Volume 651 Week 2 - Tuesday 16 December 2008 
Volume 651 Week 2 - Tuesday 16 December 2008 
[Volume:651;Page:707] 
Tuesday 16 December 2008 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Members Sworn 
Catherine Delahunty was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took her seat in the House. 
Voting 
Correction—Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members the vote on the question at the third reading of the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill was announced as Ayes 65 and Noes 57. The correct result is Ayes 65 and Noes 47. I order that the result be corrected. 
Questions to Ministers 
Ministers—Confidence 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because they are talented people who are working hard for New Zealand. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why should the country have confidence in him as Prime Minister when his first actions in respect of Kiwi jobs was to lose $400 million of investment in the forestry industry and hundreds of jobs; to remove from newly employed workers the right of protection against unfair dismissal; and in respect to wider jobs when confronted with potential job losses to sit like a possum caught in the headlights with no plan for growth or to protect Kiwi jobs? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am sure the country can have enormous confidence in my leadership as we look to deliver productivity growth in a stronger economy—something that his Government failed to do. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: On what does the Prime Minister base his confidence in the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson who repeatedly told this House last week that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill would not remove any rights from workers when he knows that the opposite is the truth and that most workers starting new jobs can now be unfairly dismissed without the protection of personal grievance procedures or access to the Employment Court? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Minister of Labour knows what hundreds of thousands of small businesses in New Zealand also know: that the changes that the Government made last week are a “right to hire” provision. They will see that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have an opportunity to get a job—something they would otherwise be excluded from. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his Minister of Police given her statement on television last night that “the special investigation group is not actually targeting groups but individuals who may be involved in criminal activities” when on 4 July 2007 the special investigation group sent its paid agent Rob Gilchrist an email asking: “What is happening with climate change groups in Auckland? Who is involved? What actions might they be considering for the future?” and also asking similar questions in relation to anti-war groups; how does the Prime Minister justify that broad-spectrum spying by covert agents on protest groups? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have complete confidence in the Minister of Police who yesterday quite rightly called in the Commissioner of Police to seek his assurance that the special investigation group was carrying out its activities properly. The Minister received that assurance. Might I add that if the member somehow wants to come to the support or aid of Mr Gilchrist maybe Mr Gilchrist might like to give back the $600 a week that he has been receiving from the New Zealand Police. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What confidence can the Prime Minister have in the Minister of Finance Bill English who told the country before the election that New Zealanders would be better off under National’s tax package but who when it came to an amendment that would have given credits to anyone who was worse off under the legislation sought to stop that amendment with a financial veto because it showed that National’s tax package ripped $730 million out of the pockets of low-income earners; and does he accept Mr English’s explanation that families do not need any help—that they have had enough already? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The right honourable Prime Minister may choose to answer one of those questions. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have complete and utter confidence in the Minister of Finance and the reason for that is that his first action as Minister of Finance under my Government was to ensure that the taxes of New Zealanders would be lowered. The first action of the previous Minister of Finance who sits behind the Leader of the Opposition was to raise taxes. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Police when the paid agent Rob Gilchrist was forwarding emails from the Greens parliamentary office to the special investigation group and does he think that police spying on MPs and their staff is appropriate in a democratic society? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the member needs to accept that the police should act to protect the security of New Zealanders and our communities and that they may engage in a wide range of methods in order to achieve that provided that they are legal. As I said earlier the Minister sought an assurance from the Commissioner of Police that the activities were legal and had foundation. I accept the commissioner’s perspective on that matter. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What confidence can the Prime Minister have in the Minister of Housing Phil Heatley who spent the whole year telling this House that the Housing New Zealand Corporation needed to do more for people on the waiting list but whose first statement as Minister of Housing was to say that he was going to stop acquiring any new houses and who did a flip-flop after that leaving the country in total confusion as to what he actually intends to do? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have complete confidence in the Minister of Housing and the country is in no confusion about what his job will be. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Tell us! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Amongst other things it will be to fix up the fact that the Government is currently a slum landlord of far too many State houses. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition has actually noticed but the thousands of people who are living in garages in south Auckland did not just appear there on 9 November; they were there for years and the Labour Government failed to address the issue. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a statement made yesterday by Rochelle Rees that lists questions asked of the police agent Rob Gilchrist by the police special investigation group. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a sample of the emails that Rob Gilchrist forwarded to the special investigation group. These three emails were from the Greens parliamentary office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are to be no interjections during a point of order. Is there any objection to— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. I— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down while the Speaker is on his feet. I want to clarify whether the member is seeking a point of order in respect of the leave being sought. She is—my apologies. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want Mr Locke to clarify whether the emails reveal any details of any police officers including their email addresses or names. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am seeking some advice on that request. Would the member please indicate whether there is any such identification that the member has sought clarification on. 
Keith Locke 
: There is no identification of any police officer. There is an email address chuat@paradise.net.nz which is the special investigation group’s email. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House granting the member leave to table those documents I wish to clarify for all members the change in the Standing Orders that has occurred since the last parliamentary term and that is that documents now have to be tabled. There was concern that some members had been seeking to table documents that did not even exist. Under the new Standing Orders the Speaker determines when documents will be tabled. I have determined that documents will be tabled on the same day on which leave is granted by the House. 
Government Spending Commitments—Funding 
2.  
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of Government spending commitments which have no funding set aside to pay for them? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes the Labour Government made a number of spending commitments for which no funding was set aside. For instance no funding was set aside for the $1 billion insulation fund agreed to with the Greens in the last few months of the last Government’s term and only a fraction of the $600 million promised in the Budget for the growth of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was set aside—around $8 million of the $600 million. Some initiatives were creatively funded. The $40 million purchase of St James Station was funded by among other things cleaning out the Nature Heritage Fund for the next 4 years. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Is the Minister aware of any other Government spending commitments that have no funding set aside to pay for them? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. In the 2008 Budget the previous Labour Government announced an economic transformation package which it claimed was worth $300 million over 3 years but only $93 million was set aside in the Budget for initiatives such as the CPI adjustment of funding for universities literacy and numeracy in the workplace—a $40 million initiative—and other initiatives designed to “help New Zealand firms compete globally”. Although the Government had not funded all of its 2008 Budget it nevertheless went on to promise larger extra expenditure such as the universal student allowance which it could not have funded if had won the election. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm that all of the spending promises National made were “fully costed and funded” and covered by the $1.75 billion spending allocation and that he has no intention of trying to go back on any of them? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I can confirm that National will not be going back on any of those promises as we fully costed and funded them unlike the previous Labour Government which produced a Budget in 2008 and an election campaign full of commitments it could not have funded. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What decisions is the Minister likely to make on unfunded spending commitments? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because we are a new Government with new priorities we will be committing a Budget allowance to the priorities of the incoming National Government with a mandate from New Zealand voters. We will drop commitments made by the previous Government for which no funding has been allocated. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister provide details of what remains of the Government’s proposed stimulus package which was so much vaunted in those members’ election campaign and can he confirm that he is still committed to the $8.6 billion of infrastructure over 6 years announced by his leader on 31 October and to the $7 billion stimulus over 2 years that he foreshadowed in late November or does he now accept Treasury’s advice that no further fiscal stimulus is necessary; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Labour Party should get its lines worked out. Its deputy leader was on the radio this morning saying there should be another stimulus package and now David Cunliffe is saying there should not be. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last time I looked the Minister of Finance had no responsibility for members of the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would alert the honourable member to the fact that his own question was very marginal in terms of the Standing Orders in that the member cannot question the Government about statements or policies about something that the Minister is not directly responsible for as Minister in regard to a political party. The member cannot insist on an answer being absolutely within the Standing Orders when his own question was very marginal in respect of the Standing Orders. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The statements I quoted by the leader John Key and by the Minister were made after the election while they held the positions they hold now. Therefore they are purported to be statements of Government policy with fiscal consequences for which the Minister of Finance is responsible. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take the honourable member’s word for that.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can confirm that the Budget Policy Statement will outline what amounts to what Treasury calculates as a $7 billion stimulus into the New Zealand economy which is made up of the 2008 Budget the 1 October tax cuts and the 1 April tax cuts that were legislated for last week. Treasury estimates that over the next 2 years that amounts to a $7 billion stimulus to the economy and that is one of the largest among developed countries—larger than Australia’s and comparable to the packages announced by the UK Government. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What is the impact of the shortfall in the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Earners and businesses will hear about that impact when the Minister for ACC announces levy increases but the part of ACC that is funded by the Government has turned out to be $300 million short in the 2008-09 year and Cabinet has already had to make a decision to add $300 million to Government debt to ensure that ACC does not run out of money in March 2009 for the non-earners account from which beneficiaries superannuitants and others who do not earn money are dependent for their assistance for accidents. Over the next following 3 years the ACC shortfall will add $1.2 billion—unexpectedly—to Government debt. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill—Teachers 
3.  
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What representations did the Minister of Education make to her Cabinet colleagues in the light of her commitment that teachers would not be included in provisions of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill? 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not raise a point of order when the Leader of the Opposition misread his question but the Minister of Education has misread his question. He should read what is on the sheet. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s not the Minister of Education. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: For members who did not pick it up the misdemeanour was very minor. The member read “the Minister of Education” instead of “the Minister”. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: My question is to the Minister of Education—with a slight sense of irony. What representations did the Minister make to her Cabinet colleagues in the light of her commitment that teachers would not be included in the provisions of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know the member is unused to asking questions but I think it would be good to get off on the right foot by not including an ironic expression and an epithet when addressing a Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Hon Chris Carter just to read the question as it has been put down on the Order Paper. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I felt that I had and my reference to irony—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Colleagues I think the good order of the House would be well-served if members would just try to follow the procedures correctly. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What representations did the Minister make to her Cabinet colleagues in the light of her commitment that teachers would not be included in provisions of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As the member should know Cabinet discussions are confidential. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: The Minister should have made representations to her colleagues because she wrote— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member should be asking a question not making a statement. I ask him to do that please. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I would like to ask the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member knows that when the Speaker is on his or her feet members should be silent. I say to members that I think a little latitude is appropriate when members are all in new roles here. I ask the Hon Chris Carter to please ask a question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The proceedings of the House these days are televised so everyone will have seen that prior to your standing the Hon Chris Carter sat down. Apropos a certain ruling early last week I think you would have to rule that he had given up his opportunity to take this matter any further. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member would just resume his seat for a moment because he has made a point of order— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think it will be very helpful. I was going to seek leave for the member to be able to ask his question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no such provision for the member to do that. I think the Hon Chris Carter sat down because he thought I was going to stand when there was disorder. I call on the Hon Chris Carter to please ask a question. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I would like to ask the Minister why she wrote in the October edition of the New Zealand Educational Institute’s magazine  
Rourou 
— 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all I think Mr Gerry Brownlee should run a seminar for the Labour front bench on asking questions. But once again the previous Minister failed to ask a question. To say “I would like” to do something is not asking a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Technically the honourable member is correct. I call on the Hon Chris Carter please for the good order of the House to take the matter seriously and ask a question. Thank you. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Why did she write in the October edition of the New Zealand Educational Institute’s magazine  
Rourou 
: “We do not expect a trial period to be included in the collective agreement in which the majority of teacher and support staff employment relations are based.”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The member might like to look at the September edition of New Zealand Educational Institute’s  
Rourou 
 magazine in which the union itself showed that it well understood that our policy did not exempt teachers when it stated that if new employees take up an individual employment agreement they would presumably be subject to the 90-day probation period. This of course would still apply only if the individual employee agreed to the trial period. 
Allan Peachey 
: Has the Minister of Education had any reports on whether the new probationary period will be a compulsory element of any employment agreement with teachers? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have seen some hysterical comments as part of a campaign of misinformation by the Labour Party that suggests that the 90-day trial periods are compulsory for all teachers. These comments are wrong. First of all trial periods will apply only to schools with fewer than 20 staff and secondly despite the Labour Party’s comments a 90-day trial period can be included in a contract only by agreement between employee and employer. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Why did she tell a New Zealand Educational Institute political forum in Rotorua on 22 August 2008 that the 90-day period should not apply to teachers and why did she make that claim? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I made the statement that the member cites on 22 August. After I made that statement I had communications with education sector groups in September and October and I made it clear to them that there would be no legislative exemption for teachers and other staff. In fact that is what was published by the New Zealand Educational Institute itself in its  
Rourou 
 magazine. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: If that answer is correct why did she tell a New Zealand Educational Institute political panel at Epsom Girls Grammar School in Auckland on 20 October that the 90-day rule would not apply to support staff in schools and what do such clearly misleading statements do now for her credibility as education Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The issue of what Ministers can be asked has already arisen and the Hon David Cunliffe pointed out that his question related to a statement the relevant Minister had made subsequent to the election. It seems to me the quote that the honourable member is asking the Minister to confirm is a statement made prior to the election and as Minister she is not responsible for that. I invite the member to reword his supplementary question to see whether he can bring it within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just clarify that what you are saying to the House is that a Minister may do the exact opposite of what he or she pledged to the country before the election and in no sense is accountable to Parliament for that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders are very clear on the matter. Ministers are separate people from other persons such as leaders of political parties or members of political parties and in this Chamber Ministers including the Prime Minister can be questioned only on their actions and plans as Ministers and Prime Minister not on any role they may have as political persons or leaders of parties. There are many Speakers’ rulings that cover that issue and I am sure the honourable member is well aware of that. In fact I am aware that the matter was discussed with the Labour Party only this morning in relation to questions being lodged today. The way that questions are to be handled in respect of confirming statements made prior to the election has to be handled carefully. I invite the member to ask a supplementary question and to bring it inside the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be in order for us to ask Mrs Tolley whether she has seen a statement made on a certain date because she may have seen that since the election and since she became a Minister and whether she can confirm that she made it but in fact it does not represent her views. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Of course Dr Cullen is quite right but it would be helpful if he gave his advice to the front bench of the Labour caucus outside this Chamber rather than having to come down and rescue Chris Carter and so embarrass him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient on this matter. The point that Dr Cullen made initially is quite correct. The material is not outside the realm of the Standing Orders; the issue is how questions are asked about it. I invite the Hon Chris Carter to bring his question within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: How does the Minister reconcile her statement to the House just a few minutes ago that she had clarified this matter with the New Zealand Educational Institute in September before its October edition of its magazine when the date that I have just quoted is 20 October? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have not seen that statement. I remind the member of what is printed here in the New Zealand Educational Institute’s own document and I repeat—I clarify—that I had communications widely with the sector groups throughout September and October and I made it very clear to them that there would be no legislative exemption for teachers and other staff. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I seek leave of the House to table the October edition of  
Rourou 
 in which Mrs Tolley clearly states that teachers will be exempted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I seek leave of the House to submit the transcript of a speech shown on Television One on 11 December. It is of Mrs Tolley telling the New Zealand Educational Institute meeting in Rotorua that teachers would be exempt. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just seek from the honourable member—was the member seeking to have that document tabled? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Yes I am seeking leave for the transcript to be tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that transcript being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Accident Compensation—Increased Costs 
4.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What advice has he received on increased costs for accident compensation over the term of this Parliament and when was he first advised of these? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Officials sought an urgent briefing immediately after the Prime Minister’s announcement of my appointment and before I was sworn in as Minister. They advised that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) had a significant funding crisis in the non-earners account that required an additional appropriation of $297 million or an additional 32 percent this financial year arising from escalating costs. I have subsequently been advised of significant blowouts in the other accounts with an average 26 percent increase in costs for next year. The total increased cost for the term of this Parliament is $4.093 billion. 
Amy Adams 
: Will the Government have to increase accident compensation levies on workers employers and motor vehicles to meet this multibillion-dollar blowout? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Officials have recommended very substantial levy increases on all the accounts for this year and subsequent years to fund these blowouts. The Government’s view is that households and businesses are in no position to be facing huge additional accident compensation levies. This has to be balanced against the legal requirement to fully fund accident compensation over the medium term. The levy increases I will be detailing this afternoon for the earners and work accounts are half those that are recommended by the Department of Labour. We will be advancing work urgently to contain costs and to investigate extending the full funding period to minimise these increases in future years. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Is the Minister aware that the ACC conducted a widely publicised public consultation process prior to the election outlining the proposed levy rates for 2009-10; if he is not aware of that fact what does that say about his attention to detail and if he is aware of that fact why did he not tell Bill English and John Key to stop them making fools of themselves by suddenly being shot by the proposed levy rates? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Nick Smith may answer whichever of those questions he chooses. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The basic problem is that the levies on which the previous Government consulted with the community were significantly less than what is required to fund the blowouts. The part that I find extraordinary about the Labour Party is that its members have dismissed these sums as insignificant and that is perhaps why the new Government is facing a decade of deficits. 
Craig Foss 
: What advice has the Minister received on the accuracy of a statement made by the Hon David Parker in respect of the non-earners account blowout not being in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update where he says: “Papers show that Ministers acted appropriately throughout as the money needed had not been quantified until the election period.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The money needed was clearly identified in a report to the former Minister on 14 August based on a PricewaterhouseCoopers valuation. A further 60-page technical report was completed by ACC on 22 August which confirmed those figures. The election was not called until 12 September and the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update closing-off date was 8 September after the previous Government had that information. 
Craig Foss 
: Is the Minister aware of the Cabinet minute of 10 December 2007 that noted increased costs in the non-earners account and required the then Minister to report back on a clear funding policy before the levy-setting process began in August 2008; if so did that occur? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes there was a very clear Cabinet minute last December requiring the former Minister to report back on funding issues in the non-earners account. That did not occur and there is no explanation as to why it did not occur. 
Craig Foss 
: Has the Minister received any advice about the accuracy of the statement issued by the former Labour Minister for ACC as to why the blowout was not included in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. The statement is inaccurate in three respects. It states the first advice the former Minister received was on 14 August yet the chief executive of the ACC has advised me that the then Minister was given a heads-up in May. The statement also claims that the paper dated 14 August states: “approximately $300 million per annum 2009-2013;”. The paper never uses the word “approximately” but notes that the change in baselines was $305.654 million and gives equal accuracy in subsequent years. Contrary also to Ms Street’s statement it also specifically notes a request for increased appropriations in this financial year—something she did not disclose. 
Craig Foss 
: What advice has the Minister received on the accuracy of the claim made by the Hon David Parker that it would have been constitutionally inappropriate for the Labour Government to address this urgent problem in the non-earners account during the election period? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The statement is also incorrect. That additional appropriation was not from any change of policy but simply to maintain an existing level of accident compensation cover. I find it strange also that Labour would make that claim when it seemed to be no problem at all for it to promise in the middle of an election campaign interest-free student loans big increases in Working for Families and many other initiatives. It seems that if it is good news Labour can do it; if it is bad news it hides it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the advice from ACC of 14 August to the former Minister giving the indicative outline of changes to the appropriation baselines of “approximately $300 million 2009-2013” and also the accompanying documents from the Department of Labour and Treasury challenging that advice and telling the former Minister that they were seeking independent actuarial advice. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for those documents. Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There is objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave of the House— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You put the leave request only on the first document so I think my point of order comes before the Minister’s point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Both members will resume their seats. As I heard the honourable member I thought she had described two documents because if she were not describing two documents her description was way too long and I alert her to that. I had given the call on a point of order to the Hon Nick Smith and that point of order will be heard now. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek the leave of the House to table three documents. The first of those is a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers dated 7 August 2008 that values the outstanding claim liabilities for the ACC. The second document I seek leave to table is in respect of the report to the former Minister on 14 August 2008 detailing to three decimal places the additional appropriations required and the third I seek leave to table is a technical report on Vote ACC dated 22 August 2008 which is the review and the confirmation of the size of the appropriation that was required. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to those documents being tabled? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the advice from the Department of Labour given to the former Minister for ACC about the fact that it was considered unconstitutional for Cabinet at that time to make decisions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Climate Change—ACT Confidence and Supply Agreement 
5.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does his confidence and supply agreement with the ACT Party imply that he is suspicious of climate change and not even sure it is a problem or that he is a firm believer in climate change and always has been? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The member can rest assured that I believe that human-induced climate change is occurring and that my Government will take a balanced approach to reducing New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. I guess that what we have learnt post-election is that I believe in human-induced climate change a lot more than that member believes in the Electoral Finance Act. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Which of the four contradictory positions that the  
New Zealand Herald  
says the Government has held on emissions trading over the last 6 weeks or indeed which of the two contradictory positions that the Prime Minister has stated—which were quoted in the original question—is the Government’s actual position? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government’s position is that we will have a high-level select committee chaired by the Hon Peter Dunne review the climate change legislation that is in place. It is the Government’s view that legislation should be passed by 30 September 2009. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What confidence can the country have in the Prime Minister’s claim that he is committed to combating climate change and that he is committed to the Kyoto Protocol when every action that he has taken since the election has moved New Zealand in the opposite direction—suspending the emissions trading scheme repealing biofuel obligations opening up the expansion of thermal generation and scrapping energy conservation measures such as insulating older homes? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member can rest assured that the Government will be taking a balanced approach when it comes to climate change—balancing our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities. I might point out to the member that for all of the rhetoric of the last 9 years it will not be lost on the member that when his Government was in office emissions rose faster in New Zealand than they did in America under George W Bush. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why has the Government pulled the rug out from under the $10 million investment of BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd in research and development which has the impact of slowing New Zealand’s achievement of self-sufficiency in transport fuel and increasing Kyoto Protocol costs; is it as a former National Party president Sue Wood has suggested because of pressure on the Government from vested interests in the oil industry? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government is committed to ensuring that biofuels play a part in our future but I should point out—and the member will be aware just as others are aware—that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment herself indicated that biofuels unless one can be sure that they are from a sustainable source should not be included. Rather than mandating that we take on biofuels from a source that we cannot be sure is sustainable we are going to build up a proper supply and it will be used in the future. 
Craig Foss 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm what the level of deforestation under the previous Government was and what New Zealand’s emissions profile for the last 9 years was? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can confirm that New Zealand lost 37000 hectares of forest in the last 5 years while New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions grew by 12 percent—faster than those of the United States and Australia. That suggests that the record of the previous Labour Government which liked to talk a lot about climate change was far from anything to be proud of. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: To what extent did New Zealand’s changing position on emissions trading and climate change affect the Prime Minister’s credibility and undermine his ability to persuade Gordon Brown to remove the sustainability tax on long-distance travel; or was the real problem the strength of his advocacy about which the  
Dominion Post  
said: “Hopefully he was a more compelling advocate of New Zealand’s interests behind closed doors.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Minister—sorry the member; he was a Minister once in the good old days I guess for him—will be aware if he has done his homework that the departure tax being proposed by the United Kingdom is unfounded that it is does not have a good basis that it is larger than any carbon tax that could be reasonably justified and that in fact it is deeply hypocritical because it was announced in a mini-Budget in the United Kingdom at a time when financial reforms there lowered the costs imposed on larger carbon emitting cars. I can tell the member that the Government is continuing to work on the issue and is looking to get a successful resolution. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table the editorial from the  
Dominion Post  
stating that it hopes Mr Key was more compelling behind closed doors than he was in public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table a letter from a former President of the National Party Sue Wood outlining the case of Tom McNicholl who of course has lost $10 million because of the reversal of the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection to that document being tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table the  
New Zealand Energy and Environment Business Week 
 which sets out that the Government’s actions have meant the loss of $400 million worth of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Amending Legislation 
6.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When does his Government expect to pass “an amendment to the ETS legislation delaying its implementation” as agreed to in the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As agreed with the ACT Party the Government has moved to set up a special select committee to review the emissions trading scheme and related matters. This week legislation will be debated in the House to repeal the ban on thermal generation. The Government has committed as I said earlier to amending the emissions trading scheme legislation by no later than 30 September 2009. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Prime Minister saying he does not intend to legislate at this stage to put the emissions trading scheme on hold yet that is what he has told foresters that he is doing; if that is the case does he mean that foresters will still be able to claim credits in January for carbon sequestered during 2008 in post-1989 forests as provided for in the Act? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not had any direct conversation with foresters. What I have pointed out is that no element will be currently affected by the emissions trading scheme legislation because effectively it will not begin until 2010 when stationary energy comes into the scheme. It will be the Government’s intention that the high-level select committee will have met and the revised legislation passed by 30 September. On that basis the matter would have been cleared up before any elements come into the emissions trading scheme that could be used to offset the forestry sector. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Has the Prime Minister received any reports that indicate the need to be cautious in the implementation of an emissions trading scheme? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have. The Australian Government yesterday released its white paper on the proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme. As I have said many times previously we need to make sure that New Zealand’s measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are aligned as appropriate with those measures taken in Australia. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: When the Prime Minister said in question No. 5 that we needed to balance environmental action against economic opportunity does that mean that the default position in his thinking is that all other things being equal assertive climate change action is economically deleterious? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member can rest assured that we intend to take a balanced approach to climate change and to our economic responsibilities. We will not export jobs nor will we go around the countryside as that member did when he was a Minister telling New Zealanders that they were about to earn half-a-billion dollars off the Kyoto Protocol when in fact it is now costing them a sum equivalent to that amount. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With regard to those parts of the emissions trading scheme that came into force on 1 January 2008—relating to forestry—will the Prime Minister put on hold the penalty regime for deforestation during 2008 and the credits that foresters expect to claim in January 2009 for the carbon sequestered by their forests this year? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The current legislation and rules about deforestation stay in place pending the outcome of the select committee. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In that case what precisely is the Prime Minister suspending or putting on hold given that nothing else is due to come in until 2010 and he is retaining the parts that are already in force; or is the Prime Minister saying that the forestry bit may be taken out of force later which means they will have to give their credits back? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is exactly the point. Nothing is coming in until 2010 outside of forestry. The high-level select committee will have reported back. It is the hope of the Government that the legislation that will replace the existing emissions trading scheme legislation will be in place long before January 2010. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister just suggest then that this is all smoke and mirrors and he is not doing anything—he is not suspending anything? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There is nothing about reviewing the emissions trading scheme legislation that is smoke and mirrors. What we intend to do is pass legislation that balances our environmental responsibility with our economic opportunities. We will do so in a way that will put some clarity in the legislation and actually will do so in a way that works which is a whole lot better than the climate change policy that his previous Government had. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What reports has the Prime Minister received from Mr Groser in Poznán on how our Kyoto partners have received the news that New Zealand is reviewing or suspending the emissions trading scheme has cancelled plans to make sustainable biofuels in New Zealand has cancelled its preference for renewable electricity has cancelled its Green Homes Fund and gets its police to spy on organisations campaigning for a responsible attitude to climate change? Has anyone in Poznán given New Zealand the fossil of the year award yet? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not sure the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 has made it all the way to Poland yet but putting that to one side I expect that our partners will be looking at New Zealand in exactly the same way that they reviewed what came out of Australia yesterday which was a very considered and balanced approach to climate change. 
