Volume 620 Week 67 - Thursday 9 September 2004 
Volume 620 Week 67 - Thursday 9 September 2004 
[Volume:620;Page:15527] 
Thursday 9 September 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the completion of the remaining stages of the Maori Fisheries Bill and the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill. The Government will also be seeking to make progress on a number of first readings. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to meet on the ringing of the bell on Wednesday 15 September. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is in relation to the Japanese parliamentary delegation. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none. 
Points of Order 
Presentation of Petitions 
The Clerk read petitions for presentation. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a petition presented to me today by the students of Middleton Grange School requesting a review of the cap on their student numbers so that parents may have further choice in Christchurch. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave because the petition is not in accordance with the Standing Orders. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Prisons—Bed Use 
1. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: How many beds are currently “mothballed” or unused in the prison service and why are these beds not being used to relieve the worsening muster crisis? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Currently there are 23 unused cells at Paremoremo prison due to district plan constraints. The Department of Corrections has approached the council to allow these cells to be used. The department is also considering refurbishing an old 87-bed unit at Tongariro/Rangipo Prison which does not comply with the Building Act. More double-bunking beds are being actively pursued but such beds would exceed agreed prison maximum numbers. Discussions between the department and prison officers unions are under way on this issue. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How many of the 468 beds mothballed by his department as at March 2003 could be available to relieve the muster crisis? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It may come as a bit of a surprise to the member that since March 2003 the 216 high-security Rimutaka Prison and Paparua prison beds are all back on stream and that the 252 low-security Waikeria Prison Rolleston Prison Ohura Prison and Tongariro prison beds are all back on stream. Every single one of those beds is now back on stream. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Would the Minister restate clearly what the Government is doing to manage the unexpected rise in prison numbers? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard two interjections during that question. I will have no tolerance today. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Department of Corrections has introduced a number of measures including: using the department’s 4 percent operational buffer reopening the 60-bed Larch Unit at Tongariro/Rangipo Prison and the Tawa Unit at Rolleston Prison in Christchurch increasing double-bunking at Auckland Central Remand Prison and Rimutaka Prison and adding cells to the Nikau Unit for women at Waikeria Prison. In addition increasing the capacity of existing facilities is being considered. The situation of course will improve markedly when the four new facilities open in the next few years. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why when that Minister has known about this crisis for months and months is he not competent enough to have negotiated an employment agreement that would see these empty beds filled and the crisis ended? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member does not quite understand. [ 
Interruption 
] He does not understand anything about the employment agreement and that is obvious from his question. I shall take it slowly. The reality is that a lot of double-bunking has been going on but there does not need to be a change to the employment agreement for that to happen. If double-bunking goes above the capacity of the prison then a change to the agreement does need to happen. That matter is being discussed at the moment. I suggest the member reads the employment agreement before he makes such silly statements. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: As the Minister has known about this crisis for months and months does he not think it would make sense to spend money to open up those mothballed cells instead of spending money settling all the prisoner compensation claims expected to flood his department because of his incompetent handling of that crisis? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Notwithstanding the fact that funding has been an issue right back to when the department was formed and back when that member was a Minister in Government and which is mentioned in the output pricing review there are two issues relating to the prison units that I described earlier. The first has nothing to do with funding; it has to do with the district plan. The council will not allow those prison cells to come on-stream and we are negotiating at the moment. The second relates to consideration of refurbishing of the unit at Tongariro/Rangipo Prison. Funding would be made available for that. 
Business—Climate 
2.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the ease of doing business in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today I have received a copy of a report  
Doing Business in 2005 
 co-sponsored by the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation. That report ranks New Zealand first in terms of ease of doing business ahead of the United States Singapore Hong Kong and Australia. The report ranks 145 countries and finds New Zealand the easiest place in the world to do business. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What criteria did the World Bank apply to reach its conclusion about the New Zealand business climate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The report looks at a number of factors such as the cost and time taken to start up a business labour-market flexibility investment and property protection the ease of registering of property the enforcement of contracts and the ease of closing business. In all of those New Zealand is well ahead of the OECD average. That is testament to this Government’s commitment to business. I tell the Opposition and its grizzling supporters that we have one of the best business environments here in New Zealand. 
John Key 
: The Minister has named just six categories and of course there was a seventh which is the hiring and firing of workers—I am sure that slipped his mind—and therefore does he think that the proposed changes to the Employment Relations Act will have a significant impact on the hiring and firing of workers and on future World Bank reports and if they do—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the one specific warning to a member. I had one on this side and one on that side. Mr Maharey that is it. Please start the question again. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister accept that he mentioned only six of the seven categories that the World Bank mentioned in the report—he failed to mention the issue of hiring and firing workers—and does he accept that that category will be significantly affected by proposed changes under the Employment Relations Act; if and when it does have a significant impact on future world reports will the Minister take personal responsibility? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. Two may be answered. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I did in fact mention labour market flexibility which is what hiring and firing workers is in part about—although it is a good deal more than that. The member should remind himself that when he was overseas in 2000 his ideological soulmates projected that the Employment Relations Act would lead to not a single new job being created. Since then 211000 new jobs have been created. 
Peter Brown 
: Did the International Finance Corporation comment on the effect of the Minister’s early announcement of interest rate rises or on New Zealand’s continuing leadership of the world in high interest rates? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Though the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation keep up to date I am sure that their report was prepared some time before question time yesterday afternoon. 
Paul Adams 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that the fact that nearly three-quarters of small businesses do not survive beyond the 7-year mark shows that there is less of an ease of doing business and more of a “dis-ease” of doing business in New Zealand; and what does the Government intend to do in regard to curing that problem? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. In fact if the member reads the report he will find that the ease of exiting from a business is one of the criteria for the ease of doing business. Being locked into businesses that are actually going to exit easily and cheaply is an important aspect of doing business. In the United States it is rather more clearly recognised than in New Zealand. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the lack of adequate roading and transport infrastructure including any New Zealand - owned and operated coastal shipping services that reflect on the ease of doing business in New Zealand for importers exporters manufacturers or service industries; if so what do those reports say? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There have been a number of reports. Clearly in particular in Auckland there are difficulties with congestion. Members should remember that this is a comparative study—Auckland might look bad but try some other parts of the world! 
Prisoners on Remand—Police Supervision 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many civilians are being sworn in as “temporary constables” to act as jailers during the muster crisis and how many additional remand prisoners could be held in police cells if necessary? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Police have always had a pool of temporary jailers that they can call on from time to time. But I am advised that of today 15 people are currently engaged as temporary constables. The number of additional remand prisoners who can be held will depend on the number of cells available at any given time. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister take any responsibility for any suicide by a remand inmate inappropriately held in a police or court cell as a result of this crisis? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Police are always concerned that people will commit suicide in police cells and they are trained. Many of the 15 temporary jailers are former police officers and they are also fully trained. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Do you consider that that addressed the question Mr Speaker? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I do. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What will the Government do when the police cells are full the court cells are full and the 100 mothballed beds are full; where will the prisoners go or does he think that in light of the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this week that will be someone else’s problem? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Government is managing this and I have to say it is managing it very well. It was the last Government that did not want the north Waikato prison built and that put up lame excuses. My colleague the Minister of Corrections is doing a very good job. He told the House earlier this afternoon that there was a 4 percent operational buffer and that the Government is reopening the 60-bed Larch unit at Tongariro Prison the Tawa unit at Rolleston Prison in Christchurch double-bunking at Auckland Central Remand Prison and Rimutaka Prison and adding cells to the Nikau Unit for women in Waikeria Prison. The Government is managing this at the moment very very well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish some members would actually listen to the answer. There was a continual barrage from some people. The Minister should have a reasonable chance of giving an answer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister discussed with the Minister of Corrections that Minister’s inability having known about this crisis for months and months to secure the appropriate agreements to open up the 100 mothballed beds or does the Minister of Police think that he has become the fall guy for the ministerial incompetence behind the muster crisis? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Minister of Corrections—a very good Minister—and I have been discussing this for a long while. Of course we want crooks behind bars and members on the opposite side of the House seem to want crooks out on the street. 
State Housing—Vacancies 
4.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports has he received on vacancy levels in State housing? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yesterday I read a report from the Hon David Carter claiming that having 1200 vacant State houses demonstrated that the Government’s housing policy was not working. The facts are that Housing New Zealand Corporation has 63855 State houses throughout New Zealand. Of those 424 houses are undergoing modernisation 336 houses are under repair 36 houses are for sale because they are in areas of low demand and 438 houses that are scattered around the country often in areas of low demand are vacant and ready to let as soon as we can let them. In total those ready to let are equivalent to 0.6 of the waiting list. That demonstrates that Mr Carter knows nothing about housing. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What other reports has the Minister received on State housing vacancies? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have received reports comparing the current State housing stock and vacancy rates with the situation in earlier periods. The State housing stock has risen to 63855 and in the last financial year 9450 New Zealand households—representing some 28350 people—were newly housed by Housing New Zealand Corporation. In 1999 there were just over 57000 State houses and 1381 of them were vacant. Of the 1381 vacant houses the majority—738—were on the market for sale. They were there because the previous Government sold 13000 properties and was planning to sell even more if it had been returned to Government. 
Hon David Carter 
: Can the Minister confirm that while 12000 families languish on waiting lists and while those 1200 houses remain empty one State house tenancy in Otara has an annual income of $117000 net; is that an example of Labour’s housing policy working very well? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because of this Government no one languishes on waiting lists. We improve our stock and unlike the previous Government of which Mr Carter was a member which sold 13000 houses and was intending to sell the whole stock of State houses we are now returning people to proper homes which is as it should be. 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. It referred to a State house tenancy earning $117000 net and asked whether that was an example of Labour’s housing policy working well. The Minister did not answer that. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no need to speak to the point of order. If that had been the only thing the Minister had been asked he would have had to answer that particular part. There was a piece before that particular question was asked. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why is he embracing an expanded accommodation supplement while building only a thousand new State houses when good research like that of the Australian Industries Commission in 1993 shows that creating more social housing is far more cost-effective than continuing with more and more taxpayer-funded cash handouts to landlords? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am happy to give the member the figures for State housing expenditure but I will just go back to the original statement I made. In 1999 57000 State houses existed. Today 63855 State houses exist. That is not just an additional 1000 houses; that is a lot more than that. And as the member knows we are already planning to build 3000 more on top of that. 
Paul Adams 
: Does the Government have a policy of selling State houses that are vacant for extended periods due to either their location or their suitability and size; if so how long do houses need to be vacant before that decision is made? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: We do have a policy of selling houses if they are in areas where there is such low demand that we cannot possibly expect to be able to rent them. There are 36 houses currently on the market for that reason. There is no set period of time for us to say that we will sell a house because it has been vacant for a while. It is the level of demand that we are interested in. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice the Minister of Transport is not available. Can I seek leave to defer this question to a time when he is available? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can always seek leave. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question. 
Roading— 
Benefits of Investing in New Zealand's Road Infrastructure 
5.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Has he read the findings of the Allen Consulting Group’s report entitled  
Benefits of Investing in New Zealand’s Road Infrastructure 
; if so will any changes be made to roading policy as a result of those findings? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Transport 
: Yes he has read the report and the report vindicates the approach to investing in our transport infrastructure that this Government is already taking in investing $18.9 billion over the next 10 years correcting years of what the report describes as “significant underinvestment in New Zealand’s road network specifically between 1993 and 2001”. That was of course under the previous National Government. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that the Allen report recommends borrowing in order to complete four strategic roading projects in a reasonable time frame and does he also recognise that if those projects are done by the year 2012 there will be huge economic gains for this country; if so will he be recommending that we follow the Allen report to a T? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The member correctly identifies comments made in the report and it is also fair to note that several of the recommendations are already being acted on by the Government. The member will know that right now the Minister is in his own area—Tauranga—discussing just one of those recommendations with local officials. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: In light of the fact that there are now a number of reports showing there is a massive backlog of projects whose benefit-cost ratios are sitting at four and represent an internal rate of return of somewhere between 30 percent and 40 percent—something one could not get anywhere else in the business community—will the Minister specifically ask the Minister of Finance to approve something available under the legislation now which is for Transfund to debt fund a number of those projects so that we can get them now and not in 2017 and 2020 which is when they are currently scheduled? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The member has considerable knowledge of the transport world having been the transport Minister for much of the time that a National Government was involved in transport and roading. It is fair to say that there are issues of funding and they are being addressed most specifically in the legislation before the House. What will be really interesting is how much support National has for those initiatives that are coming ahead. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked whether he would be asking the Minister of Finance. That part of the question should be addressed. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am well aware that the Minister of Finance is very much involved in these issues and knows about them. I should think it is unnecessary for me or the Minister to ask him about them directly. I am sure he is well informed already. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister have any concerns that the Wellington Regional Council appears to be endorsing this strategy which the Allen report predicts will create a $4 million per year collapse in the Wellington rail network? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: What the Allen report recommends may be one thing but the Government’s transport strategy is what is actually driving investment in both roading and alternative means of transport such as the public railway and bus network of New Zealand. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister aware that the Allen report demonstrated that the investment in the Tauranga roading network is giving the best return for money of any of the projects looked at; if so will that be foremost on the Minister’s mind when he visits Tauranga tomorrow to discuss these things with local representatives? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The question is a very interesting one because the Allen report does recommend the Tauranga roading project as one of the key projects for an investment return. More money is being spent in every region including an extra $134 million in the Bay of Plenty and not just on roads but on rail as well. Such an approach is advocated in New Zealand First’s transport policy. I believe that today—right now—the Minister is in Tauranga discussing probably just these issues. 
Peter Brown 
: In relation to the harbour link in Tauranga does the Minister believe that the situation where the lead-up to the infrastructure is determined as State highway but the actual second bridge is being declared a local road is practical or does he share my view that it is childish and stupid? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am afraid I cannot comment directly on that question simply because I have not had the thoroughness of briefing that the member obviously believes he has had. What I can say is that I am sure that will be one of the topics the Minister discusses today in Tauranga with local government officials. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that in Tauranga we have New Zealand’s No. 1 export port and that the second bridge is absolutely essential for the economic well-being of not only that port but the Tauranga community at large? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The member is being a very assiduous local member. I would say that a transport strategy that takes into account just roading is not a very comprehensive transport strategy. We need to ensure we have very effective coastal shipping and rail links as well as adequate road links. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that the Prime Minister has not been able to join us today for question time. Therefore I seek leave to ask my question next Tuesday when she hopefully will be back. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question. 
Ministerial Confidence—Prime Minister 
6.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because they are all hard-working and conscientious Ministers. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Prime Minister advised her Minister of Finance Michael Cullen that it was totally unacceptable for him to announce a day early that the Governor of the Reserve Bank Alan Bollard would be hiking interest rates; and has she sought an assurance from him that he was not making that statement to this Parliament with inside knowledge? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The Minister of Finance told the House yesterday that he was not making that statement with inside knowledge. I understand that the Minister of Finance was told by a person on Lambton Quay this morning that he was a man ahead of his time. 
