district plans and that are already in other pieces of legislation. So I suppose that this bill really should be called the “Waitakere Mana-munching Bill” because that is really all it is. It is all about someone’s mana. Most of the stuff in this bill including Part 3 which we are talking about— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes we are. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I hear the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes we are talking about Part 3. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely—and I do not believe that I have strayed off Part 3 Madam Chairperson. Thank you for keeping me on track. I also say that it is absolutely ridiculous to have all these clauses in Part 3 when every clause and every meaning of every clause in Part 3 is actually in the district plan. They are actually in the Auckland Regional Council’s plan of what it has to do—what it has to look after. So why are we doing this again? 
Mr Key was right this afternoon when he talked about bureaucracy running wild. This is nothing more than an addition to that bureaucracy. There is a new paragraph (c) in clause 29 and it states: “the ability of any person to bring a claim (or continue to bring a claim) or seek a remedy in any court or tribunal—(i) arising from the Treaty of Waitangi an Act the common law or in any other manner;”. But what it does not set out or state is that people cannot bring a claim against the city council in terms of a Treaty of Waitangi claim. They just cannot but this paragraph sort of gives the impression they can. So I think there needs to be a bit of work done on that clause. 
This is nothing more than somebody standing up and saying “Look what I have done for Waitakere.” Really when we look at Part 3 all we can say is that it is about: “Look what I have done; I have now copied in Part 3 what we already do.” That is all this bill is about. It is all about standing there and saying in relation to Part 3: “Look at what I have done. I have copied what is in the Resource Management Act I have copied what is in the local district plan and I have copied what is in the 5-year and 10-year plans of the Auckland Regional Council.” We do not need a repeat of what has already been done. It is nothing more nothing less than a mana-munch by some people who want to get re-elected. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I will stick with Part 3. I wish to speak about the monitoring and reporting on certain matters relating to the heritage area and I think there is a good chance that I will not take the full 5 minutes. The monitoring and reporting is about working towards achieving the objectives set out in the bill. So it is about the progress made towards achieving the objectives and it is that I would like to stress. 
The question I have for Lynne Pillay the member in the chair concerns how we will monitor and report on the natural and historic resources in respect of their intrinsic worth and their benefit for use by and enjoyment by people. How will we report and monitor when we are talking about such things as the quietness and the darkness of the ranges? Will council officials sit out in the ranges with a decibel rating machine deciding how loud it is and whether it is acceptable? If we are going to have that—because the objective is about the quietness and the darkness of the ranges—then the question is whether the council has already done that. We must have something to report against. So are we in a situation where the natural landscape; the intrinsic value worth and benefit; and the quietness and darkness of the ranges will be reported and monitored by councillors or council officials who go out and measure it? How will they do that? 
We simply cannot have a provision that says we will monitor and report certain matters relating to the objectives when the objectives are stated in such waffly language that means nothing and when the matters are something we cannot actually monitor and report against. I am just taking three examples and they are quite easy ones: the quietness of the ranges the darkness of the ranges and their intrinsic worth and value which are terms used in the objectives of the bill. How will we report and monitor progress on these objectives and how have we reported and monitored on the area to date so we can say what we are monitoring against? That is my question. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 3 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 National vigorously opposes this bill for four key reasons. The first is that it is about more bureaucracy when New Zealand desperately needs less. This bill creates more fuzzy law in the area of resource management when there is a pleading from New Zealanders and those who work in this area for Parliament to provide greater clarity. We already have three tiers of wordy documents plus dozens and dozens of pages of law. We do not need another 40 pages of wordy mush as well as another tier of planning documents. 
I put it simply: when a person in the Waitakere Ranges applies for resource consent the decision makers currently have to take into account the Resource Management Act. They have to take into account national policy plans like the national Coastal Policy Statement. They have to take into account regional policy statements from the Auckland Regional Council. They have to take into account district policy statements. Do they also need to take into account local plans and this additional bill? National argues that everything one would want to achieve in terms of protection of the Waitakere Ranges can be done by using those other instruments not creating more law. 
I go back to the introductory speech made by Sir Geoffrey Palmer in relation to the Resource Management Act. The legislation repealed 84 messy little statutes just of this sort. He argued very passionately for the Labour Party that it was time we had good-quality single-statute law and not piecemeal law. The Labour Party has gone backwards from that sort of view. I ask the Labour Party whether it believes that the Waitakere Ranges are somehow different in relation to the need to protect them from the beautiful coastline of Golden Bay from the issues in Queenstown and that magnificent area of the lakes district from the beautiful area of the Bay of Islands represented by John Carter or any of the other areas in New Zealand that we feel passionate about protecting. If Labour really does believe that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill is the key to protecting the Waitakere Ranges and that the Resource Management Act cannot do it then it should be introducing bills just like this bill in every one of those areas unless it genuinely believes that those areas are not worthy of protection. 
The third problem with this bill is that it treats councils as idiots. The member in the chair Lynne Pillay says that we need this bill to provide guidance for the councils. This is like the Government telling our schools what to have in their tuck shops. It is like the Government telling parents how to raise their kids. Why does the member in the chair think we have so much wisdom in this Parliament that our councils are so dumb and that their elected representatives are so stupid that they have to have another 40 pages of law for them to be able to do their job and to make the right calls about what is and what is not inappropriate and appropriate development in the Waitakere Ranges? 
The fourth thing about this bill is just so typical of where this Government has got to. During the last 18 months we have seen that this Government’s agenda is that everything is about the Labour Party— 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We do not expect a political speech on a campaign trail at this point of the debate. The member is wide of the mark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry Taito Phillip Field but clauses 1 and 2 are summary clauses in a sense. A debate on this is a summary of the legislation. It is a slight change in the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What I say to that member and to other members opposite is that the problem is that this is all about politics and not about good law for New Zealand. We know—and I am sure that the Labour Party’s polling says the same as ours—that Labour is in serious trouble in west Auckland. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is not just Hawke’s Bay. I will show the Minister our poll results if he will show us theirs. The problem with Labour is that everything it is doing today—from sacking the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board to the Auckland airport fiasco or in terms of the Electoral Finance Bill—is all about protecting Labour’s interests not New Zealand’s interests. I say to members opposite that they have made a mess of the environment. In relation to climate change and whether it is water quality or soil quality this Government has not performed. So it believes that with a mushy bill of this sort it can somehow save its bacon. It is mistaken. This sort of mushy law will do nothing for the environment and it will do even less for its electoral prospects. As John Key so effectively communicated today mush is out certainty is in. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a short call to support the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. In doing so I think it is appropriate to offer some thanks for the work that has been done by a large number of people both inside and outside the House to bring the bill to the place it is today. 
In my earlier contribution on the bill I spent some time discussing the concept of the cumulative effects of subdivision and development. I went through the arguments about why although every consent individually might seem appropriate when added together the cumulative effect is that one loses this magnificent natural heritage and that process is irreversible. 