Housing Stock—Reports 
7.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports has he seen on the status of New Zealand’s housing stock? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The briefing to the incoming Minister from Housing New Zealand Corporation revealed that “It is estimated about $2 billion is required to address the deferred maintenance and upgrade and modernise State houses to an appropriate standard.” The books show that Labour was going into the depreciation fund to an unprecedented level over the past few years to acquire new State houses instead of keeping the current ones up to scratch. While Labour was bragging about new State houses it was actually strip mining the existing stock and leaving its tenants in squalor. 
Jonathan Young 
: What is the Minister going to do about the legacy he has been left? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Two billion dollars of deferred maintenance and squalor is clearly a huge challenge. We will be taking a balanced but urgent approach to upgrading existing stock. Members will see some increases in the number of State houses and they will certainly see better management of the State house sector going forward. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Does the Minister’s latest announcement that only South Auckland will see additions made to Housing New Zealand Corporation stock mean that other areas of New Zealand will miss out or even have a reduced number of houses built and how long has he suffered from the premature announcement syndrome that he appears to have? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do not recall saying South Auckland was the only place that would see some increase in State houses. I have said that National has a high priority on upgrading the State housing stock particularly in light of this $2 billion deficit that members will see some increases in State house numbers and that we will most certainly be better managing the State house sector. 
Jonathan Young 
: What will be your priority? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would love to know your priorities but I am sure the member meant to ask what the Minister’s priority is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member makes a perfectly valid point. Could Jonathan Young direct his question to the Minister. 
Jonathan Young 
: What will be the Minister’s priority? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The National Government will not be directing the Housing New Zealand Corporation to gut the depreciation fund in the way that Labour did. We are going to take a balanced but urgent approach. We are going to upgrade these State houses and we intend to do it with some urgency. 
I seek leave to table the briefing that says there is $2 billion worth of deferred maintenance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Government Legislation—Referral to Select Committees 
8.  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
 to the  
Leader of the House 
: Is it Government policy that no bill will be referred to a select committee if it was National Party policy for the general election 2008? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: How does the Minister reconcile that fulsome answer with the fact that last week the only reason he gave for bills not being referred to select committees was that they were in the National Party’s election policy? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Because they were. It may surprise the Minister to learn—[ 
Interruption 
]—the member; I am sorry. I know from long and bitter experience how much the member on that side of the House loves those little moments. It may surprise the member to learn that the Government has decided in the very short time prior to the very very long Christmas break that it wanted to advance some legislation that it felt was important for the economy. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the increasing confusion just expressed by that supplementary answer over his management of the Government’s business in the House reflect the new Government’s instruction to officials to avoid the use of words such as “strategy” “collaboration” and “coordination” in Government reports or is that just a coincidence? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am struggling to understand what Dr Cullen is so upset about. It would be interesting to know what Dr Cullen is so upset at. I look at his own record and I look at his performance over the last 9 years and I tell you what I have learnt a thing or two off him. I recall Dr Cullen coming into this House and introducing the 2006 Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill. There was no bill on the Table and no explanation to Parliament and that is because it was the bill that made legal the terrible pledge-card spending of the Labour Party. At least every bill we have put in does good— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. Answers to questions are not meant to be opportunities for major speeches. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Is the Leader of the House confident that all members of the House could ask meaningful questions during the select committee process and has he received any reports about the lodging of oral questions? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I must report to my fellow Minister that I have grave concerns about that. I heard a report this morning about a member of this House of very high standing a member who has some 24 years’ experience a member who spent 15 of those years as a Minister a member who we might have thought would understand the question and answer process quite well but here we are in the first day of question time in the new Parliament and that member completely mishmashed and hashed up his question lodging to a point where somewhat embarrassingly he had to resubmit it. That member of course was none other than the Leader of the Opposition the Hon Phil Goff. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Of course the National Party never had to resubmit a question. Does the Leader of the House now consider it good policy to refer bills to select committees; if so will he discuss with his colleague the Minister of Energy the desirability of referring the legislation to repeal the mandatory biofuels requirement to a select committee as it is likely to cost jobs in New Zealand and make it easier to import unsustainable biofuels? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The matter of the biofuels bill will be discussed this afternoon and all of the relevant information sought by the member will be given. Does this House recall whether a bill was sent to a select committee after a long period of extraordinary urgency when the House went through until 5 o’clock in the morning putting a little bit of extra tax on grandma’s sherry— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down and resume his seat. The honourable member will resume his seat when I stand. I just remind the member that having answered the question he should not go on to make a speech. I think it is something that both sides of the House need to be aware of. Some questions have been too long and some answers have been too long. There is some fault on both sides. 
Electoral Finance Act—Repeal 
9.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: On what date is the Government planning to repeal the Electoral Finance Act and introduce new electoral law? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 As part of its first 100 days’ commitment the Government intends to repeal— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Fight them on the beaches. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Well that member should go back to his seat. Oh that is right he does not have one. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have lost a fair bit of time today with unnecessary interjections and I am sure that members of the House would like to see a little more decorum. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: As part of its first 100 days’ commitment the Government intends to repeal the Electoral Finance Act 2007 and replace it with an interim regime by 26 February 2009. The precise date is yet to be determined and it will depend on the cooperation of other parties in the House which I hope will be forthcoming. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister support free speech; if so does he agree that political parties should have the right to purchase their own broadcasting time outside taxpayer-funded allocations? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: By and large yes. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Can the Minister advise whether the ACT Party has requested that the repeal bill contains a retrospective provision to annul the ACT Party supporter’s complaint about the  
Hi-de-Hi! 
 jacket which has caused the Hon Rodney Hide to be embarrassed and has led him to concede that the public had a right to be furious about what was nothing more than a stunt? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I can advise the member that I have no knowledge of such a request. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a requirement under the Standing Orders that questions are to be factually accurate. I was furious but I was not furious with the supporter of the ACT Party—I love them all. I was furious about that crazy law that Lianne Dalziel and the Green Party passed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What the member has raised is not actually a point of order. However what he might have raised was that the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s question was not in order because the Standing Orders do not provide for that kind of information to be put in a supplementary question where it is bringing into question what other members may or may not have said. If the member wants to check the Standing Orders then I am sure she will find that ruling. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the article from the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 4 December that quoted the honourable member. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I just make it clear to honourable members that I ruled not because the member raised the issue; it was the manner in which she raised it. If the member wishes to check the Standing Orders in respect of questions she will see that it spells out what they are allowed to contain and what they are not allowed to contain and she will see that that kind of reference to material is out of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Minister’s earlier answer to Mr Boscawen imply that he is contemplating amending the Broadcasting Act to allow wealthy vested interests to spend as much as they like during an election campaign; or if that is not what he was implying then what was he trying to say? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I say to Mr Goff that I was referring to the first part of the question which was “Does the Minister support free speech”. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members should show respect to other members in the House. 
Chester Borrows 
: What reports has the Minister seen regarding the potential cross-party support for reform of electoral laws? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I have been sufficiently encouraged by statements made by the Leader of the Opposition since the election that suggest there is now a willingness to participate in a bipartisan approach to the reform of electoral administration. Because cross-party consensus has historically been the hallmark of electoral reform in New Zealand the Government believes this path is most likely to lead to enduring legislative frameworks. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister think it fair and reasonable that at the last election ACT was restricted to $100000 while the taxpayer contributed around $1 million to each of Labour and National’s broadcasting spend; if so would he consider allowing smaller political parties like ACT to spend their own money at least to match the two big old parties? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am sure that all issues of fairness and matters relating to parties of all sizes both those represented presently and those represented potentially in this House in the future will be taken into consideration and factored into an enduring legislative framework solution which we all hope all parties will participate in. 
Agriculture—Speech from the Throne 
10.  
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Is he aware of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry briefing to incoming Minister that states: “The agriculture food and forestry industries are the core of our economy major determinants of our employment and social well being and key drivers of our land water and biological resource use”; if so how many times was the word “agriculture” used in the Speech from the Throne? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Yes I am aware of that briefing and I was extremely pleased to see that the briefing recognises what National policy has been for the last many years. Unlike the Opposition we have always supported New Zealand agriculture and we have never considered it a sunset industry as Labour did previously. The word “agriculture” was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne but more important the speech promised action in areas of real concern to farmers such as the Resource Management Act a more balanced emissions trading scheme increased infrastructure and the removal of inefficient red tape—all areas that the member and his colleagues did nothing about over the last 9 years. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I recall you stating publicly that you would take a firmer line in terms of the nature of ministerial answers and certain kinds of questions. Indeed we had a discussion about these matters. This question asked first whether the minister was aware of something to which the answer is “yes” or “no” and second a very simple closed question “if so how many times was the word ‘agriculture’ used in the Speech from the Throne?” and the answer to that question is “A number.” I think this is a very good example of the kind of question where you were implying you would require Ministers to actually answer the question rather than go off into a broad political dissertation. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member may not have heard but I said the word “agriculture” was mentioned in the speech and then went on to mention a number of things that were mentioned in the speech as well and which were far more important to New Zealand farmers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On the point of order made by the Hon Dr Cullen I accept absolutely that where Ministers are asked a question we want to try to avoid lots of additional information being provided in answers because the Standing Orders do require them to be more succinct. I thank the honourable member for reminding me of that and I am sure Ministers will want to make sure they improve order in the House by following that line. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can I assume then that the real answer to the primary question is that the Government never mentioned the importance of agriculture or the primary industries to the New Zealand economy at all in the Speech from the Throne; if so is this the example of the neglect of the backbone of our economy that we can expect from a Government run by downtown finance market traders? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: As I answered earlier agriculture was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. But I went back and researched a Speech from the Throne given in 1999 when Labour became the Government and in that particular speech agriculture was not mentioned apart from this comment: “New Zealand remains overdependent upon the production and exporting of commodities.” There was the Labour Government again signalling that it had no interest in agriculture whatsoever. 
Colin King 
: What other reports has the Minister seen from the rural community on the Government’s Speech from the Throne? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have seen a number of very positive reports on the Speech from the Throne including a press release dated 9 December 2008 from New Zealand’s leading rural sector organisation Federated Farmers stating that farmers are “pleased Government is on the same page” that farmers are “encouraged by a new Government that values the real builders of the economy” and that National’s promises are “like green grass to farmers”—very high praise indeed. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Why would anyone believe that our primary industries are even vaguely on this Government’s agenda or the Minister’s agenda when the Government’s own outline of its programme for the next 3 years never mentioned once our primary industries the word “farming” the word “forestry” the words “scientific research” or even the word “export”? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: What the Speech from the Throne outlined were the areas of concern to farmers and this Government is intent on doing something about those not on ignoring the issues or on making compliance worse as that member did while he was the Minister of Agriculture. 
Colin King 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on rural representation at a Government level? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have seen that this current Government is well represented by rural interests. We have a number of members who are actively farming. We compare that with the Opposition which to date has not even bothered to name its own Opposition spokesperson on agriculture. That is how much interest Labour is showing in New Zealand agriculture. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Was reference to the future of our agriculture industries omitted from the Speech from the Throne because the Prime Minister ignored the advice or submissions of the now Minister of Agriculture Mr Carter or was it because the Minister never made any submissions whatever to the speech? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member might have sought the call before giving his answer but we will take the answer as given. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I seek leave to table the Speech from the Throne in 2005 and the Speech from the Throne in 1999 where agriculture and science were part of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I seek leave to table the Speech from the Throne dated 21 December 1999 in which Labour claims that New Zealand is over-dependent on agriculture. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? 
Hon Member 
: It’s just been tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I heard—and I stress as I heard—I thought the Hon Jim Anderton sought to table the Speeches from the Throne for 2005 and 1999. The honourable Minister sought to table the Speech from the Throne for which year? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Just to clarify I understood that the member sought to table the Speeches from the Throne for 2008 and 2005. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was difficult to hear because of all the interjections. I ask the Hon Jim Anderton which documents he sought to table. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: It was the Speech from the Throne in 1999 and in 2005. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Was there any objection to those two documents being tabled? There is no objection. I ask the Hon David Carter which document he seeks to table. There are no further documents. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For the third time today when you were on your feet the Leader of the House carried on speaking at some length while he was on his feet. I suggest that at this early stage of the Parliament it would be wise to draw to the attention of members of the House that when you are on your feet the rest of us should be sitting down and showing you appropriate respect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member and say to him that I hope he just remembers it himself as once before today the same thing happened. 
Te Puni Kokiri—Focus on Maori Potential 
11.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Kua tau nga whakaaro o te Minita ki te arotahi o Te Puni Kokiri mo te pumanawa nohopuku Maori? 
[ 
Is the Minister satisfied with the focus of Te Puni Kokiri on Maori potential? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
:  
Katahi ano ka timata nga korero a nga apiha o Te Puni Kokiri ki a ahau. Haere pai ana nga korero engari ka marama pai ahau ki tenei kaupapa te pumanawa nohopuku Maori a  he pai ki ahau. He tino pai ki ahau tenei pumanawa ataahua. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have not had an interpretation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Quite right. I beg your pardon. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Talks between Te Puni Kokiri officials and me have just commenced. Good progress has been made and I am better informed about the Maori Potential Approach. I am impressed by it. 
] 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What does he consider has been achieved by the Maori Potential Approach? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The Maori Potential Approach has promoted a conscious shift across Government—also a mind-shift—identifying positive outcomes for Maori going forward and has provided a very strong platform for effective relationships between Maori and the Government. It was developed from within the Te Puni Kokiri policy area and has its focus totally on the positive areas. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Can the Minister explain to the House how the Government’s law that takes away the rights of workers in their first 90 days can possibly help Maori reach their full potential? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: As the Minister of Maori Affairs— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just check with you about the relevance of that question to the primary question. The primary question focused on Te Puni Kokiri and its approach into the future. I want to check whether the question from the previous Minister is appropriate under that banner. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The primary question asked whether the Minister was satisfied in terms of the focus by Te Puni Kokiri on Maori potential. That opens up questions around Maori potential and indeed on advice that the Minister may have received on certain matters relating to Maori potential. I realise it could be a difficult question but it is perfectly in order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the honourable member makes that the primary question does have a range of possible openings in it. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Our party as a party spoke against that law and as a Minister seeking to promote potential amongst the community I also voted against it. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: How does the Minister think the Government’s tax changes can possibly help Maori reach their full potential when the vast majority of Maori who earn between $24000 and $44000 are worse off because of the law he supported last week? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I do not think they help Maori at all but Maori are not worse off and let us be clear about that; they are still in exactly the same position. But I would point out that those changes were part of the agreement on confidence and supply that we entered into and we know exactly where we are on that issue. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Did the Minister receive any advice from his Maori Party MPs on what benefits will be delivered to Maori earning between $24000 and $44000 that will lift Maori potential? 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Following the line taken by other members earlier the question asked about the views of the Maori Party and that is outside the realm of ministerial responsibility. I ask you to consider that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The question asked whether the Minister had received advice from certain people. Who those people are is actually quite irrelevant. One could ask whether the Minister had received advice from these people those people or any people. It was a perfectly legitimate question. Ministers may seek advice from anybody. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: As a member who is new to challenging some of the decisions in our House I noted earlier Mr Speaker that you talked about parties explaining party policy. The question talked about members of the Maori Party and under that view is the question still relevant and in order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am happy to rule on this point of order. In so far as the Minister was asking whether the Minister had received advice from anyone that is a perfectly fair question and the answer can be yes or no as to whether there was advice. But asking about advice from party people as distinct from officials would not be in order because the Minister has no responsibility for any advice he might receive from party members. He does have responsibility for advice he receives from officials. I am sure members will understand the difference. Members can ask him as Minister whom he received advice from; the answer to that may be yes or no. But only advice from officials is relevant to his role as Minister. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I certainly do not want to question your ruling but I would like to seek some clarification. Of course it would be completely inappropriate to ask Dr Sharples about National Party policy because Dr Sharples is a co-leader of the Maori Party. We have always been able to ask questions about Mr Key and National Party policy. Mr Key asked questions about the previous Prime Minister and Labour Party policy because obviously she was the leader of the Labour Party in the House. So it does seem to me that we would be in a rather strange position if a Maori Party co-leader who is a Minister cannot be asked questions about matters relating to Maori Party policy and input from his colleagues on policy. Similar questions to those have been asked in the past in the context of the Labour Party the National Party or whatever party it may be. We now just happen to have Ministers who are not members of one of the two major parties. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That is almost a contradiction of what Dr Cullen has so eloquently argued in the past. It would seem that the question simply is whether question time is confined to Dr Sharples’ responsibilities as a Minister or whether it is open to members asking Dr Sharples anything about anything he has spoken of in a political sense. I would make a strong case as Dr Cullen has done in the past for delineating between the responsibilities that Helen Clark had as leader of the Labour Party as opposed to her responsibilities as Prime Minister and suggest that in Dr Sharples’ case his responsibilities as a Minister inside that portfolio or any of the portfolios for which he is responsible should be the limit of reach in the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If one was asking about Dr Sharples’ interaction with his colleagues about a matter outside his ministerial portfolio then to object to that would be perfectly appropriate. But the question was about his discussion with his colleagues about matters inside his portfolio—that is in relation to the actual nature of the question asked which was about Maori potential. That is broad but then that is the very nature of a policy ministry; it covers a very wide range of areas and any areas that are relevant within that ministry’s work can come up. Mr Speaker I would find your ruling very strange because if we take that point then we could ask Dr Sharples whether he had sought advice from various iwi leaders about Maori potential and whether he had sought advice from local authorities about Maori potential but not whether he had sought advice from his own Maori Party colleagues about Maori potential. I would find that a very strange position for us to end up in. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that members have raised a serious issue and it is obviously one that we need to think about very carefully. The Minister clearly has responsibility for Government policy but he is not responsible for members of the Maori Party in this House because those members are not party to the Government in that regard. He has no responsibility as a Minister for the actions of the Maori Party. That is where we have to be a little careful and I want to be very careful in my ruling not to expand what has traditionally been the accepted scope of question time. As I said before I saw nothing wrong with the Minister being asked who had given him advice but the question as I heard it related to the nature of what certain Maori Party people had said to the Minister. I believe that the point of order raised by Te Ururoa Flavell was a valid one in that the Minister is not accountable in this House for the advice given to him by those Maori Party members. If it had been official advice—from officials—that would be different. I do not believe I have changed the accepted interpretation of the Standing Orders. I am very happy to discuss the issue further with members of the Opposition because it is an important issue and it is not going to go away and I want to make sure that I am fair to all sides of the House. But on this occasion I will accept the point of order of Te Ururoa Flavell and rule the question out of order. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Did the Minister receive advice from any Government Maori MPs on the benefits of what would be delivered to Maori earning between $24000 and $44000 to lift Maori potential; if so did he agree with that advice? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is absolutely at liberty to answer the question in a way that he chooses. “Yes.” was a perfectly adequate answer. He does not need to add to it. 
Hekia Parata 
: Ka pehea te Minita Maori mohio ai ki te tutuki angitu te pumanawa tipuranga Maori? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
How will the Minister of Maori Affairs know when Maori potential is being successfully achieved? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Kua hangaia e Te Puni Kokiri nga tikanga kia taea e tatou te kite kua haere pewhea tenei kaupapa. Ka taea tatou te kite i te pumanawa o te Maori hei te wa ka tu rangatira ai te Maori i roto i ana kaupapa matauranga oranga tangata whakahaere kaipakihi me te hanga whakataunga ia ra ia ra mo tona ake oranga a komua me te eke ki enei taumata ia ra ia ra kare anake i te wa kotahi. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Te Puni Kokiri has created measures that will enable us to assess where the potential is. We will see Maori succeeding in education in improved health and well-being in owning and operating their own businesses and in making powerful decisions every day about their quality of life in the future. Achieving these will become a daily thing not just something done on a one-off basis. 
] 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Ki te Minita he aha etahi huarahi ke atu e whakaarohia nei hei whakahihiko i te ara pumawana mo taua te Maori? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What robust changes will he make to the Maori Potential Approach for us in Maoridom? 
] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Mai ra ano Te Puni Kokiri e rapu tikanga kia tutuki ai nga wawata nga tikanga tumanako o te iwi ahakoa ko wai te kawanatanga tenei kawanatanga tetahi atu. Ko te mahi nui maku pea te tuhituhi i nga tikanga a te kawanatanga nei me nga kaupapa here o te tari ki nga wawata ki nga tumanako o te iwi Maori. Kia haere ngatahi ai i te whakaaro kotahi. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Te Puni Kokiri has for a very long time looked at strategies whereby people’s hopes and aspirations are fulfilled regardless of who is in Government— whether it is this one or that one. The most important thing for me to do is perhaps to align this Government’s manifesto and the department’s policies in respect to the aspirations and hopes of the Maori people so that they go together with the same thought in mind. 
] 
Incandescent Light Bulbs—Ban 
12.  
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Will the Government be moving to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am delighted to inform the House that I have issued firm instructions to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to stop its plans to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs. This Government in stark contrast to the previous Government and the previous Minister of Energy David Parker rejects the idea that the Government knows best and must constantly meddle in the lives of New Zealanders. If people wish to buy incandescent light bulbs then this Government will not stop them from doing so. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Why is the Government not going to ban incandescent light bulbs? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are a number of excellent reasons why we have not moved to ban those light bulbs. The first is that this Government believes that choice not compulsion and the ability for individuals to make their own decisions about what sorts of lives they want to lead and what contribution they want to make to climate change is far better than nanny State telling them what to do. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can the Minister confirm that it has never been a New Zealand Government policy to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs but rather to phase out some incandescent light bulbs as a range of identically performing high-efficiency alternatives come on to the market and that that policy has just been adopted across the European Union saving the equivalent of the entire electricity consumption of Romania; if he can confirm that would he care to tell the House why he is ramming this country into reverse gear? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Supplementary question. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh sorry! No. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister in reply. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have answered. 
Hon Members 
: We didn’t hear. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I gave the House an answer. 
Urgency 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill and the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2; any maiden statements to be made at times determined by the Business Committee; and a motion to adjourn the House and adopt the sitting dates for 2009 
. I have moved this motion in accordance with the requirements of the Standing Orders. I wish further to signal to the House that although it is the Government’s intention to take those first two bills through all stages it is not our intention to do anything other than make progress and as much progress as possible on Government orders of the day Nos 1 and 2. The House will of course consider the sitting times for next year in the adjournment motion later in the week. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This of course is not a debatable motion and I am certainly not trying to debate it but there is a requirement for the Minister to give a reason. He did not actually give a reason. He stated that this was in accordance with the Standing Orders and then outlined very helpfully I think to the House the nature of the business that is to be considered. But he does have to give a reason for urgency. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can give as much or as little reason as he chooses to give. I believe that his explanation of the issues behind urgency was quite helpful to the House. In future the Minister may choose to give more reason than he did but that is a matter for his judgment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 It seems to me that he gave a “how” not a “why” if I can put it that way. He explained to us how things are going to happen and it was very helpful. I thank him very much for that—I appreciated it. But he has to give a reason. The reason does not have to be a big one. It can be that this motion is required to meet the Government’s requirements for legislation to be passed before Christmas or before the House rises for the Christmas adjournment—whatever it may be. But it is actually a reason a “why” that has to be given not a “how”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just deal with this issue. As I understand the Standing Orders if the Opposition feels an inadequate reason has been given the Opposition may not support the motion and that is the remedy it has of course. But if the Minister is happy with the explanation he has given the question is that the motion be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Abstentions 5 
Maori Party 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill 
First Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I move  
That the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill be now read a first time. 
 The biofuel legislation passed by the previous Government in September of this year established a biofuel obligation requiring a proportion of the petrol and diesel market to be sourced from biofuels increasing to a level of 2.5 percent by 2012. The obligation came into force on 1 October this year. This bill repeals the obligation. 
I emphasise at the outset of my speech that the Government is supportive of the use of biofuel in New Zealand. A number of exciting biofuel developments are taking place around the country that the National Party has watched with interest for some time now. There is no doubt that biofuels will play a big role in our energy mix in the future. Indeed some companies like Gull were using sustainable biofuel well before the obligation came into force and they will continue to do so. So-called second-generation biofuels produced from things like wood waste and algae are available to be produced sustainably and will increase the security of our fuel supply whilst reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. There is general agreement that biofuels will be part of our energy future. 
The question that needs to be asked is what is the best way to ensure that biofuels are added gradually into the fuel mix in New Zealand. The previous Government as I have said regarded a mandatory approach as the best way to do that. Companies supplying petrol and diesel were compelled by law to add increasing amounts of biofuel to their fuel blends. The new Government takes a different approach which partly reflects our philosophical difference from the previous Government. It also reflects the considerable evidence that the mandatory approach will load uncertain costs on to consumers and further will lead to the importation of biofuels from overseas with no guarantees that they had been sustainably produced. This is a Government that believes in choice not in compulsion. We think that biofuels should be introduced through companies responding to commercial environmental and market considerations not because the Government simply tells companies to introduce them. 
Let me briefly explain the two problems with the mandatory biofuel obligation and why the Government is repealing it. The first problem is that the obligation will lead to oil companies importing biofuel from overseas that may be produced from unsustainable sources. Many first-generation biofuels like soy corn and rapeseed compete directly with the use of those crops in the food market and as animal feed. There have been protests all around the world against biofuel production from those sources because it has caused at least in part increased food prices. The United Nations food agency has for that reason called biofuels “a crime against humanity”. In addition some biofuels have increased the deforestation of rainforests in places like Brazil and Indonesia. Moreover as researchers have analysed the full lifecycle of greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels it has become increasingly clear that when the emissions from agricultural cultivation processing and distribution are included it raises the question whether biofuels actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions. 
There is not a large enough amount of biofuel produced in New Zealand at this time for the industry here to supply oil companies with all that they would require to meet the obligation. The previous Minister of Energy the Hon David Parker admitted that this was the case and the previous Government mainly at the insistence of the Green Party asked officials to draft a sustainability standard that would apply to imported biofuels to ensure that those fuels came from sustainably produced sources. Unfortunately those sustainability standards are not yet in place and are not likely to be for quite some time. No country in the world has yet developed such standards; the European Union has been trying for many years. Yet the obligation for companies to sell biofuels in New Zealand has been in place since 1 October. Indeed by 31 October under the current law companies subject to the obligation will have to issue their first report proving they have complied with the obligation. 