Simon Power 
: Will she confirm to the House that she retains confidence in the Minister of Police when the words she used most recently in the media to describe him were simply “very loyal”; whatever happened to “hard-working and conscientious” as far as the Minister of Police is concerned? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Police is hard-working conscientious and loyal. The member opposite could learn any one of those three and it would be an improvement on his present position. 
Stephen Franks 
: Who does she think is telling the truth: the Ministry of Justice officials who state unequivocally in the just-released report into the operation of the Sentencing Act 2002 that it was not intended to increase the use of imprisonment and had not increased the rates of imprisonment; or her Minister of Justice and Minister of Corrections who now claim that their current crisis is what they had intended and expected all along even though they made no preparation for it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member misquotes the Minister of Justice. What the Minister of Justice rightly pointed out was that the projected muster rolls have been exceeded substantially over the last few months. It is a fact of course that passing laws that require longer sentences and tougher parole provisions is likely to lead all else being equal to an increase in prison numbers. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Will she rule out dumping George Hawkins as Minister of Police later this year; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister has already indicated in a public statement that she is not commenting on any supposed reshuffle that may occur later this year. I merely point out on her behalf that the Minister of Police is a hard-working and conscientious Minister who unlike his predecessors opposite can claim to have reduced the crime rate to its lowest level in 20 years and to have increased the clearance rate to its highest level in 20 years. He is in a position to say to any member opposite: “Eat my shorts!”. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Does she consider it acceptable that her Minister for Rural Affairs is even considering two systems of public access to waterways on private land one for Maori and one for others and what advice has she provided him on having separate race-based systems? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has been considering a range of advice from officials with a range of options in these matters. The member will have to await the decisions made by the Government. 
Deborah Coddington 
: When did she first become aware that the Minister of Education Trevor Mallard had spent $14.6 million on the Te Mana campaign to raise Maori educational expectations with no measure of how many Maori are staying in school or are enrolled in tertiary education as a result; and does she think it is good enough to spend millions of dollars on a campaign without having any way of measuring its effectiveness? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have the information in front of me to give the exact answer but I assume it was early on in the life of this Government because the programme was approved by the National Party Government without there being the performance measures referred to by the member. 
Heather Roy 
: Has her Minister of Health informed her that the number of patients on active review waiting for operations has increased by over 30000 since she has been Minister of Health and will she deny that thousands of those patients have been cut from the official waiting lists to make the numbers look good? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There did not used to be a process of active review so the statistics become somewhat meaningless. What I can confirm is that waiting times have been reduced. 
Rodney Hide 
: In respect of the Prime Minister having confidence in herself will she confirm whether she will be meeting with the police regarding their investigation into her speeding motorcade; and will she also confirm that her driver prepared a report on the speeding incident as he was required to do? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have information in front of me in that respect but of course I can confirm that the Prime Minister is a hard-working and conscientious Prime Minister. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are interjections from both sides of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well it is David Cunliffe who is the annoying one every time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am just asking Mr Hide to please come to the point. 
Rodney Hide 
: Well I would if I didn’t get interrupted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will do it or he will not be having one. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek your guidance Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has not turned up for question time and we have Michael Cullen filling in for her. We asked a supplementary question. Normally when Ministers do not have the information available they undertake to supply it to the member asking the question in the House. I suggest that it would be quite helpful if you would recommend that the Minister standing in for the Prime Minister did so in respect of that last supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Minister addressed the question satisfactorily as far as my requirements are concerned. 
Child Youth and Family Services Department—United Future's Policy 
7.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Has the Government given any consideration to the CYFS policy that was announced by United Future on 1 April 2004? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I again congratulate United Future on its constructive policy regarding the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. It is consistent with many of the recommendations in the baseline review of the department undertaken last year. As the member knows those recommendations have been endorsed and are being implemented. The Government is currently considering a range of further initiatives particularly to enable Government and non-governmental agencies to work more closely together. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister elaborate on the last part of that answer namely the foreshadowed ability for Government and non-governmental agencies to work more closely together and just how she may see that emerging in practice? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: One of the issues that became obvious during the baseline review was that there could be a legislative barrier towards investigations of abuse of children being undertaken by non-governmental organisation - employed social workers. The Government is currently considering removing that legislative barrier. That was one of the proposals in the United Future policy. 
Moana Mackey 
: What has been the outcome of the baseline review of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As well as the investment of an additional $120 million in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and the employment of around 150 extra social workers by the end of 2004-05 the baseline review has also led to the creation of family and community services within the Ministry of Social Development. That initiative is in line with United Future’s proposals to further involve families non-governmental organisations and communities in the care and protection of children and young people. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister indicate whether consideration is being given to the differential intake system that we proposed particularly as I believe that the head of her department was recently involved in Alberta where a similar scheme was implemented and may have much more direct experience of how it works? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Consideration of a differential intake response has been part of the Government’s policy programme for some time and I am delighted that it has been endorsed by Paula Tyler the new chief executive on the basis of her own experience in Canada. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Is the Minister able to give any indication to the House of both the process and the timing by which those new initiatives will be implemented? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If the proposal for a differential response is supported by the Government then it is possible that that could be a legislative proposal on a Supplementary Order Paper to the current bill that is before a select committee. 
Education—Funding 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government’s policy on how much parents caregivers and communities should pay towards the cost of their children’s education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Government provides sufficient funding for the curriculum to be delivered and for facilities to be maintained. Fifty-eight percent of that funding is provided in teacher salaries 21 percent in operations grant funding 10 percent in property funding and the rest comes from a variety of other pools. Schools can and do supplement Government funding with locally raised funds. Between 1997 and 2002—the latest full figures available—locally raised funds as a percentage of total revenue increased by 1.24 percent. Of course within that there has been some substitution from cake stalls to overseas students with an increase in gross revenue but not in net locally raised funds. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that in 2002 the most recent year for which figures are available schools and parents fundraised about $470 million in that one single year and that it was equal to one-third of all school operations funding; and is that annual fundraising requirement of $470 million consistent with Labour Party policy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am aware of some of those facts. The member should remember of course that operations grant funding as opposed to the operational costs of running a school is the figure he used. I am also aware that in Clutha-Southland there are at least 66 extra teachers funded as a result of improvements that this Government has introduced over and above roll growth. There are 54 extra management units. Operations funding has increased by $1.6 million. Deficits are down working capital is up and equity is up in schools nationally. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has he seen on possible savings that could be made in order to increase school funding? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen reports from Bill English that schools are awash with cash. I have seen reports from Don Brash that benefits should be cut for truants. I think that is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black in this particular case. 
Paul Adams 
: What guarantees does the Government have in place to ensure that any increases in the childcare assistance subsidy paid directly to providers are passed on to parents and not soaked up by early childhood education providers; or can he confirm that there are actually none? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there are two points. The first is that most of the additional payments are designed to pay staff who will have to be qualified and there is quite a differential between the salaries of unqualified and qualified staff. We are putting on requirements for staff to be qualified and therefore they will have to be paid for that. That money will not be passed on to parents. On the general question of the rates that parents pay monitoring work is going on—baseline work and some ongoing work—to ensure that parents are not ripped off as part of this change and I agree with the philosophy behind the member’s comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister proposing to spend $21 million this year on one-off payments to teachers who are members of unions and why is he sending the message to parents that they have to keep selling raffle tickets in order to keep their schools viable while he uses taxpayers’ money to do deals with Labour’s mates and subsidise union membership for teachers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have a memory that goes back 2 years when that member proposed paying them all $2000 each—not $500 but $2000 each. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What recourse does a member have when the Government continues to repeat a lie? I have never recommended a payment to union members only and he knows that but keeps on lying to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are two things. First of all the member cannot use that phrase and will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second point is that I now accept what the member said absolutely and so will every other member of the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do this only to make it absolutely clear that the $500 applies to members covered by the collective agreement and that is exactly what that member suggested. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and the Minister knows it. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought the Hon Bill English asked a very reasonable question. I think there are parents out there who want to know how the Minister has prioritised funds to pay $21 million to union members. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point is that the Minister addressed the question. He may not have satisfied the member with his answer but he addressed the question. The Minister gave a reply and I have accepted Mr English’s comment absolutely as every member must. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the New Zealand Educational Institute contract negotiations update that makes it clear the $500 payment is a reward for union membership. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that contract update. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you in all seriousness to reconsider your ruling. Mr English asked a question but all that the Minister of Education did was to attack him on something that turned out to be false and that was it. You have said that if a member stands up to ask a question that the House is clearly interested in and the Minister rises makes a false accusation and then sits down that is considered by you to have addressed the question. I cannot see how that could possibly be the case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made a reasonable point. I now ask the Minister to address the question that was asked. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are proposals in the negotiations that I am not commenting on in the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister give the House a reassurance in relation to the primary teachers collective agreement newsletter No. 6 which states: “Under the progress made by your campaign 8.5 percent over 3 years” and describes that as “parity maintained and union membership rewarded”; and can he confirm whether that is a correct representation of his $21 million payment to subsidise teachers who are members of the union only? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Dioxin Contamination Paritutu—Blood Serum Tests 
9.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What are the results of the blood serum tests for dioxin exposure conducted on 24 New Plymouth residents and what are the health implications of these results? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Blood serum tests were conducted on 24 residents as the member said. They were all residents or former residents of Paritutu. Blood has yet to be taken from about 20 further participants. Of the 24 tested 12 were found to have higher levels of tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in their blood than the New Zealand average. Despite numerous studies over the years it is still unclear what health effects may be linked to dioxin exposure but I have been advised that a small increased health risk cannot be excluded. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that the report states that 30 years later levels of the most toxic form of dioxin tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin are still three times higher on average than the national average; that one person had a level 10 times higher than the national average; and that there are likely to be people out there with higher levels still? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can confirm that. But what I will say is that adverse health outcomes from these levels of dioxin is not certain. In fact the outcomes for each and every individual are quite different. We will be working with those people to make sure they feel comfortable with the process we have laid down. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Is he confident that blood tests from only 24 individuals or for that matter only 50 individuals are sufficient to give meaningful scientific data from which conclusions can be drawn; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The parameters for this study went through a thorough process of consultation with experts. The testing of so far 24 people is just an interim study. We will test 50 people then sit down with the community and the experts and work out where to go next. We feel confident that the number tested so far does give an indication and that there is an obligation for us to release these details but the study is not complete and there will be no certain conclusions drawn until that time. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How will he help the residents in New Plymouth who have been informed this morning that they have significantly elevated levels of the most toxic form of dioxintetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in their blood—a chemical that the US department of health classifies as a known human carcinogen—and who will be worried for their future and the future of their offspring; and will the Government require Dow to pay for the medical costs and compensate the victims? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not prepared to comment on discussions with Dow at this stage. What I will say is that we are putting in place an office in New Plymouth and any people who have concerns can ring an 0800 number and get advice. We will be working with those people who have been tested and identified as having high levels of tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in their blood to reassure them and to answer any concerns that they may have into the future. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given that the report confirms that the Dow plant was the source of the contamination and given that the public health director Don Matheson told residents at a community group meeting that if there was proof that Dow had caused the problem recompense would be sought will the Government hold Dow to account and seek recompense? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This is an interim result so far; we have to conclude the study before we draw any certain conclusions. At that point and in consultation with the community with Dow and with the Ministry of Health we will be making those decisions. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Government think that after 30 years of denials false reassurances and procrastination by successive Governments the Government owes the residents of Paritutu an apology just as it has apologised over other historic wrongs? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: At this stage I am not prepared to make judgment over past decisions by Governments. I am aware that there are many many opinions about what has happened and about what might be the outcome. I would just like to quote one person who was a participant in the study of 24—a Mr Doug West who is 78 years old. He says he is a good candidate because he has lived in the area since 1958 and has been healthy apart from two hip replacements and he says: “In my opinion all this talk on dioxin is a load of bullshit.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On reflection I do not want that word used in parliamentary debate. The member could have mentioned that in a different way and I just caution him. 
Sue Kedgley 
: As the Associate Minister of Health does he share the view that the contamination by dioxin is a nonsense or whatever the word was that he used; and will the Government be setting up a specialist medical centre to assist persons and how will it assist persons who were exposed in the 1970s but now live outside New Plymouth? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there; two can be attempted. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I quoted Mr West only because there is a range of views. This Government is concerned about the situation. That is why we initiated a comprehensive study of it using the latest technology and the best international information we had. As I said before there will be a local office that anyone with concerns can ring to ask questions of a medical officer. We will be doing everything to reassure that community and to work with it. 
Police—Offence Report Auckland 
10.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Was the detective senior sergeant in charge of the investigation into an aggravated burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue Auckland on 12 September 2002 the only person involved in the decision whether to prosecute Phillip Layton Edwards; if not who else was involved in the decision-making process? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes I am advised that the detective senior sergeant in charge of the investigation made the decision not to prosecute. I am further advised that the office of the commissioner has had absolutely no input in the decision. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the detective senior sergeant in charge of the investigation into an aggravated burglary at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue Auckland on 12 September 2002 the person responsible for stamping the police file of the incident “Confidential and not for unauthorised distribution or disclosure”; if not who is? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not have that information. I do not ask for police files. I do not see them ever and I do not intend to start to. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I draw to your attention some facts and in doing so ask— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: The point of order is this. The Minister received no less than eight questions for written answer on this issue on 16 August to which he responded on 24 August. We then started to ask oral questions in this House on 25 August and have done so every day. Are you to accept that the Minister has despite all of that not looked at the case or asked for a briefing? He has admitted in the House that he brought the matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. He must have had a reason for doing that. Am I to accept that he has not at any stage since 16 August up until now looked at that file and at that issue despite the fact that he has called for a complete report on the failure of police to respond to a select committee call? Is that a credible position for us to have to accept? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The short answer to that question is yes. The Minister has stated it any number of times and the Minister having stated that the member has to accept his word unless he can prove otherwise. If he can other mechanisms are available to him to deal with that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And that is correct. If the member would simply look at Speaker’s ruling 144/6. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this another point of order? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is another point of order. The requirement though is that when questions are answered in the House an answer should be given consistent with the public good. If you look at the face of this situation you will find that the police decided not to prosecute and the person they decided not to prosecute eventually murdered somebody else. There is a degree of murkiness around the relationship between the murderer and the murdered person. It stretches the credibility of the House and indeed of the Minister if we are supposed to accept that he never asked the police what went on there. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Firstly may I suggest that members should be pulled up when they accuse people of doing things contrary to what the jury has already actually decided. It is not for this House to start acting as some kind of Court of Appeal for the prosecution in those cases. What the Minister has said many times is that not only has he not seen the police file but he does not wish to do so it is not his practice and he will not. That is a very good practice for a Minister of Police to follow. If the member thinks through he might care to think why it is a good practice in a democracy for Ministers not to be reading police files. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will rule on the point of order. I do not need any further assistance. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I’ll take another one then. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not take another one. If I give a ruling the point of order will be a new one. It is up to the member what he accepts; it is no business of the Speaker. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask then on that particular issue how the Minister can answer the question as to who stamped the file if he has had no advice? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a supplementary question. In the answer he gave he addressed that particular question. 