Paula Bennett 
: Like if it had been done to your house in Herne Bay eh? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: At least I know where I live and I have never denied it—unlike the leader of the National Party who seems to have a memory lapse when it comes to making declarations. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Amnesia! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is amnesia—exactly. If we do not act now and seize this opportunity we will never get the opportunity again. It has taken about 30 years to get this bill to where it is today. It started off with some people like Justice Tony Randerson the former Speaker of the House Jonathan Hunt and Gary Taylor sitting down one day and thinking about the long-term future of the ranges. The current chair of the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society John Edgar pioneered this and gathered the support of many constituents in that area. 
There are other people in the Chamber who also need mentioning. Obviously there is the member who is carrying the weight of this bill through the House Lynne Pillay the MP for Waitakere who deserves our special and collective thanks. Lynne has followed this bill from the beginning of the community consultation. I know that she has been at every meeting. She has spent interminable hours with community groups the Waitakere City Council and other councils the Clerk’s Office and the Bills Office getting the draft prepared. She is here today not to take credit for herself but to shepherd through a bill with a narrow majority—we recognise that—but it is one that will make a very positive and lasting change in that area. 
I recognise the Prime Minister’s efforts. The Prime Minister has listened to the voices of west Auckland; she said that on this bill what the west wants the west needs to get. She has backed this bill through our caucus and supported it to Parliament today. It would be difficult to conceive the bill without it having received that support. I thank Darien Fenton MP who is a Waitakere resident. She has made a valuable contribution to our team and has been a strong local supporter. The MP for Te Atatu the Hon Chris Carter has been a rock-solid supporter right through the process particularly working closely with Waitakere City Council. I acknowledge Taito Phillip Field. Taito Field had his reservations about the bill but he has at least done the hard yards of coming out west and meeting with the Pacific Islands Advisory Board and the landowners in Oratia. He sat down and listened to them and worked in a reasonable way through their objections then crafted amendments that members could vote for to perhaps moderate some of the rough edges of the earlier draft so that we now have a bill that he supports. With his support this bill will hopefully pass into law. 
I thank the leaders around the table at the Waitakere City Council. It is easy to take people for granted but Bob Harvey has been a visionary out west and has lifted it from “Boganville” to the “eco-city”. He needs to be recognised as he has been a tireless supporter of this bill. He was able to swing some of the majorities in behind it that enabled it to come to the House. Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse was very keen to have a full consultation process and I think that in the end it has probably assisted the durability of the consensus even if it did take a bit longer. Councillor Judy Lawley has been a rock-solid supporter through the process. Former councillors Greg Presland and Denise Yates made an important contribution earlier on they have carried that through. These are the kinds of people whose mana is tied up in bringing this bill to the House. Although we as MPs are doing our bit to carry the bill forward that next step we are actually standing on the shoulders of a whole lot of giants who have put their vision hopes and dreams into this fairly modest bill. I thank the Maori Party the Greens and all who support the bill. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 First I want to speak on my amendment to clause 2. I felt that by pushing the commencement date out to 1 April 2009—no 1 January— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: 1 April would have been pretty good actually! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes 1 April would have been a bit better but we thought that 1 January was fair. We think it is reasonable to ask members opposite to give that opportunity to people who live in the Waitakere Ranges and who want to do simple things like complete a granny flat on their property that they are halfway through building or to build another shed on their vineyard or orchard in the foothills. We heard about those things throughout the submission process. I think we need to go back to some of the basics. The reality is that no one wants to see the foothills carved up into a tight-fitting medium or high-density housing suburban area. 
 No one wants to see that—certainly not anyone on this side of Chamber and from what I am hearing not anyone on the other side—and there can be no question about that. Doing a survey that asks whether people want to protect the ranges— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yeah right! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: —quite frankly gets a “Yeah right!”. If I had been called I would have said “Yes” because we all want the ranges to be protected and there is no doubt about that. What National members say is that this legislation simply will not protect the ranges. To protect the ranges one would give them the highest status in the land and make them a national park. To protect the ranges one would actually put them under a caveat that means they cannot ever be touched. That is what one would do for the public land that is in the ranges. But if one simply wants to take away the rights of individuals who live there and love it and who have seen the area be refurbished and grow more in the last 100 years since people have lived there than it ever did previously then one puts up legislation that will benefit only the lawyers. The only people who will benefit from this legislation are lawyers who are left to try to determine what such phrases as “the quietness and the darkness” of the ranges mean. Does it mean people should not drive through the ranges if their car has a decibel rating of more than 2000? Does it mean people should not drive through the ranges with the lights on because it might affect the darkness? That is how utterly ridiculous this legislation is. 
No one debates that the ranges should be protected. No one debates that their protection is important that they are important for Auckland and that they are certainly important for Waitakere. The debate quite simply is that this bill will do nothing to protect the ranges. The Government has come up with this legislation but no one actually knows what it means and that is where it gets dangerous. People cannot understand how our viewing the land as a fish will help us to protect the ranges. The Government is overriding long-term council community plans that the locals have spent years developing and that the council has been part of. At one stage we were told that this legislation would not overrule the Resource Management Act then we were told that it would—that it would not be worth having this legislation if it did not overrule the national legislation. It is as simple as that. 
Let us talk about “rural character” and what that can mean. I go back to the title of the bill. A correct title of the bill would be quite simple: it is not the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill; it is the “Waitakere Foothills Heritage Area Bill” for it is the foothills that will be most affected and it will be the people living there who have caveats placed over their private land that mean they cannot do what they are already doing within the law. Members on the other side of the Chamber make it sound like there is willy-nilly building going on that people are building monstrosities of houses and that hideous developments are going on. The reality is quite different. Already people work within district plans. Already people work within long-term council community plans. Already the people of Waitakere have what they want and what they need and they do not need this legislation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes this legislation. We have heard from National members who have set out grounds for opposing the bill that are very valid and that New Zealand First agrees with. The Hon David Cunliffe made a very good point. He said that this bill is “standing on the shoulders of a whole lot of giants”. Well that is true—they were the giants of the 19th century and the early 20th century who put their hands in their pockets and bought the land that is now the 17000 hectares of the Waitakere Centennial Park. They were the giants. But what are the people today who are not willing to put their hands in their pockets but who are prepared to take by stealth—like the good socialists they are—the rights of those who live in the 10000 acres? They are certainly not giants. I know who they are but I will not use the antonym because they must know that themselves. The giants have long gone. It is a sad fact that now in New Zealand we do not have the type of person any more who is willing to pay for the land and who is willing to get out there work it and give it to society. Seventeen thousand hectares was given to the people of Auckland in that way; why can we not do that any more? This bill of the Waitakere City Council will prevent that from happening. 
During the course of the debate various comments have been made about the name the area and suchlike that are quite wrong. The preamble to the bill itself is also quite deficient. I will read from one of the books I have collected entitled  
West Auckland Remembers 
 which is edited by James Northcote-Bade and which talks about Waitakere and what it means. It also talks about the Maori background for the area which is actually contradicted in this bill. The name Waitakere according to this book is strictly the name of the large flat rock in the small bay between Ihumoana Island and Kotau Point. The book states: “Here the name refers to the action of the sea in sweeping over this rock. Originally this was not a name of great significance but after the death of a Kawerau chieftain during ‘Te Raupatu Tihore’ and the display of his remains on the rock the place took on immense significance.” So Shane Jones’ effort was really not to the point. The book goes on: “The small bay itself also became known as Waitakere as did the river that in times past flowed into it instead of to the south of Ihumoana as it does today. The outlet of the Waitakere River became known as ‘Te Puaha o Waitakere’ or literally ‘the mouth of the Waitakere River’.” 