The new Government believes that biofuels the production of which contributes to deforestation and destruction of arable land should not be sold in New Zealand yet that is a real risk of having the biofuel obligation in place. The new Government agrees with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who recommended against Parliament passing the Biofuel Bill earlier this year because she said doing so would damage New Zealand’s clean green image. The commissioner’s report stated: “Importing biofuel while avoiding contributing to the highly damaging environmental and social impacts occurring in countries like”— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no not in the bill as reported back not in the bill as passed. Come on get your facts right Gerry! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —“Indonesia and Malaysia would be difficult and very expensive.” For the benefit of the member opposite who wishes to yell his way through this offering to the House I state again what the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment told Parliament. She said: “Importing biofuel while avoiding contributing to the highly damaging environmental and social impacts occurring in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia would be difficult and very expensive.” 
I want to make it clear that the repeal bill that I have introduced today does not abolish present sustainability standards for biofuels being promulgated by the Government. Indeed we have asked the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry for the Environment to continue their work to develop those standards for use in New Zealand. Some companies in the future may wish to import biofuel from overseas and when they do so it is important that it comes from sustainable sources and is measured against standards that have been developed in New Zealand. The Government therefore regards the officials’ work on sustainability standards as very important and the Ministry of Economic Development will continue that effort. But in the absence of those sustainability standards it is important there is no biofuel obligation and therefore no immediate likelihood of imported biofuels produced from unsustainable sources coming into this country. 
The second problem with the mandatory obligation is that it will load uncertain costs on to consumers. The evidence from the oil companies to the select committee was that meeting the obligation when fully implemented would add anywhere from 2c to 8c a litre to the cost of fuel. In these tough economic times the Government does not regard that as a desirable outcome especially when the environmental benefits of doing so are so very unclear. We believe that biofuels should be introduced gradually and when biofuels offer the transport fleet cost advantages rather than cost increases that will be the time the market itself will start demanding their greater use inside our economy. 
With regard to that I want to signal now that the Government is concerned about the imbalance in the tax treatment between bio-ethanol and bio-diesel. Bio-ethanol sales incur associated excise tax like the petrol it substitutes whereas bio-diesel and mineral diesel incur road-user charges equally. There is no meaningful public policy justification for that distortion. I am particularly concerned that it disadvantages New Zealand biofuel producers whose current focus is bio-diesel in favour of imported bio-ethanol. The Government is undertaking further work in this area and will look at applying a consistent tax incentive for sustainable biofuels that exempts bio-ethanol and bio-diesel from excise charges and road-user charges in proportion to the blend. So in future a 10 percent bio-diesel or bio-ethanol blend will get a 10 percent exemption in excise taxes. 
In conclusion let me reiterate that the National-led Government supports the introduction of biofuel as a part of New Zealand’s energy mix. However we are opposed to the previous Government’s mandatory obligation. In the absence of sustainability standards nobody can claim that there would be a positive environmental outcome and further the obligation would load uncertain costs on to consumers. Neither of these is desirable yet they are real risks if the mandatory obligation stays in place. I ask that the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill be considered properly and reasonably by this House in order that New Zealanders can be comfortable that the fuel mix they are using each day does not add unduly to our carbon dioxide emissions profile. 
Debate interrupted. 
Maiden Statements 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Honourable members as was the practice during previous maiden statements I would ask that when each member has concluded we refrain from congratulatory responses so that all members have a fair chance to be able to make their maiden statements. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Nearly every maiden speech that I have read has begun with the member congratulating Mr Speaker on his appointment to high office and I congratulate you Mr Deputy Speaker and also Mr Speaker the Hon Lockwood Smith. I congratulate the Hon Lockwood Smith not only as a matter of professional courtesy but because of our personal friendship going back to a beer we shared at Auckland University’s Shadows bar when he was getting a hard time as education Minister and I was a pimply young Nat. 
Indeed I joined the National Party at a young age not because of any longstanding family connection to the greatest political party in the history of our nation but because then as now I believed in less not more government in individuals doing as much for themselves as possible and in reward for hard work and enterprise. Then as now I was generally economically dry and socially conservative but never unthinkingly or uncaringly so. We need to do what works not what sounds good in theory. In human affairs matters are often shades of grey and not simply black or white. In economic times like these rigid adherence to orthodoxies may not solve things for ordinary Kiwis. World-class health and education systems are essential. New Zealanders clearly understand this and voted on 8 November for a John Key - led Government and the fresh approach to our nation’s challenges that it brings; they voted to move away from a slavish adherence to ideology towards a new style of politics that is inclusive dignified and decent and that believes that politics can be noble and deliver greater justice. 
Can I today in this hallowed hall acknowledge my wonderful family and my amazing wife. My mother is from Waihi dairy-farming stock and my father from Frankton in Hamilton. Like so many in this nation my mother’s ancestors came from England while my father’s mother Naku Joseph was Ngati Maniapoto and came from rural Oparure near Te Kuiti. She remained in an unhappy relationship with her hard-living husband Alf Bridges because in those days early last century she thought that marriage to a Pakeha man was bettering herself and her children’s prospects. She continually told my father that she wanted her children and grandchildren to have letters behind their names without really understanding what that meant. The dysfunction my father grew up with and the sacrificial example he saw from his mother played large roles in his becoming a Baptist minister and dedicating his life to service in many parts of New Zealand. 
All my childhood and teenage years were in Te Atatu North. Just as my father has lived a life of service so has my mother—bringing up six children of whom I am the youngest by some way. All six of us children despite a lack of material wealth have gone on to higher education the surest path from poverty to prosperity that I know of. 
In relation to my amazing wife Natalie I acknowledge my debt of gratitude to her. She has sacrificed a lot because of my journey to Parliament. She is the daughter of a Welshman and a Polish woman and she and I met in England while both of us were studying at Oxford University. She is here in New Zealand because she married a Kiwi. New Zealand must develop a fuller policy for stemming the brain drain than intermarriage; a John Key - led Government will. 
My story is that I am the product of the wonderful family and world-class health and education systems with which I grew up. I am grateful to all hues of Government for the provision of health and education systems of such a standard. Following on from degrees at Auckland and Oxford universities I have worked as a litigation lawyer and a Crown prosecutor prosecuting over a hundred jury trials in the last several years in my electorate Tauranga. These trials have included trials for the city’s worst murderers rapists drug dealers and violent offenders. 
Martin Luther King Jnr once said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and in many jury trials I have seen injustices—indeed manifest indignities—performed on the weakest in our society as court rules worked against them. We need to make law that redraws the balance between victim and community on the one hand and criminal accused on the other. Victims and the community deserve better than the so-called justice I have seen served up to them on occasion and although there has been tinkering previously more reform is needed to make the jury trial a more just institution. In short juries need to be trusted with more information and victims need to be treated more evenly when compared with accused. 
Just as constant vigilance and scrutiny are required in relation to the ancient tradition of the jury trial so is diligence necessary regarding our rules for elections and our constitutional arrangements. Nothing is ever perfect; there is always a better way. 
My already-mentioned ancestry or whakapapa of course makes me who I am. In reference to it again let us remember what another MP for Tauranga the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in his maiden speech to this House which is equally apposite for myself: “I am a New Zealander I am a Maori and I am also a lawyer. New Zealand is not a monotonous garden where every flower is the same; it is a garden where the diversity of the blooms enriches the view.” The diversity of my ancestry enriches my outlook and deepens my empathy for all New Zealanders no matter their race or background. 
Can I at this point acknowledge Winston Peters whom I stood against in Tauranga. As I said on the evening of the election Winston Peters I respect you and I acknowledge that I learnt a lot from you while we jousted on the campaign. You have been amongst the very longest-serving members in this House and now you are no longer here. You will nevertheless be long remembered and I wish you well in the future. Can I also acknowledge another colourful Tauranga politician—we seem to have had a few of them—Bob Clarkson. Bob you have been a great servant of Tauranga inside and out of Parliament and you put National back on the map in Tauranga. I know that your high level of service will continue and I also wish you well in the future. 
Tauranga has attracted politicians of colour because it is a place of singular loveliness. Its beaches weather and people are special and renowned throughout our nation. Tauranga is a jewel in the crown that is our nation. And no longer is it the sleepy little seaside village of yesteryear. Since the early 1980s it has grown exponentially from approximately 50000 people to become a vibrant city of the future with a population of over 110000. School rolls have burgeoned as young families have flooded in. A baby boom has occurred in our city. In years to come and perhaps even while I am still privileged to represent it Greater Tauranga is on some estimates set to rival both Hamilton and Wellington in population terms. Accordingly National Ministers can be assured I will fiercely advocate my city’s cause on the back of a strong case based on growth in numbers now and going forward. 
As a student in Te Atatu North and then at Auckland and Oxford universities and later as a professional in Auckland and then in Tauranga I have always kept the fire of my politics alight. Indeed since 1992 I have continuously held office in the National Party at nearly all levels. 
Although to many this is not a selling point I say to this House that I have long dreamt of standing here and delivering my maiden speech. Just as in some quarters it is no longer de rigueur to believe in jury trials so in others Parliament is a place out of fashion. Nevertheless I believe in it and want to do all I can to uphold its integrity and central position in our society. As I have said I have long dreamt of standing here and delivering my maiden speech. I have wanted to for my ancestors and family and for my future family and people. I have wanted to as a pimply young Nat and now as a man in his 30s because then and now I have realised that Parliament is a place that matters. This is still the place that makes a difference to the Naku Josephs of yesteryear and to the Simon Bridgeses of tomorrow. This is still the place that can deliver world-class health and education systems and can ensure that individuals get ahead regardless of their race or background. 
Although it is perhaps unusual to quote from a valedictory speech in a maiden speech let us remember former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s final words to the House of Commons last year: “to all my colleagues from different political parties. Some may belittle politics but we who are engaged in it know that it is where people stand tall. Although I know it has many harsh contentions it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster. If it is on occasions the place of low skulduggery it is more often the place for the pursuit of noble causes.” My prayer in this House is to always pursue noble causes and greater justice on behalf of all who need it in Tauranga and further afield; to be in the service of those ends and no other master. 
Can I end by once again congratulating you Mr Deputy Speaker and Mr Speaker the Hon Lockwood Smith and by thanking my wonderful family my amazing wife my multitude of terrific Tauranga supporters and my God for getting me here. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 E nga mana e nga reo e nga karangatanga maha ahakoa no whea ahakoa ko wai mai i te Whare Paremata nei a puta atu ki nga topito o Aotearoa a puta atu ki te ao whanui tonu tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. E tu ana ahau hei mangai mo Kirikiriroa ki te Hauauru ki roto o Waikato no reira he mihi hoki ki a Kingi Tuheitia te pou herenga waka pai marire. He mihi hoki ki te whare ariki o te Heuheu o Ngati Tuwharetoa. Ka mihi hoki ki o tatou tupuna matua i haina nei i te Tiriti o Waitangi i tera rau tau. Ko to ratou wawata kia noho tahi ratou hei iwi kotahi. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
To the powers languages and many callings regardless where and whom from within this House of Parliament to the extremities of New Zealand and out to the world at large greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to you all. I stand as representative of Hamilton West Waikato and therefore acknowledge King Tuheitia the mooring pillar of canoes. Good and peaceful tidings. Greetings also to the noble house of te Heuheu of Ngati Tuwharetoa. Acknowledgments as well to our ancestors who signed the Treaty of Waitangi in the past hundred years. Their wish was that they live together as one. So greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us all 
.] 
Mr Deputy Speaker I join other members in congratulating you and your three colleagues on your election. Your collective dignity patience and humour will serve you and us well in the years ahead although I dare say all those qualities will be tested from time to time. 
I also extend my respects to His Excellency the Governor-General. I am proud of our constitutional heritage and Westminster traditions and a firm believer in the institution of the Commonwealth. It is a pleasure to see the House presided over this afternoon by my friend the member for Waikato not only because we are from the same region but because you sir walked an equally long and uphill path on your journey to this place. I say to members that I lost the selection contest in the then Karapiro electorate to Mr Tisch 9 years ago and subsequently served on his first campaign committee. Sir I thank you for returning the favour this year as my caucus mentor on my campaign committee and for your encouragement over many years. 
I also wanted to greet my colleague Dr Hutchison. I lost a selection contest to that member in the Port Waikato electorate 10 years ago. At the end of it he promised me hospitality in Bellamy’s at a mutually convenient time. I had hoped the good doctor would share my view that tonight would be an ideal time for him to recall his generous offer but I am advised that he took one look at my rather large contingent of family and friends in the gallery today and fled the country. To my other fellow Waikato MPs on both sides of the House greetings especially to my friends from across our beautiful river. 
I lost the selection contest to David Bennett in Hamilton East 4 years ago. At the time I was mystified but I came to understand some time later when our local paper named him the Waikato’s sexiest politician. When not striding the catwalk David Bennett is very active at home and I welcome the opportunity to work closely with him for the good of our city. 
Like Mr Speaker I have aspired from a tender age to serve in this House so I am humbled and a bit emotional to be here in my cramped corner at the back of the House at last delivering my maiden speech having been a candidate in every general election New Zealand has held under the MMP system. In fact this is the second time I have risen to take a call. I was alarmed to receive a Hansard transcript to check last Saturday afternoon and I thank members for this courtesy as it would have been hugely deflating after five attempts to enter this House if my doomed attempt to move a closure motion under urgency had been recorded for posterity as my maiden speech. At least I could have imagined that members would remember every word of it although given the difficulties some of my colleagues experienced with the motion’s construction perhaps even that small consolation would have been denied me. 
My first real opportunity—or so I thought—came in Tauranga in 2002. To the wonderful team who supported me there led by Sandy Garland Barbara Steele and Margaret Townshend my warm regards and gratitude. I shall mention one other young lady from that campaign in a moment. In retrospect it was not a great year to be National’s candidate against a resurgent Winston Peters. Timing is everything in politics! I watched with admiration Bob Clarkson achieve my goal 3 years later and I am delighted that Simon Bridges has now secured such a strong mandate in that city. 
No candidate could have wished for a more professional or loyal committee than I enjoyed this year in Hamilton West under the inspiring leadership of Ken Williamson. Three of them are here today: Lance and Dulcie Coombes and Peter Osborne; so is my youngest supporter Andrew Osborne and his brother Craig. Others are watching at home with my electorate chair: Barbara Weedon who very capably leads our dedicated electorate executive. To the committee and executive team and all who supported our campaign in a myriad of ways this year I extend heartfelt thanks and my pleasure that your commitment resulted in success. Similarly to the party’s board and leadership to our regional team led by Jo Stuart the ever-helpful Alison Renwick and my campaign secretary Jenny Kain my sincere thanks. Ours was a true team effort but I am sure that none of my team will mind if I single out Dulcie Coombes for a special mention. Her efforts generosity and unfailing enthusiasm are humbling. Every candidate needs a Dulcie—thank you FG! 
Politics is in my blood. My paternal grandfather was an Auckland City councillor Auckland Harbour Board member and a friend of former Prime Minister Gordon Coates. His son and daughter-in-law—my parents—had been members of the National Party for more than half a century when my father died and my mother remains an enthusiastic member and supporter. As a child I remember endless debates in our home between my parents and their farming friends from Ngahinapouri south-west of Hamilton over whether Sir Keith Holyoake or Sir Les Munro would make a better leader of the National Party. It struck me then as a strange way to socialise but something obviously rubbed off on their youngest child for by the time I was 13 and glued to the televised coverage of the State funeral of Prime Minister Norman Kirk I was hooked. 
I have not spent all of the intervening time campaigning but I think my wife and children might dispute that. To my wife Anne whom I do not thank often enough but who is with me still after five consecutive general elections in which I have actively campaigned I extend heartfelt thanks and my love. She is here today with our younger daughter Jessica. Anne and I celebrated our 20th wedding anniversary last month and I am so proud of the family that we have raised. I am pleased that my elder sister Janne brother Guy and godson Oliver are with Anne Jessica and my mother today in the gallery. All my family supported and encouraged my ambition over many years. This is their day as much as it is mine. 
I feel keenly the absence of three people whom I always envisaged being here for this moment each of whom greatly encouraged my political thinking and involvement. One is the remarkable Mrs Ursula McGrath who is watching her boys—Simon Bridges and Tim Macindoe—with her family in Tauranga this afternoon. At nearly 87 her energy determination and Christian faith are an example to my generation. Her unwavering support for my candidacy and hard work in Tauranga 6 years ago were hugely encouraging during a campaign that was hardly a morale-boosting experience in other respects. We share a desire to see our nation’s children taught the values that underpin patriotism moral courage and good citizenship. All that Mrs McGrath would ever ask for from me would be that I keep working for those ideals and I give her that commitment today. 
The second was my brother-in-law Gerald Smith the son of those farming friends from Ngahinapouri whom I mentioned earlier. He first brought me to this House 31 years ago as a guest of his local MP Barry Brill when I was still a schoolboy. Sadly he lost his battle with cancer at Christmas last year. For nearly 40 years Gerald farmed on top of the Paekakariki Hill demonstrating a work ethic commitment to his family and strength of character that made a lasting impression on me. 
The third was my father Harley Macindoe a businessman and a sportsman but most of all a family man. Sadly he too is no longer with us having died less than a fortnight before the 2005 general election. He and my mother Jill gave their children the security and example of a stable home with much love a lot of hospitality and plenty of encouragement and opportunities. Dad was no saint but his virtues were many. I feel his presence on my shoulder today knowing how proud he was of all his children and what this moment would have meant to him and what it does mean to my mother. 
I also acknowledge with love and gratitude close family members who are unable to be here: my elder daughter Sarah two of my sisters—Sally and Belinda and their families—and my parents-in-law Michael and Joan Murray. 
My parents made me who I am today and I am convinced that parenting is our greatest responsibility in life. Strong families are our best hope for healthy communities. We should always consider the consequences for our families of decisions made in this House. I am a former teacher a former public servant a former Otago University student politician a former student of Dr Michael Cullen—and of the deputy mayor of Wellington—a former prison tutor at Christchurch Women’s Prison a Kiwibank customer a follower and advocate for the performing arts and a very proud member of the National Party and at last of this honourable House. 
My political role models include “Gentlemen Jack” Marshall Brian Talboys and George Gair National MPs who served our country with distinction; but I also admired Bill Rowling for his intelligence and dignity David Lange for his wit and humanity and many who still serve in this House but will have to wait a little longer for their tributes. 
Eight MPS have served as MPs for Hamilton West since its inception in 1969. They include the aforementioned Sir Les; Dorothy Jelicich; the colourful Mike Minogue who passed away just over a fortnight ago; the very much alive Trevor Mallard; my friends Grant Thomas and Bob Simcock who both since leaving this House have served our city with distinction on our city council where Bob continues to provide outstanding leadership as our mayor; and most recently Martin Gallagher. Three years ago I lost a close contest to Martin. While we debated issues vigorously that year and this we always did in an atmosphere of mutual respect without acrimony or personal attacks despite the additional pressure that those who campaign in marginal electorates always face. Martin generously acknowledged my contribution in the Address in Reply debate that followed his re-election in 2005. Today I place on record not only my respect and appreciation for the contribution that Martin Gallagher made during 12 years of service as the member of Parliament for Hamilton West but also the gratitude of my new constituents from across party lines. Martin is a Hamiltonian through and through. He was highly regarded in our city as a diligent and likable constituency MP. His concession on election night was gracious and generous. I thank him sincerely and know that he will continue to contribute positively to Hamilton albeit in a different capacity in years to come. 
As has been noted by many speakers in this debate the new Government faces major economic challenges and could scarcely have taken office in more difficult circumstances. I am wholly committed to my party’s determination to implement an ambitious programme to secure strong economic growth for our country. Time and time again during our recent election campaign the good folk of Hamilton West voiced their concern to me that their children and grandchildren love their country but no longer feel that it offers them a fair deal or meets their expectations in the delivery of social services or the maintenance of safe caring communities. 
Both sides of my family were among the early generations of European settlers in this country and I am incredibly proud and grateful to be a New Zealander. But like many members of this House I have also spent many years living abroad and I am fortunate to have had that experience. It taught me to appreciate the freedom beauty cultural diversity and lifestyle that we sometimes take for granted but which are such treasured features of our shared heritage. Professionally it taught me a great deal that proved valuable in my former career. 
Our children were born in the UK and may well appreciate in years to come the benefits of holding both New Zealand and European passports. While we were away for more than 5 years we never doubted that we would return to New Zealand because this was where we wanted our children to grow up and to think of as home. That was nearly 20 years ago. Today I fear that young parents in a similar position still feel the tug of home but resist it because they see a low-wage high-tax economy that does not adequately reward enterprise and hard work or provide a social climate conducive to safe healthy lifestyles. For many New Zealand has become merely a holiday destination for grandchildren to meet their grandparents and to glimpse the country of their parents’ birth. I pray that during the next decade we will change that worrying perception. I want our children and theirs to see a worthwhile future here to be proud of this country their country and to contribute fully to making it “God’s own country” once more. Securing sustained economic growth a fair and balanced tax system and higher living standards across all sectors of society will be vital to achieve to that vision. 
I applaud the decision to channel more of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund into New Zealand projects which will preserve and create jobs and accelerate our crucial infrastructural development. Most vital of all projects of course is the completion of the Waikato Expressway. 
But I am convinced that the greatest challenges that our country faces and which our generation of parliamentarians must tackle with all the conviction and energy that we can muster are environmental and social. Whatever one’s view of the subject of climate change or the best means to reduce carbon emissions it is clearly desirable for us all to do our bit to save our planet. We can and must aim to protect and enhance our environment. 
When the Prime Minister as the new leader of our party delivered his landmark “underclass” speech in January of last year I was delighted. He highlighted some of the major concerns that have motivated me to keep seeking a political career for as long as I have. We have major problems and must tackle them with all the energy we can muster both at source to overcome them and in the courts to protect our citizens. The P culture in particular must be confronted. As I was reminded last night at Rhode Street School’s prize-giving in my electorate our country is blessed with many good schools and with talented committed staff all dealing directly with major challenges and the greatest hopes of the 21st century. Let us do everything we can to encourage and promote teaching as a career for our young people. We have in our city a younger than average population and more PhDs per head of population than anywhere else in the country. Our university is a national leader in several disciplines; the Waikato Institute of Technology now known as Wintec is equally dynamic and world class; and our local wananga campus is catering for many who would never previously have aspired to tertiary education. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we have a slight problem here. The member obviously has a time problem. I think members on this side would be happy if leave were sought for him to complete his speech. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Thank you. Continue Tim Macindoe. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I entered this House with hopes and a vision for a generation. Perhaps we need to change our perception of what constitutes success. It could mean breaking a cycle of violence or dependency or it could mean working as a volunteer in one of the myriad of vital not-for-profit or community agencies. It could mean overcoming an addiction or accepting a job that others shun. I believe that all honest work is inherently valuable. I admire those at the margins of our society who often work long and unsociable hours for modest pay in vital but unseen roles. They deserve the real honours. 
To our support partners in the new Government I look forward to a constructive relationship as we set about implementing our shared vision for a better New Zealand. Especially to our colleagues in the Maori Party kia ora tatou. Thank you for the courage and leadership those members have demonstrated. I share their aspirations for improved and mana-enhancing opportunities for their people firmly believing that what is good for Maori is good for our country as a whole. I am absolutely committed to building a lasting relationship between our parties that is founded on mutual respect trust and an overriding belief in the mana and potential of every human being. Kia kaha! Similarly I commit myself to serve the people of Hamilton West with vigour and integrity. May God bless all members of this House and grant us his wisdom and compassion in our service to our nation. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
Papaki kau ana nga wai o Te Moana-nui-a-Toi mai i nga Kuri-a-Wharei ki Tihirau te unga mai o Mataatua. Mai hoki i Maketu ki Tongariro te tauranga mai o Te Arawa. Tihei mauriora! Ki nga tini mate o te wa kua mene ki te po haere haere okioki atu. Tatou nga kanohi ora o ratou ma tena ano tatou katoa. Tena koutou Te Atiwa e manaaki nei i a matou. Kei te hau kainga i takahi mamao mai ki te tautoko i ahau i te rangi nei tena koutou. He uri o Mataatua o Te Arawa me Airani e mihi atu nei. Ko au te matamua o Te Hau Paul te tiamana tuatahi o Te Runanga o Ngati Awa. No reira tena koe e te Mana Whakawa a tena ra tatou katoa e te Whare. Kia ora. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Waters crash upon the shores of the Bay of Plenty from the Dogs of Wharei at Katikati across to Tihirau the landing place of Mataatua. From Maketu to Tongariro also the anchorage of Te Arawa. ’Tis the sneeze of life! To the many deaths of the day who have passed on farewell depart rest in eternal peace. To those of us living descendants of departed ones greetings once again to all of us. Greetings to you Te Atiawa for your hospitality. To the people from home who have travelled from afar to support me today my acknowledgments. I am a descendant of Mataatua Te Arawa and Ireland extending greetings and I am the eldest son of Te Hau Paul the first chairman of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa. So greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us the House. Greetings. 
] 
Firstly let me offer my congratulations to Mr Speaker. His elevation to the highest office in this House is a testament to the long and distinguished public service he has given. I also congratulate my fellow inductees on both sides of the House. We join experienced and wise counsel as we start to share in the mantle of responsibility for overseeing the country’s affairs. In accepting that challenge we each have a valuable contribution to make but in my view what is really important is that we remind ourselves daily what that value proposition is. 
I want to return to that theme a little later. For now let me say that politics was furthest from my mind in my formative years so much so that I had no concept of our country’s democratic processes until my mid-teens and then only because for about a 3-week period prior to an election there seemed much ado about nothing following which everything appeared to return to normal. 
In many ways my life has trodden a familiar path rooted in the traditions of a Catholic rural upbringing exposed to the idealisms of university life and a career that in the early years traversed the public sector and for a much longer period thereafter has been roughed up by the realities of the commercial and voluntary sectors. Throughout I have been driven by the mantra of standing up for what I believe in whether it be as a committee member of the Marist St Pats Rugby Club because I believe taking part in sport and recreation is just one of many ways for our youth to start achieving their potential or as a servant of Ngati Awa resolving a Treaty claim. 
The reason I now stand in this House before you Mr Assistant Speaker is not because I have had an ambition to be a member of Parliament but because I became increasingly concerned at the direction the last administration was taking this country. I believe that there are two primary functions to being a member of Parliament both of equal importance. The first is to represent the people of New Zealand. In the case of a constituent member of Parliament that manifests itself in representing one’s electorate and the citizens within that electorate. The decisions this House makes affect the ordinary lives of every person in every electorate. It is something we must never lose sight of. Speaking of electorates I would welcome the opportunity of working through the issues confronting Hutt South with that electorate’s member of Parliament. Now that he has me to turn to Hutt South is likely to be able to reverse the declining socio-economic indicators that have been occurring in that electorate for some time. The issues confronting residents in Hutt South— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
PAUL QUINN 
: —are the same as those facing all electorates— 
Hon John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech. There is a longstanding convention that members’ maiden speeches are not interrupted and members can take it on the chin from time to time if a member wants to make a comment. If Mr Mallard cannot control himself I suggest that he goes back to his office. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I do not need any assistance; please sit. I did chastise the member. It is a long-held tradition; there will be no interjections. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not a long-term tradition. There have been points of order on maiden speeches on many occasions and they occur on the occasions when individuals breach their responsibility to be non-controversial. That member did that then. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Certainly it has been my experience in this House which goes back to 1993. It is the first experience I have had of it and I would ask the member to contain himself. 