Ron Mark 
: What possible reason could there be for the police not to prosecute a serious repeat violent offender and further offer him guarantees that the matter in question would never be disclosed despite the following: first the police having a DNA strike linking the offender to the scene; second the police having a confession from the offender; and third the fact that the police did not require any further evidence to secure a prosecution? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police make decisions every day on the evidence before them and of course on whether they think they will get a conviction. The Commissioner of Police who is the highest-ranked officer in the country has himself reviewed the file and he has advised me that usual procedures were followed in this case. There is absolutely nothing out of order. The case is completely above board. 
Ron Mark 
: If Peter Shaw was not required to go to court and give evidence in order for the police to secure the conviction of Edwards what trauma could the police have possibly been considering when they used that as part of their excuse not to prosecute Edwards for the Rocky Nook Avenue incident? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I do not know what part of the story the member does not understand. Ministers of Police do not get involved in individual prosecutions. They never have and never will. I think it is a very dangerous thing that he is suggesting I do and I hope he never gets the chance. 
Ron Mark 
: Did police investigations into the reported aggravated burglary reveal that Phillip Edwards had visited 8 Rocky Nook Avenue a few days prior to the alleged violent attack on Peter Shaw on 12 September 2002? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: That is a matter for the police. 
Ron Mark 
: Supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No New Zealand First has had its number today. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to ask one further supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask a further supplementary question. The party has had its supplementaries but a member may seek leave. Is there any objection? There is. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just reflect on where things got to yesterday with the possibility that where Ministers were not answering questions some extra supplementary questions might go towards them. I think you are in danger of contradicting the ruling you gave yesterday because by adhering to the formula that you have decided to apply to the House you are judging that the Minister has answered the questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not judging his answers and I am not expressing any degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. He was asked a question. In each case I listened very carefully and I thought that he addressed the question concerned satisfactorily in terms of the Standing Orders. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps you can give New Zealand First some guidance. Is looking at a police file getting involved in police operations? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not something that I can rule on at all. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We accept that you cannot rule on it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Then why raise it as a point of order? 
Peter Brown 
: Because I wanted confirmation. We have seen quite some questions asked by New Zealand First members—and indeed by other members—on this issue. It is an issue where the public have got the perception that something is not right in the State of Denmark—to put it bluntly. We believe that the Minister should at least examine the file and answer questions on what is in it. We do not believe that that is getting involved in the operations of the police. If he cannot we question why we have a Minister of Police. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: First of all we are New Zealand not Denmark. Secondly I say to the member that he is just entering into debating material. 
Dioxin Contamination Paritutu—Government Response 
11.  
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Labour—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: How has the Government responded to the claims of dioxin contamination in the Paritutu area of New Plymouth? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 In 2001 an all-of-Government approach to organochlorine issues of which dioxin is one was implemented in New Zealand due to public concern. In the same year the Ministry of Health commissioned the Institute of Environmental Science and Research study the first part of which was released today. Following community consultation blood serum testing was deemed the best way to assess exposure so the institute designed the study accordingly. The report released today shows the results from the first group of people tested as part of the study. There is a second group of people yet to be tested. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: How can affected people or those with concerns that they may have been access advice and help over possible or proven dioxin contamination? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Institute of Environmental Science and Research will complete the serum dioxin study. In the meantime an 0800 line and web page on the Ministry of Health website have been established to ensure that everyone has access to the information and advice they need. Local medical officers of health are available to discuss people’s concerns. General practitioners around the country have been provided with information and people tested as part one of the study will receive a personal follow-up. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why was the incinerator at the Dow AgroSciences chemical plant which produced the dioxin that poisoned these people given an exemption in just the last few months from the new environmental standards on dioxin that allows it to continue indefinitely to emit more dioxins than any other incinerating device? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Indications from this interim report are that it was not the incinerator at all that was the cause of the leaks of emissions. In fact at this stage that seems to have been from fugitive emissions over a long period at a very low level of concentration. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you think about whether that was an adequate reply? My question did not ask whether the incinerator was responsible; it was about an exemption from new regulations to allow the incinerator to emit dioxin. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not judge on the adequacy of the reply. The Minister certainly addressed the question and gave an opinion. 
Forestry—New Plantations 
12.  
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
 to the  
Minister of Forestry 
: Is he concerned that the number of hectares planted per annum in new forestry plantations decreased by 63 percent between 1999 and 2003; if not why not? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Forestry) 
: 
 I would prefer to see a faster rate of expansion but I recognise that since the Government withdrew—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Speaker could I be heard in silence please? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The Minister asked reasonably to have his answer heard. There is no need to shout out. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I would prefer to see a faster rate of expansion but I recognise that since the Government withdrew from large-scale investment in forest planting private sector investment has closely followed short-term trends in free on board log prices. 
Brian Connell 
: Is the Minister concerned that the majority of forest owners attribute the record low plantings to the Government’s intention to introduce a land-use change tax of between $18000 and $25000 per hectare; can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s intention? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The member has obviously got things completely wrong. The Government has assumed liability for the Kyoto Protocol deforestation carbon charges where it is has assumed the relevant credits—that is for everything planted post-1989. 
Janet Mackey 
: Is investment in the forestry industry really in the doldrums as the Opposition seems to think? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Hardly. North American investors seem to find New Zealand forestry an attractive investment as is witnessed by the arrival of several timber industry management organisations and Harvard University. I can assure other potential investors that there is still room for more investment in our industry especially in wood processing. 
Brian Connell 
: Is the Minister concerned that the forestry industry our third-biggest export earner is facing significant damage because Australia which is New Zealand’s biggest wood-product customer is heading towards becoming self-sufficient due to rapid rates of new planting and is not considering a land-use change tax? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I am well aware that Australia is rapidly approaching self-sufficiency. Indeed it has always been self-sufficient in hardwoods but it is not yet self-sufficient in softwoods which are what New Zealand principally produces. In addition we have wonderful prospects in the North Asian markets. The Government is leading the way in opening up those markets for our industry. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: How is the Labour-Progressive Government working to facilitate increased profitability throughout the forestry industry? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: We are pursuing a wood-processing strategy that is working towards removing impediments to investment. The Government is also working in partnership with the industry on initiatives to improve the industry’s profitability such as the $23 million per year allocated to improve the transport infrastructure. Improved profitability will turn investor sentiment around and the Government is working hard to effect that. 
Questions to Members 
Question No. 1 to Member 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise members that the question cannot be asked because the chairperson is absent. That question is postponed until the next sitting day. 
Question postponed. 
Points of Order 
Official Information Act Requests—Questions to Ministers 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have raised this matter with you and I would be interested in your consideration of it. I have asked the Associate Minister of Education a series of parliamentary questions relating to a recent decision of the Government about funding for Auckland University. The response I have had is that he will not answer the questions because there is an Official Information Act request on that matter. I know for sure that it was never Parliament’s intention that the Official Information Act would replace the parliamentary question process. They have different purposes and elicit different sorts of information in different ways. I would be interested in your ruling as to whether a Minister can quote the Official Information Act as a statutory barrier to answering parliamentary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member wrote to me this morning. I got the letter and I have actually already replied to it and I have asked the Minister for an explanation. I will most certainly look at this; I regard it as a serious issue. 
Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I am pleased that this legislation is now ready to be passed. It was over a year ago that the problems of water allocation in the Waitaki began to become apparent. There were a number of large and competing applications to use water from the Waitaki River and there was no plan or policy basis on which to decide how the water should be allocated if allocated at all. The community felt under siege by the proposals that would alter significantly the environment in which they lived. Project Aqua drew the eye of the nation and the public more generally wanted the chance to debate the best use of the water in the Waitaki. There were alternative proposals for different irrigation schemes and the farming community wanted to be sure that the costs and benefits of alternative uses of the water in the Waitaki would be considered. In the meantime the applications were piling up and it was clear there was not enough water to go around. Even if the regional council Environment Canterbury had embarked on preparing a plan those applications would have pre-empted that plan unless special provision was made. 
As Minister for the Environment I decided to call in all the applications for use of water in the Waitaki and pass special legislation that would ensure that a regional plan was prepared to guide decisions on allocating water from the Waitaki River. I called in those applications in September 2003 and by early December 2003 I had legislation ready to introduce into the House. The legislation provides that the applications that have been called in will be put on hold while a water allocation framework is prepared. That plan will be the basis on which water is allocated in the Waitaki catchment. 
During debates members have raised the issue of why we do not do this for other river catchments. First some rivers are under regional councils that do have water allocation plans but currently this Government is conducting a comprehensive review of water management that would take in all New Zealand rivers. The Waitaki situation of multiple demands for its water outstripped the policy development timetable. We could not wait. 
The legislation was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 10 December and I would like to thank the committee—although I know the chair thinks it was a thankless task—for its excellent work and the positive changes it has recommended to the bill. The committee received over a hundred submissions. It spent several days hearing submissions in the catchment and it made it as easy as possible for the local community to have a say on the bill. 
The select committee reported back to the House on 22 March. A week later Meridian Energy Ltd announced it was not proceeding with Project Aqua. Opposition members need to reread Meridian Energy’s announcement on that matter. It was not all as they asserted. Geotechnical investigations had shown a need for design changes that impacted adversely on the economics of the project. That announcement prompted me to rethink several aspects of the bill to ensure that the legislation we had drafted was still relevant. Those changes were prepared in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper. 
The key change was removing the requirement for a panel of commissioners in Part 4. The prospect of Project Aqua being withdrawn meant that fewer consent authorities were involved. The select committee changes also meant that the panel would in fact be a group of council appointees. That was what the select committee had changed. I considered that it was more sensible to leave the consent decisions to be dealt with by the local authorities in the normal manner under the Resource Management Act. This meant that large sections of Part 4 were no longer needed. In the interests of timeliness however especially for the irrigators whose applications have been called in we retained procedural aspects of the bill that provided for priority fixtures by the Environment Court on any appeals on the consent decisions judicial conferences and requiring consideration of strike out of appeals. 
Following on from the changes proposed by the select committee I wanted to make it absolutely clear that the water allocation board is to produce a regional plan for the allocation of water in the Waitaki to leave no room for doubt—particularly judicial doubt. I recommended that the term “water allocation framework” be removed and replaced with the term “regional plan”. I also specified four key outcomes that the plan must provide for. I also proposed that the prescription in clauses 17 to 20 be removed and that the bill simply specifies what the regional plan must provide for. It does not mean that the matters set out in those clauses are no longer relevant—they are; it is simply that they are already matters that can be dealt with in a regional plan under the Resource Management Act and do not need to be prescribed as mandatory considerations. Similarly the cost-benefit test contained in clause 20 is already inherent and enabled in the Resource Management Act and does not need to be specifically provided for. Clauses 41 and 42 provided for comparative assessment of applications. I recommended that those clauses be struck out because I intend to explore that approach further for all New Zealand through the water programme of action. 
The water allocation board will still compare the merits of different categories of activities when deciding how water should be allocated in the Waitaki catchment and this plan will provide the policy basis on which individual applications will be assessed by local councils. Recognising that the water allocation board has a difficult task before it and that I want it to have sufficient time to get it right I propose that 12 months be given for the board to develop and approve the regional plan. There will be no extension of the time limit. Once a plan has been approved the applications that have been put on hold by the legislation can then be considered under the plan by the local authorities. 
In keeping with the spirit of consultation that lies behind this legislation we consulted the councils stakeholders and community about the Supplementary Order Paper. I believe that the changes that have been proposed are sensible and will ensure the allocation plan that is produced will be consistent with Resource Management Act best practice. 
The Opposition moved an amendment in the Committee asking that the board take into account the 1969 Order in Council. That was unnecessary. I will write to the board to ensure that the injustices felt by those affected by the Order in Council are heard. The story of what happened to that Order in Council is not a proud one for the National Party but that party should not compound the poor decision the National Government made in 1993 with even poorer ones made now. I urge all who are interested in the future of the Waitaki River to become involved in the preparation of that plan. I expect Environment Canterbury will then have a solid planning tool which it can implement to provide for the best use of the water and to meet the best interests of the community. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have taken calls during the second reading debate on this bill and during the Committee stage and the position that the National Party has had and still has is that we are strongly opposed to this legislation. Nothing I have heard from the Minister today or during the Committee stage will change my position or that of the National Party on this particular bill. 
 The central theme of this bill has always been—and no amount of words from the Minister will change it—about Project Aqua. The whole agenda as the bill was constructed was about the Government’s pet company getting Project Aqua up and running. The other consent holders on the Waitaki River were not regarded at all. Their property rights were stampeded over by this Government. 
The Minister for the Environment asserts that this bill is now about water allocation. It is not about that. She has now put back before the House a messy muddled bill. The agenda has moved away from that central theme of Project Aqua. What we have now and what this bill will become known as is “the Hobbs’ debacle”. The Government set out to pervert the Resource Management Act and its processes simply so that Project Aqua could be started. The National Party and some other parties fought very hard to make sure that the truth of what this Government was trying to do was exposed. 
The member who has just taken a call said that this bill is not just about the Waitaki River. Well if it is not just about the Waitaki River why is she so silent about other rivers in Canterbury? Why is a water allocation process not now in place for the Rakaia Waimakariri or Rangitata rivers or further afield across this country for rivers like the Waikato or the Whanganui? The answer is that the central theme of this bill has always been Project Aqua. No other river is having this type of central bureaucracy imposed on it—and that is the flaw in the Government’s argument that this bill is not about Project Aqua. 
I said before that this Government stampedes across private property rights. Here is just another example. We are seeing at the moment land access issues being developed against the majority view in this country. The member for Aoraki who is also the Minister who voted against the Order in Council is now promoting land access and the ability to roam at will across private property in this country. He is the same Minister who thumbed his nose at the people of South Canterbury regarding that Order in Council. 
I will talk about that in some detail. The Order in Council was for 15 cumecs of water. The Waitaki River has a mean annual flow of 340 cumecs so that represents about 1.7 percent of all the water that is available. It is not just that the farming community wanted that small amount of water; it is also about the fact that they had been promised that water by the Crown in 1969. They had been promised that water. The fact that they had not taken that water to date was simply because the technology to enable them to use that water had not been available until recent times. But as soon as the community put up their hand and said: “OK we are now in a position to use it. Will the Crown honour its word?” this Government said no. A perfectly reasonable amendment was put forward by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith. The Green member Jeanette Fitzsimons supported that and I acknowledge her contribution. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: We had to change it first. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The member did support it and I acknowledge that. However United Future members chose not to support it and they have no excuse. They understand the value of water to that community and they still chose not to support it. 
The Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton has acted in a terrible irresponsible way. Not only is he the Minister of Agriculture but he is the local member in that area and he made a very clear decision to vote for the Labour Party rather than for his constituents. That is a sell-out of the worst kind. Mr Sutton has affirmed that he really will retire. I can think of no member who would so clearly thumb his nose at his local constituents and expect to get re-elected. He has done more to get a National member elected to Parliament in South Canterbury than anyone else could possibly have done. National thanks him for that. However my heart goes out to the people of South Canterbury. They are now in a situation whereby a promise made to them by the Crown has not been honoured. The great tragedy is that the Mackenzie Basin will become a desolate area as a consequence. 