There has also been comment made in the preamble about the quotation. The preamble is defective and does not do tribute to the Maori history of the area which is another reason for opposing the bill. I am disappointed in the Maori Party for not researching this. In the preamble there is a quote but that quote is wrongly attributed. The correct name of the person is Te Waatarauihi Tawhiao—[ 
Interruption 
] If the member of the Maori Party wants to make a mockery of the Maori language that is his affair. If he wants to insult the Maori people that is up to him but I am doing my very best. Te Waatarauihi Tawhiao was the Kawerau rangatira. He was not a Waitakere chieftain; he was a member of the Makaurau tribe. Once again the preamble is wrong but if the Maori Party member just wants to make a ridiculous semi-racist joke of it that is his affair. The quotation of course is accurate and the people who prepared the bill should be congratulated. 
But the important point is that reference is made to the tangata whenua of the Waitakere area as being people of an iwi or tribal group known as Te Kawerau-a-Maki. The west Auckland report on the Waitakere Ranges area says that although they are no longer in permanent occupation of their ancestral domain they are regarded in Maori terms as still holding mana whenua or traditional ownership of the land. I make that point because I ask why Ngati Whatua were brought into this bill when they were the natural enemies of Te Kawerau-a-Maki through the centuries. I ask Lynne Pillay the member who introduced this bill what rights Ngati Whatua have to this land when traditionally—and for centuries—they were the blood-sworn enemies of Te Kawerau-a-Maki. I question again whether the Maori Party has done its homework. Here I am just recently arrived in New Zealand off the boat yet I can go and do some research on the area. 
Hone Harawira 
: It shows. 
DAIL JONES 
: Exactly it shows because I have studied and tried to do something about it rather than live off a vote obtained by misleading people on things like the foreshore and seabed legislation as the member did. So New Zealand First opposes this legislation and I hope that I have now set the record straight on its historical background. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I will talk briefly about the title of this bill the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee when we sat as a group and talked about this bill and its drafting talked about the title. A decision was made to call it the “Heritage Area”. The reason we did not call it a park was that we did not want to presume in any way that the area included area within the park itself; we wanted to differentiate between the regional park and the area. 
But in terms of heritage we felt that it was a really important name in order to recognise the heritage of the area and its people—the tangata whenua the Croatian settlers the Pakeha settlers and all of the cultures that today celebrate the absolute wondrous beauty of the Waitakere Ranges. This history is part of the heritage—the tangata whenua the Croatian settlers gumdiggers farmers winemakers fisher people and so on. If we look at the culture that is associated with heritage we see that this extraordinary landscape has been such an inspiration to the many artists who live in and absolutely love the area and who produce so much amazing art. People have done amazingly beautiful carvings that celebrate the area. Those things make the area so special. 
Nick Smith asked what is so special about the Waitakere Ranges and what about Queenstown. I had a great conversation with Sam Neill who had a battle in Queenstown about inappropriate development and Sam Neill said we were doing wonderful things in the Waitakere Ranges. I say “we” collectively. I would ask Nick Smith where else in the world we would find such wondrous nature as the Waitakere Ranges right on a city’s doorstep just 20 minutes’ drive from the centre of a city. 
It has been said that this bill will make lawyers happy but I tell Paula Bennett Nick Smith and Dail Jones to talk to the residents of Henderson Valley who had to gather together $50000 to fight an inappropriate decision and go to the Environment Court. They won their case but it cost them. We do not want our people to have to fight those sorts of cases. 
I acknowledge my good friend David Cunliffe and all the people whom he acknowledged today. The third reading will be the next stage of the bill and that is the time to really celebrate all the people who have worked so hard to bring this bill to fruition. I want to mention one person today—Jack Colmar. Jack Colmar is a resident of Bethells Beach. He went throughout New Zealand and talked to almost every celebrity and hero and got them to sign the petition to ask for protection for the Waitakere Ranges. I guess the most wonderful hero who put his name to those petitions was Sir Edmund Hillary and I know that Sir Edmund Hillary would feel very proud to know that the bill was at this stage in the Committee today and would warmly welcome this move. 
I have heard the Opposition criticise the bill and fuddle people but I have never heard the member opposite who lives in the west the leader of the National Party take one call on this bill—not one. He knows that it is not a popular thing to do. He leaves those other poor members opposite to do it. 
This is a local bill. It was arrived at after so much consultation commitment and a common vision for a fantastic future for this generation and for generations to come. I acknowledge the Waitakere City Council the Rodney District Council and the Auckland Regional Council for promoting this bill. This is not the Labour Party’s bill. I say to Nick Smith: “Read my lips: this is not a Labour Party bill.” This bill was promoted by those councils with a mandate from the people. It has been brought to the House so as to protect what I know is a most beautiful if not the most beautiful part of New Zealand. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I agree with some parts of the previous speech. I think the Waitakere Ranges are among the most beautiful ranges that the country owns but I intensely dislike the use of the old tactic of name-dropping. It is a tactic of the union that when one is in trouble one name-drops. One would use names like Sam Neill—who flies in and says blah-blah-blah and flies out again. Labour uses Sir Edmund Hillary’s name—God rest his soul—as if he were some sort of guru just for the Labour Party to trot out when it likes. 
I heard Ms Moroney yelling out and accusing John Key of not living in that area. What a snide remark that was because none other than David Cunliffe does not live in his electorate. He lives in the CBD in Westmere. It is OK for Labour members to do that but it is a heinous crime if National does it! This bill will encourage people around the country to say to themselves: “I think I can put my name in lights. I’ll introduce the ‘Motatau Ranges Heritage Area Bill.’ ” 
Hone Harawira 
: Come on! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely! The member for Te Tai Tokerau will have nothing else to do but support that bill. He stands for— 
Hone Harawira 
: I’ll support it. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: There we go! He would support anything that goes past these days. Like I said before this is nothing more than mana-munching. It is nothing more and nothing less than somebody getting up and mana-munching. A person who puts up such a bill could leave this place and have his or her name in lights and be able to say: “Well I was the member for Waitakere and I put forward this bill to save the ranges from those horrible people out there who want to put a tool shed on their 20 acres.” 
Dail Jones 
: Or a long drop. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Or a long drop. For goodness’ sake! This is the reason why this Government will not last very long. It is gone it is dog tucker: “Goodbye see you later ka kite.” 
I want to finish by saying that everything in this bill can be done with the present law—the Resource Management Act the Auckland Regional Council 5 and 10-year plan and also the Waitakere City Council district plan. There is nothing in the bill that cannot be done by the organisations that rule the roost at the moment. This is why we have to stop this bill in its tracks. 