PAUL QUINN 
: The issues confronting residents in Hutt South are the same as those facing all electorates; that is a desperate lack of front-line services. In Hutt South that translates into 3000 residents not having their own doctor because of the general practitioner shortage. Violent crime is on the increase businesses are closing and unemployment is rising. I have no doubt that the policies this Government campaigned on to address these and other challenges facing this country are the right ones. 
I believe that the second primary role members of Parliament have is to provide the leadership necessary to ensure New Zealand is once again acknowledged as a pre-eminent member of the world community. Bookend comments attributable to a very senior member of the previous administration both made within the precincts of this building to me encapsulate everything that was wrong with its oversight of the country. The first made in August 2000 was the words “We won. You lost. Eat that!”. That sneering comment set a reference point for what was to prove a downward-spiralling series of behaviours that oozed negativity and did not engender the leadership necessary to capitalise on years of economic opportunity. The other bookend comment made as the country was winding up in readiness for this year’s election was words to the effect that the election was a fight for power. A fight for power is a fight for control which in turn is a fight to have command over our lives. It is what ordinary New Zealanders refer to as the nanny State. The annals of history will record that the people rejected that style of administration at the ballot box this year. 
Instead the people of New Zealand have opted for the National Party leadership model one based on a value set that provides equal opportunity for all protects individual freedoms embraces choice encourages innovation and enterprise and inspires aspiration. Everyone is encouraged to achieve his or her potential. That is why I am proud to stand today as part of a National Government and acknowledge the already outstanding leadership of our Prime Minister and I look forward to contributing under his leadership to the team effort. That team effort includes a partnership with the Maori Party—a partnership that I welcome. Nga rangatira tena koutou kei te mihi ki a koutou. 
[ 
Greetings to you esteemed ones; I acknowledge you 
.]  
There has been hysterical denunciation of this partnership in some quarters. This denunciation is an affront to freedom of choice as have been the accusations levelled at the Maori Party last week by the Opposition during the passage of the Taxation (Urgent Measures and Annual Rates) Bill through its various stages. Labour members accuse the Maori Party of selling Maori short when under their watch the average income of Maori has gone from being 84 percent of what Pakeha earn to 77 percent. The facts speak for themselves. Under the previous administration most Maori socio-economic indicators deteriorated. No wonder “closing the gaps” disappeared from the vernacular. 
For some time now I have publicly stated my view that the Maori Party is a natural coalition partner for the National Party. Why? Because our value sets are aligned. We are both fiercely protective of property rights. We are both focused on aspirational pathways. We are both determined to provide a framework whereby everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve his or her potential. All the paradigm advances that have occurred to move Maori forward in this country’s short history have in my view occurred under a National Government: the setting up of Apirana Ngata’s land reforms; the introduction of wananga; kohanga reo; Te Mangai Paho; the Te Reo Maori Television Trust; the fisheries settlement; the first Raupatu settlement; and subsequent Treaty settlement processes were driven by a National Government. I welcome the Maori Party as a team member in this Government and I look forward to working with them in advancing the cause of Maoridom—kia kaha. 
Of particular interest to me in this regard is expediting Treaty settlement processes. It is but one specific reason why I now stand in this House. It is my response to the total lack of leadership provided by the previous administration in getting on with the job particularly when it was obvious that there was a better way. I note that it magically found that better way some 6 months out from an election. Another concern is getting the Crown to abide by the commitment to partnership set out in Treaty settlements once those settlements had been agreed. By way of example Ngati Awa has had to go to the High Court and the Court of Appeal to demonstrate that the words in their deed of settlement finally executed in April 2005 mean what they say. One would think after four comprehensive defeats and no victories the message might have got through particularly given some of the findings in the judgments but sadly not. I look forward to the leadership my friend and colleague the Hon Chris Finlayson will bring to this portfolio in ensuring enduring settlements are expedited in the spirit of partnership. 
I now return to the value proposition. This Government has committed itself to going for growth in the knowledge that only through real economic growth will our country once again be able to provide the aspirational pathways that improve the lives of every New Zealander. The great moments of history were achieved against a simple focused vision: Abraham Lincoln set out to abolish slavery and unite a country; John F Kennedy challenged his country to send a man to the moon before the decade of the 1970s arrived; and Bill Gates took the computer to the home. Of course we have our own icons to look up to. Lord Rutherford and Sir Edmund Hillary are but two. A third is Sir Peter Blake and Team New Zealand who benchmarked everything they did against one simple test: will it make the boat go faster? Our partnership with another of our team members the ACT Party calls for the closing of the income gap with our near neighbours by 2025. It is a laudable goal but what happens if Australia slips back or if we pass them by 2015? Whatever we agree on we need to be ready to respond to the challenges of the world. That will take dynamism energy enthusiasm and a fair degree of business smarts. That is what today’s modern National Party brings to New Zealand at this critical time. 
There is one other very important member of our Government team that must be acknowledged and that is the Public Service for it is the Public Service that helps the Government do its work. I have no doubt that under this Government the mana of a neutral Public Service will be restored so that it can in complete confidence give free and frank advice. My one reservation is that at times a silo mentality can be adopted by some departments. We must move past this by bringing greater cohesion and have all departments each day challenge themselves with the question: “How are we contributing to growth today?”. I am proud to be part of a Government that is going for growth. Everything I do as a member of this House will be benchmarked against that and everything we do in this House should strive for the same. That is what this Government’s leadership is focused on and that is what must drive the Public Service. Our guardianship of this country is in relative terms for a short time. Our responsibility is to leave it a better place for those who follow. 
My arrival in this House is not the end of a journey but the beginning of a challenge. In concluding I have already acknowledged Ngati Awa my family and their support for me. I now take the opportunity to acknowledge the National Party and its Wellington metro branches and in particular its president Judy Kirk who has encouraged and cajoled me in moments of doubt. I also take this opportunity to record my indebtedness to certain other people: Ursula Quinn the Sisters of Compassion Therese Pimley Peter McCormack Rose and Bernard Grant Rolland O’Regan and Reg and Geraldine Power. Without their care and support I would not be standing here today. But most of all I thank my wife Viv who although initially a reluctant participant has none the less been prepared to put her own outstanding career on hold and to unselfishly support and allow me to pursue what I believe in. She is my beloved my confidante and my conscience and I thank her. No reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa kahuri. 
Waiata 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate you Mr Assistant Speaker and your associates on your appointments and I wish you all the best for the term of this Parliament. Greetings to all members and to the diverse group of citizens that each member represents. ???! Greetings to you all. 
It is a privilege to stand and present my maiden speech to this forty-ninth New Zealand Parliament. I wish to recognise the Governor-General and the dignified calm that he brings to that office. I should like to pay my respects to the Rt Hon Helen Clark the former Prime Minister and leader of the New Zealand Labour Party. I am very proud to have been a part of the recent campaign under Helen Clark upon whose vision and leadership I believe history will look back favourably. Her vision and leadership have strengthened my Kiwi identity and made me proud to be a New Zealander. Equally I am very proud to have now become the first Chinese member of the Labour caucus serving here under the Hon Phil Goff. I recall that my very first meeting with a Labour Cabinet Minister upon seeking the nomination to run for Parliament was with Phil at his Mount Roskill electorate office. I thank Phil for his support. 
I owe my presence here to many people whom I consider to be my mentors. To name names unfairly omits others but some do need special mention: the Hon Chris Carter for his passion to fight for the values the Labour Party stands for and for his trust and confidence in me; the Hon Dr Michael Cullen; the Hon Lianne Dalziel; the Hon Darren Hughes; the Hon Judith Tizard; the Hon Maryan Street; and the Labour Party president Mike Williams. I also pay tribute to the Hon Parekura Horomia and through him to all our Maori colleagues in the House and to Aotearoa’s tangata whenua. It is to them that we owe a profound debt for the foundation they laid for a bicultural nation that is now multicultural. Kia ora. 
Thanks also go to many of my free-thinking friends intellectuals and teachers: Professor Yongjin Zhang—with whom I am proud to be a fellow alumnus—and Mr Gavin Ellis the former editor-in-chief of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 who duly became my first employer in New Zealand. I followed Gavin’s advice of listing all the pros and cons and adding them up to help draw a conclusion when I was not certain about vacating my legal profession in order to run for Parliament. He did not give me an answer but he showed me how to get one. That reminded me of the way Gavin taught me in the news room more than 10 years earlier to distinguish between news and views when writing articles. However sadly it appears that few media in this country appreciate the difference nowadays. 
My most heartfelt thank you is extended to my wife Yunfang and our children. Thank you xiao fang for all the love support and wisdom that you continue to share. I know you are watching this on the Sky TV network together with other friends and supporters at home and abroad. I am thrilled to learn that the live broadcast has been arranged via the Internet as far away as Beijing Hong Kong and Taipei. Thank you for your support. ?????????????????????????!I offer my sincere greetings to Chinese all over the world from me the first Chinese MP of the New Zealand Labour Party. 
I am not sure whether it is appropriate on this occasion to thank many of my loyal clients. They often fall into a category of the most ideal clients of any law firm: rich and always in trouble. Some had troubles that were not of their own making. For instance a young Chinese couple purchased a residential section in Auckland but their development of this section which was purely for residential purposes was hampered by legislation passed in 1915 that meant consent for the required works—in this case the excavation or cutting of less than the 40-degree minimum—could be granted only by the Governor-General. The Auckland Volcanic Cones Society demanded that work stop on the affected slope citing the 1915 legislation. Others however strongly argued that the relevant provision should be repealed simply because of its redundant role. 
I have just learnt that a bill is currently before Parliament that was postponed because of the election. Under the proposed amendment the Minister of Conservation would be able to delegate responsibility to his or her officers thus making the process a lot more streamlined. Currently people must go to the Department of Conservation then to the Minister and then to the Governor-General all because of a 93-year-old Act that was designed primarily for mining. This change would be beneficial for all affected parties. As one reporter following the case correctly suggested—showing a strong sense of humour—my election to Parliament represents some level of comfort both to the Auckland Volcanic Cones Society and the developers like my clients because from now on my service to all parties is free. 
Cases like this one make my transition from lawyer to parliamentarian much easier. I have a sense of obligation to work with all parties to create durable and effective laws. Clearly my focus is to become the best possible advocate that I can possibly be for the best interests of our peoples our communities and our society. In that regard I trust that my fellow parliamentary colleagues from a variety of ethnic backgrounds share with me the same sense of mission—that is to bring our migrant community members closer to mainstream society. “Mainstream” may be the wrong word but without integration alienation will inevitably follow. So our job among other things is to help communicate build bridges and bring people together. 
Many will recall that much was made of the concerns of Kiwi Asians about crime rates leading up to the election. The related press coverage prompted around 15000 people to take to the streets in Auckland to air their fears. This was despite police statistics showing an overall drop in crime although referring to such statistics would get any messengers including myself into trouble. But what cannot be denied is that these people were genuinely concerned about their safety and that they took exception to the police’s priority policy. They argued that sometimes we cannot distinguish between property-related crimes and life-threatening ones as was demonstrated with the death of Joanne Wang after her handbag was snatched in Manukau. 
Many Asians have migrated from countries with civil law jurisdictions where the inquisitorial system enables the courts to determine the truth in the first instance. When the prosecution is successful sentencing is delivered to fit the crime and its specific circumstances but here in New Zealand many Asians do not understand or appreciate our adversarial system of justice or due process. When their expectation of a speedy and fair delivery of justice is not met they often become frustrated. This is where we as MPs can help guide our new New Zealanders to understand and appreciate these differences. 
I want to promote in this House the value of looking forward not backward. But it is worth noting that the process of migrant integration or settlement requires two-way communication not one-way application. 
Until about the early 1970s New Zealanders did not talk much about ethnic groups what rights they might have and how a variety of them might be accepted or incorporated into the political arrangements of the country. Rather they thought about race. As Professor Andrew Sharp said at the Learning and Practising Democracy symposium in 1996 when we had our first election under MMP: “Chinese and Indians were thought of as races too indeed as ‘race aliens’—the point of saying which was to deny that they could assimilate into the population at large.” On the other hand Professor Sharp went on to suggest that “the more you think of yourselves as not ‘ordinary New Zealanders’ the less you will feel your interests and your cultures to be represented.” 
I am confident that New Zealand can and will do remarkably well—indeed it has already done reasonably well—in constructing a multicultural society. The rationale—if I have not oversimplified it—is that for example we are free and encouraged not only to be Chinese or some variation of racial linguistic and ethnic Chinese but also to be an ordinary New Zealander. To celebrate our differences is to promote our common purposes. Positive media will therefore play an important role. The ability for ethnic minorities to move from the margins of social and political life relies largely on the willingness of mainstream opinion to hear their voices and the ability of the media to correctly report their differences. 
To some extent ethnic minorities are vulnerable. If we allow ourselves to satisfy the appetite of the commercial mass media for stereotypes in whatever form we are facing a risk of inflating intercultural misunderstandings rather than alleviating minimising and overcoming them. After all this is not just your home; this is not just my home: this is our home—our Aotearoa! 
I came to New Zealand in 1994 and after some initial cultural shock in terms of settling in I came to appreciate and celebrate the differences. I regard myself as someone who is extremely lucky to have been a witness of change and transformation not only of China under reform but also of New Zealand in an increasingly globalised era when multiculturalism has become entrenched and when New Zealand’s identity is consistently shaped and reshaped. 
I taught myself to speak English when I was a teenager in China by listening to the radio. This was furthered by my middle-school teachers in Qianshan and my brother-in-law Professor Jianming Xu. Of course he was not a professor at that time. He had the same fate as his peers and at the age of 16 he was sent to a remote countryside to be “re-educated”. He taught himself English and science and 20 years later he graduated from two top medical schools with one bachelor and two doctoral degrees. I followed that DIY spirit and was lucky enough—and successful enough if I may add that—to be one of the very privileged few to attend university in China in the early 1980s. 
My upbringing plays a big part in who I am today. My father was a doctor and my mother was a head nurse at that time. In their early 30s they volunteered to move from the big city to a remote countryside town to help locals fight a parasitic disease known as  
Schistosoma 
 or blood fluke. On many occasions I witnessed how my parents resuscitated patients and saved them from death. This was approaching the later stage of the Cultural Revolution. Being a medical doctor working in harsh conditions in a remote countryside town did not mean you were immune from persecution. My father like other “intellectuals” was ordered to stand still at the main entrance to the hospital holding a wide whiteboard with his name painted in black followed by the title “counter-revolutionary medical expert”. Sixty minutes a session three sessions a day—those in power believed that this would help him to be scrutinised by the public which would eventually help him to “purify” his mind. 
Like any naughty 5-year-old boy could and would do I duplicated a smaller whiteboard and voluntarily joined the roster. I even invited my father to write my name and my title on the little whiteboard with something like “little counter revolutionary medical expert”. And guess what? He did! The Cultural Revolution ended shortly afterwards and from then on I secretly believed that it was me who brought the nationwide political turmoil to an end with my little whiteboard. 
In hindsight my journey to this honourable House stretches back to my birth in that small rural town from that small stage I once shared with my father and from the desire for free will that I inherited from my parents. That experience was relevant. It influenced—and will continue to influence—my politics and world outlook. I have learnt to be resilient. I have learnt to be kind caring and more philosophical when confronting difficulties. To those who have asked me of my secret weapon behind successful careers in Beijing and now in New Zealand I say it is a simple one: double your efforts halve your expectations. 
Let me borrow from what the Hon David Cunliffe said in his maiden speech in February 2000: “Where there is a wrong right it; where there is injustice fight it; where there is hunger feed it; and where there are no jobs find some.” I am so proud to be part of the Labour team that has striven for those very principles under the great names including Michael Joseph Savage Peter Fraser Walter Nash Norman Kirk David Lange and Helen Clark and that will now continue to do so under Phil Goff. Kia ora. ??! Thank you. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
Tena koutou koutou te kahui torangapu o Aotearoa me Te Wai Pounamu. Tena koe hoki e te Mana Whakawa o te Whare nei. He kupu whakamihi tenei no roto mai i te awa o Otakou me ona wahapu ki a koutou e noho nei ki te Waha o te Ika. Tena koutou tena hoki tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you the political collectives of New Zealand. Greetings also to you Mr Assistant Speaker of this House. This acknowledgment from the waters of Otago and its harbours to you living here at the mouth of the fish—Wellington. Greetings to you collectively and to us all 
.] 
I dedicate this speech to my grandmothers Ellen Kinney and Peg Thompson two strong-willed but compassionate women who would be proud if somewhat astounded to see me standing here today. 
I want to talk about honesty aspiration and community. I stand here a New Zealander a union member a member of the Labour Party a mother and until very recently the owner of a small business. 
I acknowledge Maori as tangata whenua and the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
I thank the people of Dunedin South for putting their trust in me to represent them as their member of Parliament. I thank all the volunteers supporters and members of the New Zealand Labour Party who worked tirelessly on the campaign to win Dunedin South. You are the bedrock of our party. I warmly acknowledge Pete Hodgson the MP for Dunedin North and David Parker who imparted to me much wisdom in my journey this year and Mike Woodhouse the new Dunedin National List MP. I hope we will all work together constructively for our city. 
As the first Labour woman to hold the seat of Dunedin South I pay tribute to all the people who have come to this House before me to represent Dunedin South and St Kilda in all its various forms. David Benson-Pope has worked hard for the community and the Labour Party. It has been a hard few years for David and his family. I wish them well. Before him were the inimitable Dr Michael Cullen Bill Fraser James Barnes and Fred Jones. The Dunedin South electorate has a long and proud history. For decades it has been a safe Labour seat and it remains a safe Labour seat. We are a staunch and steady lot. 
The electorate extends from the working-class suburbs of South Dunedin Caversham and St Kilda to Green Island Fairfield Brighton and Mosgiel from the lush Taieri Plains to the Lammermoor Range and includes Graeme Sydney’s Maniototo up to Middlemarch and Hyde which includes the beginning of the Otago Central Rail Trail and the historic Taieri Gorge Railway. The glorious coastline of St Clair and St Kilda and the Otago Peninsula are home to some of the rarest wildlife in the world and my home too. 
I am a passionate Dunedinite. I was born in Wainuiomata but grew up in Dunedin. Like many New Zealanders I went away to see the world and was gone for a long time Six years ago I uprooted my Australian partner and two little boys from Melbourne to return to Dunedin—the best decision we ever made. There is something special about Dunedin. We are innovative. We are edgy. We manifest the can-do attitude of New Zealanders and the stoic nature of our early settlers to take whatever life offers and make the best of it. And we do make the best of it every day. Dunedin particularly South Dunedin can claim to have nurtured many of our most creative and talented people. Janet Frame and James K Baxter both hailed from Dunedin South along with myriad other writers painters poets sportspeople and musicians. But for many in Dunedin South the low-paid and pensioners life is hard. Seventy percent of people over 15 have an income of $40000 a year or less. I am here to make sure their voices are heard. 
I was raised in a Catholic household to do the best you can for yourself your society and for the people around you. I hail from mostly peasant Irish stock. My father Kinney worked in the Department of Justice and from him I learnt the values that underpin the Civil Service: behaving ethically taking responsibility for your actions and doing the right thing. My mother Shirley taught me with her strength and tireless commitment to voluntary work the difference between right and wrong and to always try my best. At St Dominic’s College in Dunedin—which has produced two Labour MPs Marian Hobbs and me—I was one of “those” Catholic girls who questioned everything pushed boundaries but ultimately took away strong principles of social justice and fighting to redress disadvantage. And inner strength. I pay tribute to the principal Sister Albert who instilled in me a sense of fairness and dignity. 
I am not a practising Catholic but I draw strength from the collective spirit fellowship and underlying values of Catholicism and many other faiths. My faith is in the ability of people to act together to do good. I have a belief in the importance of all people having a voice whatever their background and faith in the principles of community. 
Becoming an MP was not a pathway I had mapped out for myself but rather a combination of circumstances timing and my readiness. Almost my entire working life I have been driven to work on issues that affect working people and the disadvantaged. I have been motivated by a resolve to fight injustice and I hope I always will be. My first political act was to protest against the Springbok Tour in 1981. I clearly recall what apartheid meant for our country at that time and I know where I stood on that issue. But being a mother is by far my greatest motivation. The responsibility of bringing up two little people has made me focus on what I really believe and examine my values. As my children have grown that drive has grown stronger. 
I stand here today because of what I believe and because I am committed to doing something about it. Should we not as a nation want more people who truly reflect our community to stand up for what they believe? It worries me that so many are disinterested in and turned off by politics. Why? One reason is that they fear what might happen to them. They fear that they will be exposed to unsustainable public scrutiny. Of course people standing for office should be accountable. But none of us including me is without blemish. 
One of the biggest tasks ahead of us is to restore faith in politics and politicians. I believe that politicians of all parties have lost touch with the public we are trying to serve. It is not confined to New Zealand but it is up to us to do something about it. How many of us have struck the repeated refrain from our constituents that politics is a joke that all politicians are as bad as each other and that the contest of politics is more important that the issues? In this latest election more than 20 percent of registered voters did not vote and in the Maori seats 35 to 40 percent did not vote. Is it good enough to accept that perception is the inevitable reality? No it is not. It is time for a new politic a new way of engaging out of which emerges greater participation and faith in politics. We start by listening to the people around us and taking them with us. The real politic occurs in the collective beliefs and actions of people in their communities. 
And maybe it is time to consider making voting compulsory as it is in Australia. The ancient Greeks who gave birth to democracy held that it was every citizen’s duty to participate in decision making. Well let us have the discussion. 
I spent the 1990s in Australia and witnessed the rise of the Howard Government a period of great internal upheaval and the rise of economic rationalism and a shift to social conservatism. It was a period characterised by attempts to silence the voices of many people and make fear and negativity the currency of the day; a period where so-called choice for working people meant taking away their rights new immigrants were placed in detention indigenous people were marginalised and crime was used as a weapon to drive through draconian laws. This was when I learnt about the politics of dishonesty. And the politics of fear. 
I do not want those sorts of politics to emerge in New Zealand. I am in the Labour Party because it is committed to transparency and it does have values of decency fairness and honesty at its core. I want to articulate a vision that is greater than one of individual aspiration. I do believe in aspiration that all of us should have the best opportunities in life and be encouraged to get ahead. But getting ahead is not just about material wealth and not just about individuals. Doing well is about fulfilling your potential. But it is also about caring for the people around you whether they are your family your whanau or your community. We are in this House today because we aspire. But I hope that it is not just aspiration for our own personal ambitions that it is aspiration for all New Zealanders. 
Above all I believe in community. Community is at the heart of what Labour means. With strong communities you have social cohesion. You have people feeling connected and settled and being able to look outwards to what they can achieve. I believe in a society where children are at the core of all policy decisions where addressing the causes of child poverty is at the forefront of all that we do. Children are our future. They need the best environment to grow up in and strong safe communities. 
I also care passionately about our country’s natural values and the importance of preserving them for the future. For me it is about the people and the planet. You cannot have one without the other and it is the huge challenge of our time to reconcile the two. 
It is a travesty that this Government does not consider it a priority to invest in a low-cost means to make houses warm and dry. I think of the houses where small children are constantly sick with asthma and other respiratory conditions. I think of the woman I spoke to on the doorstep of her uninsulated South Dunedin flat in midwinter who did not get out of bed before midday because she could not afford to heat her home. Her story is common across South Dunedin and what a difference warm and dry houses would make to those people’s lives. In Dunedin there are 40000 residential dwellings that were built before 1978 insulation standards many of which need urgent attention. Under Labour the billion-dollar energy efficiency fund which has been canned by the National Government would have assisted families to make their homes warmer drier and healthier reduced their power bills saved energy and reduced carbon emissions. Numerous speakers in the House this week have referred to this critical issue. I ask all members to press for an investment in insulation and heating of housing across New Zealand. We have the means to do it. Do not ditch this policy. 
And I believe that rail is an extremely important part of our future. It was the right decision to buy it back. I hope this Government will invest in KiwiRail and acknowledge that integrated public transport is essential for economic growth and to reduce our carbon emissions. Getting more cars and trucks off roads is a public good. 
I worked for 20 years in the communications industry. I started off as a journalist and moved into public relations. I have worked in Australia and New Zealand largely in the private sector. I have run my own business for the last 6 years. I understand that small business is the backbone of our country. I also understand the importance of balance and fairness in the relationship between employers and employees to drive productivity. Introducing a law that allows employers to fire workers at will in the first 90 days is not about fairness; it is about exploitation and will create insecurity. 
Instead of taking rights and protections away from ordinary people we should create new opportunities. Let us use information technology to punch above our weight and drive economic growth. Already 1.5 million New Zealanders are connected to the Internet a third of our workforce does at least some work from home and there are 200000 home-based businesses. We need to pay more attention to building strong communities that provide people with better choices: the ability to work flexibly to live in well-resourced communities with strong public transport links and to live in good-quality housing. 
Along with some other Labour colleagues I too support New Zealand becoming a republic for us to become a truly independent nation. The time is right for a public conversation about this important issue. 
And we urgently need to openly discuss the role of Government in our lives. National and ACT say less not more that the Government should get out of people’s lives and that private sector investment is more important than State investment. Contrary to these views I believe that most people look to the Government for stability security support leadership and action. And for strong public services. 
The fifth Labour Government fulfilled those things and will be judged by history to have been a very good Government a strong and wise Government. I pay tribute to two important people in this Parliament and in the lives of all New Zealanders. Helen Clark is the role model for generations of New Zealanders. She embodies leadership inner strength courage and determination. She has kept our party strong and placed New Zealand high on the international stage. Michael Cullen has made a huge contribution to our party’s thinking and to the shape of our country. He is a finance Minister who took the tough calls and protected our future. His humour sparkle and eloquence are not matched in this Parliament. 
I look forward to serving under the able and energetic leadership of Phil Goff and Annette King and to working with and learning from my caucus colleagues. 