Mr Sutton who is the Minister of Agriculture and the local member knows the value of water to farmers. He will argue—and did argue in fact though it was a very flawed argument—that the 1.7 percent of the water that the farming community could not get even though it had been promised it would be better used for electricity generation. He knows and I know that that is factually not true. One cumec of water has five times the return when used for irrigation purposes than when used for electricity. Of course if that water were used for irrigation purposes a large amount of it would run back into the river once it had served its purpose which was to generate huge amounts of productivity in that area. 
 So Mr Sutton has been found wanting and the people of South Canterbury will not forget that. On the other side of the river we have the member for Otago. He came to this House and committed the greatest sin of all. He stood and took a call—he was shamed into taking it—and said: “I am neither for it nor against it.” 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What was his name? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I cannot remember his name—“Parker Pimpernel” or something like that. I cannot quite think what it is. He was heavily disguised when he came to Parliament and took a call. I do not know what his name is but apparently that is not uncommon because down in Otago they do not know him at all. But they will know his name now if they do their research. He is the member who purports to represent their interests and comes to the Parliament and says: “I am neither for nor against.” 
The great tragedy about this muddled bill that the Minister has now put before the House is that we missed a huge opportunity to think strategically and laterally and talk about water usage in a more strategic sense. We could have looked at best practice. We could have started looking at transferable water rights for example. We have only to look across the Tasman to Australia to see how they manage a scarce resource. We could have looked at some best practice. Here in this country we seem to think that that is absolute anathema. I am of the opinion that it is only a matter of time. Here was an opportunity for the Minister who introduced this bill to the House and the Minister of Agriculture to do something strategic. Transferable water rights or tradable water rights are what is happening on the Murray River in Echuca in central Victoria. It was an opportunity for this Government to put in place something worthwhile. This is a muddled bill. The National Party is strongly opposed to it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in support of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to make a rare admission: I am confused in two respects. The first ground for confusion is that one of my colleagues a minute ago asked me: “Who is that member speaking?” when the member opposite was delivering his speech. We took a quick poll on the Labour side of the aisle and for a good 3 minutes none of us could think of his name. Someone said he is from Ashburton. We consulted the  
Ashburton Guardian 
—I am told that the member has a close family interest in it—but notwithstanding that we still could not find his name. So if any other members can help us we would appreciate some assistance after my short soliloquy. 
The second ground for confusion is that it is not often that Government members come to this House and the whips say: “Would you like to take a call?”. I said to them: “This is the Waitaki bill and I’m from Waitakere. Is there some confusion here?”. They said “No.” I realised that they were being brilliant because I actually grew up in South Canterbury. That member was referring to water rights in South Canterbury and I have news for him: I used to go salmon fishing in the Waitaki River and I loved it. I never caught a single salmon in the Waitaki River but I am prepared to believe that there were some there and I want my little man to know that there are some salmon there as well. 
This bill is important because it preserves water rights now and for the future. We are entering a time when water rights will become contestable. We need to have a proper structure to guarantee them for future generations. No local member could do more than Jim Sutton has done to ensure the interests of his local electorate—my old electorate—are indeed protected. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 When New Zealand First considered the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill we had three components in mind. The first is that this bill is concerned first and solely with water allocation. Secondly we believe that the rights of existing permit or consent holders which included Meridian Energy irrigators and traditionally recreational users are paramount in any framework or plan. Thirdly we held from the beginning and throughout the whole of this process that the in-stream values that characterise this river must above allbe paramount in any framework or now plan. We are aware that the normal resource consent process goes through in this case two regional councils but also involves some district councils. We also are aware that Environment Canterbury which has authority for most of the area under consideration had no water plan for this river but had before it over 60 resource applications awaiting a hearing. 
I will pause for just a minute because the issue of time is important with regard to the rights and to the matters of the Order in Council which I will traverse later. But what are the facts of the situation with regard to Meridian Energy which is a significant user of water and supposedly the reason for this bill particularly with regard to the upper Waitaki Valley? In 1991 Environment Canterbury granted consents to what was then ECNZ and is now Meridian Energy for all its activities on the Waitaki River after—and this is the point—a lengthy public participative working-party process. I am assured absolutely by Environment Canterbury that the working-party that looked at the issues in 1991 received no objections from anybody. After that Environment Canterbury adopted an interim policy that covered the matter of the minimum flow of the lower Waitaki River and set about preparing a plan. It also has assured me and assured the Minister as well earlier this year that at that point it stopped because there was no demand and furthermore there was a very strong feeling that a water plan was not required. It may be that territorial issues between Otago and Canterbury were also an influence at that time. So when this bill came to the House there was no residual water plan; there was a regional policy statement giving some guidance but there was no facility in hand at all to consider the complex matters that were going to become the matter of a potential consent. 
When the bill came to the House—and I want to emphasise this point—New Zealand First did not support it. Our support as a party came after the excellent work done by the select committee in changing almost completely a number of the core issues in the bill. We felt that the bill that came back to the House provided a more adequate process to determine the use of water in the catchment area to develop a water allocation framework and to provide for the issues with the main issue being the limited available water supply in the catchment because of the range of applications but also because of the amount of previous use. 
We acknowledge the importance of renewable energy for the Waitaki catchment as well as irrigation the natural in-stream issues recreational community fishery issues and not least NgaiTahu concerns which were all defining features of what the allocation would be in the regional plan. Under the Resource Management Act the “first come first served” basis is not designed to compare the merits of comparative applications for water. It requires only an effect-based assessment or impact for any proposal. That is the major issue that is still to be determined and if it is not determined in the course of the development of the regional plan then unsolved problems will be left. There has to be a determinative solution as to what is the process or the case for comparative applications for water from the same stream or the same stretch of water. 
We would have preferred it if this part in the final review which came back after the Supplementary Order Paper had had some input from the public. I know that groups like Waitaki First would have much preferred it if the Local Government and Environment Committee had considered the matters considered by the Committee of the whole House. It felt that the select committee would have given those matters more serious application and would have come back to the House with a far better bill than the one we are now looking at and I am quite sure that would have been so. The Government of the day in its wisdom decided to bring the matters directly to the House. We lost the opportunity to consider in a semi-private or public forum some of the expert advice that we could have called on before this became the bill’s final form. I understand the reasons why those matters were brought here but I believe that we missed a valuable opportunity to really get it right. The Waitaki First submissions earlier on were anxious that we did get it right for the sake of its river. 
But what does this bill do for us finally? It establishes a Waitaki Catchment Water Allocation Board and it establishes a plan and a process in a 12-month period. We have had some call for alternatives and I refer to the present regional natural resources plan which is before the region right now. I have said previously in the House and I will say it again that the earliest expectancy that that planning could become operative in any sense would be in 2008-09. If this bill is passed today within a year from now a proposed regional plan for the Waitaki catchment could be in existence and every would-be user would have to “give regard to” that proposed plan as from that date. That surely is a far better operative proposal for the future than any other that I know of. May I say that the people I have spoken to the people of the upper Waitaki catchment valley—the farming community there the would-be irrigators and those associated with the length and the breadth of the river—see that as a far more desirable step than anything else that has been mentioned here or in other places. 
Brian Connell 
: What about Federated Farmers? 
JIM PETERS 
: Federated Farmers may have said otherwise. Their submission which has been around this place relates back to what they feel is the unfinished business of the Order in Council and I will come back to that towards the end of my speech. It is the only unsolved issue so far as I am concerned. 
What this regional water plan will do is put into effect what was stated in the Tasman District Council case with Carter Holt Harvey and that was that regional councils need to manage water bodies and stream flows to reflect and this is the important point the current environment—that is in 2004—and that the allocation of water should provide equal opportunities for all users to access the resource and we would applaud that. If the regional planning commissioners would also set as their major objective the enabling of access to water while safeguarding and protecting in-stream values then that would be something we would look forward to with pleasure. We know that Environment Canterbury has the material and data including historical knowledge of the Waitaki catchment dating right back to 1928 and beyond. We know that high-quality data and investigation were provided in the application that was submitted by Meridian Energy to Environment Canterbury. We also know that the recent work of the Ministry for the Environment and others provides a huge body of knowledge which now needs to be sorted out assembled disseminated and finally put into a regional plan. In so far as New Zealand First is concerned we look forward to seeing that plan. If the plan is in accordance with the new revised clause 14A with those four major components if it attempts to look at the issue of an allocative framework as well then we will be very satisfied and I am quite certain that those people who are most concerned about their river will also be satisfied. 
The final matter is that the life of the river inherently needs to be preserved. It is for public use; it is for private use; but most of all the river itself is important. It is important that those in-stream values are recognised in a final regional plan. New Zealand First supports the passage of the bill and looks ahead to Environment Canterbury doing its job. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Nothing the Minister for the Environment has said today or on any previous occasion convinces me there is any need for this bill. The Greens accepted that there was a need at the beginning. The Minister said today that if the application from Project Aqua to take—she did not use this number—73 percent of the flow of the river had gone ahead there would not have been enough water to go around. There were all those applications to take water but no regional plan to give any guidance as to how those consents could be considered. So we accepted that there was a need for the bill at that stage. 
I have to say the select committee did a very good job on it. We worked very hard. We sat extra hours by a long way. We constrained ministerial power in the bill quite considerably. We ensured a high level of skill and expertise on the board that would set the water plan. We ensured there would be more than two such people to consider all those matters and make the decisions and we returned to the councils concerned the power to issue eventual consents. We reported back a bill that I was proud of particularly because the entire select committee all of whose members had voted differently on the introduction of the bill supported the amendments we had made. What is more we met the very tight deadline of 22 March which was the Minister’s deadline. We were not given the normal 6 months. We also went to Oamaru and heard submissions. 
However with the withdrawal of Project Aqua I no longer accept that this bill is necessary. The Waitaki River volume now vastly exceeds the volume of water required by the applications to take water. It vastly exceeds it. There are many rivers in this country that are much more allocated than the Waitaki is and for which no plan is being proposed. What is special about the Waitaki? I listened very carefully to hear why the Minister still thinks it is more important for this river than any other river to have a plan and I did not get an answer. Meanwhile we have red zones in Canterbury where the council says no further groundwater can be allocated because the groundwater is already seriously depleted. We have rivers like the Ashburton that are a shadow of their former selves because of over-allocation. We have rivers facing the twin threats of pollution from runoff from surrounding land and depletion of their flow. Of course when we take water and deplete the flow we increase the concentration of the remaining pollutants in the river—it is a pincer movement. 
But this bill is actually not about the river and that is the sad thing about it. This is not a bill about the river as a habitat for rare wading birds. It is not about the river as people’s favourite trout and salmon fishery and a major tourism attraction. It is not about the river as a recreation area for kayakers and rafters. It is about who gets how much water for commercial purposes. It is an allocation plan; it is not a plan for the river. 
We have a sustainable development programme of action. We have not seen a lot of action but that is what the programme is called. It has identified water as one of the key four issues we need to work on—the key four things that are threatened in terms of sustainability. This bill does nothing in respect of that. What we need is mandatory regional planning for fresh waters. We need mandatory integrated catchment plans for all our significant rivers that are under pressure—plans that recognise the multiple values of the river—not allocation plans that try to arbitrate between those who want to take water out of the river for other purposes. The other values have got to be respected more. In this bill we even have a clause that states the board must provide water for the following purposes but gives no priorities. We have a clause that does not even state that the board must provide for firefighting stock watering and the intrinsic values of the river itself as the Resource Management Act states before it considers how much water is to be allocated for hydropower or irrigation. It makes them all equal. Goodness knows what the board will do with that! 
Jim Peters who has been a really contributing member of the select committee—and I always value what he has to say—says that the reason for this bill is that we cannot wait till 2009 for a plan for the river which is how long it would take if we left it to the council. Why is it OK for all the other rivers which are in a worse state than the Waitaki to wait even longer than 2009? The Minister has not done anything even to require the process to start for any river other than the Waitaki. 
I wrote to the Minister some months ago sharing with her a discussion paper that I was considering with various regional councils and other groups around the country seeking their views on whether there should be mandatory integrated catchment management plans for rivers. I got some interesting feedback from members of the community and from councils but after all these months I have not had a reply from either of the Ministers I sent the paper to. There has not been even an official acknowledgment from either of them that I contributed that input. Basically it appears that no one in the Government wants to know. The Government just wants to sort out the wrangle between the irrigators and the hydro generators and the rivers can go hang. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I rise with some reluctance to speak on the third reading of this bill. I am reluctant because I had hoped we could at least debate this issue through and come to a common-sense solution that everybody would be pleased about. In fact that has not happened. So that is the reason for my reluctance. 
If this bill is about anything it is about the sensible use of New Zealand’s most valuable natural capital: its water. People only have to go anywhere overseas to understand just how valuable this stuff that we now call blue gold is. Pure fresh clean water is of enormous value not just to the people of the South Canterbury and North Otago region but to New Zealand and indeed to the world. Even as we debate this third reading massive quantities of this blue gold flows to the sea and is there “wasted”. 
 The great need on the Waitaki River the Clutha River and on rivers throughout the area east of the main divide is harvesting and storage. The argument between the irrigator the power generator the fisherman and recreational user and even the in-stream user have a degree of unanimity about the use of the water because each receives his or her share. But it is totally stupid and quite ridiculous to have as I mentioned earlier vast quantities when the snow melts—which is happening right now—run to the ocean and there become of no use to this country. This bill should be about how we can effectively allocate and use this most wonderful of our natural capital assets fresh water in the most sensible and effective way to benefit the people of the region. And I emphasise that. I do not really believe that the people of Auckland Northland or Coromandel where Ms Fitzsimons comes from have some sort of divine right to the waters and the benefits of the Waitaki River. I think the people who live and work in that region have a far greater right to the use of that water than others who come from far greater and far distant regions. 
If they love the Waitaki so much they should join us in this region. But no they pontificate from afar and tell the people of our region how it should happen. This is what will happen with the advent of the board that the Minister is setting up—not the people of the region not the regional council or the district councils but the Minister will appoint her people to decide what should happen to the wealth which is the water of the Otago and Canterbury regions. 
There is very little doubt that the wealth of that region will go to Wellington. This bill is designed for Meridian Energy to capture the benefits of the water allocation that is about to occur. I say unequivocally that that is wrong. I advocate as a rural MP as a member in the Otago electorate for the people of my region and for rural New Zealand. I do so unashamedly. I do not go to South Canterbury or to Otago and advocate the values of the Labour Party to the people of that region. As a member of Parliament my job is to come here and speak unashamedly on behalf of the people of the region from whence I come. 
Shane Ardern 
: Jim Sutton doesn’t do that. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: No Jim Sutton has not done that and I ask Mr David Parker who is here with us this evening to take a call to speak about how he feels and how he is representing the people of his region and to tell them how he can do so effectively by saying: “Well I’ve got two opinions on this. One is for and one is against. You can just sort of tell me what you think at election time.” I think it is the job of members of Parliament to speak in this House and to stand or fall on their private opinions based on what they have gained—the experience they have gained and the opinions they have gained from the people whom they consult with in this region. 