I am disappointed in the Maori Party not for the reasons that Mr Jones put forward but purely and simply because the bill does nothing. It does nothing for local Maori it does nothing for local landowners and it does nothing for the local community. All it does is pin—[ 
Interruption 
] At least I recognise and accept that I have gone bald not like some other people. I say in conclusion that this is a nothing bill and we have to do better. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 When we take the Government benches which I hope for the sake of this country is in the not too distant future and when we as the Government draw up a list of those bills that were passed in the Labour Government’s time that really were not good law and did not meet the requirements of the community I hope we have the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill at the top of our list of bills to repeal. I say that quite sincerely because I have sat through the entire process unlike many of the other speakers from the Government side and I have heard every submission and read every bit of paper that has come out on this particular local bill. 
This local bill did not have the local community support it should have had or deserved. For that reason it needs to be right at the top of our list of those bills we will repeal. Local bills need to have full community support. I sat through the submissions and heard the conflicting stories of neighbours. They did not understand; they were confused. I heard people who were the loveliest people and who had never submitted in their lives being painted as developers. They were painted as being bad evil persons who might be developers because they did not like this bill. I thought it was incredibly sad that we had a local bill that was being driven through the process by the council using things like polls with “Do you love your mum?” sorts of questions. I thought that if ever there was a “constructed” local bill that was being driven through this was it. It will not deserve to stay on the statute book—it will not deserve to stay on the book. 
Many good community people came before the Local Government and Environment Committee who were passionate about the ranges—and rightly so. They were all passionate actually and rightly so; that is not in argument. But they did not understand and they were very very confused. I thought that was wrong. I felt that Bob Harvey should have had the courage to pull back and say: “I really should look at how I bring this back again in a way that people understand in a way that meets the requirements and in a way that actually delivers on the promise but maybe in a different way. Maybe I could do it in the way a national park should be or some other way because this is not working. My community is not comfortable with this.” To call it a local bill I think is a big misnomer. 
One of the most interesting things that struck me through the submission process was that the bill does not actually address one of the biggest issues in the ranges the biggest threat the ranges have in regard to their surviving the centuries as they should which is the fact that the bill at no stage talks about visitors. I do not know whether members realise that 2.5 million visitors go through the ranges annually. There is no discussion in this bill about these people going through the ranges and about what harm they can do. They are not the people who live within the ranges’ boundary who love the place to bits and who would hate to see anything happen to it—not those people; they are the nice ones—but they are the people who come through have things in their car chuck cigarettes out of the window and have the music up far too loud or whatever. It is a huge issue for me that this bill does not address that quite significant impact on the ranges. 
I stress that this bill is a local bill but does not have community support. I suppose I challenge the Maori Party a little bit because they talk about the power of the consultation process and about how Bob Harvey will involve them. I just want to raise with them a letter I received which was given to me. It is a letter between the representative of Ngapuhi and Bob Harvey where he talks about his relationship with Maori. I will quote from the letter: “Those f…king black faces don’t f…king vote. They are f…king lazy and do nothing for themselves and if you don’t help me your organisation is finished in this town.” That is Mayor Bob Harvey talking to a Ngapuhi representative about the relationship he has with Maori in his community. I have quoted directly from a correspondence from the mayor to those people stating that black faces do not vote that they are lazy and do nothing for themselves and that if Ngapuhi does not help him then they are finished. That is a direct quote. Maori Party members can say that the Mayor of Waitakere will consult; I think that is a farce. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I will cut to the chase and ask the members opposite to answer a question as if they were consents officials for Rodney District Council or maybe Waitakere District Council and a person comes up with a resource consent for maybe a farm shed new section or granny flat. When the consents official turns to clause 1 of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill where it states that the land is a fish—and the law states that this is the law they need to take into account when making the decision as to whether people will be able to build their granny flats approve their subdivisions or have their farm sheds—my simple question to the member opposite Clayton Cosgrove and to the lawyer amongst the Government benches Russell Fairbrother is how that consents official for the council is to make a decision that must take into account the new law that “this land is a fish”. Does it mean that Mr Cosgrove is more likely to give a consent for the farm shed? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’ve gone troppo Nick. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite can throw insults but can he answer the question? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I just said you’d gone troppo. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am actually just asking the member a question. Perhaps as a Minister in this Government he might be able to answer it. If the member were a consent official for the Waitakere District Council and were considering a consent application how would a law that states that “this land is a fish”—that is what we are proposing to pass—help his decision as to whether to grant a consent? That is what we are deciding; we are deciding what the instructions are that Parliament gives to the council official when he or she is making a resource consent decision. 
I have to say I do not think there is a member in this Committee who has the foggiest idea about how the new law in clause 1 that states that “this land is a fish” will help. I do not know any member of this Chamber who can explain how it will help. 
Hone Harawira 
: I do. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am honoured to hear that. I would be happy to yield to Mr Harawira if he can explain to me when the council official sits down to make a consent decision on a farm shed granny flat or new section— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I can’t take too much more of this. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Clayton Cosgrove does not like it. He does not like an honest question. I know that Dail Jones is a lawyer and I am not sure whether he would be able to tell me. 
Dail Jones 
: Lovely jubbly. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think he is rubbing his hands with glee because he knows that the legal fraternity would be able to have a field day arguing what Parliament meant when it passed clause 1 stating that “this land is a fish”. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Dail’s taking your medication. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Clayton Cosgrove again decides to turn nasty and to make insulting remarks. He is the nastiest member in Parliament. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You don’t have a sense of humour Nick. Lighten up. Take some happy pills. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am asking the member to explain to the Committee why passing a law that states that “this land is a fish” will somehow magically save the Waitakere Ranges. Is there any member in this Committee who would put up his or her hand and say “Yes passing a law that states in clause 1 that ‘this land is a fish’ will protect the Waitakere Ranges.”? Does the member in the chair really truly believe that passing a law that states in clause 1 that “this land is a fish” will suddenly protect the Waitakere Ranges? 
Judith Collins 
: Yes she does. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: She does? 
Parliament is making a joke of itself tonight. Parliament cannot be expected to take seriously passing loopy law that states things like “this land is a fish”. The truth is that this bill is just spin. This bill is pure spin over substance. This bill will do absolutely nothing to protect the Waitakere Ranges. This bill will just add to the army of bureaucrats to the pile of paper and to all the frustrations that ordinary New Zealanders have about the bureaucracy that this Government has created and continues to create for absolutely no good. I simply challenge again any member opposite to really cut to the chase and explain how passing a law stating that “this land is a fish” will protect the Waitakere Ranges. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. By way of explanation to Mr Smith I think I had better clarify a couple of things. First of all I think he needs to be careful about accusing this bill or the people associated with this bill as being loopy. Those sorts of things come back to bite people later on. 
But in terms of clause 1 I would like to give the context to the comments that have been made. There are two parts. The first part will be in Maori and the second part in English. “Whakarongo mai e nga iwi ki ta te korero i mua he ika tenei whenua. Ko te tangata nana i huti ko Maui. Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa. Listen all of the assembled tribes to this the talk of olden times this land is a fish. The person who fished it up was Maui. I will remain here on it indeed until I die:”. 