In closing I pay tribute to my parents Kinney and Shirley who are here today; to my sisters Judith and Katherine who have always stood alongside me and from whom I draw inspiration; and to my little family. To Doug Lilly my partner my friend we embarked on this journey together and I could not do it without you. My two boys Callum and Riley Curran you are the most important people in my life. You are the future. You are the reason I am here in this place but your welfare will always be my first priority. I may be an MP but I will always be your mum. 
And finally I say to the people of Dunedin South that you will be my touchstone and my backbone. I will do my best to listen to you and involve you and I endeavour to work with you to restore your faith in politics strive to make opportunities for you to fulfil your potential and strive to make our communities strong. 
E aku rahi e aku iti koutou i areare taringa mai ki toku whaikupu tuatahi tena koutou katoa. Ka huri. 
[ 
To my chiefly people big and small who listened attentively to my maiden speech my acknowledgments to you all. 
] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
Kia ora koutou katoa. E kui ma e koro ma e te whanau nga iwi o te motu tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you all. To you the gracious men and womenfolk the family and the people of the land greetings greetings and greetings to us all 
.] 
It is with tremendous pride and a great sense of responsibility that I rise almost for the first time as the new member of Parliament for Rimutaka. As a genuine Hutt boy I feel deeply honoured to have this opportunity to serve and represent the community that has given so much to me. My speech is notable at least in the sense that maiden speeches from my part of the country are reasonably infrequent events. In the last century the part of the Rimutaka electorate formerly known as Eastern Hutt elected just four members of Parliament—Sir Thomas Wilford Sir Walter Nash Trevor Young and my immediate predecessor Paul Swain. It is my sincere hope that the good people of Rimutaka will choose to continue this tradition of stability in the future and I will have many more opportunities to address this House. 
This time 2 years ago I was just settling into a new life in London. Never did I imagine that 2 years later I would be standing in this House. My time living away from New Zealand gave me a much greater appreciation for all that I love about Aotearoa New Zealand. While I was away I missed the beaches the mountains and the forests and I missed the unique diversity of cultures that makes us so special. There is nothing quite like watching an All Black haka in a cold and dreary London pub to make the hair stand up on the back of your neck and your heart call out for home. Living and travelling throughout the UK and Europe also gave me an insight into things that I think we could do much better here at home. As a backpacker I made it right around the Continent by train by bus and on foot and it made me realise just how far we have to go before we live up to our own propaganda about being a truly sustainable nation. 
Since arriving back home in New Zealand I have made a point of catching the train to work whenever possible and cycling where I can. The residents of the Hutt Valley are keen users of public transport but we have a long way to go before we make it a truly world-class service. Anyone who has tried to bike from Upper Hutt to Wellington during peak-hour traffic will also know that we have a way to go in regard to cycle safety. I am aware that there is active discussion about improving the cycleway between Petone and Ngauranga and I believe that we need to progress that with some haste. 
In many ways the Rimutaka electorate embodies the rich diversity that I love about New Zealand. The Hutt Valley is home to a wide range of cultures ethnicities and families with a wide variety of economic means. Our rolling green hills and fresh clean river represent the wonderful natural environment we take for granted throughout the country. There is no place I would rather call home and no place that I am prouder to represent in this Parliament than the Hutt Valley. 
I acknowledge all of those who have come before us. Standing in this House we do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants. I acknowledge two giants of the Labour Party here in the House today Helen Clark and Michael Cullen—I wrote that before I realised I was going to be standing next to you. For the past decade they have led our country with great strength and dignity and I honour their lifelong commitment to making New Zealand a better place. I believe that the fifth Labour Government will be remembered for restoring the balance between our right to individual freedoms and our responsibilities to one another as members of society. 
It will be remembered for ensuring that the needs of the competitive free market are balanced by the need for the Government to set a few boundaries and ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. The past weeks and months of economic turmoil have demonstrated very clearly that the great promise of humanity will never be realised if we leave our most vulnerable exposed and unprotected in cruel economic winds. We will never live in a truly harmonious and prosperous society unless we turn our backs on the “What’s in it for me?” mantra of individualism that pervaded our public policy decision-making for much of the 1980s and 1990s. 
Growing up in the Hutt Valley during the 1980s I saw first hand the impact the great rolling back of the State had on many of our families. Many of the kids I went to school with had parents who had worked in the public services and found themselves on the economic scrap heap thanks to Rogernomics. Those parents struggled to provide their kids with the basics in life. Their problems were compounded when what little financial support they did receive was cut by the incoming National Government in its now infamous “mother of all Budgets”. Like mine they were loving parents who wanted the best for their kids. I utterly reject the notion that they could have got ahead if only they had worked harder. They had no jobs and there were no jobs to get. In many cases they had only minimal skills and qualifications and there was no support available to gain any. As a society we simply turned our backs on them. 
We live with the legacy of that action today. Those tough economic times created a huge divide between those in our country who have and those who have not. The result was a breakdown in our collective community spirit. As a society we became indifferent to the lives of those around us. We see that indifference to others in the terrible growth in violent crime. We see it in the tragic level of child abuse that goes unreported until it is too late. We see it in the graffiti and vandalism that has invaded our public spaces. We cannot solve these problems by turning away from them and we cannot solve these problems by pretending they are someone else’s responsibility. 
I believe that a major challenge for this and future generations will be rediscovering our sense of community spirit and responsibility. We need to rediscover our faith in collective institutions and processes. I too am ambitious for New Zealand but the prosperity that I dream of will not be measured by the size of our cars or the number of holiday homes we own. It will be measured by the strength of our compassion towards one another. It will be measured by the collective efforts that we take to give our kids the best possible start in life. It will be measured by the respect we show to our older citizens. It will be measured by the steps we take to help each other up the ladder of opportunity. We need to move past the notion that our welfare system should be little more than a safety net at the bottom of that ladder. It can and it should help people up. I have little time for those who having climbed that ladder themselves think it is their right to pull it up behind them. 
We need to look very carefully at the support available to our families and recognise the tremendous importance of families and whanau in all of our lives. I would not be standing here today were it not for the love and support I received from my parents Rose and Doug who are sitting in the gallery this afternoon. They are joined by many of the wider whanau the friends and family who have supported me throughout my life and helped me realise all of the opportunities that are available to me. I recognise that my success in life and my ability to grasp the opportunities in front of me is as much a tribute to the love and support I have received from those around me as it is to my own individual efforts. 
I carry with me the values that my parents taught my brother Dave and I and hopefully at some point he will be watching this speech on the Internet in Dublin. They taught us to place ourselves in the shoes of others and treat them as we would like to be treated ourselves. They encouraged us to measure ourselves not just by our own happiness but by the happiness that we bring to others. Growing up I never considered myself a rich kid but my brother and I were raised with an abundant supply of love and support and there can be no greater wealth than that. Our parents were always there when we needed them and they gave us all of the time that we needed. I do sometimes wonder whether the overwhelming emphasis we place today on paid work is undermining the importance of family time. How many of our social problems that we face today would be overcome if only we took a little more time for family and for those around us? Perhaps the people in my Rimutaka electorate would stop worrying about the significant growth in the size of Rimutaka Prison if we started measuring our response to crime by the steps we take to prevent it in the first place rather than by the number of people whom we lock up after the event. 
Too often we are asking our social institutions to compensate for the breakdown in our family lives and in our social networks. The education system is a classic example. I recognise the critical role of social workers in our schools but also I recognise they are the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff not the fence at the top. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the thousands of dedicated teachers we have in our schools. They carry an incredible responsibility and it is all too easy when debating education to resort to a “blame the teacher” mentality. There may be some teachers who could do better but I believe that the vast majority of our teachers are dedicated and hard-working and they quite literally change lives. 
I believe that we need to rethink the competitive model of schooling that was introduced through Tomorrow’s Schools. When schools compete the real losers are the students who have no other option than to attend the poorer performing schools. They are often from poorer families are frequently brown and sadly they often do not enjoy the same level of support at home that others in more affluent areas do. If we are to ensure that Kiwi kids get the best possible chances in education we need to ensure that every school is a great school and every teacher is a great teacher. We can start by looking very carefully at the physical learning environment in our schools and the level of resourcing that they have available. 
The state of Upper Hutt’s State intermediate and secondary schools was a major issue during the recent election campaign. One of my priorities over the next 3 years will be ensuring those schools get the $30 million in additional funding they were promised. Like so many throughout the country those four schools are trying to make do with old facilities built for the schooling needs of the 1960s and the 1970s. They are no longer fit for purpose. I visited most of the schools in the Rimutaka electorate over the past year and I know that most of them are struggling to provide their teachers and students with the learning resources they need given the level of funding they have available. 
We need to recognise that technology has changed our school system dramatically in the past decade but unfortunately the funding system has not kept up. If we are to realise our full potential as a nation in the coming decades education will be critical and it will not just be in the school system. At this point I would like to acknowledge our new Speaker the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith and the vision of a seamless lifelong education that he articulated during his time as Minister of Education. I believe it was the right vision then and it remains the right vision now. 
It is perhaps somewhat ironic that it was whilst protesting the last National Government’s policies in tertiary education that I became actively involved in politics at a national level. Following a protest march to Parliament I found myself enjoying Her Majesty’s hospitality at the Wellington Central Police Station. Eleven years after being forcibly removed from the grounds of Parliament I find myself back on the inside although in a very different sense. Having experienced parliamentary urgency for the first time last week I can say the feeling of containment is very similar although the surroundings certainly superior. 
I remain as committed today as I was 11 years ago to breaking down the barriers to participation in higher education. I am incredibly proud of all that has been achieved over the past 9 years from putting an end to the massive tuition fee increases to the introduction of interest-free student loans. I am deeply disappointed we are one election victory away from achieving a universal living allowance for students. 
However we also need to recognise that in a modern economy a great deal more learning is going to be taking place in non-institutional settings. The time I spent working in the industry training field convinced me of the enormous value and potential of on-the-job learning. We need to do more to ensure that is adequately supported. In particular I believe we need to look very closely at the level of support we provide to small employers who take on apprentices. Many of the people living in the Rimutaka electorate are former employees of large manufacturers such as General Motors or South Pacific Tyres or of the former large Government departments such as the Post Office or the railways. Those organisations were much more than just large employers; they were also places of learning. They trained many of the tradespeople whom we have in our workforce today. 
As increasing numbers of those people are nearing retirement age we will need to find new ways of ensuring that their skills are passed on to new generations. In fact I would go as far as to say that the retirement of the baby-boomer generation will be one of the biggest challenges we are going to face over the coming decade. In recent years we have seen a considerable growth in the number of rest homes and retirement villages in the Hutt Valley and with half a million New Zealanders nearing retirement age that trend will only continue. I firmly believe that the care of our older citizens is far too important to leave to the vagaries of the free market. I find it morally repugnant that the assets older citizens have spent a lifetime accumulating can be scooped up in a few short years and added to the profit margins of large corporate conglomerates. Older citizens deserve so much better. 
To paraphrase former US Vice-President Hubert Humphrey the moral test of a Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life the children; those who are in the twilight of life the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life the sick and the needy. As our world grows ever more complex and demanding reconnecting with each other will be one of the great challenges of the 21st century. We have never been more mobile than we are today yet we have never had higher rates of loneliness and depression. Technology connects us with friends and family across the globe yet we have never been less likely to know the names of our own next-door neighbours. We need to reignite the fire of our collective spirit; we need to rediscover what it means to live as part of a community. Compassion respect friendship love tolerance and forgiveness need once again to become values embedded in all that we do. 
I thank the people of the Rimutaka electorate who have given me this opportunity to serve. Particular thanks go to the Rimutaka Labour campaign team: George and Josephine Collins John and Anna Young Janette Granville Bill Werry Julie Englebretsen Ian Dunwoodie Claire Norris and Jan Smith. It was a long and exhausting campaign but you rose to the challenge. I thank my family and all those others who have supported me along this journey. I hope I live up to your expectations. He aha te mea nui o te ao? Maku e ki ake he tangata he tangata he tangata. What is the greatest thing in the world? I say it is people it is people it is people. No reira kia tau te rangimarie ki a tatou katoa. Tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker I am honoured to stand in this House today and I join my colleagues who have gone before me in congratulating you on your election as Assistant Speaker. Maiden statements are a bit like words spoken in a heated argument; like it or not they will come back to haunt one. Today I will share with members the words that I wish to haunt me: my values and beliefs and the things that have brought me here. I do so in the hope that should I ever abandon them I will have the good grace to leave. But I cannot begin without first paying tribute to the previous leader of the Labour Party Helen Clark. There are many reasons why I joined the Labour Party but it was Helen who made me proud to be a member. My generation grew up under Helen’s leadership and many do not know how good they had it. I have no doubt that her leadership will leave a legacy well beyond my own generation. 
I cannot pinpoint exactly when my interest in politics began but I know it began when I was young. I was born in Hamilton but in the 1980s my family relocated to Murupara where my father took up the role of the local police sergeant. My memories of that place are vivid. I knew that a lot of people had lost their jobs but I did not understand that it was due to the privatisation of the forestry industry and to a complete lack of central government support. I knew that there were suicides and that the girl who used to babysit my sister and me one day turned yellow from hepatitis and could not visit us any more. But I did not understand the linkages between these things and the poverty of the community I was living in. 
My passion for social justice came from what I saw; my love of politics came when I realised that it was the key to changing what I saw. And there is much to change. 
The fifth Labour Government made good progress on what I believe must continue to be our focus—reducing poverty in this country. Labour has ensured that no elderly person lives below the poverty line but that does not mean that many do not still live a very hard life. 
Labour lifted 130000 children out of poverty through Working for Families but that does not mean that many do not remain there still. I will not pretend that the response is simple; it is not. The majority of children living in poverty now are dependants in families where the main means of support is a Government benefit. But if we believe that our welfare State is a necessary safety net and a support for those unable to support themselves—as I do—then the children living in these circumstances should not be living in poverty. These children are not part of an underclass as I have heard them called; they are part of our community and we have a responsibility to continue the momentum of the previous Labour Government and to finally rid ourselves of poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand. This is our collective challenge. 
Murupara and the wonderful people who live there and who continue to work hard to rejuvenate their community formed just one of the many lessons I have learnt. Demonstrating my parent’s absolute love of big cities my family relocated to Morrinsville. I have very good memories of growing up in this small rural Waikato town. It is a key productive region of New Zealand and is the region of my family. My grandfather dug the drains there my other grandfather farmed there and I had the privilege of campaigning there in the last election. It is a place that keeps me grounded. 
I attended Morrinsville College which is a fantastic school and an example of why we should be proud of our public education system and the teachers working within it. I only wish that my education could have extended to the universal teaching of te reo Maori so that more of my generation could converse in our national language rather than in the more common offering of German French and Japanese. Education in language builds understanding. I join colleagues who have gone before me in calling for the universal and compulsory teaching of te reo in our schools and for all of the necessary resource that goes with it. 
Morrinsville College was also the place where I experienced my first election campaigning on the weighty electoral issue that girls should be allowed to wear trousers to school. I was elected to the Morrinsville College board of trustees and was subsequently appointed to the suspension committee as the student representative. It was tough. I sat face to face with my peers who were facing removal from the education system. Although I had no qualms about handing down punishment to those students who were bullies in our school I also saw many come before us who quite clearly had no emotional or financial support from their families from their caregivers or from their community. 
So much lies in our beginnings. Research tells us that young people who find themselves in front of the criminal justice system have also experienced instability in their homes. They have witnessed violence and three out of four are likely to have grown up in families that did not have enough to get by. We will never find durable solutions that genuinely prevent issues like disengagement in education right through to entry into the criminal justice system if we continue to look at the shallow end of the problem. 
Morrinsville brought with it other experiences. When I was 14 I got my first job at a fish and chip shop and eventually I ended up at a grocery store as a number of my colleagues have done. It was the 1990s. I earned roughly $5 an hour I joined a union that struggled to support us under the realities of the Employment Contracts Act and I saw the real consequences of working for a hostile management team. 
I saw the importance of unions again in 2005 when on a whim I packed my bags and moved to New York. While I struggled to find work I volunteered in a soup kitchen and on a campaign for home-care workers who had been without an employment contract for over a decade. I busied myself as a campaign assistant—coming up with chants that sounded fine in a Kiwi accent but never sounded quite right when belted out by Americans—and I organised the workers. Their very presence on that picket line threatened their livelihood. It was an experience that deepened my commitment to having a balance in employment relationships—a balance that I was shocked to see so severely disrupted in my very first week in this House. 
I have never given up on finding new ways to change what was going on around me but I am the first to concede that I am not a normal young person. At this election young people made up 50 percent of those who did not bother to enrol. They are in the age group that is least likely to vote but is most likely to be affected by the decisions we make here. 
I have the privilege of holding the youth affairs portfolio. There are many issues within this role—health education justice. However it cannot be just about speaking on behalf of young people but also about giving them the opportunity and reason to speak for themselves. Like many who have gone before me I too believe that civic education plays a massive role in doing this. But so does the simple impact of our example. We all have the responsibility to help restore a little faith in our political processes to continually show the relevance of politics to young people and the wider community and to find new and better ways of listening and responding. Some may call this participatory democracy; I just call it our job. 
One of my first opportunities to see all sides of a member of Parliament’s role was when I took a job in Phil Goff’s office. It was an honour to work for Phil. I saw at first hand just how hard he is prepared to work for New Zealanders and his commitment to them and I am very honoured to work with him once more. 
Like so many Kiwis I also took the opportunity to travel abroad. I studied at Arizona State University for a semester. Midway through my time there two planes flew into the World Trade Center and everything around me changed. I have watched as international politics has continued to change while serving as the president of the International Union of Socialist Youth—an umbrella organisation of over 150 progressive youth movements from around the world. This role has sent me to some far-flung places around the globe from Bhutanese refugee camps to the people of Western Sahara to Lebanon and to Jerusalem and the West Bank and the wall that divides the two. 
Some people have asked me whether I am a radical. My answer to that question is very simple: “I am from Morrinsville.” Where I come from a radical is someone who chooses to drive a Toyota rather than a Holden or a Ford. I am though a social democrat. I believe in what I believe strongly—the values of human rights social justice equality and democracy and the role of communities—and I believe we have a role to play in defending these principles abroad. Anyone who has moved abroad will know what it is like to reflect on one’s home from afar and I have always done so with pride; not just for our position on foreign affairs but also for our thriving music and film industry our culture and our heritage and our country’s beauty. But these things do not merely exist. They must be fostered and must be protected and with more than empty rhetoric. 
I fear that our pride in New Zealand’s clean green reputation is already misplaced. It is shameful enough that we are about to lose New Zealand’s most proactive legislation in response to the impacts of climate change that we have seen to date. It is unspeakable that in addition we now have a parliamentary select committee to question the science of climate change itself. We had the potential to be a world leader. National told us we should be fast followers but now all I see are the many many losers—the future generations whom some people in this House do not yet believe they have a responsibility to. Well I do. 
There are other things that time spent working in an international environment can teach you. I spent 3 years in the United Kingdom working as a public servant—a career I have a great amount of respect for. This role took me from the UK Cabinet Office to the Department for Business and Enterprise where I was an assistant director working on regulatory issues. I spent most of my time—this is probably a shock to members on the other side of the House—talking to small businesses local authorities and even police officers trying to understand the delicate balancing act between creating a regulatory environment that protects citizens whilst also allowing business and public services to flourish. I am very mindful of the importance and the need for both. With a strong economy comes the chance to further strengthen public services and create a fairer society for everyone. 
But personal experiences are only a very small part of the thing that brings you to a place and I have to acknowledge the role of my family. My parents have always challenged me and supported me. They have shown me that the world is not black and white nor is it rose-tinted and I honour them. I honour my mother who gave up everything for her girls in an era where choices were made between family and career. I honour my father for his dedication to his family and to the New Zealand Police for the past 35 years. He has seen the most horrific side of human nature but has always shown compassion and a commitment to building communities in New Zealand and now in Niue. And to my dear sister Louise I say that nothing bores her more than politics which is why her support has meant so very much to me. 
But apart from my dear Auntie Ann it was my nana who was the true political beast in my family. Gladys was staunch Labour. Sadly I never had the opportunity to ask her what made her so passionate that she would switch off the TV if Muldoon ever came on and would leave it off for at least 10 minutes to make sure he was not polluting her screen any longer. I know that I can do no better than to make Gladys Harry and Annie proud. 
To my Waikato campaign team including my wonderful grandparents who fought hard alongside me in a seat that has been held by National for the past 40 years I say that next time we will take it on the specials. To all my friends and to the new and existing Labour team; to Darren for all the leave that I know he will grant me and for dispensing the kind of advice that proves he was born middle-aged but also that he was born wise; to Marian Hobbs the old conscience of this House; and to Michael—I am proud to be the youngest member of this Parliament but even prouder to serve here with him as the father of this House—I thank them all. 
So there it is: the answer to that golden question. It is the things I have seen the lessons I have learnt and the people of New Zealand whom I wish to serve that have brought me to this place. These are the very things that I wish to haunt me for as long as I have the privilege of serving here. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Sittings of the House 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek the leave for the House to rise a couple of minutes early this evening and to resume at 7.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for the House to rise at this point for the dinner break and to resume at 7.30 p.m. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 It will come as no surprise to this House that the Labour Party will be opposing this legislation vociferously. We think the decision of the Government to wind back biofuels is simply wrong. We think that it is unjust. We think the process that is being used by the Government is particularly unjust. We think that it is wrong for a Government to pass legislation that takes away the productive capacity of this or that individual enterprise without the enterprise having an ability to submit its case. We think that is wrong. We think that is unjust. We think that it is economically damaging. Quite apart from the fact that this company or that company will have to close and that there will be a loss of jobs—and in the case of one such company the loss of 46 jobs—it is economically damaging. Quite apart from that it is also economically damaging in the sense that it does not allow New Zealand to make slow and early steps—and let us make it clear that the progress of biofuels is in its infancy—towards a biofuels future. That has now been stopped by this legislation. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No no! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Minister is deluding himself. It is environmentally damaging in the sense that our ability to replace the fossil fuels used in our transport sector will now be reduced. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No it is not. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It will be reduced and that will be environmentally damaging. 
Most important it seems to me that this legislation will go through the House this week without a rationale and it is that absence of a rationale that I want to concentrate on. The rationale of course was what the Minister in his first reading speech attempted to lay out. I listened to the speech very carefully and I have taken notes from it. I find that the argumentation of the Minister’s first reading speech is dishonest. I find that the argumentation is dishonest and I am saying that it is dishonest in order to stay well within the Standing Orders. I now want to lay out step by step why I think the argumentation is dishonest. 
The Minister began—I thought quite correctly—by pointing out that biofuels can cause enormous damage. They can displace an awful lot of arable agricultural space for example and they can also cause a great deal of deforestation. That is known; that is accepted. The Minister made the point correctly. However he failed to point out two other things. The first is that the legislation this bill seeks to repeal does not allow for that type of biofuel to come into New Zealand. Secondly by the repeal of that legislation such biofuels will now be able to come into New Zealand— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Rubbish! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —unless there is some regulation that the Minister has forthcoming that we do not know about. He sits there and says “Rubbish!”; he is wrong. It is a matter of fact that the biofuels legislation that was passed by this House earlier this year contains a significant number of sustainability safeguards. Furthermore it is a matter of fact that the Ministry for the Environment and other agencies had indicated to the Government of the day—and would have indicated to this Government too I have no doubt—that their final regulatory regime would be ready by about July 2009. Yet we are getting rid of this legislation. We are getting rid of the sustainability parts of it that are in the primary legislation. The Government is squealing that somehow that is a good thing but it is clearly something that will take our country backwards. 
The Minister says there are not enough biofuels now to supply the sales obligation. What should be a surprise about that? The Government would lay out a sales obligation give the industry notice put up the obligation by a little bit each year and then the industry would invest to meet that target. Those targets will no longer exist if this legislation is repealed—those sales obligations will no longer exist—and most if not all of the biofuel industry in this country will shut down. Mark my words! 
The Minister said that the standards were not in place; I say that if he had waited 7 months they would have been in place. The Minister said that the standards could not be put in place but that is contrary to the advice that officials gave to this Government and to the select committee on the original bill etc. 
But the thing I disliked most was the Minister saying that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment opposed the bill and said that it was wrong. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is right. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Absolutely right. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is right but what is wrong is that the bill was changed and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment then said that the legislation was in satisfactory form. The legislation was passed with her blessing but the Minister has failed to acknowledge to the House that that parliamentary officer did her job. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment went into the select committee process with the bill as introduced and said it was not good enough and it was not. The select committee fixed it up so that it was and she said then that it was satisfactory but the Minister in his first reading speech failed to advise Parliament of the views of one of Parliament’s own officers on the bill as it came out of the select committee—failed to advise Parliament. That is what I think is dishonest argument. I think the Government is bewildered on this; I think it is bewildered illogical and wrong. 
Let us now go to the next point that the Minister raised which is to do with money. The Minister said that the price of biofuels would cost somewhere between 2c and 8c a litre additionally. Well that was the advice received by the select committee from the oil companies—that is what Chevron Oil said or BP said. If the Minister is to become some sort of spokesperson for the “seven sisters” that is fine and dandy but why did the Minister not also advise the House what the official advice would have been on that cost differential? Why did he not do that? It seems to me that he did not do it because it did not suit his argument. Here—unfortunately for the Minister—are the official advice figures: the cost would not be from plus 2c to plus 8c per litre; the cost would be from minus 4c to plus 1.3c per litre. That was the advice that was given to the select committee— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Just like the climate change—Kyoto credit analysis. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —and whether the Minister believes that advice or not it is really pertinent that he did not put those figures into the public arena when he was trying to give this lovely measured example of why he has to undertake this act of environmental vandalism. The member has made a botch of this. He has done it for substantially political reasons. It will mean loss of jobs. It will mean that our ability to progress biofuels will not be able to proceed. 
There is the whole case of Mr McNicholl and his investments but I will leave that for other speakers to talk about because that is an example of someone who invested on the basis of certainty and law and who found that that certainly did not carry through to the next Parliament and that the incoming Government was going to roll back that law. That is an example I think of where the Government has decided to take a series of steps for political reasons rather than for reasons of good policy. All I can say is that in the entire first reading speech which is when we would expect the rationale to come out there is a Minister who is using dishonest argument who is using figures that are selective and who is in fact totally befuddled when it comes to the logic of sustainability because this legislation sweeps away the sustainability criteria that are now in the primary legislation. At the end of this week there will be none of that and then anything will be able to flood into this country. 
So here we are in only the second week of Parliament and the list so far is that the emissions trading scheme will be put to a so-called high-level select committee that biofuels will be wound back that somehow or another it is really bad to have halogen or fluorescent lamps around this country and that the country will have other forms of environmental vandalism—all of which add up in total to this country moving into reverse. Later this week we will even be saying that it is OK to have gas-fired power stations all over again. 