Tragically this bill will be about the redistribution and the reallocation of property rights. Yet again this Government through legislation will legislate away per courtesy of this allocation board existing water rights. I hope that some of the members opposite have some idea what a property right actually means to the people of this country. Any Maori members should know what a property right means but they do not. I see Georgina Beyer in the House. I would like her to take a call and tell this House that she actually believes in property rights. If she does she will vote this bill down as would any other member of the Government who has the courage of his or her convictions on this issue. 
This issue is not difficult—it is hugely important but it is not difficult. It is about respecting the property rights of those landowners of the region who in some cases have held a property for generations. Let me assure the members of this House that the land down there without water and without the ability to irrigate is almost valueless. Even some of the grapes that are to be grown on land in the North Otago region into the future while planted on stony ground absolutely need water to ensure the viability of that particular crop. That is why with huge investment going into our region the security of property rights and the security of water supply is absolutely crucial. The people of our region will now be sitting on eggshells or on razorblades wondering whether their property rights will be reallocated under this socialist Labour Government. That is an issue that I am sure will be brought up time and time again at the next election. 
The point has also been raised—and I ask about it again—as to why we need a specific Act for the Waitaki catchment. What is so different about the Waitaki River from say any other river in Canterbury or indeed even the Clutha River in my region? I ask Minister Hobbs or any other member of the Government what specifics there are that make this river so different that it needs an allocation committee. Of course we all know that it is about ensuring that the Government’s State-owned enterprise its subsidiary company gets the lion’s share. 
 It is all about the transfer of wealth out of the South Canterbury region out of the North Otago region per courtesy of Meridian Energy and up to Wellington. I assure members that I will be informing the voters of our region down in the south just exactly what has occurred and about the fact that the Mackenzie Country irrigators—those who had been promised water all those years ago—have in fact been let down hugely by Mr Baldock and by the United Future Party. They raised the expectations of those irrigators to a huge level only for them to be let down. That is a tragedy and it is a tragedy for the people of South Canterbury and North Otago. The ACT party will be voting against this bill. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 It is indeed the end of a long journey for this legislation. I recall speaking on the first reading and declaring that United Future was not supporting legislation that would be a fast tracking of a project but would be supporting the fast tracking of a process. If there is one thing that is clear after the long passage of this legislation it is that this bill was definitely not about the fast tracking of Project Aqua despite the fact that members on the other side of the House continue to harp on about that. Given the fact that once the Local Government and Environment Committee reported back Project Aqua was called off a week later it would take an incredible leap of logic to be able to suggest that this bill was about fast tracking that project. 
United Future is pleased to see the passage of the bill through to third reading today. It is the most timely way of establishing a water allocation plan for the Waitaki River. Although many critics have said that the regional council should have done this earlier as Jim Peters said earlier it actually did try to do so and perhaps encountered more opposition than we had fully understood. 
But nevertheless that is all history. The fact is that a plan was not established. Some critics have said that the regional council should now do it. But I am convinced as is Jim Peters from New Zealand First that that would result only in further delay and no better outcome than what this bill will provide for the residents and the users of the Waitaki River. Some suggest that councils all across the country should be required to develop plans. Well that is a discussion that is going on and perhaps there is merit in that. But I cannot understand the logic behind those who say that because there is not a water allocation for some other needy rivers somehow we should abandon doing one on this river. 
That does not make sense. We were kicked into gear on this particular river because of Project Aqua and also because of many other applications for consent for the use of water from that river. I see no logic whatsoever in turning back from this course of action simply because there are other rivers that also need an allocation plan. Hopefully many many residents and water users around the country will be delighted if this is the first of many water allocation plans that are to come in order to give certainty to both recreational users and commercial users of our rivers and our waters in this country. 
During the Committee stage there was a great deal of discussion about the Mackenzie Basin and the 1969 Order in Council. I find it rather strange also that the Green Party and the ACT party which supported the amendment put forward by National to do something about this are voting against the bill. How does one vote for an amendment and then vote against the bill that would have brought that amendment in? On no occasion did those parties say that the support for the bill would change if the amendment passed—[ 
Interruption 
] No no they had already made it clear they were not in favour of the legislation. So it was simply a little bit of politicking. 
I have been concerned about the Mackenzie Basin. I visited it during the discussions about the bill and I have seen first-hand the environmental degradation in that area. I am concerned that water ought to be allocated. On my urging the Minister gave an assurance to this House that the water allocation board would have all the information put in front of it concerning the 1969 Order in Council so that nothing would be left not discussed or considered when it did come to allocate water. 
But ultimately the case for water being allocated in that area rests upon the current situation not on the historical situation in my opinion. We know that the board will take into account the historical story as the select committee has also done and be moved by the promise made and the promise broken by the National Party in the amendments it has made to legislation that have taken away that right. But ultimately it is the fact that the Mackenzie Basin needs water today and the water allocation board should do all it can to allocate water to that area. I fear that if it is not possible to allocate water because of current consent and users have to wait a considerable number of years it may be too late to reverse the environmental degradation on that area in which case we must rely upon Meridian Energy becoming a good neighbour in that area and making some of that water available. 
I do not believe and I do not think anyone on the select committee believed that 15 cumecs of water would cause Meridian Energy to lose its ability to generate electricity for the rest of New Zealand. So we hope that it will act responsibly in that area if in fact it is impossible for the board to allocate water until the expiration of current consents. 
We do look forward to the determination that is going to be made by the courts and some certainty that will follow from that. Ultimately it is that determination that will have a greater impact on the Mackenzie Basin requests than perhaps what the water allocation board does. But the very real and present danger of ongoing environmental damage is of concern to United Future and that is why we are supporting this legislation because it offers the best hope of getting something done. There is no point voting against this bill and then claiming that one is doing something on behalf of those interested parties. 
The other issue that has been of major concern is of course the Lower Waitaki. More than 100 submitters came to the committee during the course of this legislation to express their concern about too much water being taken out of the river and therefore the very important amenity and intrinsic value of that river being lost. I urge those people today as we pass this legislation and the board is established that they will again engage in the process of making submissions to the board so that their concerns can be heard and addressed by the board. 
The legislation requires the board to provide for water to sustain the intrinsic value and the amenity value that the board identifies and determines should be sustained in the Waitaki River and associated beds banks margins tributaries islands lakes wetlands and aquifers. I cannot see anything clearer than that. The board will make provision for those needs and then look at what water is available for very useful commercial development over and above that need. It is absolutely pointless to waste the opportunities for commercial development in the area simply because we want to keep the river as it always has been when there is sufficient water flowing down there at various times of the year that can be used commercially. 
It is very exciting to see the potential for development particularly in the viticulture industry as well as the agricultural and other horticultural development in that area that is dependent upon some water coming out of that river. I believe that this process will enable the residents and users of the Waitaki River to have their say in that process and to be assured at the end that when water is allocated for their concerns it will be a time then for other users to have their go. I am confident though that if the board does its work consistently and properly the idea that such a large-scale project as Project Aqua could take as much water from that river as it was intending to do will be forever put into the garbage bin. I believe that it was a failed idea in the beginning to be able to take 60 to 70 percent of the water from that river for hydro generation. I believe that the board will do its job and give some assurance for the residents of the area. To wait until 2009 before any development can take place would be an absolute nonsense unless of course parties believe that economic development is not of importance to us as a nation. We are certainly not a party like that. United Future will be supporting the third reading of this legislation and looks forward to the allocation of the water plan. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to support this Government bill. Before I comment about the legislation in particular I would like to respond to a couple of points made by Mr Eckhoff. Firstly I do agree that water is amongst New Zealand’s most precious commodities. We need to plan its use well. I do not agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons’ earlier comment that just because we already have over-allocated aquifers in Canterbury we should not now have proper planning for the use or conservation of the water in the Waitaki River. To deal with Mr Eckhoff’s point as to property rights this legislation does as he desires: it preserves the existing property rights to the extent that they exist in a resource consent. This legislation does not undermine property rights. But a consent to use water is a consent for a limited term of years and there is no right of renewal at the end of the term. We never renew water rights in New Zealand. We often allow people to get a new right on the same terms as their prior right because their justification to use the water including their economic investment in the land and related infrastructure means they have a compelling case to have a new right granted to them. But we do not renew water rights and a water right is not itself a property right that lasts forever. 
In the legislation we do not undermine the existing holders of water rights be they farmers or Meridian Energy. Whether Meridian Energy’s rights at present mean that no one can get additional consents at the moment in the upper catchment is a matter to be determined in another forum—in the High Court or the Environment Court. This legislation does not affect that case’s outcome. If Meridian Energy is right and the upper catchment is already fully allocated the framework board will be left to make decisions about the future allocation of water after current rights expire. It will not take water from Meridian Energy in contravention of any High Court or Environment Court decision. 
I turn briefly to the suggestion that we should not do anything now. I agree completely with Mr Peters’ comments which were backed up by United Future. To do nothing would mean that there would be a policy vacuum concerning the use of that very precious resource until after 2008 or 2009. That is good enough reason for this legislation. 
I shall deal with two other things. I disagree with Jeanette Fitzsimons’ comment as to this being a water allocation or a water use bill. It is true that new clause 14AA refers to a regional plan for the allocation of water. That does not mean that the consent body has to allocate all the available water in the Waitaki River. The framework board will have to effectively come up with a minimum flow regime for the river and over and above that amount there will be water some of which will be available for abstraction. There is no obligation under this legislation for that board to specify a minimum flow and then to allocate the rest of the water now. The board may say that we need to err on the side of caution and therefore to leave a bit more in the river. It may do that in terms of the minimum flow and it may also do that in terms of water above the minimum flow. 
 The board may say that we should not allocate all the water now because there is a need to provide for the future in a way that requires some flexibility to be left in the river system for the future. So the board may say that despite the fact that the demand for irrigation in the next few years will not use all the available water from the river the rest of it should not be made available for electricity generation because things can change. It may say there should be some flexibility left in the system and that the water should not all be allocated today. 
There is another important point. I suggest to members that the changes that were made between the first second and third readings and that are in the report back from the Local Government and Environment Committee have all gone in the same direction. When the bill went to the select committee it had criteria in it that were perhaps inconsistent with some Resource Management Act principles. The select committee with the unanimous agreement of all parties brought those criteria back closer to the principles of the Act. Indeed we thought they completely reflected the Act. To avoid any doubt the Government has now changed the prescriptive list of criteria and has reverted in clause 16 to express reference to the principles of the principal Act alone unless there is an express variation of those principles in this legislation—and there is no express variation of the principles when it comes to water allocation.  
The main clause that pertains to that is clause 14AA. It should not be read and is not to be read as meaning that the principles set out in the principal Act are overridden in a way that requires the allocation of all the water today. Provision can be made for future generations as it can be in river plans issued under the normal Resource Management Act processes. 
For those reasons I am very pleased to support this legislation. I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for the good work that went into this legislation on the way through. I agree with the statement of the chair of the select committee Jeanette Fitzsimons that all parties were cooperative in that process and that as is so often the norm in this Parliament as a consequence we have better legislation. I am pleased to support this bill. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I listened with great interest to the member for Otago. He made some very sensible points in his contribution to the debate. But the interesting thing about it was what the member failed to tell the House today. He did not even acknowledge the fact that there was a major review process in train on the Resource Management Act when the Labour Party took over the office of government and that Labour canned the whole thing. Here we are today with an ad hoc abuse of the parliamentary system—a bill that deals with the water allocation for one river. 
Another point has been overlooked here today. That member certainly did not touch on it. It is the fact that this bill came about in the first place because of Project Aqua. There have been one or two people who have said that that is not so. Well that is absolutely how it was. The bill came about because of Project Aqua. In the investigation of that hydro development $100 million was expended and the project fell over. Then the Minister Marian Hobbs found herself going through a process of putting together legislation that was very similar to the Clyde Dam legislation which of course the Labour Opposition of the day opposed vigorously. Labour said it would never be seen near anything that was as draconian ad hoc Government-driven “think big” and powerful and that was such an abuse of the executive powers as that legislation. But the Minister came down to the House with a bill called the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill for a hydroelectricity project along the lines of the Clyde Dam. For the benefit of those who are listening out there who will have heard the detail of this issue we will just say to members that they should hang about because it will be difficult for them to back up those claims. 
Let me look at where some of this debate has gone. First of all the value of water is something that we can never underestimate. If we just look at the largest export industry in the country the dairy industry we see that 92 percent of milk is water. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the member confused? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I can tell the member that that is so because I am a dairy farmer. So how does one overvalue water? 
During the debate on this bill the Minister of Agriculture who also happens to be the member for the upper Waitaki catchment area where this legislation will come into effect told the House that the reason why the bill was necessary was that we need to have a very holistic view of what we use water for and that irrigation for agriculture is not as important in the national interest as using water for hydroelectricity generation. That member is the outgoing Minister of Agriculture and the outgoing member for the area where the bill will take effect. One can always tell when Labour members are going out. They want to take about five or six members down with them as they go and they do not care very much about the person coming in behind them either. This issue is manna from heaven for the incoming National member for that electorate. There is no doubt in my mind that this will be a major election issue in that seat and that that member the Hon Jim Sutton will be nowhere to be seen. He will leave the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues to deal with the problem and he will be gone over the horizon to the next high commission post somewhere in the world—probably in Washington or maybe in the UK if the Speaker has come back to New Zealand by then— 
Simon Power 
: Cook Islands. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: No I do not see Jim Sutton in the Cook Islands. But he will be off somewhere. That is the very interesting thing about it. 
There is a group of people that had property rights written into law by the Order in Council of 1969. The Order in Council was given to them by the Government of the day and it should be honoured. This legislation does not do that. All that it does is to recommend that a body should look at those people’s claim and say whether that was so. There is no certainty in this legislation—and that includes the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs—for the farmers in the upper Waitaki area. They will be very unhappy with the Government and will certainly be unhappy with the member who made a contribution a few moments ago. The reason they will be unhappy is that although the Order in Council gave them only 15 cumecs of water out of the whole Waitaki River— 
Simon Power 
: How much is that? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is a very small amount; it is 1.7 percent of the flow of the river. That is all that those people were after and all that they were promised. Now that is all up in the air because the Minister for the Environment and the local member the Minister of Agriculture have said that an ad hoc process could not continue and that they would introduce legislation for this river so that there was a process in place to allocate water in a more holistic way. In principle that is a sensible approach. But why do we not amend the Resource Management Act so that that happens everywhere for every river right across New Zealand and not just for this river? The member for Otago may consider that as it would make a very good member’s bill. He would make a name for himself in farming circles and he needs to get something in. It would make a very good member’s bill to amend the principal Act so that this process takes place everywhere and not just in the upper Waitaki River. 
A further point needs to be made here. We are right in the middle of a local government pre-election campaign at the moment. The Minister and the Government members who have spoken on this bill are saying they have no confidence in the people of Otago being able to select people from amongst themselves in the local government elections to manage the Resource Management Act process properly so that we do not have to have this ad hoc stuff from Wellington. They are saying people in Wellington are smarter than the people of Otago and that the people down there are a bit thick. They are saying people in Wellington know how to manage the issues in Otago—that the hayseeds from that area will not know how to work that out so they will dictate from Wellington how it should be done. That is an absolute affront to the democratic process that we all sign up to when we enter this House and is a good enough reason on its own to vote against this bill. 