That was a comment from Waitakere Chief Te Waatarauihi in his opening speech at the Kohimarama Conference in 1860. I just wanted to give a bit of context to the korero. I think Dr Smith belittled the statement by trying to draw something out of it and make fun of the whole bill simply by doing that. He asked me to take the opportunity to speak to that issue and I have. 
On another note I want to pick up on some of the comments made by Mr Dail Jones. I note also that he often makes reference to the fact that he is no relation to Shane Jones and Shane would agree. I do not know of any of Shane’s relations who speak Maori as badly as Dail Jones does. It is constantly consistently and continuously bad bad Maori. To make the assumption that he has made about Te Kawerau-a-Maki and to repeat those assumptions in this Chamber as if they were gospel and as if he is the person who wrote the gospel really does validate what he said earlier that he has only just gotten off the plane. He is fresh off the boat and he does not understand a lot of the things he is talking about. It does not really matter what he has read; neither does it matter what he may have heard. The fact of the matter is that he talked about Te Kawerau-a-Maki and Ngati Whatua as if they were unable even to sit in the same room—as if they were destined to be enemies for all time. He is absolutely wrong of course. 
Dail Jones 
: They were. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: The member did not say “were”; he said “are”. Te Kawerau-a-Maki and Ngati Whatua have both signed up to this bill. The reason why the Maori Party is supporting this bill—and we were a bit wary of it in the early stages—is that we went back right through the whole of the Waitakere area and we consulted all of those Maori groups. We consulted Te Taumata Runanga who are a Maori representative group within the council we spoke to the representatives of Te Kawerau-a-Maki and we spoke to the representatives of nga marae e rima o Kaipara the Ngati Whatua representatives as well as to the chairperson of Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua Naida Glavish. On the basis of their support for this particular legislation the Maori Party was happy to come in behind it. 
I have heard the Maori Party’s name get raised quite a bit and I will just note too that that the comment referred to in the preamble “Kei konei tonu ahau a mate noa.” is a comment that has been raised by a member of the National Party Mr Chris Tremain on a couple of occasions. I have heard him mention that statement. It is a very important statement and I did not realise that it came out of the Kohimarama Conference of 1860 and that it was referred to in the bill. It was a very very important conference in terms of the status of Maori tribes right throughout the nation and in particular in and around the Auckland isthmus. It was an important statement in terms of the relationship of the speaker to the lands in and around the Waitemata and the Waitakere Ranges as well as further south into Manukau. It is important to hear that korero. I am glad to see it included in this bill right at the top of the preamble because it gives a sense of recognition of the importance of the Maori history to Waitakere and the importance of that statement in bringing together the various iwi of that area to support this bill. 
The Maori Party is happy to support this bill on that basis. When it comes to the opportunity to vote for it we certainly will be. Kia ora tatou. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am pleased to get the opportunity to speak on this bill because although I do not live near the Waitakeres I do recognise the name and their significance for reasons other than those that the members on the other side of the Chamber would have us remember them for. It is around the statement that my capable colleague the member Nick Smith made—it is the fish. Earlier when we were having this debate around Part 2 it was said that when Maui pulled up the fish he had his foot firmly placed upon Kaikoura and that is what gave him the leverage to be able to pull up what we know as the fish the North Island. 
But the point I want to make is that there is a considerable interest in what is being done in the Chamber tonight. It is with great interest that I heard one of my colleagues Mark Blumsky say that he would like to see this bill repealed when National becomes the Government. That is because there are many authorities throughout the country that will be looking at this bill when it is put into law if that is the case as being best practice and a good example of what should be done. They will not be able to be part of the process that has dragged out and split the community whereby a local bill has come to this House with barely fifty-fifty support yet it has been sold as being the best-practice perfect model. 
It is hugely concerning. We see when we look back through all the debates on this side of the House that it has been well argued that this is nothing more than notional and is not going to do something remarkable. It is full of platitudes and is quite condescending to the rest of New Zealand. 
We look at this Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area as being made up of something that started 110 years ago. The preamble states: “The Park protected at local regional and national levels is an area of some 17 000 ha”. I have heard my colleague Paula Bennett say that if there were some real courage and strength to people’s convictions they would set this up as a national park. In actual fact that would be more consistent because when we look at the Resource Management Act and at what it means it does not achieve anything over and beyond that. 
Banks Peninsula in Christchurch is a beautiful spot. However it is also a large area of pastoral farming. Those farmers live in fear of this bill becoming law and impacting on them in such a way that they can no longer farm. There is every possibility that somebody in future Christchurch councils will have this notional idea that we should set up a heritage park on Banks Peninsula. For that matter someone might have a view that we should set up a heritage park on the Kaikoura peninsula. I am sure that all the dialogue that is possible to be had will not satisfy the Maori people in Kaikoura. 
 What we are looking at here is a very very sad case. The Waitakere Ranges in my day were recognised as being a great place where Arthur Lydiard Peter Snell Murray Halberg and those sorts of people went for their Sunday run. I used to go for a Sunday run on Banks Peninsula. We would go from the Sign of the Takahe up over Governors Bay Evans Pass and then back around. There is every opportunity in the future for local authorities to impose this so-called best practice—which is like an illegitimate child that nobody wants to own—called the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area. It is of concern to New Zealanders and it is of concern to the very economy of this country. I am comfortable that members on this side of the Chamber have got it right. It is a clear example to all New Zealanders as to why this Labour Government must be voted out at the next election—the sooner the better. Then we can get some sensible laws that will take this country forward. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I firstly thank Hone Harawira for his contribution to the debate in which he reflected on the historic Maori words spoken in 1860 that included the reference to “this land is a fish.” I want to make it plain to the member that I am quite respectful of those comments and their appropriateness. What I challenge the member on is whether the phrase is good law. There are many many proverbs. For instance I come from the Christian faith and often these words are recited in church and indeed they go right back to Jesus Christ: “This bread is my body.” Would I support a bill going through this Parliament that stated: “This bread is my body.”? No I would not. Is that being disrespectful of the Christian faith? No it is not. It is about having the good sense to know what is good law and what is bad law. The National Party is arguing tonight that such a reference in a history book about what was said at the time and references at public occasions to those historic words are all quite appropriate but to put them in resource management law from which people have to make decisions about whether to grant a consent is a nonsense. It does not add value to the protection. 
I challenge the Maori Party on this point. If the bill set up some clear specifics around what Maori want protected in the Waitakere Ranges then it might make some sense and the National Party might be able to support it. If the bill had a reference to a particular part of coastline or a burial ground or urupa that people want protected then yes that would make some sense. We would then understand what the law means. The problem is that the sorts of vague phrases that are in the bill make the law of this country a nonsense. They do not provide for clear decision-making and what is worse they actually lead to poor race relations in the sense that both Maori and Pakeha New Zealanders do not know the meaning of the law. There are fights in court with nobody knowing what is meant. 