Does the member not know that climate change is now up front of and central to global politics? Does the member not realise that there have been elections in recent times in Australia and in the US? Does the member not realise that far from being a leader around the place on a response to climate change this country is now becoming a follower? It has lost its way it is a slow follower—it is not a fast follower by any means—and it is illogical out of date heading in the wrong direction and completely befuddled. That is a disgrace in my view to this country. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to make a number of important points in commending Gerry Brownlee on this Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill but I will not let pass the lectures from the Labour Party on climate change. The only things New Zealand led in the 9 years of a Labour Government were increased emissions and deforestation. They are the only areas in which Labour in 9 years of Government was able to lead on climate change policy. I say to members opposite that before they get on their feet and start lecturing us they should make some apologies for their appalling record. I am advised by officials that the figures we will report to the United Nations next year and the year after that will be the legacy of the previous Government’s appalling record around deforestation and the increase in emissions. 
The second point I make is that the Leader of the Opposition in opening this session of Parliament said he would hold the Government to account for its promises. What did the National Party promise on biofuels? It promised that it would repeal this stupid compulsion and replace it with a tax incentive. Why is it that now that we are trying to fulfil our promises we get these sorts of arguments from members opposite? 
The fundamental difference between members opposite and those on the Government side of the House is that Labour members believe in compulsion. They believe in the nanny State. Members on this side of the House believe in incentives and let me go through the reasons why such incentives make very good sense. Firstly I will deal with sustainability issues. I am yet to hear any Labour member provide some logic as to why the compulsory obligation for biofuels came into effect on 1 October even though the sustainability standard is at least 12 months away. What a loopy policy! Fancy saying to people: “You’ve got to have biofuels but we haven’t worked out what the rules are about sustainability.” How can people make sensible decisions about investment when they do not know what the rules are? It was a classic case of putting the cart before the horse and that is why we need to repeal the legislation. 
The second thing I want to raise is that members opposite have claimed that with this legislation there is no sustainability standard for importing biofuels. The honest truth is that if someone wants to import ethanol made from palm oil from Brazil or Indonesia there is absolutely nothing to stop him or her from doing so under the old legislation that was passed by the previous Government. I say to members opposite that they are misleading the House in saying otherwise. It is true that the compulsory requirement is not met but it is not true to say that any control at all is imposed on the importation of sustainable biofuels. 
I come to the next really important point. The median range estimate on the cost of this biofuel obligation is 4c per litre. Officials say that each cent per litre represents $60 million. In other words the biofuel obligation amounts to a cost obligation of $240 million per year. 
Moana Mackey 
: They did not tell us that it was 4c per litre. That is not what the officials said. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Ms Mackey how many members in this House believe that we have proportionality correct when the cost obligation is $240 million on biofuels despite all of the questions asked internationally about their advocacy and when we are spending $4 million a year on the greenhouse gas consortium looking at agricultural emissions. I think members of Parliament instinctively know that those proportions were all wrong. 
Then we hear the ultimate in economic lunacy from those members. They claimed that the biofuels bill was actually going to save 5c a litre. Well hang on a moment— 
Nikki Kaye 
: Yeah right! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Exactly. Would we need to have compulsion if the legislation was actually going to cost less than existing fuels? Not on your Nelly! I say to those dreamers on the other side of the House that they should connect with the economic reality. The only reason for compulsion was that the cost was greater. 
That is why the approach of the new Government makes such good sense. We are giving a kick-start to biofuel technology. Let us provide a consistent tax advantage of an exemption from excise as currently applies to ethanol. It is far better as we face this challenge of climate change not to go in the nanny State direction where we compel people to do things but rather to provide a financial incentive— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh dear. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I am not surprised that Dr Cullen likes compulsion. He spent 9 years on the Government benches telling ordinary New Zealanders how to live every part of their lives—how much water they could have in a shower what sort of light bulbs they could use and how much biofuel to use. I ask the House what the wisdom is in believing we can define down to the narrow part of a percentage point the exact perfect amount of biofuel that should be used. 
Pete Hodgson is wrong. He claimed that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment supports a retention of a compulsory obligation on biofuels. That is wrong. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said and this is absolutely right that if we narrowly define the criteria for what sustainable biofuels are—and we do not know what they are yet because it has not been worked out—and we then use compulsion we provide a wonderful cash cow for those in the biofuel industry. It is all very well for members opposite to talk about the odd job that might be created as a cash cow when there is compulsion but what about the number of jobs that will be lost by the cost imposition of $240 million a year across the economy? Of course if I was a biofuel manufacturer I would want this law to stay as it is. It is a cash cow but the real question for this Parliament is whether that approach is sensible. In the Government’s view a financial incentive that is provided by way of the excise is a more sensible way to go. 
I commend the Minister for dealing with this issue prior to Christmas. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why is it not going to select committee? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is a very good question and I will tell the member why that is. It is because the previous Government’s policy has oil companies floundering around right now as they try to work out how to meet this obligation. Those companies do not know whether Brazilian ethanol will qualify. They are scrambling around and that industry needs certainty. I say that this Parliament needs to move quickly. It needs to deal with the absolute mess that the previous Government’s biofuel policy was in and that was a compulsory standard with no biofuel standard in place. 
I hope the next speaker might possibly explain to the House why we should ignore the Secretary-General of the United Nations who has made a plea for Governments not to introduce mandatory biofuels obligations. Have members opposite not read the House of Commons’ report in the United Kingdom that makes absolutely plain that such mandatory obligations are both economic and environmental lunacy? Have members opposite not read the report of the OECD that makes plain that these biofuels obligations are doing more harm in the world than good? 
I say to members opposite that a tax incentive is the right way forward and I will tell the House why that is the case. The truth is that we do not know how much biofuels will cost. My view is that if they are relatively inexpensive to provide a tax incentive may see them go to 10 or 15 percent. I do not have and this Government does not have some magical number. But we say that a financial incentive will put pressure on the biofuels industry to make its products as cost-competitive as possible rather than providing the blank cheque of compulsion. 
My very last point is that yes this bill does philosophically divide the House because members on this side take an approach of having financial incentives in respect of supporting biofuels as opposed to the nanny-State politicians who have been thrown out of Government. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 If that member opposite the Hon Nick Smith keeps mentioning the words “nanny State” long enough he convinces himself that he has some kind of argument in these matters. I can only assume that some of the people opposite must have had nannies when they were young whom they did not like so somehow the word “nanny” keeps them going in some kind of big way. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us about the showers Michael. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I wish the member would have a cold shower from time to time and I am happy for him to have a 100-litre-a-second cold shower whenever he wants one. This is a man who gave a speech about economic lunacy. He talked about half of that in his speech actually because that was lunacy more than economic lunacy. 
Let me just take him through the illogicality of his argument. He claims to want to see biofuels used; I think he said that. I think the Bluegreen manifesto said National wanted biofuels. He claims he wants to see certainty for those in the industry and then he says he does not have a clue how much biofuels there may be if we go to a tax-incentive system. Where is the certainty and where is the guarantee that we will move to biofuels? He says that he wants to make sure that biofuels come from renewable sources. So do we all. That is why the legislation as revised by the select committee provides a process to ensure that sustainability. The member is still attacking the Biofuel Bill as it was introduced. He did not even read the legislation that came out of the select committee. We have certainty for the companies which consists of basically saying “We do not care what you do. We do not care if you have any biofuels.” So what message will they take from that? They will take the message “Don’t have any biofuels.” What about those companies that have already started putting in tanks to cope with the higher proportion than the present 0.5 percent? Where has their certainty gone? Where has their return on investment gone? 
Let me take the member through the economic arguments. He somehow seems to think that if we have a tax incentive then that will solve the problem. Actually it is not really a tax incentive. It is not taxing biofuels; it is continuing the regime where biofuels have no excise duty on them. Has that produced a rash of investment in biofuels? The regime that the National Government is suggesting is the regime before the biofuel legislation came into force minus the requirements in the legislation for some kind of sustainability certification and reporting. That is what Gerry Brownlee’s bill actually states: it removes the requirement it removes the provisions around sustainability. That is where we have been for years and we do not have any significant usage of biofuels in New Zealand. The member wants that but he is not going to get it. 
But if we have no tax on biofuels then what does that do? Firstly it reduces the Government’s revenue from road usage. We have hypothecation now on road-user taxes so if there is a reduction in revenue the Greens and I will not see more money for public transport and the National Government and I will not see more money for roads. We will have less investment in roading and less investment in public transport— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Rubbish! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: —unless—wait for it—there is a further transfer out of the Crown account into the land transport account which must come from one of three sources. It must come first from increased taxation elsewhere such as personal taxes company taxes or GST; secondly from cutting spending on services elsewhere; or thirdly from borrowing which means for future generations firstly higher personal taxes or GST; secondly a reduction in services; or thirdly more borrowing for their grandchildren which will lead to even bigger personal taxes or cuts in services. There is no free lunch in fiscal policy. The member has been there long enough now to have learnt that very very simple fact. He is asking for the Government to be able to tax elsewhere or to be able to cut social services. We have had a voluntary regime up until the passage of this Act and it has done nothing to produce biofuel usage in New Zealand. You see what the member is arguing is basically the big old Dick Cheney position. He is kind of the Dick Cheney of the National Party these days—he wants to do what big oil companies tell us to do. He does not want to do what some poor little New Zealander with only a few million dollars to invest has been trying to do to help this country because that person does not count. When it comes to the interests of Shell BP Mobil Oil and all the rest of them that poor little New Zealander does not count as far as National is concerned. National members get up in this House and make speech after speech with tears pouring down their faces as they talk about small business and all the rest of it. What is this bill about? It is about the interests of major international corporations versus the interests of New Zealand and New Zealand business. That is what this bill is about. 
Goodness me the main criticism that can be made of the current Act is not that it is the nanny State; it is basically leaving the kids at home with directions about where to find the food in the fridge. I think people could say that the problem with the current legislation is that it does not go far enough not that it goes too far. I hope that Ms Fitzsimons does not criticise us too much for that when she gets up and speaks because I think we are probably basically of one mind in that respect. There were jobs in this for New Zealand there was certainty moving forward as higher levels of biofuels began to be phased in there was a regime around sustainability— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about the cost? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The cost as the member well knows depends upon what the future cost of oil is. Ah suddenly there is silence. The penny drops. Oil at the moment is under US$50 a barrel. Less than a year ago—6 or 7 months ago—it was US$153 a barrel. If any member in this House thinks seriously that he or she knows what the cost of oil will be in 5 years’ time I would tell them: “Do not waste your time in here mate. Go out and make yourself a few billion dollars on the international market.” because if a member has that knowledge it is knowledge that nobody else in the world has. It is very precious and it is worth vast amounts of money. Why would one spend one’s time in Parliament beating one’s gums about the nanny State if one knows what the future price of oil will be? The member does not know that. None of us know that. We know—and I occasionally chip at the Green Party about this—that it will go up and down. We know there is huge volatility about oil prices but we also know one simple thing: the long-term trend of oil prices will be up. The trend may have been downwards recently over the last few months but it will be up over the long term. Why? Because at the end of the day it has to be a shrinking resource in relation to demand. If we really want to see people in the Third World increasing their living standards then whatever we do the chances are that it will increase their demand for fossil fuels such as oil—a pity but it is true. However much we manage to do in the next 10 years that is almost a certainty in that regard. 
So there will be pressure upon a finite resource. We do not know how big that finite resource is because we do not know what has yet to be discovered but one thing we do know utterly logically completely and obviously is that at some point the resource is finite and therefore it will cost more to extract. Therefore it will be demanded more and it will cost more. The cost argument is actually a particularly weak argument in this respect. What of the cost on the other side? The less we use biofuels the greater the liability under the Kyoto Protocol or under any likely subsequent agreement in terms of a charge to the Government because in the first instance that is a charge upon the Government it becomes a liability on the Government accounts and therefore it has to be met in some form or another. Again there is no free lunch here. This can be met in effect by saying to the public that we are sending price signals that are designed to encourage them to use more efficient vehicles and to drive their cars more carefully in terms of how they accelerate etc. all of which have very significant impacts upon fuel consumption and can save people far more money than the impact of 4c a litre or whatever it was the member was claiming in that regard. We have seen petrol prices at the pump vary by something like 70-odd cents a litre within the last year or so and the member’s heart bleeds—bleeds—for 4c a litre when that is a tiny fraction of almost day-to-day trends. We have seen petrol prices go up or down by 5c a litre in a day as a consequence of market movements over the last year. 
So the member has to get with the programme in that regard. He simply does not seem to grasp the point that this denial this endless series of moves to deny to put off the emissions trading scheme to cancel the biofuels obligation to try to set up new thermal power stations for no particular reason to add to baseload capacity when there is a huge amount of potential renewable capacity for baseload generation—all of that suggests that in National we have a party that stupidly opposes what the previous Government did for the sake of opposing it and is now stuck with the stupidity of its position. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This tragic little Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill which is being rushed through all its stages under urgency by a Minister of Energy and Resources who is ignorant of most aspects of his portfolio—apart from perhaps sexy coal—will do exactly the opposite of what the Minister says it will do. It will replace a potentially sustainable local industry—stable secure and well known—with intermittent imports of biofuels from unknown sources which are likely to include palm oil from South-east Asia grown where the tropical forests the last refuge of the orang-utan used to grow and corn ethanol with a higher carbon footprint than petroleum subsidised by the US Government. That is what this bill will do. 
Let me tell members about who is already investing or is poised to invest in biofuels in New Zealand. Although there are many companies doing little bits there are three major companies involved. The company that people have heard most about is BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd. Its managing director is Tom McNicholl and it has a plant already operating in East Tamaki that makes small quantities of bio-diesel from tallow as well as a large plant under construction in Waharoa to make 60 million litres a year. That plant has now been mothballed because there will be no market for the fuel under this plan—and I will tell members why that is so in a minute—and that has caused the loss of 46 jobs. The point Mr McNicholl makes is that unless the oil companies are required to set up blending facilities there will be no possibility of selling biofuels for blending but only the possibility of selling it for use in 100 percent biofuel vehicles which is a much more difficult market. In his letter to me Mr McNicholl states “Exempting excise and road-user charges from biofuels act only as a subsidy to fuel consumers. They do not compel the use of biodiesel unlike the biofuel obligation.” 
Secondly there is Ecodiesel Ltd in South Auckland which is producing small quantities of bio-diesel from tallow. It was planning an expansion of its production to 40 million litres but that has been delayed for at least 6 months because of the uncertainty created by this bill. 
Thirdly there is Biodiesel New Zealand Ltd which uses rapeseed oil grown as a rotational crop with other food crops so that the green material is ploughed back in as a green soil conditioner. The oil is extracted from the seeds and the seed cake is used as an animal feed. That is a sustainable biofuel and that company was planning to produce 70 million litres but that is now under review. 
That is what this bill has done. Those are three significant entrepreneurial companies in New Zealand that want to do the right thing by sustainability and that are all undoubtedly sustainable by any definition of the term but now their investment is seriously under threat. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Why? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Perhaps if the member listens he will find out why. 
The intention of the bill is to set up a stable local market. It would have actually been better for sustainability to say that we will not allow the import of any biofuels and that we will have them made only in New Zealand so that we know where they come from and that they are sustainable. The Greens could have supported that but unfortunately people got nervous about the World Trade Organization and so forth and did not think that was an option. 
Mr Brownlee says the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recommended against the passing of the Biofuel Bill and that is true. She came to the Local Government and Environment Committee when the bill was in its form as introduced to the House and she said “the bill currently before Parliament should not proceed in its current form”. That bill was not proceeded with in the form it had then because that was before the Green Party negotiated with the Government a sustainability provision. We made it clear that without that sustainability provision we would not support the bill at all. That provision was drafted—and I had a large hand in that—it went through the select committee and it was adopted. As far as I can make out that sustainability provision is the most stringent sustainability provision in the world yet it is being abolished by the Government today. It says that to be sustainable a fuel has to reduce by at least 35 percent the carbon it produces relative to petroleum it must not be grown on land suitable for food production—it must not compete with food—and it must not be grown on land of high conservation or biodiversity value. Those are the three criteria—they are in section 34H(3) of the principal Act—and those have now gone. 
Members opposite have been making a big feature of the fact that the regulations to give effect to that section are not yet drafted. They are partly drafted. The Minister and I met with the officials and said the idea that they could not do that until 2011 was rubbish. We asked whether they could do it by the middle of 2009. They said yes so they were directed to do that by the middle of 2009. The amount of biofuel that is required under the legislation to be used in New Zealand by the middle of 2009 is so infinitesimally minute that there was no reason not to proceed without the regulations. But the fact is that because the section is in the Act there is still a conceptual standard against which to measure biofuels that come into the country. It was always the intention that there would be a reporting obligation for those biofuels. 
In her advice to the committee the parliamentary commissioner provided a table of carbon emissions for a wide range of different biofuels around the world showing that some of them—like the US corn-to-ethanol programme—have higher carbon emissions on a life cycle basis than petroleum and others particularly those made from wastes like tallow have very low carbon emissions. Not all biofuels are equal. That is the thing the National Party has never been able to grasp. 
The Minister said that the work on drafting the regulations will continue. Well I ask what he will do with those regulations because now there will be no primary legislation under which they can exist. We cannot have regulations that just hang in the air. 
The Minister also says biofuels will cost up to 8c a litre more than petrol. That figure comes from the oil companies. I remember back to the days when we had a big campaign to get lead out of petrol because it poisoned children’s brains. The oil companies told us repeatedly that petrol would be massively more expensive—I think they said 10c a litre more expensive at the time—if the lead was taken out. Eventually we forced them to take the lead out and nobody even noticed any change to the price. The oil companies are absolutely the last people we should trust if we want to know what biofuels will cost. 
The fact is that whether biofuels cost more or less than petrol will depend on the price of petroleum. The Ministry of Economic Development gave advice that whether biofuels would increase fuel prices will depend firstly on the amount of infrastructure investment required by oil companies. Currently that is estimated to add 0.2c to 0.4c per litre to the price. Secondly it will depend on what the price of petroleum is at the time. When oil actually reached $157 a barrel biofuels were cheaper than petroleum. But it cannot be left just to the market because if we do not have the infrastructure if we do not have the industry all that the market will do is to produce a fluctuating import—or not—of fuels depending on what the price is. So we will get the worst stuff going. We will have no stability in the market we will have no blending and we will have no New Zealand industry. All we will have is ad hoc imports from wherever biofuels might be available in order to make up the difference. 
The Minister says he wants to give a tax subsidy instead of a mandatory obligation. I will pick that issue up in my second reading speech. There is plenty more to say. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill which is no big surprise I suppose. But what might be a bit of a surprise is that I agree with much of what has been said both on the Labour side of the House and amongst the Greens. No one can argue that there is a decreasing supply of petroleum. No one can argue that at some point it will become very scarce and very expensive and will eventually run out. We should not actually use petroleum as a transport fuel if we can avoid it for one very good reason which is that it is a unique substance with many unique properties that allow it to be used for many other far more important things. So I agree with members on the other side of the House that the idea would be that we use 100 percent biofuel—tomorrow. The problem is that like lots of ideas it is great in theory. 
In my view this whole case is an example of the folly of going into things as the world leader as we were going to be on climate change—or as some still say we should be. The theory regarding the need to use biofuels is great but let us look at what has happened. The United Nations which is not known for Draconian pronouncements has said that biofuels are a crime against humanity. That point was completely ignored by members on the other side of the House. We should not use them for at least 5 years said the World Food Programme an agency of the United Nations. Why? The reason is that the whole idea is flawed. Although sustainability the buzzword of recent years sounds good biofuel production has led to side effects unintended consequences if you like such as deforestation in Brazil and increasing the price of food for poor people who would have eaten rapeseed that is now being made into biofuel. It has increased the price of food because land that would have been used for food is now being used to grow crops. The use of biofuel is just not a good idea because we have launched into it too soon. 
The speaker from the Greens said the biofuel would have to be produced locally so we know where it is grown. Well the problem with that is that in order to meet the target set by the outgoing Government we do not have enough land here. We do not have enough available land on which to grow biofuel crops. The European Union target for biofuel uptake—one that is not dissimilar from ours—would involve the use of up to one-quarter of the agricultural land. So the European Union will have to import it too. 
As I have said biofuel crops have increased the price of food distorted land use and led to the UN food agency calling them a crime against humanity. Not a great idea! The European Union apparently would require 14 percent of the world’s oilseed production just for itself. Leaving aside the food-price distortions and the other problems that 14 percent of the world’s oilseed production is double what is grown in the European Union now. Where will all that biofuel come from? As my colleague the Hon Heather Roy said in this House during the passage of the legislation Brazil is currently the second-largest biofuel producer in the world. That is great one might say except that when we scratch beneath the surface we see that Brazil has embarked on a massive deforestation campaign and is turning grasslands into sugar cane production areas for biofuel. Increased demand for biofuels would put further pressure on those areas leading to the slash-and-burn clearing of rainforests. 
So if the Green Party is serious about its environmentalist credentials and if it is serious about saving the planet—it is a bit like the nuclear argument which it goes very quiet about; the Europeans say nuclear power the way to go and is the cleanest fuel although I do not know whether I agree with that—then it should support this bill and vote against the use of unsustainably produced biofuels. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am proud to come to this House to share the excellent news from Te Tai Tonga about the global success emerging from Blenheim. The Marlborough biofuel company Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation has created bio-diesel which has been saluted as the eleventh best invention in the world for 2008 by none other than  
Time 
 magazine. The bio-diesel formed from wild algae at Blenheim’s waste treatment oxidation ponds is branded as green crude. The international profile is not just great for business; it also demonstrates to the world that Aotearoa is serious about its commitment to reduce the rate of carbon emissions. 
Our entrepreneurial enterprise in advancing alternative sources of energy is well-known. One of my own iwi Ngati Koata is currently in the process of establishing a biofuel plant to supply users of static machinery such as school boilers. This particular initiative was going to focus on tallow but we were also investigating other sources to ensure we had a guaranteed supply. The ultimate example of home-grown New Zealand - made industry was the McDonald’s vege car—a car powered 100 percent by used vegetable oil. The McDonald family drove from Cape Reinga to Bluff gathering support from mayors who blessed the bonnet with their signatures. Today this Parliament is voting to overturn the decision made in the 48th Parliament to implement a biofuels sale obligation policy. What then do we tell local mayors who were prepared to sign up to the concept of biofuels and who welcomed any initiatives to promote sustainability security of energy supply and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions? How then does the bill on the Order Paper for today affect our international reputation with regard to our capacity to contribute to climate change initiatives? 
The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright told the select committee last year that there are two key issues we must uphold when considering biofuel legislation. We need to be able to assess how well the biofuel initiative will reduce carbon dioxide emissions and we need to be able to ensure that we can increase the security of our supply of transport energy. These are critical issues for any discussion on sustainable biofuels. 
But other issues are at play. We need to be able to determine the energy return on energy invested. This is the concept of a life-cycle assessment of emissions determining the nature of the cultivation and processing of material inter-fuel. Although biofuels are carbon neutral when burnt we need to be clear about the carbon emissions released in the process of production. We need to be able to identify the ecological effects of biofuel production. Effects such as soil depletion or the reduction of indigenous biodiversity adversely affecting land with high conservation values have to be weighed up to ensure that sustainability remains of the highest order. 
Another priority is to determine the effects on the food supply. This was a key issue for the Local Government and Environment Committee when the debate around biofuels proceeded last year. The committee recommended that biofuels must not compete with food production or be produced using land of high value for food production. We must also be able to assess objectively what difference the legislation will make to small producers versus agri-business. The situation for those fledging industries that have gone full steam ahead into producing sustainable biofuels is particularly precarious. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of BioDiesel Oils New Zealand. This company has invested some $10 million in research and development in the construction of a processing plant in East Tamaki and in the process of building a 60-million litre facility in Waharoa. 
But it is not just money we are talking about; it is about meaningful work—real jobs. The strategic plan for BioDiesel Oils is to employ 22 staff on three shifts at the Waharoa plant and 24 staff on three shifts at East Tamaki. All in all that will be a total of 46 full-time jobs when both plants are in full production. And it is about time. Tom McNicholl the managing director of BioDiesel Oils has invested 9 years of his life into developing bio-diesel from the most difficult raw material available—tallow. This company took up the challenge of converting tallow as part of the commitment to increase renewable energy through the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. 
The Minister of Energy and Resources earlier today raised some of the difficulties that we too have been concerned about—in particular the impacts that biofuel production contributes to deforestation or the way in which biofuel production competes with food production. But the point that we cannot ignore is the fact that so many of these concerns made it through to the select committee stage and were treated with due responsibility. Those issues included taking into account the social economic and environmental impacts of biofuel production alongside investment in standards of qualifying biofuels. It was because of the thorough and comprehensive way in which the biofuel debate was managed that the Maori Party determined that it would support the Biofuel Bill to introduce the biofuels sales obligation policy. We heeded the warning from Dr Wright about the need for caution before rushing into the biofuel industry and I want to distinguish here between the relative effects of biofuels derived from waste as opposed to biofuels made from ethanol from corn. The former emits up to 80 percent less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels while ethanol from corn emits about the same amount as diesel. 
The Maori Party has always spoken about the need for sustainable environmental management. It has promoted the concept of a genuine progress index. We must aspire to make the economy great but not at the expense of the environment. The commitment to renewable energy resources including geothermal hydro wave wind and solar resources is a commitment that we look to support through every avenue we can. We must pull out all the stops to protect and preserve limited resources such as oil gas and coal. We must create incentives to promote the use of biofuels and have a mandatory obligation as a key part of this. We know that many groups including iwi have invested in the manufacturing infrastructure of biofuels. We believe that this bill will disadvantage us and indeed detract from the promise of prosperity and innovation that the blossoming biofuel industry has demonstrated. We cannot support this bill. 
Hon PANSY WONG (Associate Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I do not intend to repeat all the arguments stated by the Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I intend to take a short call because the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill is very focused concise legislation. It is a very good demonstration of why Labour ended up on the Opposition benches and will remain there for a very very long time. We are once again repealing a piece of mandatory compulsory “Government knows best and does not trust the public to make choices” regulation. 
Not only did the Minister make a sensible move to fulfil one of the promises that National has campaigned on but he has also included the viable alternative of introducing tax incentives. That I think is a sensible way to embrace the biofuel sector because a lot of the science research and standards are still in the process of being developed. How can anybody in New Zealand embrace the concept of requiring by 1 October 2008 a mandatory level of biofuel to be sold through the petrol pump when the standards to test whether biofuels are sustainably sourced are still being drafted? How can one reasonably stand in this House to defend a requirement before the standards have been drafted and put out there? How do we know that those biofuels would not repeat the previous mistakes? We have seen some members jump right into wanting to lead the world only to then see the first wave of biofuels cause problems with regard to food shortages and deforestation. Why should we continue to repeat those mistakes? The European Union after 2 years has not developed the standards to ensure that biofuels are in fact obtained from sustainable sources. 