There has been a very poor use of the parliamentary process with regard to this bill. A select committee worked at the bill and came out at the end of the process with a unanimous view of what should happen and the Minister ignored that. She did not accept that. She turned down the report from the Local Government and Environment Committee and came to Parliament with a substantial Supplementary Order Paper. It made huge amendments to this bill and those changes have been foisted on to Parliament without the proper scrutiny of the select committee process. That is not the right use of that process. 
The Canterbury Regional Council has within its jurisdiction the ability to carry out what this Government wants. The question I ask is why this Government has not been able to comment publicly on that or to go to the council directly via its Ministers. The Government could have said to the council that it does not think the council is carrying out its job correctly. It could have given the Waitaki River catchment as an example of that and told the council that if it did not mend its ways then the Resource Management Act would be changed so that all regional councils in New Zealand would carry out the intent of the Government. No Minister or Government member has explained why that did not happen. 
The worst and final point is that Meridian Energy the company involved in the Project Aqua development programme is a State-owned enterprise. For this Government to introduce legislation for one of its State-owned enterprises that provides over and above what anybody else could get in a commercial sense anywhere else in the country is an absolute abuse of our democratic process. It could also be argued that the Ministers involved in that decision had a vested interest in the outcome one way or another. That just about takes me to the point where language could be used that is probably not parliamentary. I see the whip is becoming a little anxious about where I may be going. The fact is that this process is not the correct process. It should never happen and it should not have been allowed to happen in this case. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 The speech from the member who just resumed his seat compelled me to propel myself forward to take the call because it had a profound effect on how I now feel about this bill. However it was not quite as profound as the speeches I have heard from Mr Peters and Mr Baldock. They were more on the correct side of the debate and have had a greater effect on me as did the Minister in her third reading speech which I thought was fine and dandy. The Opposition would have it that we should have mucked around for years and years while they procrastinated about whether it was worth doing something about this matter. But here is the Labour-led Government with some support thankfully from the likes of United Future and New Zealand First. Those parties have seen the error of the Opposition’s ways. We are getting on with the job. We are providing a facility whereby the issues of water allocation and planning etc. for the Waitaki catchment area are to be addressed. I support this bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I will recap a little. This is special legislation brought in to rush through a major project by sidestepping the Resource Management Act. It is about calling in applications for water takes under questionable circumstances. The Minister advertised for appointees to the board at the same time that the select committee was hearing submissions—so much for the integrity of the process that everyone who was submitting in good faith would expect from the Minister! But no the Minister flouted the public’s expectations that this bill would be carried forward in good faith and be open to scrutiny and changes at all stages. The Minister flouted that assumption about the integrity of the process of the law. Before the process had barely begun she was already acting on the assumption that the bill had been passed. 
What does that tell the public? No sooner has the process started than the Minister is calling for appointees for the board which is provided for in the bill. But that bill could have been changed at any time. It could perhaps even have been canned and all the expenditure from the process saved and given to Environment Canterbury to spend on coming up with a water allocation plan. 
 So that is a little bit of a recap of some of the aspects of the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill. It was introduced to the House for the sole purpose of fast tracking Project Aqua an energy project for a Government State-owned enterprise that was fully intended to sidestep the normal Resource Management Act process. There is absolutely no doubt that this bill clearly says what the current Government has continually refused to admit; that is that the Resource Management Act needs changing—urgently. The current Minister in charge is making some pretence at change but no one seriously believes there will be significant or serious change at all if any. In short no one will be holding his or her breath on that score—and that sounds a little bit like the phrase used by Brian Connell. The one thing that we can guarantee from this current Government is plenty of spin lots of interference and little else. 
The current Minister for the Environment Marian Hobbs even tried to claim that the bill had nothing to do with Project Aqua. That was ludicrous in the extreme because in speaking to Part 1 the Minister said that the reason that there is what is a very substantial Supplementary Order Paper that virtually guts the bill is that Project Aqua has been withdrawn. She obviously cannot remember from one sentence to the next. 
So the previous Minister even tried to have us believe that Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua would be subject to the Resource Management Act and stand on its own merits. The Minister’s own words were: “To those who accuse the Government of introducing this bill in order to promote certain projects—for example Meridian Energy’s product Project Aqua—read my lips: Project Aqua like all the applications for Waitaki water will stand or fall on its own merits under the Resource Management Act.” She also said that the bill’s aim was to achieve a fair prompt and transparent decision-making process. I think that the Minister’s own actions fell far short of saying that it would be fair and transparent and it certainly is not prompt. 
Brian Connell 
: Is this the same member who said it was beautifully crafted? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Oh it is definitely the same member who said it was beautifully crafted and balanced. But I would like to remind members that she said that Project Aqua would stand or fall on its own merits under the Resource Management Act. But that would not necessarily be the case because Meridian Energy’s Project Aqua would not necessarily have to go through a Resource Management Act process. It would depend on what was provided for in the allocation plan. 
The bill had a substantial number of exemptions from the Resource Management Act and as I have said many times the full section 32 analysis was not to have been required. However that provision was changed pretty smartly by the select committee. Be that as it may given the huge ministerial influence in the bill with the appointments of the board approvals and suchlike the water take for a hydro project could be provided for in the allocation plan to such a degree that it could actually be a permitted activity. Now that is feasible and it could happen. One could make provisions to that degree as long as one has stated so in the water allocation. So a hydro project as long as it met the conditions within the water allocation plan would not necessarily have to go through a consent process but it could be a permitted process instead. That came as a bit of a surprise to some of the submitters. However I believe that given the current scrutiny of this whole project that is unlikely to happen but it is still a possibility. 
So why do we now have this bill? I think it is time that the Minister should can this bill and instead give the $3.5 million allocated for the process straight to Environment Canterbury which had identified the matter in its annual plan and which was approved to go forward with an allocation plan. The Minister should give that body the $3.5 million and let it get on with the job. Then there would not continue to be the ministerial interference in the bill that still exists because—as we all know—the Minister appoints the board according to specific criteria tikanga Maori and all which is ridiculous— 
Brian Connell 
: What’s Environment Canterbury going to do now? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well who knows? But the Minister appoints the board and then picks the chairperson deputy chairperson and goodness knows who else. So ministerial interference continues to be in this bill when it really is unnecessary. She should have just given Environment Canterbury the $3.5 million that was allocated in the estimates for this bill told it to get on with the job and wrapped a bit of a time frame around it and that would have achieved exactly what she thinks this bill might achieve—except it adds another layer of bureaucracy into the mix. 
By doing that no legislation would be required. We might have saved a lot of time and effort for officials politicians and a huge number of submitters who not only spent their own limited funds but also expended a lot of time and energy into meetings planning and undertaking advocacy on this bill. There is a huge emotional input into this bill as well which also came at a cost. So we might also have saved the taxpayers $100 million of public money which was wasted because of poor policy and planning if right from the outset the Minister had just said: “Look. Here’s a few million. Go and do your plan and do it by X time.” Maybe members could have had that on the table today. It could have been happening right now. They did not have to go through that long drawn-out and very questionable process which the Minister has also betrayed since the earlier stages by calling for appointments to the board and calling in the water applications before the bill had even finished going through its hearings process with the submitters. 
On Tuesday the leader of the National Party Don Brash accompanied by the Hon Dr Nick Smith accepted a petition on the steps of this Parliament which this Government has already ignored because the Minister who has a particular interest and is responsible for that area Mr Sutton opposed honouring those agreements with the upper Waitaki catchment farmers. That is an absolute disgrace. This current Government has ignored those farmers who wanted it to honour those obligations that the Government was committed to some time ago. I also think it is hugely disappointing that United Future has not supported the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by the Hon Dr Nick Smith to honour those agreements. I think that is a failing on the part of this Government— 
Jim Peters 
: New Zealand First supported it. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: New Zealand First supported it—yes. So did the ACT party and I think that is to its credit. 
 Those parties wanted to uphold the honour and integrity of this House but they failed due to the current Government and its supporter United Future. I think that is a gross failure indeed. That Supplementary Order Paper should have been supported. The upper Waitaki catchment farmers should have been supported. This Parliament should have honoured those agreements; it should have honoured its obligations. Those farmers do not have a Waitangi Tribunal - style process they can go through. They rely on this House to address the injustices they believe they have faced at the hands of this Government. That should have been addressed by the Government and those agreements honoured. National opposes this bill because we believe that this whole process has been completely unnecessary from the outset. National is happy to oppose this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
Historic Places Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Historic Places Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill amends the Historic Places Act of 1993. The Historic Places Trust was established in 1954 and is governed by a board of trustees. Its Maori Heritage Council has particular responsibilities for Maori heritage. The trust is charged with a range of functions and powers under the Act. That is in keeping with its purpose to promote the identification protection preservation and conservation of historical and cultural heritage in New Zealand. The Historic Places Trust compiles and maintains a register of places of historical and cultural heritage. It protects archaeological sites and it educates and informs New Zealanders about the ways in which their historic heritage can be preserved. It also owns and manages a range of heritage properties. 
The trust works with individuals and organisations that have an active interest in the integrity of heritage places in New Zealand. The trust has important responsibilities under the Resource Management Act whereby it works with local authorities to promote the preservation of heritage places within their areas. That role has taken on greater significance since amendments to the Resource Management Act were passed in 2003. Those amendments made historic heritage protection a matter of national importance that local authorities must recognise and provide for in the exercise of their functions and powers. 
It is not proposed to review the purpose or role of the trust or its regulatory responsibilities in this bill. The amendments to this bill will strengthen the New Zealand Historic Places Trust’s governance arrangements by reducing the size of its board and increasing the number of Government appointees. The amendments will also enhance the trust’s accountability to the Government by designating it as a Crown entity providing for greater public involvement in the process of registering historic heritage and clarifying some sections of the Act that are unclear or difficult to administer. Reducing the number of board members will create a more cohesive and decisive group and align it with statutory organisations of a similar size. Increasing the number of Crown appointees to the board will more adequately reflect the Government’s interest in the trust. It is expected that the overall effect will be to ensure a greater range of skills and experience in the make-up of the board and to enhance its ability to fulfil its core functions. 
The proposed redefinition of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust as a Crown entity will enhance its accountability to the Government. The detailed amendments required to effect that change have been included in the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill that was introduced earlier this year. That amendment is particularly important given the increasing proportion of the trust funding that is now provided by the Government. 
This Government is taking its obligations to the culture and heritage sectors very seriously and has backed its commitment with a significant programme of funding and legislation. For the trust this means that baseline funding has increased and will increase over successive years from $4.5 million GST inclusive in 2002-03 to $7.5 million GST inclusive in 2005-06. In addition the Government has established the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund which is to be administered by the trust to encourage the preservation of privately owned and nationally significant heritage properties that would otherwise be in danger of neglect or demolition. An additional annual sum of $563000 GST inclusive has been appropriated to that fund. 
Other changes proposed in the bill will clarify meanings. For example the term “historic place” will include all structures and a group of associated buildings such as a house and its outbuildings. The amendments will also reinforce the registration process so that it is consistent across all four parts of the historic places register which include historic places historic areas wahi tapu places and wahi tapu areas. It will also provide for greater public involvement in the registration process through public notification of all proposed registrations and provision for submissions on all proposals that are being considered by the trust when making decisions on registration. 
So in summary the protection of our historic places requires a strong and effective heritage agency at the national level—an agency with an overview of historic heritage management issues. The New Zealand Historic Places Trust does a most valuable job in fulfilling its responsibilities as defined by the legislation at present. I thank the chair of the trust Dame Anne Salmond and the trust board members and the Maori Heritage Council members as well as the staff of the trust for the enormous effort they make to do the job required by New Zealand’s heritage needs and by the legislation. 
The Government recognises the significance of the existing heritage legislation and its infrastructure. It is also very aware of the need for robust mechanisms that will protect and manage New Zealand’s heritage for the benefit of the present and for future generations. In reviewing and amending the Historic Places Act the Government is looking to strengthen what is already in place and give them the tools they need to do the job even better. I intend to move at the end of this debate that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for its consideration. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 In rising to speak to the Historic Places Amendment Bill I want to confirm that the National Party likewise takes very seriously the protection of our historic heritage. In that regard National would have been pleased to support this amendment bill but we find that the amendments proposed by the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage do not go anywhere near fulfilling the responsibilities she has outlined and National will oppose the bill. 
As the Minister has already said the bill amends the Historic Places Act of 1993 to adjust both the governance and the accountability of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Among other matters it also amends the provisions in relation to the registration of historic places including wahi tapu. The 1993 Act gives the trust a range of functions and powers including protecting archaeological sites maintaining a register of places of historic and cultural heritage and owning and managing heritage properties. All New Zealanders depend upon this Parliament to make sure that we as a people as a country—a nation—take all steps reasonable to maintain our historic heritage. So of course as I said earlier National is very supportive of the underlying principles that surround the preservation of our historic heritage. But as I said also we have serious reservations about the amendments being proposed in the bill and I will come to that presently. 
Although the trust exercises regulatory responsibilities and receives funding by way of parliamentary appropriations it is not currently regarded as a Crown entity as the Minister said. Regarding such accountability arrangements it is proposed that the trust become a Crown entity with the same accountability requirements as other Crown entities such as Te Papa and Creative New Zealand. Provisions for this change are included in a Supplementary Order Paper currently before the House that amends the public finance legislation advancing the reform of Crown entities. National is currently looking at those amendments. We have not quite come to a judgment whether those in themselves are appropriate or acceptable. So there is doubt I think as to whether the provision to make the Historic Places Trust a Crown entity is warranted or appropriate. 
Regarding governance the size of the trust board is reduced from 11 to nine members and the number of Crown appointments is increased from three out of 11 to become six out of nine. I heard the Minister commending Dame Ann Salmond and the members of the trust for the fine work they have been doing. I have to wonder why then the Government sees fit to reduce the number of members of a board that has clearly been doing a good job—and within constraints at particular times. It now also sees fit to increase the number of members on that trust board to be appointed by the Government. As I said the total number goes from 11 to nine and three of those appointments under the current legislation are Crown appointments; under the provisions advanced here the Crown presence on the board will go to six out of nine members. From National’s point of view it looks to us as if the Government wants to exercise even greater ministerial control over the trust. I cannot see how that fits with the praise that the Minister was giving the trust a minute ago for the way that it has been discharging its responsibilities. It looks to us like more “Helengrad” State control. One has to wonder whether in the context of preserving our historic heritage that is appropriate; we do not think it is. That is one of the reasons why we are opposing this bill today. 
The other area is the very high profile area of wahi tapu. With regard to the trust’s heritage responsibilities which is the way that the new provisions have been characterised the bill repeals and supposedly clarifies certain sections of the Act that deal with the registration of historic places and wahi tapu ostensibly to enhance the trust’s ability to fulfil its heritage responsibilities. But I have to say speaking on behalf of National that we believe that whatever the Minister’s intentions were in dealing with this area the bill fails to provide a satisfactory solution to the issue of wahi tapu. We know how vexed an issue it is and we know how much of a high profile matter it can become. National believes that the amendments proposed here today are minor particularly given the background against which this matter has been debated over the last 3 or 4 years. Of course we had substantial debates on it when we were doing the local government reform not so long ago and it also arises in the context of the Resource Management Act. It is an issue up and down the country for both landowners and I guess Maori who particularly look for appropriate protection of wahi tapu areas. 