I also want to reflect on the comments from David Cunliffe. He spent his entire speech thanking everybody but he said one other set of words. He said that the reason we need this bill is that the Resource Management Act does not do a good job of dealing with cumulative effects. My question for Mr Cunliffe is this: if the Resource Management Act does not do a good job of dealing with cumulative effects—an extra section here an extra section there an extra house there and an extra building there in the Waitakere Ranges—then why would the Resource Management Act work with cumulative effects in Canterbury Banks Peninsula the beautiful Marlborough Sounds the beautiful Bay of Islands an area like Hawke’s Bay or an area like Golden Bay? I ask whether the member in the chair Lynne Pillay can explain it to me. If it is indeed the flaws in the Resource Management Act that do not allow the cumulative effects in the Waitakere Ranges to be managed properly then why are we choosing only an area of less than 1 percent of New Zealand in which to fix the problem? If there is a problem with the cumulative effects and the way they are treated under the Resource Management Act then surely we should fix it for all of New Zealand. 
I ask the member in the chair whether she agrees with Mr Cunliffe that the reason for this bill is that the Resource Management Act does not deal well with cumulative effects. The member is absolutely silent. She has no idea. Well either she agrees with him or she does not. Oh she does not agree with him. She nods her head and she does not agree that that is the reason. Well now we have the members of the Labour Government from the Waitakeres all over the paddock. Here at the end of the Committee stage of the bill they cannot even agree on why we need the bill. 
I have to say that that is absolutely consistent with the position taken through the Committee stage and in the Local Government and Environment Committee. There is total confusion within the Government as to why we need this bill. Those members do not know why. It is solely an exercise in politics. They want to be able to run around during the election campaign and say that they saved the Waitakere Ranges when those people who have any knowledge of this area of law know that it is a load of codswallop. This bill is solely about politics; it is not about providing good law. I think that the real problem for Labour is this: its environmental record is a dog. In the key areas it has not performed— 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: John Carter has showed great interest in other clauses so on clauses 1 and 2 he might like to take a call. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I appreciate having the opportunity to comment on this part of the bill. I wanted to take a call— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How’s your mum? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Mum is fine. She has been listening to this debate intently. The thing that worries me with the fact that my mum is listening to this debate on the radio—and she listens intently to all the speakers in the House—is that she is absolutely confused by the message that has come from the Labour speakers. She is one of those people who think that Waitakere is important and should be looked after. She is absolutely confused as is just about anyone else who has been listening to this debate and to the explanation for the bill. 
You know if there is one disappointment—and there are a number—above all else that we have found in this debate it is that we have not had a lucid explanation from the proponent of this bill and from the members opposite who support it as to why we should have it. There has not been one good lucid reason. If those members could say to us that the Resource Management Act does not work properly and therefore they will allow this this and this to happen then we would have to listen to that debate—because one would. Everybody agrees that the Waitakere Ranges are important and should be looked after but not one lucid reason has been put forward by members opposite to say that we need to have this bill. 
Indeed when we asked why we needed this bill in the first place and whether its purpose was to allow something else to happen that the Resource Management Act the Local Government Act or the Conservation Act could not do—all those questions were asked—we were told that no this bill did nothing absolutely nothing outside what was already in legislation. So I kept asking that question until finally it was confessed that the proponents of the bill the officers from the local council wanted it to be broader and that they had misled the Local Government and Environment Committee. I find that to be seriously worrying. 
Then of course we had to go through various sections in the bill and with the agreement of the proponents of the bill and the Labour members we all had to say—and we made sure—that the section does not override the Local Government Act for example. That is now written in the bill. It is also stated that it does not supersede the Resource Management Act. That is written in the bill. It is so clear that everywhere we went we had to put in a clause to say that it was not outside the scope of the existing Acts. 
Therefore I come back to the question I started with: if this bill does not do anything special if it does not do anything more and if it does not allow anything to happen then why do we have it? I know that my mother is sitting at home asking exactly the same question. She will be sitting there wondering why we are spending taxpayers’ dollars—her money—having this debate. She will be wondering why we are spending her money on a bill that does nothing. You know the one thing my mum has always done is make sure listening to her crystal set at home—[ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely—she will be tuning it in. There will be a bit of static but she will have it going. She will know how to fine-tune it. [ 
Interruption 
] The point is that she will be seriously wondering why Lynne Pillay and other members of the Labour Party have bothered to waste the time of the House her taxpayer’s money and the money of her friends. Why on earth would we pass a bill that at the end of the day does nothing? 
Let me tell my mum the reason. This bill is all about politics. It has absolutely nothing to do with achieving anything. It is all about Lynne Pillay and the other Labour members from west Auckland trying to get re-elected. They will be able to go out there and say: “Look what we did! Look at this!”. That is entirely what this bill is about. Actually one of the things we should do—[ 
Interruption 
] Of course those members are worried about our very good colleague Paula Bennett. They know she is a real challenge to them. One of the things we should do is to refer this bill to the Electoral Commission to see whether it fits in with the Electoral Finance Act. If we think about it we will see that it probably does breach that Act because it is all about politicking. 
As my colleague Tau Henare said this bill is all about mana-munching. It is all about members trying to get their names in lights so they can go and say to the people of west Auckland: “Look at me! I’ve got my name on a bill!”. Well it will not work and they ain’t going to get re-elected. This bill will not save them. This bill will not help the people out in west Auckland. My good friend and colleague Nick Smith made a very good point when we said we would expect a local bill to have a very very huge degree of support within the community. We would imagine that it would have at least 80 percent to 90 percent support. Sadly this bill probably has the support of less than—but certainly not much more than—50 percent of the community. 
Certainly the weight of the submissions told us that this bill is not supported. More people submitted against the bill than for it. We sat in the select committee day after day listening to all the good people. Every submitter came along and said they supported the Waitakere Ranges. They want the ranges to be there; the ranges are their home. They said the ranges are in the pristine state they are in because they live there and they protect them. They said they are the guardians of the ranges and that they did not need the Labour Party members coming along on their big white horses and saying— 
Judith Collins 
: Their big silver BMWs. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well maybe—whatever the Labour Party members run around in out in west Auckland. 
Judith Collins 
: It’s true. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Is it? OK. That is something we do not have in the far north. Anyway the point is that unfortunately the people in west Auckland said they do not need to have this Government—Lynne Pillay and the other Labour members out there—writing law to protect them from themselves. That is because they are already protecting the ranges. They are very proud of that fact. Indeed some of them showed us photos of the Waitakere Ranges 20 50 and 100 years ago. The photos were of burnt-out fields of scrub where trees had been chopped down burnt out or milled. Today the ranges are replanted with native trees. The investment that must have been put into that place by the locals is something they are all proud of. We can all be proud of that. 
Paula Bennett 
: Your mum would be proud. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I know my mother is seriously proud of that. She knows how proud the people are; that is the sort of thing my mum grew up with. The point is that she does not need to have this bill to fulfil her need to have the ranges protected. The fact is that unfortunately people will now be more and more sceptical as to what this is all about. 
Simon Power 
: Does the member’s mother have an amendment? 