I think the Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee should be congratulated on putting a stop to the mandatory compulsory requirement while at the same time bringing in a very sensible scheme of introducing tax incentives. I think that will send a better pricing signal that a mandatory “Government knows best” signal would. The Minister also sensibly pointed out that there is a need to develop a process for proving the sustainability of biofuel production. This National-led Government believes that New Zealanders understand and care about the environment. New Zealanders are being given the right information and tax incentives in order to actually make the right choices under this biofuels regime. While I am on my feet I also want to congratulate the Minister on being consistent in showing our belief in New Zealanders. He has also put a ban on the regulations brought in by the previous Labour Government to try to tell people how long they can take hot showers for and what sorts of light bulbs they are allowed to use. 
It is a real pleasure to stand up and support sensible legislation that shows our confidence in those New Zealanders who got rid of the Labour Government which used to tell people how to run their lives. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 After that speech by Ms Pansy Wong it is hard to know where to start. As someone who said she wants to listen to New Zealanders maybe Ms Pansy Wong might want to explain why the only quotes the National Party has used have been from the chief executives of big oil companies none of whom are New Zealanders none of whom are going to support small businesses here that create biofuel. For all the talk about New Zealanders it is New Zealanders who are going to suffer because of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. 
I also want to challenge what the Hon Pansy Wong said—that we should not have mandatory requirements because we do not know what the standards are. Apparently that did not apply when it forced through an education amendment bill last week that gave the Minister of Education complete power to do whatever she wants—a blank cheque saying that she is going to develop what will be gazetted but without telling the House. It is not one law for all with this new National-led Government; it uses an argument when it suits it and when it does not it will completely abandon it. I would also like to know how the Hon Pansy Wong reconciles her position on this bill with the fact that that education amendment bill passed last week is a bill about compulsion. It is about forcing the education sector to do something that it is horribly opposed to was opposed to during the election campaign and which despite being watered down is going to force our schools to merely replicate what they are already doing just so that the National Government can save face because without that bill it has no education policy. 
This is yet another huge environmental backtrack from this new Government which has been in place only a week. Within a week we have gone from a country that people admired to a country that people can now ridicule for the position that we have taken on the emissions trading scheme—with a select committee to revisit the science of climate change. That is humiliating on the global scale especially for a country that campaigns on being clean and green and relies on being clean and green as a marketing advantage and also for tourism. I am getting a sense that the argument we will get on every piece of legislation dealing with the environment is that because some biofuels are bad we should do nothing. Because carbon dioxide is a gas that has a useful purpose in the atmosphere apparently we should do nothing despite the fact that in excessive amounts it severely alters our climate. The argument we are getting is that unless we can be convinced that every single biofuel ever produced in the world never does any environmental damage we will never do anything about it. If that is the position that this Government takes we will never do anything. Of course some biofuels are worse than others—we know that. That is why the Labour-led Government changed the bill and put in sustainability principles. 
Let us not forget that the National Party declared its hand on this bill very early in the select committee process. In fact very early in the select committee process before submissions had finished being heard before the bill had been changed National members declared that they would oppose it on principle. I think that needs to be put into the mix. This bill—like every bill last week—is not going to a select committee. This is another bill that is being rammed through despite the fact that this bill means people will lose jobs. We have already heard the case of a gentleman from Waharoa who has invested $10 million in two biofuel plants because of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act and now he is going to lose that money. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Rubbish! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Brownlee says “Rubbish!”. Do members know whom I am going to listen to? It is to the man who spent $10 million investing in biofuel rather than to the Minister who is embarrassed about the fact that we are going into a global recession and who has cut research and development tax credits for our innovative companies. He is now cutting out the biofuels obligations which also provide research and development opportunities and jobs. This is at a time when we would expect our Government might be trying to create jobs and to save jobs. No Mr Brownlee has decided that because apparently he has something against compulsion those jobs should be lost and that $10 million invested by that company should be gone. I think that is shameful. At the very least this bill should have gone to a select committee so that that small-businessman—and those members talk a lot about small business when it suits them but they have been very quiet tonight—could have come to the select committee and told us exactly what the bill meant and what he needed to stay in place so that his business could keep going. I do not think that is too much to ask given that that is the normal practice of this House. 
The Act was incredibly important because it supported the development of the domestic biofuel industry. Many of the concerns that we all have about sustainability could be eliminated largely by having a domestic industry which means we would not have to import a lot of the biofuels that we all have a number of questions about. That was what the Act wanted to achieve. It was very reasonable and it was very modest in that respect. But the other thing it did was provide certainty to the sector. Everyone who came along including representatives from the oil companies said: “We just want to know what you’re going to do. Just tell us. If there’s going to be principles try to spell them out as simply and as clearly as you possibly can so that we can see the path you are going to go down so that we get the best idea possible.” The select committee worked incredibly hard. The officials worked incredibly hard on getting the principles in the legislation so that even though they are not legally binding at the moment the legislation is very clear. 
I have worked for an oil company. I know that oil companies do not make short-term investment decisions. They make long-term investment decisions. They looked at what we put in the legislation and saw a very clear steer that there was no point going to a long-term contract for biofuel production to import into New Zealand from a company that would eventually be ruled out when the sustainability criteria were put into place because they would lose money. Those contracts are long term; they are not short term. They wanted to know up front what they could import and what they could not import so that they could make business decisions based on that. 
Dr Smith who was on the select committee—but from his speech one would never guess because he obviously did not listen to a single thing that was said there—wanted to know why we passed the bill before the principles came into force. I think Jeanette Fitzsimons has largely answered that question. We did it because we wanted to provide certainty to the sector we wanted to provide a clear steer on sustainability and because the biofuel sales obligation for oil companies in the first year is 0.5 percent. This is about getting a sustainable biofuels domestic industry in New Zealand. We are not demanding 30 percent in the first year. It is 0.5 percent and going up half a percent every year. That can be done from our biofuels now. Dr Smith also wanted to know whether we had read—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes I do. I have read the officials reports I say to Mr Brownlee and he obviously has not. Dr Smith wanted to know whether we read the UK the UN and the OECD reports. Of course we did. That is why we changed the legislation. It was on steer from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and those reports that made us realise we could not simply put through a bill that had no sustainability steer whatsoever. 
Dr Smith remarkably also made the argument that we do not need to do anything because the market will provide this. The market has been fantastic for the environment so far. What an absolute success the free market has been for the environment. The fact is as Jeanette Fitzsimons pointed out these biofuel companies are going to rely on the oil companies to provide the blending capacity for biofuel. Does anyone really think they will do that voluntarily? Think back to when we had new players coming into the oil industry. I remember reading all the reports in the newspapers about how the existing oil companies were trying to shut the new players out. They were using the power that they had as the incumbents. These are companies in direct competition to oil. They are providing a product that makes the oil companies’ product less valuable. Does anyone think the blending facilities will be provided voluntarily when there is no compulsion under the law to do so? Dr Smith said that we were living in dreamland. I have to say I think the opposite is true. From working in that industry I can say that unless there is an obligation in the law I do not believe the cooperation will occur to allow that supply to happen. Dr Smith said that of course biofuel producers will say that because they have a vested interest. But he does not extend that same argument to the oil companies that he extensively quoted throughout his entire speech. Of course the oil companies have a vested interest so do the biofuel producers. The select committee weighed all this up considered all the submissions from all of them and moved forward on a bill that we thought met the needs of most as far as we possibly could. 
I want to talk a bit about the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report on the original bill that was introduced to Parliament. It was presented before the select committee had reported back so significant changes were made to the bill. I read the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and I think she did a good job. She extensively used a paper that was published in  
Science 
: “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change”; she relied heavily on that. But what has not been said is that a week later  
Science 
 had to publish a critique from the company that had developed the model that was used extensively in that scientific research saying that it had not been used properly. The study is called the Searchinger study because it has become quite infamous. A lot of people who oppose biofuels quote this study extensively and I think it is time to put on record that there is a lot uncertainty about it. The critique came from the folks at the Argonne National Laboratory which developed the model used in that research. They said that the research does not stack up and that the model was not used correctly. There is a good scientific principle that people might want to remember when they read research which is “garbage in garbage out”. We have to be very careful. I would be interested in seeing a critique of the bill done using that model correctly. 
The biofuel sales obligation was going to be 3.4 percent by 2012 in the original bill. The select committee reduced it to 2.5 percent because we had a look at what the capacity out in the sector would be. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 As I have sat here listening to the debate this evening I have been struck by a remarkable sense of déjà vu. In September we debated a biofuels bill and many of the arguments that have been run this evening were put back and forward across the House at that time. As I listen to the debate this evening I think that nothing much seems to have moved on from that point. Those who favoured the bill in September continue to favour its retention. Those who opposed that legislation then continue to oppose it tonight by supporting the repeal. I was one who supported the bill in September and I do not support its repeal tonight for the reasons that I will state. 
I think it is important to put this whole issue into some sense of perspective. Whatever happens in the short term at least there is not going to be a major biofuels industry in New Zealand. We are talking about a fledgling move. We are talking about meeting a need that will develop when we start to think about how we are going to use tallow for instance. We have three or four market players who are interested in developing an industry. They need some certainty and they need a framework within which they can make the investment decisions they will require to make their industry a viable one long term. When we think about it we know that that was all the original legislation sought to do. It was to set up the framework for the development of a domestic industry. 
Along the way some issues were given thorough consideration. There was the question of the source of the biofuel itself and there was the legitimate concern raised about using product that might be available for food development but instead might be used for fuel development. The original select committee dealt with that issue by putting in a sustainability clause. There was the debate we have heard a lot of reference to this evening—about the position of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—but again the original select committee in its report back dealt with the concerns that the parliamentary commissioner had been expressing. 
So I suppose we come back to the one unresolved issue as it were that has featured prominently in tonight’s debate—that is the question about whether the Government imposes by legislation a requirement or adopts an incentive-based approach through a tax adjustment. The reason why the original proposition was developed was as the previous speaker so correctly said to give a fledging industry a sense of certainty so it could commit to the investment that was going to be needed to develop what might become a larger industry in due course. It was as simple and straightforward as that and when members talk about “the market should decide” they should remember that ultimately whatever system is put in place the market will decide and it will decide by virtue of consumers determining what it is they are going to purchase. So I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that says that by imposing a requirement we are in effect removing an element of market choice an element that would be preserved if we were to go down a tax incentive path. I do not think we are talking about an industry at this stage that is in any shape or form to be so determined. 
So we end up with a bill this evening that overturns what was an essential first step in the development of an industry. I think there is a red herring about the time that the legislation was to take effect and the time that the standards were being developed because again that is part of the ongoing work in progress. The negotiation and the discussion that would occur between those industry players and the regulators in terms of the development of those standards are part and parcel of the normal process. By going back to square one tonight we are effectively saying to those who have an interest in developing a domestic biofuels industry “Not yet. Go away.” And we know that giving that signal means most of them will go away. So when the time comes that we decide that maybe it is right that we should now start to make a much greater emphasis on the use of biofuels domestically those potential investors and those technologies will not be available to us. I think that is the big loss here. It is not as though we have got ourselves into a situation where the changes that were made just 3 short months ago have proved unworkable; they have not even had a chance yet to be proven that they are going to be able to work. 
It is not as though we had a rushed piece of legislation originally. I cannot recall how long the bill was at the select committee but it was a considerable period of time. I recall having a number of discussions with the then Minister about some of the issues that have been canvassed in the debate this evening and I do recall a sense emerging at the end of that process that many of the issues that have been raised were satisfactorily addressed in the original legislation. 
So I have some difficulty this evening when I see a bill put forward to repeal a piece of legislation that was very much in its infancy. I think that is a mistake. I think that is something we will regret. I do not buy entirely into the argument that the whole world is watching and will see this as a retrograde step on New Zealand’s part. There is an element of that but I think that is being over-exaggerated. I just think that in terms of an opportunity that was available to New Zealand to start to give some credibility to those who wanted to develop a domestic industry to use a product effectively that we had available here as a by-product of our agricultural production this legislation stymies that opportunity. I think that is a sad mistake and for that reason United Future will not be supporting this bill through its passage tonight. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 As this is my first speech in this forty-ninth Parliament I would like to congratulate you Mr Assistant Speaker on your elevation to that position and your colleagues likewise. 
What the Luddites were to the industrial revolution the New Zealand National Party is to this sustainability revolution. The Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill is nonsense. To repeal a biofuel obligation in legislation that has not yet had a chance to work is nonsense. The National Government will go down in history as the Luddites of sustainability because sustainability has taken off in a revolutionary way internationally and it would seem that the New Zealand National Government is the only Government on the planet that will not accept that truth. I wonder whether this is what the fine crop of new National MPs knew they were signing up to. It seems to me that this legislation is a fast step backwards. 
I want to put this bill into context. First of all the National Government has done a number of things in the very short time that it has been in power. Dr Nick Smith frequently likes to refer to the blue-green credentials of the New Zealand National Party. I have to say in respect of this measure and several others which I will enumerate in a moment that those blue-green credentials are completely in tatters. The National Government went into a confidence and supply agreement with the only climate change deniers in New Zealand and that is enough on its own to turn us from being a leader into a laughing stock internationally. 
Second the Government removed the research and development tax credit which has an immediate impact on biofuel industry development. More than that the research and development tax credit completely stymies innovation and business development particularly where we need it most and where we need it most is in all of the industries that can capitalise on and progress sustainable initiatives whether it is sustainable food production sustainable fuel production or alternative fuel production. 
Third this National-led Government slowed down the emissions trading scheme and turned us from a leader in this area to what it likes to call “a fast follower”. The previous speaker from United Future Peter Dunne said he did not quite go along with all the rhetoric around the damage being done to New Zealand’s reputation. I advise this House that I have been to an Asia-Pacific conference on climate change and the effects on population development. Having just got back from that conference today I can report in quite fresh and stark terms that it was simply embarrassing to say that we were from New Zealand and that the New Zealand Government and its confidence and supply partner ACT had been reviewing and questioning the science around climate change. When one hears the stories from the countries—developed and developing—around the Asia-Pacific region and the impact that climate change is having already not only on their food security but on health and the struggles against poverty then it seems absolutely clear that this National Government is in a Luddite frame of mind. 
The fourth thing National has done which contextualises this legislation is lift the ban on thermal generation. So the answer to all our electricity generation difficulties and constraints in National’s view is that we need to build more thermal generation plants and pollute the atmosphere even more in the course of doing so. There are no aspirations from this National-led Government for renewable energy. There are no aspirations for developing renewable energy sources and for promoting those things and developing the kinds of energy supply that we are good at—in particular geothermal energy. A new plant has just come on stream to demonstrate that capacity most starkly. 
The fifth thing is that this National-led Government has moved away from and will not consider any standards for energy-efficient households in order to enable people to save money on their energy usage and to become energy conservation - conscious. The sixth thing in this complete litany of damnation in respect of the National-led Government’s proposals is the scrapping of the home insulation scheme. That in itself is something this Government needs to be ashamed of because the absolute pay-off in that fund and that scheme will come back to haunt it. 
We have heard already but it bears repeating that this Government which purports to be business-friendly has already with this measure plus the rescinding of the research and development tax credit brought development in this essential area of biofuels to a halt. The Waharoa example is but one example. Of course there has been anxiety—and it was widely canvassed at the select committee—about the production of biofuels from food crops. For that very reason the sustainability principles were written into the legislation. From this National-led Government we have a backwards step—something that will not only damage New Zealand’s reputation but as if that were not enough absolutely damage our capacity to produce alternative biofuels. 
In the first 2 weeks of its existence in this House this National-led Government has brought in legislation under urgency so that there can be no debate no referral to a select committee and no re-examination of issues. I will not go into the other pieces of legislation that do not immediately relate to this bill—about which the same things can be said—but I will say that the Government’s approach absolutely demonstrates a completely disrespectful attitude to the processes that this Parliament is meant to uphold. I cannot believe that this new intake of the new generation of National MPs are feeling very happy about this kind of legislation and these kinds of hallmarks which are going to live with this National-led Government for some time to come. Those members will regret not having been able to discuss these things more fully within their own caucus. 
One of the purposes of the mandatory biofuels obligation was to encourage oil companies to develop the infrastructure needed to deliver sustainable biofuels. It was simply an initial step but an essential one in order to create the backdrop required in order for a sustainable biofuels industry to be able to work in New Zealand. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
: 
 Like previous speakers as this is the first occasion on which I have had to speak during this term I take the opportunity to congratulate the Speaker the Deputy Speaker your colleague Eric Roy as Assistant Speaker and yourself Mr Assistant Speaker Barker on your elevation to the position of Speaker. I think it is appropriate to say the people of Runanga where I understand Mr Assistant Speaker you were brought up as a boy particularly with your grandparents are very proud of the occasion. Although your ascension is from the West Coast and I now represent the coast I do not expect any special privilege to be afforded to me while you are in the Chair. 
I can understand the disappointment in the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill of some people who have an intense feeling over carbon emissions; I can understand their initial disappointment in the bill. But the fact is that the more serious that people are about that subject the better pleased they should be that this bill is being brought in. If this bill had not been introduced there would be a very real risk that New Zealand would be contributing to the global food crisis. 
Moana Mackey 
: Oh for God’s sake— 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: There are those like the member opposite Moana Mackey who will frown scrunch up their faces and say our requirements are so small they could not possibly affect the world food crisis. But the argument is like that with regard to carbon production: the production is very small but nonetheless it has an impact—the same thing applies. 
I well remember that when I first came into Parliament I was appointed as associate spokesperson on energy. That entitled me to one of the great things about being in Parliament which is access to people from all walks of life and from all sorts of industries. We had the opportunity to speak with a large oil company executive—he was a large gentleman but it was a large oil company—and he was talking about his company’s move into the use of biofuels. He made it very plain the purpose was to make money; it was not to save the planet. Indeed he did say in conversation that the production of biofuels in the way that his company was doing it would in fact create more carbon than it would save. Reducing carbon was not the issue. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I thank the Minister of Energy and Resources for remembering that occasion. 
The oil company executive spoke about the displacement of food crops—the corn wars in Mexico where suddenly corn for tortillas and those sorts of things was going into biofuel and not into food with the consequence that Mexico’s natural foodstuff which was generally a lower-cost foodstuff was going up in price to a point where it could not be afforded. He spoke about the benefits of using equatorial lands and sub-equatorial lands. He thought from the point of view of ensuring that crops were used to maximum advantage that perhaps genetically modified crops would be the best way to go. 
Far more has to be done in terms of ensuring we have standards for sustainable production of biofuels before we move too quickly into this area. A quick calculation shows we would need 60 million - plus litres per year. We have heard people speak about enterprises that were planning to have those sorts of figures; they certainly would not have them straight away. There would be a need to import biofuel and there would be no guarantee at all that the products we imported would be sustainably produced. Naturally many first-generation products like those made from soy rapeseed and sugar compete for food production and I am amazed to hear people say “No we wouldn’t grow it where you could grow food.” Well how can we have that classification— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We’d just get it from overseas; don’t worry. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Say it again? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Jacqui Dean—we’d just get it from overseas. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: But how could we have that classification—that it will not be grown where food could be grown? If a biomass can be grown to produce biofuel I presume from that that unless it is on land that is vertical or overhanging the same land could be used for food production. It is incontestable that the sudden rush into biofuels is causing a huge destruction of rainforests. That is hardly going for growth and benefits in terms of the world biosecurity situation. The cost of production and the amount of carbon released nullifies the potential benefits of biofuel. 
We have heard the speeches this evening; they have been very intense and they have been very sincere from members from all sides of the House who have spoken. I was particularly taken with the points made by Rahui Katene albeit that she voted against the bill; I thought she argued the situation very well. Peter Dunne also brought up good points. But the reality is that there was going to be a cost obligation of $240 million per year; we heard that from Dr Smith. 
We use a sustainability standard we need a sustainability standard and we need to know that the biofuels that are produced are measured against that standard before there can be any compulsion in their use or a mandatory obligation. It is the mandatory obligation here that is the problem. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Aha! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes it is! This is a Government of commitment not of regulating blindly for the sake of regulating. This bill is a good instance of a commitment to sensible and well-reasoned legislation. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
:  
I move  
That the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill be now read a second time 
. During the first reading debate a number of points were brought up by people who think that this is the worst thing that could ever happen to the biofuel industry in New Zealand. But I have a few questions for them. They will be aware that there are about 20 million litres a year of biofuel produced in New Zealand right now. So the first question is: where is that being sold? Or are those people out there producing the stuff and somehow stockpiling it in hope of the day their captive clients by way of the obligation who need the stuff will come along to buy it off them? Of course they are not: they are selling it now; it is being used now. Since the obligation came in on 1 October have there been any purchases by some of the major oil producers or oil sales—or should we say motor fuel sales—outlets in New Zealand? No. So those companies like BioDiesel Oils (NZ) that are saying “It’s all over we’re out of here we are gone.” are not being straight up and down with the real current situation. 
I had one of my office staff phone that company’s representative to ask whether we could talk about its situation so that I could know more about it because I had noted that that particular company had had significant business development grants through Government agencies. I thought: “Why don’t I go along and see what they’ve done with that money and what is now at stake?”. The response was: “Don’t bother.” The representative said: “Don’t bother. They’re going out of business.” But if a company is producing 11 million litres of biofuel right now why would it go out of business? The problem you see is that the previous Government created an expectation that industries could be built off the back of compulsorily acquired customers. But that is simply unreasonable—quite unreasonable. 
My colleague Mr Auchinvole has just explained that to meet the obligation in the current year this country would need some 60 million litres - plus of biofuel. If we look at the list of what is being produced even if these organisations geared up there is no guarantee that domestic production would be aggregated purchased and blended by the oil companies here. The easy way around it is simply to import the lot and there we have the simple problem. There are no standards in place no measure against the sustainable production of that particular biofuel and there would be the strong possibility that New Zealand could be importing someone else’s problem. There would be no mark against us no measure against us but the world’s carbon dioxide emissions would rise as a consequence. The Greens sit there saying: “We must develop the local industry and if we do not have compulsory acquisition of product then it won’t happen.” The bill we are repealing did not make the compulsory acquisitions that their argument relies on. 
I want to make a couple of strong predictions for the future of biofuels in New Zealand. Here we are in 2008 a country that produces about 22 million litres of bio-diesel. I bet that in 2 or 3 years’ time we will be producing much much more. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How much? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will put a figure on it. I say it will double in 3 years—there is no question about that. I have faith that the investments made by these organisations will see them able to sell their product in this country. I point to some extraordinarily exciting things like the deal that Solid Energy has done with the Stark fishing fleet in Nelson. Fishing boats out there are 100 percent fuelled by bio-diesel. That is marvellous; if they have a spill it is fish food. Do they have stinky diesel on the boat and the crew? No they do not. That sort of use is going to develop in this country and it is going to expand in this country. That is why we are going to persevere with the development of sustainable production standards for biofuels. That is why we will continue on our exercise of equalising tax treatment for bio-diesel bio-ethanol and other biofuel products. 
I ask those who are so downhearted about the future of the industry in this country whether—since if we were to go ahead with the obligation as it is in place currently by 2012 we would need some 300 million litres of biofuel a year—there would be any chance that we would get from 22 million litres a year now to 300 million in a couple of years’ time bearing in mind that Mr Hughes over there thought it was a huge joke for me to suggest that the capacity would double let alone go right up to 300 million. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The member’s capacity could easily double. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes it could. That is right. It would certainly not go from 30 million 20 million or 60 million or whatever it is to 300 million—absolutely not. It will not go up tenfold inside 3 years and the former Minister knows that. We were always in a position where this country would be heavily reliant on imported product and cannot guarantee where that product comes from. 
I do not need to recite to people here what the UN says about biofuels. It is amazing that members on the other side of the House always talk about how wonderful the UN is until they disagree with it. 
I want to make one other point: that the current law we are repealing made provision for those who are obligated by the law to come to the Minister of Energy and Resources and say “We can’t meet our obligation this year. Can we defer it?”. The answer to the House—before the question is asked—is that it is highly likely. In fact it was obvious to us that all of the major sales outlets were going to ask for that deferral. All we are doing is saying: let us get some standards in place let us continue to put the incentive—and significant Government money has gone into this industry—into developing the local biofuels industry and then have a look at how much we might see going into our daily vehicle fleet. I make the point again that 20 million litres - plus is produced in this country right now—all being sold. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 This legislation remains a mistake. It remains a muddle. It has no logic in it that would withstand even a cursory examination—it is a crock. The Minister Gerry Brownlee who has just resumed his seat has shown again with the tantalising illogic of his contribution that he does not believe even half of the things that he is saying. This legislation puts ideology ahead of common sense. It puts low-grade politics ahead of any progress. It makes our economy dumber. It makes our economy more vulnerable and it is a part of a package of environmental regression that we have seen over the past week or two that is staggering in its extent. 
The point is that even if we forget about climate change—let us play that game ever so briefly—oil is running out. It is a finite resource. When we have used it once it is gone it does not come back it is not available to be used time and time again. Oil is non-renewable. And if this speech is sounding like something resembling a Norwegian parrot sketch then it is because I think that point needs to be made time and time again to a Government that appears to believe unlike any other Western Government in this world that oil can somehow go on forever—it cannot. It cannot so oil will be substituted one way or another sooner or later around the world. As the price goes up the substitution will begin and as the price goes up higher the substitution will quicken and so on. Electricity will be part of that substitution inevitably but so will biofuels. 
The difference between biofuels and oil is twofold. The first feature is that biofuels will be a range of products not one product—not just crude oil. It will be a range of products. It will be this that or the other feedstock used to produce some sort of alcohol and this that or the other feedstock used to produce some sort of lipid. We will have a range of technologies in the same way for example that electricity around the world is produced country to country by using a different set of technologies or a different mix of technologies. 
The second feature about biofuels that we know—this is not guesswork; this is known—is that the production of biofuels will be quite highly distributed. It will not be centralised. It will not focus on the small number of high oil - producing nations. Again like electricity it will be widely distributed across a nation or across the world just like agriculture is distributed across many nations across the world. Nearly every nation—I can think of one or two that may not—will be involved in the production of biofuels in my lifetime and most of them are now. Most of them are just starting off. 
But there are some impediments to biofuels. The biggest impediment the underlying reason for the sales obligation is that if the capital invested is to have certainty then investors need to know that it will be sold and because the person who produces the biofuels is not an oil company then they need to know that the oil company will step up to sell it. That means that oil companies will have to invest in this that or the other bit of kit in order to do that and oil companies do not like doing that sort of thing. 