We have no confidence that the changes proposed in this amendment bill will actually address some of the issues that arise and have arisen over the last few years. As I say we believe the amendments are minor and that far more substantive reform is required both to protect the legitimate rights of landowners but also to bring some clarity and certainty to Maori who assert rights over wahi tapu from one end of the country to the other. It is an issue that has to be dealt with certainly in the regions and at local government level. We think it deserves changes that are fair to all sides of the equation and actually remove a lot of the angst and the sadness—quite frankly sometimes these things have arisen in such a way as to make one cringe—that often occur when issues like wahi tapu are discussed and are blown up to become quite controversial. 
National opposes this bill. We think it just increases the opportunity for ministerial control. We do not see that as being appropriate. We also think that the contentious issues surrounding wahi tapu—an important concept—are not being dealt with in a substantive way and that the bill will bring neither clarity nor certainty to either landowners or those Maori tribal groups who seek both clarity and certainty. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 This is an important bill and I am very proud that this Government has taken its obligations to the culture and heritage sectors very very seriously. We have put our money where our mouth is so to speak. We have backed our commitment with a significant programme of funding and legislation. I was interested to hear the previous speaker concentrate on the reduction in board membership but she failed to mention anything about dollars. Well this Government has put up the dollars and I know that that has been greatly appreciated by the sector. It is all very well to talk but we have walked the walk; we have backed up the talk. 
Mind you I am not surprised at the comments that have been made by Opposition members in regard to this matter because it is tough winning money for the cultural and arts sectors. It is not always hugely popular. One does have to spend a lot of time talking and listening carefully to the community. It is not like putting money into sport or other areas that everybody is almost afraid to say no to. Have members ever heard anybody say we should not put money into sport? Of course not. We do have to fight lobby and negotiate carefully to win money for the arts and I am very proud of what our Government has done in the area of arts culture and heritage. 
One of the rich ironies of that attitude in respect of the National Party in the past is that I remember sitting in the House during the Rt Hon Jim Bolger’s valedictory speech and one of my abiding memories was his stating he wished he had done more for the arts—it was a bit like Bob Hawke saying he wished he had done more for the Aboriginal people of Australia. Nevertheless Mr Bolger had had plenty of time to do something about it. It was a bit of a shame that he left it to his valedictory speech to mention anything about it. 
I strongly believe that if we do not protect our past we undermine our future. I pay particular acknowledgment reference and appreciation to the many volunteers out there in the New Zealand community who help to protect arts culture and heritage in New Zealand—those thousands of regional organisations large and small that keep fostering arts culture and heritage in our small and larger communities. I refer to the building owners who at their own personal expense ensure that their buildings are kept at a safe standard maintained and decorated in a style that befits the architecture of them. Also there are the thousands of enthusiasts throughout New Zealand who help to give us all strength by what they do in a voluntary capacity. 
One of the other indicative attitudinal responses from the National Party was the comment from Wayne Mapp—he is not misquoted because it is from his own newsletter the  
Mapp Report 
—that in a National alternative budget in 2001 he wanted to cancel wasteful programmes and reduce spending on arts and culture by 30 percent. What a short-sighted approach! It is typical. Sadly it appeals to the uninformed and perhaps less forward-looking members of the community and National kowtows to them with that short-sighted approach. It was a foolhardy statement. Of course National has consistently voted against protecting very very important New Zealand cultural institutions as it did with the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. It is just incredible in its short-sightedness. 
This is a splendid bill and I sincerely hope that many members around the House will support it. We do need to look after our past and by doing so we are looking after our future. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 What a strange confused speech that was! It ranged over arts occasionally touched on culture then went back to arts. I thought that perhaps the member had the wrong bill. She said it was a splendid bill and she said it was an important bill. I looked at my copy of Brooker’s to see whether I could find what she was talking about—whether I could find a bill that included all those other issues around the Historic Places Act of 1993. Finally I realised she was talking about the Historic Places Amendment Bill a slip of a bill with no sound reason for it. 
The only reason why New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee is that we want the opportunity for some of the issues to be well teased out by the wider public because they need to be teased out—particularly when I see that for some strange reason section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act is being inserted almost unobtrusively by clause 4 into section 20(6) of the principal Act. No clarification is given. There is nothing to say what section 6(e) means—“The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites waahi tapu and other taonga.” Wahi tapu is covered in the Historic Places Act of 1993 so why put into this bill a very important part of section 6 of the Resource Management Act—the section headed “Matters of national importance”? 
Lest members think New Zealand First is not concerned about our heritage I say we are. We are concerned about our culture and we know what the arts are about as well. We do not come to the House and make a grand speech that puts them all into one as the previous member did leaving me and other members completely confused. 
The other issue that is strange about this bill is the matter of funding which the member who has just resumed her seat spoke about. She spoke about the volumes of adequate funding going to the Historic Places Trust. The Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who introduced the bill spoke about the excellent work done by the chairperson of the board. Furthermore the previous member told us about the numbers of volunteers out there who are doing excellent work. All of that would presuppose that the Historic Places Trust Act passed by the National Party Government in 1993 which includes all these issues had no need of amendment. So why is there an amendment bill before us with a few little issues for us to look at? 
Why is the Government in this bill reducing the size of the board from 11 to nine members? Why is the Government appointing not three Crown appointees but six? Six out of the nine members on the new board will be direct placements by the Minister and the Government. Perhaps it is an early sign that the Government really feels it is on the way out and so before it goes some time next year it wants to appoint its mates to this board and thereby ensure the continuation of the present Government’s policies for the next 3 years. That may be the real intention of this bill. There are to be not just three Crown appointees but six Crown appointees—and by the way because there is a foreshore and seabed issue out there that happens to make some people quite concerned it will make three of those appointees Maori. Despite the fact that the trust is doing good work at the present time despite the fact that the Maori Heritage Council which is a subgroup of the board does excellent work the Government wants to introduce on to this trust board more Maori and more Government appointees. 
What will they do when they get there? They will have regard to clause 4 which comes from the Resource Management Act 1991. That is what they will do. They will have no definitions no legal clarifications no help in respect of what clause 4 means. I do hope that those who are listening will make submissions to help to flesh out for the select committee exactly what it could mean. New Zealand First believes that this insertion is completely out of place. It gives no definition and if there is any provision that requires very clear definition and expansion today because of what is happening out there in the field of jurisdiction and court matters it is this very one. What is meant by “ancestral lands water sites and waahi tapu”—not in the past but in 2004? For that matter what does “wahi tapu” really mean? When I look at Brooker’s I see explanations of the 1993 Act and they appear to me to be quite adequate. The National Party Government of the day obviously found them very adequate because it put them in its legislation. Why therefore is there this further intrusion of wahi tapu into this amendment bill? 
There is no more confusing issue out there than wahi tapu. It bedevils district and regional councils. I am told that just north of here the South Wairarapa District Council this year alone will spend $175000 of precious ratepayer money just to identify where wahi tapu are. That may be money well spent if there is clarity once and for all as to where they are. I suggest to the Minister that the issue of wahi tapu areas gives one as little or as much as one desires and thereby bedevils planners local authorities and most of all any would-be developer applicant or farmer. It is high time the Government looked at not extending some of these issues but at the current law and current practice and noted the need for a very clear definition of each of those terms—not in respect of the past but as they are today. I am very pleased to say that there is no mention in the bill of Maori spiritual beliefs which it was suggested be in the Resource Management Act. This party believes that spiritual beliefs are personal and play no part whatsoever in any matter such as the matters that are before us. 
Regional councils have always been notified of changes and this bill just makes that more certain. They have also always been notified of wahi tapu. So I do not see those changes as being very significant at all. 
To come to the end New Zealand First has to question why this very slight bill is here. It does not materially add anything much to the Historic Places Act; it adds no more to what the Act does at the present time with regard to the register and it adds no more to the ownership and management of heritage properties. By the way despite what the previous member said about the Government’s funding I could introduce members to people at the present time occupying heritage sites that are directly under the administration of the Minister who feel quite the contrary; they feel that there has not been sufficient funding with regard to the upkeep or present-day management of some of these heritage properties—but that is another matter for another time. 
Lastly does the bill strengthen governance? No. Does it enhance accountability to the Government? It might if the Government is able to appoint a sufficient number of its friends! Does it give any increased accountability by making the organisation a Crown entity? No. At the end of the issue registration is adequate at the present time and at a first glance I cannot see anything in the bill that makes it necessary apart from the fact that it enhances the ability of the Government to influence the Historic Places Trust for the next 3-plus years. If ever there was a sign of an outgoing Government that is it. Its mates are going to be appointed and that will somehow ensure the continuity and the influence of its policies. 
Although New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee that is simply because we want to have an expression of opinion about the matters that I have raised— principally why section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act is inserted by clause 4; it makes no sound sense. Also the issues of wahi tapu need to be explored and a clear definition provided which has not been done in the past. And to have six appointees out of nine appointed directly by the Government and under its influence is a real change that moves a long long way from the intention of the Government in 1993 to have an independent objective group that takes a new look at heritage and culture. This amendment moves away from that towards direct Government direction under the hand of the Minister. We resent that being in this bill and we will do our utmost to ensure that those who make submissions on this very small amendment bill are fully aware of the implications of it. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will support the referral of this legislation to a select committee. We are generally supportive of the new provisions. The effectiveness of the Historic Places Trust Board has more to do with the commitment the understanding and the resourcing of that board than it has to do with the numbers. However we have some concerns about the number of Government appointments. We feel that at least half the members should be members recommended by the wider community. 
The bill obliges the board to take on members with a greater awareness of te ao Maori and tikanga Maori and we think that is vital. Much of the misunderstanding in recent years is a consequence of a lack of understanding of both those issues—that is te ao Maori and tikanga Maori. Heritage is more than just places; it is the expression of an important part of our history. I was recently looking through some fairly old papers in Nelson which mentioned the fact that in part of Nelson there are 400 acres of modified soils. That does not speak of a rather primitive culture; it speaks of a very well-developed and settled culture in an area where I might add Nelsonians do not believe we have a Maori history. In fact if a beefed-up board makes us more aware of that kind of history then it is to be commended. The issue is not just about preserving our heritage; it is also about making us aware of our heritage. 
We accept that there is a commitment by the Government to preserve heritage but this legislation will bind future Governments. Can we be sure of a similar level of commitment from future Governments and be sure that they will ensure the six Government appointees are suitably committed to the protection of heritage? We will seek to ensure that at least three of those appointees are from community nominations. We hope that under the amended legislation the board will move from simply protecting heritage and individually designated buildings and sites to encouraging the kind of culture shift that is necessary to protect to restore and to value all of our heritage. At this stage I believe that most New Zealanders do not really care very much about heritage until there is something in their backyard that they think needs protection—that is a particular building. All of us need to understand that all heritage is worthy of examination protection and understanding. That is the purpose of this legislation. The present legislation is not working well and needs to be amended. Hopefully our misgivings about this bill will be met by the hearings in the select committee. 
Historic buildings and heritage sites frequently have considerable architectural and landscape merit. To just simply put that up for examination makes for a worthwhile exercise. Perhaps more important our heritage is a reminder of a rich and an exciting past and an awareness of that past is essential for an appreciation and a pride in our identity. That is of particular importance in our understanding of wahi tapu and tikanga Maori. The issue is not that we should never alter those sites—it is not that they should not be touched and not that they should not be even obliterated on occasions—because sometimes there is very little there. But before we do so we need to make sure we know what is there get it down in writing and get it recorded so that future generations can also know what was there. 
Heritage has value not just from an aesthetic point of view; it also has economic value. And in a country that makes a very large amount of money now from tourism—I think in Rotorua tourism is vastly more worthwhile in economic terms than dairying for instance—the historic elements the heritage elements are an important part of the reason why people come to this country. Many of us undervalue our heritage. We are not aware of our heritage and we are not even aware that we have a history of any consequence. Protecting heritage is about making us aware that it is there and making sure that we do in fact respect and value it. Heritage has economic value as well in terms of buildings that are vastly more interesting than many of the buildings that we currently put up. I have watched a great deal of heritage in my city come down because Nelson is a fairly well-endowed community and we have a habit of bowling buildings and replacing them with new ones of vastly less consequence than the previous ones. So valuing heritage is also about valuing its economic value. I know there are people in Parliament who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. But in fact while the protection of heritage may come at a price the destruction of heritage also comes at a price. And in addition to the intrinsic value of heritage there are very real economic values associated with retaining heritage. 
I am thinking again of my own community in which some heritage buildings have found new and very profitable uses and in which some old buildings have high-tech uses. I am thinking of perhaps Radio Fifeshire in the old Harley homestead in Nelson which has been double glazed. That homestead has been made to work as a radio station and yet it is still an important part of a historic precinct in Nelson. That works very well and that radio station gains considerable prestige from occupying such a building. I am also thinking of the other buildings in the neighbourhood—of my own office in upper Trafalgar Street in Nelson and of the Victorian Rose Pub and Cafe. That building was earmarked for destruction by the city council which once occupied it. It has now been preserved and restored and it is an exciting building. It is one of the most profitable pubs in all of Nelson. When one goes in there one senses the European history of my city. The idea that people will put some energy into those buildings because they have economic value is evident from the Victorian Rose Pub and Cafe in my community. 
We are supporting the amendments provided for in this bill but not without reservations. We hope that those reservations can be met by the amended legislation because as I said before currently the legislation is not working adequately. We are hopeful that the new membership will be more committed than the present board and that perhaps with the additional funding that the Government has supported it will have the resources to do its job more adequately. So we are pleased to support the legislation. We hope that changes will be made and I am hopeful that the rest of the House will in fact get behind this legislation. If members have misgivings about the bill then they will have the opportunity to have those misgivings addressed during the Committee stage. We will be there with our fingers crossed and we are prepared to make the improvements that are necessary. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The State has enormous powers and when the State abuses those powers it can ride roughshod over the lives and the property of citizens who are minding their own business who are not hurting anybody else and who have their property rights stripped away from them. This bill is all about enabling the State to abuse its powers even further. There is no need for this bill as Jim Peters has already pointed out. I can remember when people used to be proud to belong to the Historic Places Trust. I was proud to belong to the trust and I used to go on trust tours around the Wairarapa. People used to hold their little card and they used to be involved in saving buildings. It was a community effort and it was something to do with the people of New Zealand. Over the years successive Governments and not just this Government have taken that power away from people and put it into the hands of the State and the State under legislation like this is very very easily able to abuse other people and push them around. 
Jill Pettis talked about adequate funding now under this Government. When has the Historic Places Trust ever gone to any Government and said it has enough money and should not be given any more? That was an absolute nonsense and that member knows that that is a nonsense. There will never be enough funding if the trust is totally reliant on Government funding. Do members know why the trust is more and more reliant on Government funding? Because this sort of legislation excludes people. Why has membership dropped off year after year from the trust? It will drop off even further when people see what is being done under this legislation where six out of nine members on the board of the trust are to be Crown appointees. The reason for that is so that the Government—the State—can have more power over what happens to people’s private property. This legislation will not affect people who live in nice villas in Ponsonby Grey Lynn Kelburn Khandallah or Fendalton. But farmers should be very very afraid because the power that the Government—the State—will have to ride over people’s land and to do what it wants with that land will be huge. 