JOHN CARTER 
: If my mum was here she would want to put an amendment forward. It would be an amendment to do away with the bill. My mum reflects what a good number of the community out there are thinking. We would expect a local bill to have overwhelming support in the community but one of the sad things is that that is not the case here. Mayor Bob Harvey knows that. The officers who supported this bill know that. The member in the chair knows that. She will answer this by saying that they did a survey across Auckland— 
David Bennett 
: Who paid? 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is not a matter of who paid for it. The question in the survey was: “Do you want to preserve the Waitakere Ranges?”. 
Paula Bennett 
: I said yes. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Who would not say yes? Who would say: “No let’s mow them down and bulldoze them.” You’ve got to be kidding! Of course people will say they want to preserve the ranges. The fact is that the survey should have also asked: “Do you want a bill that interferes with people’s rights?”. If that had been asked we may well have had a totally different answer. In fact I know we would have. That is what this bill does—it interferes with people’s rights. 
I remind the Committee that the member in the chair when asked about the scope of this bill by my colleague Nick Smith said that it sits over the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act. We said: “Over? Does that mean it is bigger than the Resource Management Act—that is has more authority?”. She said she did not mean over it; she meant under it. We got to the stage where we did not know whether it was over it or under it. We could have been upside down. In fact as I said before I started to wonder whether I had to stand on my head to look at this bill to see whether I was over or under it because I was not sure. 
The sad fact is that this muddle reflects what this member thinks of the bill. It reflects the confusion and it reflects the reason why my mother will be sitting beside her crystal set listening through the static and wondering why we are passing a bill when the member in the chair—who supports the bill and whose name it is in—does not even know whether it is over the Resource Management Act or under it. We seriously have to ask ourselves whether this Committee on this bill knows whether it is over it or under it. 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have had 16 calls but it is a members’ day. It is entirely over to the members at this stage. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for allowing me to take a late call and it will be a short call. I just want to make a couple of points. During the course of this debate—which I have been following very closely in my office while doing some reading on what I thought was an unrelated matter—it has become increasingly clear to me that the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill has been brought to the House and sponsored by a member who has no faith in the Resource Management Act. I think that is a great shame and it is a very dangerous precedent for resource management and any kind of planning activity throughout New Zealand. 
Although the member sponsoring this bill can argue that it is merely a local bill relating to the Waitakere Ranges—and I know that the matter of Queenstown has been raised in the Committee already this evening and for good reason; it is a very special area also—I can see coming to this House in the future a “Remarkables Ranges Heritage Area Bill” or a “Maniatoto Ranges Heritage Area Bill”. What then for the integrity for the Resource Management Act? I too heard the arguments in the Local Government and Environment Committee. The question was raised as to where this so-called local bill sits in relation to the Resource Management Act and whether it sits on top of or alongside the district plan. I do not believe we heard a straight answer then and I do not believe I have heard a straight answer tonight. 
To come to the main point of my short contribution tonight I was sitting in my office reading about what I thought was an unrelated topic to do with South Island high country pastoral leases and I came across some eerie and disturbing similarities. When I go to the commentary at the beginning for the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill it states: “This bill has originated from the promoters’ view that a unique situation has developed in the Auckland area in that a nationally significant area of ecological historical and cultural value sits in close proximity to an expanding international city.” Then I go to a communication from a Mr Brian Usherwood General Manager Business Support for the Minister for Land Information the Hon David Parker who wrote to a high country lessee: “The Government has announced changes to tenure review processes designed to protect significant lakeside landscape biodiversity and other values on pastoral lease properties.” 
Hang on a minute what happened to the Resource Management Act? What happened to the protections that are provided under the district planning processes of the Resource Management Act? Or is this Government so arrogant that it thinks it can just override the normal processes that have been consulted on and are part of district planning processes and long-term council community plans? Can the Government then as with the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill ride roughshod over those processes just as it is doing with the South Island pastoral leases? It is exactly the same principle. 
The point I make in this debate is that this Government has no faith in the Resource Management Act; thank goodness the National Party does. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Paula Bennett to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute “on 1 January 2009”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 First of all I acknowledge the work Sir Barry Curtis has done on this. Sir Barry worked extremely hard to try to get some control on graffiti in the city of Manukau where there are over 300000 tags a year. That is a huge amount. I have to acknowledge Sir Barry and also the councillors in Manukau—in particular Daniel Newman who has worked closely with me on this. I acknowledge my colleague Ross Robertson for all the hard work he has been doing. It is also true that all the members of Parliament from Manukau I think without exception have supported this bill and their council. This is a cry from the Manukau City Council for some help. I also acknowledge people like the Reverend Mark Beale who worked very hard with the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust. 
 I must say though that I was surprised to read on the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
today about Mayor Kerry Prendergast of Wellington doing a moan about moves to actually help the graffiti problem. She did not come up with one suggestion—not one suggestion—and I would have thought that she would have. The former mayor of Wellington has been very supportive of this bill and I think it is interesting that the mood has changed. 
A young tagger was killed in Manurewa and the mood changed. People are looking to this Parliament for some moves. Obviously everyone knows that the Government has its own bill at the select committee but I do not want to get into that too much other than to say that Manukau City as a council has asked that this bill be passed as quickly as possible. There are amendments and I am making some amendments so that when the bill is passed its wording will be more in line with the Government bill. Of course it will also give shopkeepers time to get their spray-paint under lock and key. 
Manukau is spending a million dollars a year—a million dollars of ratepayers’ money a year—on getting rid of graffiti. The Mayor Len Brown wrote to us on 4 February and said he believes that the enactment of this Manukau bill will provide an interim solution until the Government bill is passed. I think that is very important. It also means that the Government I am sure will make sure that its bill is dealt with speedily. 
How people react to graffiti is interesting. Some people see it as art; I do not. I have been an art teacher and head of an art department in a secondary school but I have to say I do not believe that people using someone else’s property for their canvases has anything to do with art at all. It is young people rebelling against society and of course the Manukau bill does not have answers for that. People get to the stage where they are so frustrated that they just want to have some power to do things and I think that that is where Manukau is at the moment. 
My colleagues Ross Robertson and Judith Collins have both been very supportive of the council over this bill progressing. In relation to the last bill we saw how an Opposition can draw things out for quite some time—by even talking about their mothers those members can take up time. But in reality I hope that all people in this Parliament will work quickly to help this bill progress because it is a cry from Manukau City to do something. I think we need to do more of course. We have to look at the causes of tagging and why young people are out on the streets of Manukau at 2 and 3 in the morning spraying paint on someone’s fence on his or her house and on other buildings. I believe we have to act fast. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I am a Manukau City ratepayer and as such I completely support the Manukau City Council in its attempts to try to deal with this absolute vandalism that goes on in Manukau and other areas of New Zealand. I think it is a real irony that today we have not only the National Party supporting this bill—which of course we have always had all the way through—but also the Labour Party I understand may now change its mind and support the bill. 
When George Hawkins brought this matter to the House and it was sent off to the Local Government and Environment Committee this is what Labour said about the bill. It said that it would not work. It stated: “We also believe Manukau City Council could develop and expand its urban design initiatives to minimise opportunities for graffiti.” So in other words it is Manukau City’s fault—blame the victim—that is what Labour said to the Manukau City Council. 