As Jeanette Fitzsimons pointed out oil companies did not like it when we told them that we needed to take lead out of oil because it was addling our kids’ brains. Oil companies did not like it when we asked them to take some sulphur out of our petrol because the sulphur content is now so high that some new cars cannot run on it. Those cars have been designed for a much much lower sulphur content. The oil companies said that they could not do that. A negotiation was entered into and finally the capital investment at Marsden Point was made. Sulphur was reduced from 5000 parts per million to 500 parts per million and then to 50 parts per million and it is on its way to 15 parts per million—so-called zero sulphur. 
It was the same for benzene when the benzene level in this country rose to the point where the ambient benzene levels were known to be a cause of myeloid leukaemia where the link between the amount of benzene inhaled and the advent of that particular cancer is a straight line graph. It is one of the closest causes and effects in any cancer research that one could ever find. When we said that our benzene levels in New Zealand were too high and that they would cause a known amount of cancer the oil companies said that they could not help but now they have. 
So too with biofuels. The oil companies came to the select committee and said that it was 7c or 8c. The Minister in his first reading speech delivered that as evidence. It was wrong. It was wrong just like the oil companies always make their estimates wrong because it is in their interests to do so. The are behaving rationally when they go for a high level in their figures. The oil companies have made their point and the new Government has swallowed it hook line and sinker. In doing so it has delayed the inevitable. 
What is more when we find the situation arising where we are in a position where we need to produce some serious biofuels we will not be starting from level 1 or level 2 but we will be starting from scratch. We know that the legislation that is about to be repealed is modest enough. We know that by 2012 we would have got ourselves all the way up to 2.5 percent and that we would still be 97.5 percent dependent on fossil fuels but we would have begun to have some kit in place and we would have had some companies that were doing OK and if you will refining their production because of their research and development and their learning by doing. We knew that would be the case. We knew that there would be a competitive market. Therefore we can forget about any arguments about compulsion somehow raising the ability of a non-competitive approach because there would have been an international biofuels market. Whether or not the Greens preferred that it would be that way. That issue was not going to arise. 
The one issue that did arise was that none of the oil companies except Gull Petroleum wanted it. The oil companies did not say so because they knew they would be unpopular and they are already unpopular enough because they are making very substantial profits. They would prefer that their profits around the world continued. They would prefer to do biofuels themselves when their own product mineral oil became woefully unaffordable. That would be their preference when people stopped buying their product to then start making their own. But you see the future of biofuels will not necessary involve oil companies and they know it. They know it. In the same way that supermarkets are not particularly involved in agriculture so too would oil companies not be particularly involved in biofuels. 
Then there is another issue. In New Zealand the future of biofuels almost certainly will not be substantially around tallow and it will not be substantially around bio-diesel produced from algae although those will be important technologies. A still more important one will be biofuels produced from our woody biomass our trees and there we bring in a very interesting new dimension which is the patient capital of Maoridom. That seems to me to be a potential future—in fact it is more than a potential future—as the science is moving enormously quickly on that. I toured it in North America just about 4 months ago. For example on the issue of enzymes there is progress beyond belief. It is astonishing. The smart money of Silicon Valley has gone out of biotechnology and into biofuels just as this Government is heading in the opposite direction. 
We now have a Government in this country that is putting our country—inadvertently perhaps but doing so none the less—into reverse. This is regression. This is not progress. This is a dumb future not a smart future and this is very very dumb legislation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I find it somewhat galling that that was the Minister who convened a group on climate change for 6 years under the previous Government. Let me remind the House of his record. This is the member who went around New Zealand promising a $500 million cheque from Kyoto but do members know what we have? We have a $500 million liability. This is the member who talks renewable energy yet during his period as Minister we saw a trebling in the amount of electricity produced from coal. If there is any member in this House who should be ashamed to show his head and to lecture the new Government about climate change it is Pete Hodgson. 
I also want to draw to the attention of members opposite their record of emissions over 9 years. The only thing the Labour-Green Government led on in respect of emissions was increases. Let me read the figures for the record that was reported by the United Nations. The increase in emissions from New Zealand in the course of the last Government was 18 percent. The record of John Howard’s Government was an 8 percent increase. The record of George W Bush was a 6 percent increase. So let us get the record straight: in Government Labour had a record that was twice as bad as John Howard’s and 3 times as bad as that of George W Bush. So for Parliament to have a lecture from the Labour Party about successful climate change policy is like being given a lecture by Dracula on domestic safety and anti-violence. You see Labour’s record on climate change is about as bad as it can get and one of the reasons we need this biofuels bill is that it is another chapter in that party’s botched policy. 
Let me systematically go through and point out the botched aspects of that biofuel policy. The first thing we heard from members opposite was standards for sustainability of biofuels. I have a simple question for members opposite: having been in Government for 9 years where is their sustainability standard? We on this side of the House searched under the ministerial desks and we looked in every nook and cranny of our ministerial offices because we were sure that somewhere there would be a sustainability standard after 9 years of rhetoric. We looked under the chairs under the desks and in the corners of our offices; it was nowhere to be found. After 9 years there was no sustainability standard. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Keep screaming. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Mr Hughes why he would compel the use of compulsory biofuels when there is no standard. When the United Nations the OECD and every reputable international organisation were expressing real concern about biofuels the previous Government compelled their use without a sustainability standard. I say to Mr Hughes that that is bad policy. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: One-half of 1 percent! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He says it is only half of 1 percent but half of 1 percent without a sustainability standard has the risk of being some sort of politically correct policy that might make him feel good in his conscience but that does absolutely nothing for climate change and actually risks doing real damage to the environment and real damage in terms of the starving in the world who are competing for food along that way. 
I have to say that the most extraordinary contribution I have heard in this debate was from the previous Minister of Finance Michael Cullen. Let me go through the logic of Dr Cullen’s argument. He said that if we go down the road of providing an excise exemption for biofuels as we do already for ethanol there is a cost to that but that—listen to this—a compulsion has no cost. How many members of this House really believe there will be no cost to the consumer as a consequence of compelling the use of biofuels? I say to Dr Cullen that if there were not a cost why do we need compulsion? The members opposite are silent. The only reason they are compelling the use of biofuels is that biofuels are uneconomic. There are lots of other good things we do not compel for. 
I heard another wonderful argument from Dr Cullen who said that the price of fuel has gone up and down by 70-odd cents a litre so who is worried about 3c or 4c extra cost? I say to the member opposite that each cent on a litre of gas costs New Zealand consumers $60 million. That is $60 million for every cent. In the middle of a financial crisis when households are finding it harder than ever to meet their budgets and when businesses are under a real squeeze we on this side of the House are concerned about every single cent of costs that we will be imposing on consumers. 
Labour’s real flaw in the bill was that it was flim-flam. The real problem for Labour members was that they were going into the election campaign and campaigning on that carbon-neutral world-leader grandiose argument when their record was appalling— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You’ve gone from fast follower to rapid reverse. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member should somehow explain how she reconciles the previous Prime Minister’s rhetoric of New Zealand being a world leader and the first carbon-neutral country in the world with the United Nations’ official figures that show that the previous Labour Government had the worst record—the worst record—of any country that we would want to be associated with in terms of actual increased emissions. I accept that the rhetoric of members opposite was bolder than anyone else’s on the planet—yes it was—but their record was awful and frankly on the issue of climate change the facts are more important than the rhetoric. 
Members opposite cry crocodile tears about jobs. If I was a biofuels manufacturer and I could persuade the Government to compel everybody to buy my product I would be in there like a robber’s dog. I would love to be able to pass a law to say that people had to buy my homebrew beer; I think it is good stuff and I think I could make good dosh by selling it. But is that good law? No it is not. 
I do not think that any member of this House can honestly say that the answer is electric cars biofuels or hydrogen cars. We need to provide sensible incentives in order for new technologies to come on stream. The sort of compulsory mentality of the previous Government is a flawed approach. The United Nations Secretary-General has urged Governments around the world not to proceed with mandatory requirements for biofuels. I am yet to hear any explanation from members opposite as to why they are ignoring that advice. 
The last word has to be with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said that this law was a real risk to New Zealand’s clean green image. That is why members on this side of the House say that it is a botched policy and the sooner we get it off the law books of New Zealand the sooner we can move on with some climate change policies that make sense and that will work for both our economy and our environment. That is the agenda of the new Government. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Goodness gracious me! It is hard to believe that the member who has just resumed his seat was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee which worked on the Biofuel Bill. To be fair to the member he did turn up to meetings. Unfortunately because he had declared his hand as being opposed to the bill very early on in the select committee process I do not necessarily believe his contribution was nearly as constructive as it could have been. If he had left himself open to the possibility that he did not know everything and that the submitters who came along and told us that they wanted this legislation might have had a point then maybe he could have worked with us and with the Greens to come up with the standards and principles that came out of the select committee. I certainly will not say the member failed to turn up to the select committee because he did attend meetings but he clearly did not listen to a lot of what was being said there. It is astonishing how much of the information that was given to us by officials has been twisted. In that speech coming as it did from someone who claims that climate change debates and environmental debates should be about fact there was not a lot of fact from the former select committee member. 
We are at the second reading of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. We had the first reading half an hour ago and it is always slightly odd to give a second reading speech half an hour after giving one’s first reading speech. But because we are under urgency this is where we pretend that the bill has been to a select committee. This is where we pretend that Mr McNicholl who is losing $10 million worth of investment in a Waharoa biofuel plant—the company’s plant is on two sites—has had the opportunity to come to a select committee and tell members of this House exactly how much money he will lose from the repeal of an Act that gave him some certainty in his business. This is where Mr McNicholl would have been able to come to a select committee and tell members how many jobs will be lost in his industry because of the repeal of Part 3A of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act 1989 and he would have been able to tell the select committee how damaging the repeal of the legislation will be for our environmental performance and more important for the development of a domestic biofuel industry in New Zealand. 
But this bill is being rammed through under urgency. Mr Gerry Brownlee as Leader of the House now has a 100-percent record of bills in this House going through all stages and with none of them going to a select committee—100 percent of the bills passed so far by this new Government have not gone to a select committee. They have been rammed through and the public of New Zealand have not had a single opportunity to come to a select committee and take part in a process that we in New Zealand are very proud of. We know that sometimes there are reasons why bills might not go to a select committee but that is certainly the exception rather than the rule. 
This is important legislation. The Biofuel Bill was with the select committee for a long time because we wanted to get it right because we wanted to work really hard on getting the sustainability principles in place and because unlike National we did not believe in just throwing up our hands and saying that because the oil companies had come to the select committee and put up a few arguments we would scream that the issue was too hard to address and do nothing. We decided that doing nothing was not an option. We listened to the numerous submitters who came along to the select committee. Of course biofuel producers have as much of a vested interest in this issue as oil companies and we took that into account. We are certainly not naive in that regard. But we listened to the submitters and we came up with a bill that we felt balanced the need for a domestic biofuel obligation the need to create a domestic biofuel industry and the need also to not put too much compulsion on the people who are doing that. 
It occurs to me that perhaps the Minister in charge of this bill does not actually know what the principal Act does because the Act is actually extremely flexible. We were at pains to make sure that the level of compulsion in the legislation was limited only to the percentage of biofuel that is required to be sold. I will reiterate: in the first year it is 0.5 percent—0.5 percent—going up by 0.5 percent every year. The original bill had a final obligation of 3.4 percent. Again that is not exactly out of this world but from listening to the Government members speak one would think we had placed a biofuel obligation of 80 percent or 90 percent on the industry. We had an original obligation of 3.4 percent. But we listened to submitters and we listened to the oil companies. We got official advice that told us yes that an ethanol plant they had expected to be developed in New Zealand would not come on stream now and that they thought that perhaps the obligation should be dropped to 2.5 percent in order to reflect that. And we did that—we did that. We listened and we responded to the concerns of those in the oil industry that they would not be able to access enough biofuel in New Zealand to be able to meet their mandatory obligations. Of course that is what select committee processes are for if one is a member of a Government that believes in having them. 
I will talk about the biofuel obligation because a number of Government members have got up and talked about this issue being all about what is sold at the pump. In fact nothing in the Act states biofuel has to be sold through the pump. I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of that. A number of direct sales of 100 percent biofuel have already been done. We must remember there is a limit at the pump on the level of blend that can go through: a maximum of 10 percent ethanol and 5 percent bio-diesel. But companies can sell higher blends than that of up to 100 percent direct to customers if they want to and it does not even have to go through the pump. We did not tell the oil companies that they had to sell biofuel across the whole country and we did not tell them that they had to do so only in Auckland or Wellington. It was left up to them to decide how they implemented their obligation according to whom their clients were and what their existing infrastructure was. Let us not forget that a number of oil companies already import ethanol because they sell it. The oil company I worked for sold ethanol. Any claim that there is no infrastructure for the selling of solvents and for blending fuels is not true because oil companies currently sell ethanol as a solvent. Some oil companies already have the infrastructure there although others may have to develop it. 
But one of the advantages of bio-diesel and one of the reasons why we wanted to create legislation that would support the development of a local biofuel industry that would be predominantly bio-diesel is that there are not the storage requirement issues that one has with regard to ethanol. Ethanol is more dangerous than bio-diesel and requires a lot higher safety standards—a lot more double-skinned tanks and things like that. Those things are not required for bio-diesel which uses the same systems as diesel. Another advantage of the Act was in trying to create a local biofuel industry that we knew would be predominantly bio-diesel. It would mean that the obligation could be met from domestic production and that would as I said before eliminate a number of the concerns about sustainability. 
When we think about compulsion we need to remember that the Act is very very flexible. It allows the oil companies to implement their obligation how they best see fit and where they determine it needs to be implemented. The oil companies told us during the select committee process that they simply could not access enough biofuel to meet the original obligation of 3.4 percent. However when we looked into that using the oil companies’ own figures which they had provided to the select committee we found that with all the development that was in progress they could meet the original target of 3.4 percent. To say they could not meet the target when we had dropped the obligation in the Act down to 2.5 percent seems slightly ridiculous. 
Mr Brownlee likes to talk in terms of litres. Of course the obligation uses units of energy not of volume. To meet the 2.5 percent obligation requires 5.5 petajoules of biofuel; for the 3.4 percent obligation it was 8 petajoules. We were told that the potential for domestic production over the period to 2012 was for up to 4 petajoules of bio-diesel from tallow 2 petajoules of bio-diesel from rapeseed oil and 0.3 petajoules of biofuel from ethanol. That is enough to meet the original obligation of 3.4 percent in the bill but because the legislation was designed to provide certainty and to provide the basis for a domestic biofuel industry we did not feel the need to push that target and we took the officials’ advice. 
We have heard a lot about the impact of the biofuel obligation on the price of fuel. Dr Smith is choosing simply to quote the oil companies and not the official advice that we received at the select committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s your figure? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Of course one of the difficulties about saying how much this measure will cost is that we need to take into account the price of oil the price of biofuels the exchange rate in relation to imports and also how the obligation will be implemented. If the oil companies chose to sell 100 percent biofuel direct to customers and none of it through the pump there would not be any impact on the price of fuel at the pump. Every week at the select committee Dr Smith would ask the officials to go away and do some more crystal ball - gazing and every time they came back with advice he would say it was not good enough because they could not accurately predict the figures. As Dr Smith knows—and I hate to think of all the grey hairs he gave the very young officials from the Ministry of Economic Development we had at that time—the officials came up with a group of tables that took into consideration a number of scenarios. Those tables said that for petrol it could possibly be a negative number which meant it would be cheaper— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If it’s cheaper why do you need compulsion? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh my Lord! The tables also said that for Gull Petroleum which currently sells biofuels more cheaply than the other oil companies sell their regular petrol with bio-diesel the price could possibly go up by 1c to 3c per litre. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Well it seems that all National’s friends have deserted it except ACT. The Maori Party is not voting for this silly Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill and Peter Dunne is not voting for this silly bill. It is not a popular bill and it is squeaking through with a narrow majority. 
This is a second reading debate. Normally we would be debating what happened at the select committee and talking about all the people who came to talk about the effects of this legislation on them but we cannot do that so it is sounding like a very repetitive debate. I will talk just a little bit wider and look at where this bill sits because it is not just about biofuels. 
This bill is part of an extreme ideological position that says regulation is always wrong. Whether it is about energy efficiency standards for lights and hot water about a renewable electricity preference or about biofuels regulation—according to this Government—is always wrong. In fact this Government has actually abdicated its power to govern in favour of a Mr Smith and I do not mean the Dr Smith sitting opposite. We have two Smiths already in National but that is not enough. National has co-opted Mr Adam Smith as well to run the Government for it and the mantra is freedom choice and the market. Of course we all support freedom choice and the market but markets do not necessarily deliver the outcomes we want. 
Public policy usually aims to serve a purpose. Otherwise we would not bother having any. It has a goal. The goals of the biofuel legislation were two: firstly to reduce by a little bit our carbon dioxide emissions in order to start meeting climate change obligations and secondly to start preparing in a small way for the day when oil becomes unaffordable and then unavailable. That is about energy security which is a term I seem to have heard an awful lot about from the present Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee but with this bill he is actually moving in the opposite direction. 
I hope Gerry Brownlee is around the next time an oil tanker headed for New Zealand turns round in mid-ocean and goes somewhere else. Some members may remember as I do when that happened in 1979. During the false oil crisis if you like that happened in the 1970s an oil tanker simply did not turn up at Marsden Point and that led to all kinds of restrictions in New Zealand. That was a very temporary situation because of an action taken by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. When it happens next time it will be part of a permanent situation of oil being very expensive and ultimately very much less available. 
I hope Gerry Brownlee is around to see that when it happens and I hope I am around to see his face when he realises that it would have been possible if he had left the law as it was for New Zealand to have a small local industry making sustainable diesel so that we could still run our emergency services and get food to the supermarket—because we will not be able to do that with electric cars. If we do not build an industry in New Zealand we can forget the idea that when oil becomes too expensive overseas we will be able to just import biofuel. If we cannot import oil then we will not be able to import biofuel. This is about energy security and the Government is opposed to it. 
Many countries overseas use sales obligations to meet goals of energy efficiency. They put sales obligations on the power companies to invest in energy efficiency renewable energy and biofuels. This is not rocket science. A myth is being perpetuated that regulation and mandatory standards are somehow mutually exclusive. That is almost never the case. Biofuel producers will still have to compete to supply the obligation. The oil companies will still have choice as to whom they buy from and if people try to price racket they simply will not have a market for their product. 
Mandatory standards have a number of other advantages. The first one is that it creates some certainty and business likes nothing better than it likes certainty when it is looking at where to invest its money. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: It really likes the National Government. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: The National Government is creating anything but certainty and we are already seeing business go down the drain because of that. 
If we are looking at setting up a biofuel industry in New Zealand we are going to ask whether the market will be a stable market or a stop-go market. Producers would still have to be competitive to access that market but they need to know it will be there. If we want innovation investment and good science if we want biofuels produced from algae to flourish in the future when the science is ready and if we want ethanol produced from wood wastes in New Zealand—all totally sustainable and all made from New Zealand resources—then we need certainty for investment and this bill is taking that away. Mr Brownlee says that because Fonterra sends 22 million litres of ethanol now to Gull Petroleum it proves that there is a market now and that it can be increased many times over with no market certainty. Well I do not know where that comes from but clearly the fact that one contract exists does not mean there is an unlimited ability to expand. 
The next point is that if we want choice we can have it only if we have information. How are consumers to know whether they are buying biofuel or petroleum or if they are buying biofuel where it comes from and whether it is sustainable? How can consumers possibly exercise choice in this situation? Even the energy star labels on appliances are read only by the committed and that is why we needed minimum energy performance standards. 
Consumers’ day-to-day choices simply cannot meet long-term strategic goals. We need investment in infrastructure to meet long-term strategic goals and we do not get investment in infrastructure with a stop-go market and the daily fluctuating choices of consumers. How can consumers choose renewable electricity? They pretty much cannot and that is why we put an obligation on the power companies to build something that is renewable. How can consumers choose the best-performing lights when the best-performing lights are not even imported into New Zealand? Our market is dominated by junk light bulbs because it is not big enough for the good ones and they simply do not come in. 
Pricing and subsidies are often much more expensive than standards. In this case a tax exemption for biofuels will cost the taxpayers not the fuel users. I think that is an interesting distinction. A mandatory standard if it costs at all costs the fuel users in proportion to the amount of fuel they use. A tax exemption has the taxpayers subsidising the fuel users. I want to know why the cyclist the public transport user and the person with a small car should subsidise those with gas guzzlers because that is what this repeal bill does. 
National has a very inconsistent approach to subsidies. National subsidies? I thought National was not in favour of subsidies but it is proposing to remove a mandatory standard and replace it with subsidies. Phil Heatley said in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 that National was cancelling the green homes insulation fund because it would not tax people to pay for their neighbour’s insulation. Yet it is quite happy to tax people to pay for their neighbour’s health care when they have more severe asthma attacks because the home is uninsulated. Where are the logic and the consistency in that? Now we find that National is prepared to tax people to pay for their neighbour’s fuel. 
The principle seems to be that subsidies are OK when they go to big business but they are not OK when they go to ordinary people. The end point of this ideology is that we would abolish the building code because people can choose whether they want their houses to stand up or to fall down and whether they want them to be energy efficient. We would abolish driving on the left because people can choose whether they want to run into people. We would abolish regulations for hazardous substances for food safety for seatbelts for fishing quotas and for the Standing Orders in the House because on all of those matters the consumers could actually choose to run things the way they want to and we could get rid of mandatory things. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. ACT of course is supporting this bill and nobody should be surprised that we are debating it today because well before the election the National Party made it very clear that it did not consider it appropriate to incentivise the uptake of biofuels through a mandatory obligation and ACT stood in this House and supported that very stance when that legislation was rushed through under urgency shortly before the election. It made no sense then and it certainly makes no sense now. 
Moana Mackey 
: It had gone to select committee. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: The select committee discussion was held that is quite right so why do it again this quickly? It is interesting that Labour members are suddenly very worried about sending everything to a select committee. They certainly were not during their 9 years in Government. 
Anyway here we are and there are very good reasons to repeal this legislation. Many of them have already been discussed and I just want to briefly mention those again. Firstly there are very legitimate concerns around the claimed environmental benefits of biofuels. The booming biofuels industry is driving the deforestation of millions of hectares in rain forests in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: It’s nonsense. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Hodgson is chipping in over there but the evidence is pretty clear. Many other countries are now exhibiting very serious lessons that we should be paying some attention to. In the United States the leading source of biofuels is corn or maize. Nobel Prize - winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen a man not known for his climate change scepticism found in 2007 that biofuels made from corn and rapeseed—something that Jeanette Fitzsimons stood in this House and propounded the benefits of—contributed more to global warming than fossil fuels. If we are prepared to stand up in this House and ignore the evidence from other countries then we are not very clever are we. Biofuels made from corn and rapeseed contribute more to global warming than fossil fuels and there certainly is a lesson here that should be learnt. 
Back to Brazil; it is the second largest producer of biofuels in the world but we will not hear that from the other side—the second largest producer. How has it achieved this honour? It has been through having a large-scale slash and burn of the country’s native rainforest. Given the stance that the Greens have made about rainforests for I do not know how long—about the last decade—I do not think that we should be ignoring that. As if the rainforest was not diminishing at a rapid enough rate as it is Brazil has now embarked on an unprecedented campaign of cutting down rainforest to plant sugar cane for biofuel production. That is something that I did think the Greens and possibly some of the more conservative members of the Labour Party might have thought was important enough to consider during this debate. 
The loss of Brazil’s rainforest though is potentially not the worst impact of biofuels. The worst impacts may well be seen in Africa. In May 2008 Olivier de Schutter the United States food adviser stated: “The ambitious goals for biofuel production set by the United States and the European Union are irresponsible. I am calling for a freeze on all investment in this sector.” So why did he call for that? The reasons are twofold. Firstly food that was once used for its intended purpose is now being turned into biofuels. The very poor in the world are now starving because they can no longer afford what was very cheap food that made them sustainable. It actually kept them alive. Again the Greens and Labour once upon a time believed in helping out the poor of the world. 
Secondly land once used for intensive food production is now being converted to biofuel production. The cause is the latest fascination of the West and the victims are those in poverty in Asia and in Africa. Sadly those who are in poverty in New Zealand will now have more costs imposed upon them. Pushing food prices up will hurt most those who are least able to afford it. Legislation that diverts food supply into fuel for those least able to afford it is very dopey legislation and we in this House tonight are doing absolutely the right thing in repealing this legislation. The ACT Party fully supports this initiative by the National Party. It is the right and proper thing to do and we support it with pride. Thank you. 
Hon PANSY WONG (Associate Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 We have not heard any new arguments from the Labour Opposition against the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. Even the Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons has run out of new arguments: she extended the debate into the so-called bigger picture. 
I want to emphasise once again that biofuel according to even one of the Labour Party members is actually on sale. It was available before the mandatory requirement was introduced by the passing of the biofuel legislation in the last parliamentary term. Biofuel is available and New Zealanders who choose to use biofuel can get it. It makes one wonder why the Labour Opposition is so hell-bent on making it a mandatory requirement. 
The Opposition is calling for a mandatory requirement in the face of two major deficiencies. The first is the lack of a standard for sustainable biofuels. My diligent hard-working honourable Minister Dr Nick Smith looks everywhere for one! For 9 years the previous Labour Government never made any effort to develop standards to ensure that the biofuel industry could grow. For 9 years it did nothing and now it is too late. The previous Labour Government was lazy and that explains why its members are on the Opposition benches. For 9 years it did nothing and the Labour Government in its dying days decided once again to try to mandate the bringing in of a compulsory requirement for biofuel to be sold. 
I am so glad to be able to take a call to support our sensible and credible Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Gerry Brownlee. First of all he has repealed the compulsion part of the legislation. Even more sensibly he is creating a process to develop standards of sustainability so that the biofuel industry can prosper. More than that instead of compulsion the Minister is introducing a tax incentive. On this side of the House we believe that the growth of the biofuels industry is a desirable development and we want to see it happen. But we do not believe that compulsion is necessary because people already have access to and can choose to use biofuels. Tax incentives however make sure that the biofuel sector can grow. That is a good thing. I think the energy Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee has made a fantastic compromise. He has put a lot of thought into it. 
We trust New Zealanders—our people are intelligent. When they are asked to make an informed choice they can make that judgment for themselves. There has never been any need for compulsion. When the last Labour Government tried to bring in compulsion it showed that it did not trust the people. What happened? On 8 November the people threw the Labour Government out. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)