The Minister talked about the need to preserve our culture in our old buildings. Where was she when the Gummer and Ford building was being demolished or is still being demolished just about 100 metres from this place—the P and O building? Did she care about that building? Where was she when His Majesty’s Theatre was destroyed? I have been involved in putting my personal money where my mouth is in terms of saving old buildings. That is what we should encourage people to do rather than take their money off them and give it to the State. 
I want to tell the House the story of how the Historic Places Act enabled the State to abuse the private property rights of a farmer in Northland. That is a travesty and it has never ever been resolved. It was under the old Act—it was pre-1993—and it demonstrates exactly why Mr Peters was right when he said that this bill is not necessary. It concerned a man called Mr John White who bought 586 hectares of farming land in Northland. The land had been running sheep and cattle for 132 years without destroying any of the archaeological sites on the land. Mr White was proud of the fact that the land would be named as one of the world heritage sites listed in the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee alongside such sites as the pyramids. Under the district plan Mr White was allowed to subdivide the land into separate lots. In the subdivision he made provision for public walkways and boards that would guide the public as to where the archaeological sites were that had been identified by an archaeologist from Auckland University. 
The trust was not at all interested in cooperating with Mr White. Under the Act the trust had the power to destroy his rights on that land. The matter went on and on. Mr White gave the Crown an option to purchase the land—if it wanted to buy it it could have it and do what it liked with it. The Crown stuffed around with that right to purchase the land. The matter went on and on. Mr White consulted with local iwi. He was aware of the wahi tapu on the land. There was a mountain that was considered to be a wahi tapu. He gave that mountain to the Tai Tokerau Maori Trust Board but that was not enough. The issue went on and on. In the end Mr White had to sell that land. He sold it—it cost him a million dollars—and he took what he could get for it. The land had so much history and so many notifications on it that anyone who was interested in buying it was scared off. When Mr White sold the land it was developed and all the things that he was not allowed to do went ahead and were done. That is why we oppose this legislation. 
The ACT party does believe in preserving our culture and our heritage. However we believe that we should do it and that the process should not be State controlled. Money should not be taken off people and given to the State so that the State can decide what people can do with their own land. The greatest measure of conservation is to protect people’s private property rights. All we have to do if we want a blatant example of that is to go to the Eastern bloc countries where there are no property rights and to see what happened to their culture and heritage. They were totally obliterated. The more that this Government or any Government passes legislation like this appointing six out of nine members on a board as Crown appointees the more we go down that path. 
We have the nebulous concept of wahi tapu which is not defined and can be anything that anyone thinks it is. If someone wants to stuff up a development he or she should mention wahi tapu and see people’s property rights be taken off them. People still own the land—they still pay the rates and pay for gorse control pest control and all the other things. In fact under a wahi tapu notification if landowners want to plant native trees and preserve the land by turning it into bush they still have to get permission to do that. They still have to consult with local iwi. Even though people own the land nominally it is taken away from them in terms of what they can do with it. There is a word for that: it is national socialism. It is something that all the names around the walls of the Chamber signify we do not want to have in this country. 
We vehemently oppose this bill. I say to all landowners out there who are listening to this debate especially if they are in rural areas that they should make a submission to the select committee and oppose this bill with all their might. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The National Party is opposing the Historic Places Amendment Bill for a variety of reasons. We regard it as—and Jim Peters also pointed this out—absolutely unnecessary. I too pay tribute to the dozens of volunteers around this country who have supported the Historic Places Trust for many many years. Wonderful New Zealanders have spontaneously put their hearts and souls into the Historic Places Trust. That is an indication of one of the richnesses that New Zealand has and it certainly should be cultivated for years to come. But what do we see this Labour Government doing? Oh no it wants some central control of it. According to Jill Pettis the Government will also pour money into it—recklessly pour money into it and that is the huge problem with it. 
Firstly this legislation allows even greater ministerial control over the trust with ministerial appointees increasing from three out of 11 to six out of nine. That is another classic dose of the Helen Clark type of central control. This Labour Government just cannot help itself. If one thinks back to the recent New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill one recalls that it seemed harmless enough but in that legislation the Government wanted to prescribe the sort of music that New Zealanders listen to. The Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage over there said that she did not like dead men’s music that she did not like Mozart and Beethoven. That is exactly what she said although she has retracted it a bit; at the time that is what she said. On that legislation the Government wanted more central control. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am deeply concerned that I was badly misquoted by that member. I did not say at any stage— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: She protesteth a little too much. She certainly talked about dead men’s music and her dislike of it. 
But the second reason we are opposing this bill is that it fails to provide a satisfactory solution to the very contentious and sensitive issue of wahi tapu both for landowners and for Maori. Unfortunately the improvements in the bill are very minor when what is needed is much more substantial reform in order to protect the legitimate rights of landowners and to clarify for Maori what is a hugely important area for them. This bill fails to do that. 
I note that the general policy statement in the explanatory note states: “This bill amends the Historic Places Act 1993”—a good Act that was brought in by National—“to adjust and clarify its application.” Well when we look through this bill we do not see much clarity. I will talk about that later. The explanatory note goes on to state: “The Historic Places Act 1993 gives the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (Pouhere Taonga) (the Trust) a range of functions and powers.” I thought I remembered the Minister saying that the bill does not change the role or purpose of the original legislation. There is a lack of clarity as to what the bill actually does but here it states: “Among other things these concern protecting archaeological sites maintaining a Register of places of historical and cultural heritage and owning and managing heritage properties.”—all things that are very important to the National Party but I do not think the bill makes much difference in terms of their being done. It goes on to state: “Although the Trust exercises regulatory responsibilities and receives funding by parliamentary appropriation it is not currently regarded as a Crown entity.” This legislation needs to do more than simply make the Historic Places Trust a Crown entity. It is just another absolutely unnecessary exercise by the Labour Government to try to solidify central control of something. 
Then we get on to this very important explanation: “The Trust’s governance arrangements are strengthened by among other measures reducing the size of the Trust Board from 11 to 9 members”. Yes we love the reduction in size but when we see that the number of Crown appointments is to be increased from three to six we really see what the Labour Government is all about. Government members will be appointing their mates just to try to organise the control of this country that they want so much—let alone control of this country’s heritage. That is where it gets rather worrisome. We have a wonderful legacy of volunteers involved with the Historic Places Trust and once again the vice-like clamp of central control from the Labour Government is taking over. 
Going on to the section in the explanatory note dealing with amendments to the principal Act I note that clause 4 adds new paragraph (f) to section 20(6) of the principal Act and that paragraph (f) is supposed to clarify that “a court considering an appeal must have regard to the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands water sites wahi tapu and other taonga.” What does the Labour Government really think about those issues? I was very interested to hear Jim Peters saying there was nothing more confusing than the issue of wahi tapu. He says we need to sort it out to provide clarity. The councils are totally confused the planners are bedevilled by it and the local authorities find it absolutely difficult—let alone the applicants up and down the country. 
I think it is important to draw attention to the difficulties I have witnessed in Port Waikato with two major projects that the Government has rammed through. It has given little regard to wahi tapu. Under its interpretation of it it has just gone ahead with those two major projects; it has forgotten about that issue which it says is so important to it. Let me tell members about them. 
Firstly of course there was the Hampton Downs dump which is New Zealand’s biggest-ever landfill. It will take rubbish from the top half of the North Island for the next 60 years. It is of huge importance to the nation in terms of the way we treat garbage. Yet the Minister said that no it is a local issue and we should forget about the fact that the area between Meremere and Rangiriri is one of the most important areas in terms of New Zealand history. It has been described by people like Belich as being hugely significant. Certainly local Maori came to me and said how important it was to them. But the Labour Government said it was a local issue and it would ram through New Zealand’s biggest dump to be situated 500 metres from the Waikato River—which is again of huge importance to Maori—and a few kilometres up from Auckland’s latest water supply. 
Not only did it do that but it said it did not want the next Auckland regional men’s prison to be in a Labour electorate so it would put it in the northern Waikato heartland in the same area—between Rangiriri and Meremere. It just ploughed ahead irrespective of the very very important concept of wahi tapu. The Minister of Corrections over there was offered the opportunity of a prison being built where people actually wanted it. People in north Huntly wrote to him that they were prepared to have the prison north of Huntly where it would help unemployment but he refused to go ahead with that. That is what the Labour Government thinks of wahi tapu. It has total disregard for it yet it says this bill clarifies the issue. 
I see in this bill only a totally unnecessary set of Labour Government aims with which it plans to put more central control on the electorate. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 As speakers before me have indicated National will oppose the first reading of the Historic Places Amendment Bill. We have some grave concerns about the way in which the Government is attempting to restructure the governance arrangements of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Although the explanatory note to the bill states that the Government is keen to increase and strengthen accountability measures it is clear from the provisions of the bill that the Government wishes to increase its stranglehold on the trust in a way that would see its independence and frankly its credibility threatened because of the way this bill proposes to adjust governance arrangements. 
The explanatory note states: “The Trust’s governance arrangements are strengthened by among other measures reducing the size of the Trust Board from 11 to 9 members”. Although members on this side of the House would on the face of it applaud fewer positions on Government boards and the like what concerns us more is that when one reads further through the explanatory note it states that the bill would increase the number of Crown appointments from three members to six on a board of nine members. So six members out of a total of nine would be Crown appointments. 
I have left it to the very capable Georgina te Heuheu and Paul Hutchison to outline other details relating to our opposition but I will just ask how and on what basis could the governance of the trust be strengthened by increasing Government representation on the board. Once again this Government has formed the very ideological view that the Government knows best how to govern arrangements and boards such as this and that it is not for the public or any other organisations to make appointments that would accurately reflect those with an interest or a stake in this particular trust. Instead the Government in all its benevolence will know exactly who should make up the members of that board and with the majority of those members being Government appointments who is most appropriate to sit on that board. 
Members on this side of the House say that that is not good enough. This Government cannot resist constantly digging its fingers claws and clutches further into organisations everyday life foundations and the like that do a pretty good job without the Government interfering in their day-to-day governance arrangements. I think as members on this side of the House do that the Government is selling the Historic Places Trust short by saying “We know best.” Members on this side of the House dispute that strongly. I endorse the comments made by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu—our lead speaker on this bill—and Dr Paul Hutchison. I reconfirm that National will be opposing this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Historic Places Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a first time and referred to theGovernment Administration Committee.referred to Government Administration Committee 
Electricity and Gas Industries Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Electricity Act 1992 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The National Party strongly opposes this bill and agrees with the overwhelming view of submitters. They expressed almost unanimous concern at the design of the Electricity Commission the rules around the Electricity Commission and the fact that the Minister could ignore the Electricity Commission if he so wished and that the Minister could direct the commission if he so wished. Despite the assurances that the committee received from Government members on the committee who said: “No no no—the Minister would never do that. This is transparent. No Minister’s going to behave like that.” before this bill is even passed into law the Minister has gone behind the back of the commission. The Minister has gone around the back of the bike shed and is doing a deal to underwrite E3P generation with Genesis Power the one State-owned enterprise that happens—by chance I am sure—to have the president of the Labour Party Mr Mike Williams on its board. The Minister has not consulted with the commission at all despite the fact that the commission was set up primarily for that purpose. As the commission has asked: “Why have us? What is the point?”. The Minister has replied: “Oh well gosh you would not want this to be something that happened every day but it just so happened with this State-owned enterprise which has the Labour Party president on its board and guess what? There is a guarantee that it is all secret.” How tidy is that? 
Brian Connell 
: It’s untidy. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Very untidy. How transparent is that? 
Simon Power 
: Not transparent at all. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is not transparent at all. The Labour Party members sit there and giggle and laugh away but I say to them that the industry regards with huge—and I think quite rightful—scepticism the whole approach taken to the Electricity Commission and that is why we will be opposing this bill. 
Part 1 sets up the regulations around reserve energy and amends the legislation accordingly. We are opposed to that and I will talk in detail about some of the clauses in that part because subsequent parts of the bill are around the structure of the commission which we will also want to talk about. 
In Part 1 is the accountability section which sets up the accountability of the Electricity Commission. We had a number of submissions on that part the strongest of which came from a group of submitters that had commissioned LECG Ltd an independent group in Wellington to look at the structure of the commission and then tell us whether it would work. Dr Graham Scott who presented the submission of the LECG group said that the structure in Part 1 was a structure that he had seen before—in Albania. 
Brian Connell 
: What’s that got to do with New Zealand? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That has nothing to do with New Zealand of course and I do not know whether Dr Graham Scott was taking a liberty but effectively he was saying that the structure is a shambles. 
 So I went and had a look and asked who was supporting Dr Graham Scott’s submission. I got a list of a whole range of lines companies and generators—major players State-owned enterprises Government-owned businesses—that said the structure is wrong and that it does not and will not work. Every State-owned enterprise said that—even the State-owned enterprise that has the Labour Party president on its board. Even it said that the structure is wrong. We must ask ourselves why the Government is not listening. 
There were some powerful submissions on the structure. I want to talk about the TrustPower submission. TrustPower was formed from a private company and a trust-owned company that merged into one. It is a unique body. The consumers of Tauranga City like my parliamentary colleagues Tony Ryall and Mr Peter Brown are shareholders in TrustPower. That company came to the Commerce Committee and said that it opposed the bill. It supported Graham Scott’s submission that said the structure was wrong. It said it was worried that the Government would use this bill in such a way as to stop reinvestment. Already we have seen that with a sneaky little deal done by Genesis Energy. TrustPower said that this bill if passed would force it to “put weight on and seriously consider exiting the New Zealand retail electricity market.” 
Does any member of the Labour Party think that that is serious? Did any members of the Labour Party think that perhaps they should have talked to TrustPower after that submission was made to see whether it was serious? Not one! Not one Labour member has gone to TrustPower a company that has virtually every resident of Tauranga as a shareholder—some of them I think received their cheques in the last few weeks—to ask what would happen were TrustPower to exit the retail sector. Do any Labour members know what that would do to the market? 
Brian Connell 
: Do they care? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Do they even care? I suspect they do not. There are two large private investors in generation in this country—TrustPower and Contact Energy—and one is already saying that it would have to consider exiting the market if this legislation is passed. We see that the Government is looking to pass this legislation. 
I thought that if things were as bad as that what would the company on whose board the Labour Party president sits—he was appointed by Labour—think of the legislation? I looked at Genesis Energy’s submission. The first thing Genesis Energy said was that it supported Graham Scott. It supported his submission that said that the structure of this commission would be like something out of Albania. That is not very good. That does not sound as if the Labour Party president is backing his Minister. Genesis Energy thought that this bill should not proceed. 
I wonder whether the Labour Party president has raised that in the Labour caucus or whether it just stays in the boardroom of Genesis Energy. He is happy to raise the objection and take the money for being an appointed board member but will not do anything to influence a Government that is destroying the industry with this legislation. 
It goes on and on. Orion New Zealand opposes the bill. Transpower is totally opposed to the bill. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.