But my goodness what a difference a poll makes or in this case several polls. People in this country are absolutely sick of the PC nonsense that has been given out by former Attorney-General David Parker in his advice on this bill that says we cannot have that because young people should be able to buy spray-cans for some reason. Why? Is it a human need? No! In fact we now have a Government that is so concerned about the fact that so many other people are concerned about this issue it is saying that we will have this legislation right throughout the country. 
However I do despair of the fact that whatever bills we put through this House we will still have people who break the law. And that is the difference. There is a huge difference between making the law and keeping the law—enforcing the law. It is already illegal to vandalise it is already illegal to be a graffiti tagger it is already illegal. Yet what happens? Nothing happens other than the good ratepayers of Manukau City the good people who live there have to clean up the mess that these vandals leave behind. 
Nowadays it is not just a matter of spray-can painting; the main thing being done now is etching. But unfortunately that will not be covered by this bill. People etch with pieces of glass or pieces of steel. They etch into glass so that the storefronts of properties are absolutely covered in etching. I can see that my colleague from down south does not understand why that would happen. Well that is because etching cannot be removed as easily as spray-paint can. So I think we have to deal with some tremendous problems in relation to property rights and respect for other people’s property. 
Unfortunately we have had about 30 years of being told that property is not important and that it is owned only by capitalists. Actually the people of Manukau can say to this Government that it is not about that; this is about people’s homes their sense of security and their ability to be able to come home and have some peace in their own home and to be part of the community without having to live in fear. When I say “live in fear” I am not exaggerating. This is not just about spray-cans. This is actually about intrusion on to people’s property. It is intrusion by people who adopt a gangster-type persona and think they are part of some Los Angeles gang. Those sorts of people bring fear to the good people of Manukau. 
I congratulate George Hawkins on having the courage to put this bill forward. I think he is a person who cares about his constituents in Manurewa and I congratulate him on it. I also know that Ross Robertson feels the same and I feel the same. The people of Manukau have had a gutsful of graffiti taggers. We have had a gutsful of being told it is art. We have had a gutsful of cleaning up their mess and it is about time they took some responsibility. I think it would really good to give some of these people a nice stay in a good fresh start camp in a nice place like Waiouru where there are fewer opportunities for graffiti art. 
But I tell some of those members who do not come from places where this happens that now graffiti taggers even tag the trees. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Tag the trees? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: They do—they really do. They tag trees. We have an entire bush just covered in tags. They tag the footpaths and they tag the roads. 
What reaction did we have from the media when the first law was announced when the Government suddenly decided that it did care about graffiti and it did not worry about Mr Parker’s opinion? What did the media do? They went along and made these little vandals heroes. They gave them publicity. 
I despair of the fact that someone has been killed in Manurewa over this tagging. But I also say to people that this is the sort of thing that most people cannot stop and the people who are the most affected are the people without the resources to move away. 
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
: 
 Let me say at the outset in connection with the issue of graffiti that rather than lay blame let us accept that there are faults on all sides when it comes to the issue of dealing with graffiti. Let us also accept that we need to work together as a Parliament in order to do something about trying to eradicate it. 
I want to speak in particular to clause 3 the purpose clause which states that the purpose of the legislation is to control the sale of spray-paint and to control graffiti in Manukau City. Why do we want to do that? Tagging is not only a crime against the conscience of our nation; it is also a crime against everything that is good and wholesome in our society. It is all about a culture of indulgence where what is right and wrong is what one can get away with. There is no sense of responsibility and no thought for others. Whatever happened to the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”? 
Speaking as a longstanding member of Parliament for Manukau along with my colleague the Hon George Hawkins I acknowledge and pay tribute to Sir Barry Curtis who as Mayor of Manukau City—he is now retired—led the charge to make Manukau proud progressive and positive. When everyone else complained and did nothing he was the one who decided that enough was enough. I want to refer to recent criticism by Wellington mayor Kerry Prendergast. She attacked the Government for what she considers inadequate funding arrangements to defeat the scourge of tagging. There is such a thing as “tatou tatou” or “we together”. Together we serve and together we prosper and central government and local government can certainly work together on the issue of tagging and graffiti. I say: “Well done Sir Barry. Your leadership is acknowledged this evening as we debate this bill your bill the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill.” 
Tagging and etching with a sharp instrument cost this country millions of dollars every year. Anguish heartache and untold misery and stress are caused to those affected by the antics of those who want to leave their mark for others to see. Of course I am reminded of dogs who do a similar thing except that they have to relieve themselves. If artistic taggers want to relieve themselves they should use their talents in other areas rather than on street furniture statutory undertakers and educational establishments. 
Sir Barry is without equal in leading the anti-graffiti campaign and maybe we should make him an ambassador to promote awareness of the ugly side of graffiti and why it should be eradicated. His immense talent in building Manukau to New Zealand’s most progressive city should see him continuing to serve our community. He has much to offer this country and he displays all the attributes needed. He is a man still willing and able to serve. He has the intellect and can get his head around the subject. He has the heart and the courage of his convictions. He has the guts to know what the reality of the situation is and he has the spiritual side of it in wanting to provide a service to our community. 
Tagging requires the strong arm of the law and the willingness to enforce it. We need to ensure that this Parliament passes legislation that will enable us to contain graffiti. Some countries have much harsher penalties than we have in New Zealand. I do not want to go into that at this stage because there other issues to debate when it comes to the whole issue of Part 1. Mr Hawkins might like to speak about the commencement of the bill because he has been a forerunner in promoting this issue in Parliament. He is to be commended for the work he has done. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 I thought that as I spoke earlier on the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill it would be rather remiss of me not to speak on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. Graffiti is not a problem that is unique to Manukau; it is a problem throughout New Zealand. It is a problem that has been within our community for a long time. I think that we should rightfully be concerned about people who damage the property of others. We view burglary as a very serious offence and damaging other people’s property—incurring great costs to clean the damage up—is an offence. The consequences of doing that should be serious enough to warrant our support for this bill. 
 One of the things we have seen in Manukau in recent times—and one can see this particularly when using the airport—is graffiti painted all over the latest factories that have been put up along the road from the airport to Mangere. It is an ugly sight; it not a pretty image for a gateway to this nation. 
I think this bill goes some way towards recognising the seriousness of the problem of graffiti and the level of that problem today. There has been a perception over many years that graffiti is acceptable particularly in relation to the hip-hop culture which is associated with graffiti depicted on television programmes from the United States and elsewhere. I think that this bill will help to turn the minds of young people away from that sort of perception. I am not sure how effective it will be but at least it is an attempt to do something about a serious problem. 
I am not certain about the degree of effectiveness of this bill—and I think that has been mentioned by a previous speaker—but given the problem we have had and the level of ugly graffiti around the place it is about time that this Parliament recognised the need for something to be done. So I support this bill. 
I support those people in the Mangere electorate and also those in Manukau who work very hard to try to deal with the graffiti problem. I want to recognise a former Manukau city councillor from Mangere Bridge Mr Bill Kirk who is well known in the Mangere area and who has worked very hard to try to deal with graffiti over many years. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill with amendment and progress on the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.