Volume 613 Week 41 - Thursday 6 November 2003 
Volume 613 Week 41 - Thursday 6 November 2003 
[Volume:613;Page:9787] 
Thursday 6 November 2003 
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 Dog Control Amendment Bill the Forests Amendment Bill and the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I notice that the Order Paper is relatively light and that the workload of the Government could be completed very early this year. Can the Minister tell us whether there is more legislation in the pipeline that may be put through the House under urgency—for example the foreshore and seabed legislation—and if not can he tell us what the Government’s intention is to sort out that particular problem? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer the first part of the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No I do not anticipate any legislation before Christmas as the member would be aware if he had read the submission of the Waitangi Tribunal which is on the website. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Exchange Rate 
1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: In making his statement yesterday that he is “not without options” to combat the rise in the New Zealand dollar was it his intention to signal possible changes to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 changes to the floating exchange rate or intervention in the currency market; if not what was he hoping to achieve? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 My intention was to signal that the Government is not without options. No specific conclusions can be drawn from that statement and it would be most unwise to do so. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Given that the rise in the New Zealand dollar is putting very considerable pressure on much of the export sector why does the Government persist in dumping additional compliance costs on exporters like yesterday’s announcement of a new $20 million trade tax and proposing still further cost increases by mandating additional paid annual leave? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I bow to the member’s superior knowledge about lifting New Zealand’s exchange rate. However on the basis of the logic of the National Party if increasing compliance costs reduce economic growth that will actually lead to a reduction in the New Zealand exchange rate over the long term. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it not the case that the Minister has no options on the level of the New Zealand dollar and he is actually just pretending that he has; if that is not the case why is he not prepared to share what he thinks his options are with the public of New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No the ongoing activities of the Government impact on the exchange rate in a whole host of ways but no specific conclusions can be drawn from my comments. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can he recall the inaction of the Labour Government in March 1985 when the dollar rose to US72c and would he contemplate doing something this time rather than doing nothing as he did the last time he was in Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not think I was the Minister of Finance at that point in the history of the Labour Government and therefore I am not responsible for what it did. However I can point out to the member that the Government is not without options but no specific conclusions can be drawn from that at this time. 
Rod Donald 
: Why does the Minister now appear to be interested in the exchange rate and balance of payments blowouts when in 2001 in answer to a question from me in this House he claimed that our much larger balance of payments deficit was not a cause for long-term concern and does he agree that exchange rate and balance of payment policies are long overdue for New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At that point the New Zealand dollar was falling and in a highly competitive situation which led to a strong correction in the current account deficit. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Minister seen the assessment by Westpac’s currency strategist Johnathan Bayley reported in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 that he was “simply trying to jawbone the New Zealand dollar lower” and can he tell the House whether by the end of yesterday there was any sign at all of that being achieved? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yesterday was a good demonstration of the irrational exuberance of financial markets. On the back of the Australians lifting their interest rate the markets decided to mark the New Zealand dollar upwards despite the fact that the interest rate differential between the two countries therefore disappeared. That suggests one should not listen too closely to currency strategists from banks about rationality. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What does the Minister of Finance think the advantageous effects are for the export community of this country—the people who actually pump wealth into this nation—of a dollar that is ever-escalating in the face of a Minister of Finance who refuses to do a thing about it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: So far in question time I seem to have been accused by some parties of doing nothing and by some parties of doing far too much. That suggests that I must have it about right. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Minister aware that the Japanese authorities have also been trying to prevent their currency rising against the falling US dollar with intervention in the foreign exchange market rumoured to be in excess of US$100 billion and interest rates very close to zero but with absolutely minimal effect on the yen - US dollar exchange rate; given that why does he have any confidence at all that he will be able to achieve a better result? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confidently say that the Government does not have US$100 billion to spend in that kind of area at all. 
Retirement Savings—State Sector 
2.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What is the Government doing to promote retirement saving schemes for those employed in the State sector? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 The Government has announced a new employment-based retirement savings scheme to be operational within the public sector from July next year. Employees will be able to choose their desired level of regular contributions which will be matched by employers up to a maximum of 1.5 percent of gross salary in year 1 or 3 percent of gross salary in year 2 less withholding tax. This is good for the public service and a good example to other employers about the importance of retirement savings schemes. 
David Benson-Pope 
: When was the last time State sector employees were able to join a Government-subsidised retirement savings scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There have been a number of small ad hoc arrangements from agency to agency but on a public service - wide approach it was in 1992. 
Dail Jones 
: As this measure is good for the public service which New Zealand First agrees that it is why does the Minister not take similar action with regard to or make incentives available also for the private sector? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Of course it is available for the private sector if employers like employers in the State sector choose to make it so. 
Rod Donald 
: While we support this scheme we would like to know this: will it be available to all State sector employees—whether part-time or full-time what protections will the Minister put in place to ensure that the savings of low-income workers are not gobbled up by administration fees and other costs what is he intending to do about the regressive nature of the scheme and will the Government continue to contribute to superannuation while women are on paid parental leave in the light of the fact that women have lower lifetime earnings? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were four questions there. The Minister may answer two. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a lot of details to work through. There will be at least three different options for each person involved to choose from. The scheme will be available to part-time workers. It is unlikely to be available to people on leave or not earning at the time but those are details that will be worked through over the next period of time. I thank the member for his support. This is an important policy in giving an indication to the community in general that retirement savings over and above Dr Cullen’s very good scheme are important. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Is the promotion of a retirement savings scheme for State sector employees supported by the industry? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes overwhelmingly. Vance Arkinstall the chief executive of the Investment Savings and Insurance Association said that the scheme sent a powerful signal about the importance of personal saving for retirement. Traditional superannuation has been in decline for a decade now. We hope that this is the beginning of the reversal of that trend. 
Employment Relations Act—Contractors 
3.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Is the recent Employment Court decision that found a set model technician hired as a contractor on  
The Lord of the Rings 
 was actually an employee the result she intended when she introduced the Employment Relations Act 2000; if so why? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 My intention was that the court do what it was required to do under the Employment Relations Act. The Act intended that such matters should be determined by looking at all the facts to determine the real nature of the relationship and the court has done exactly that in this case. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Has the Minister seen the statements of  
The Lord of the Rings  
producer Mr Barry Osborne warning of “significant consequences that are unfortunate to the film industry” arising from the decision of the Employment Court; and will she accept responsibility for those negative outcomes as a result of her decision to change the law that previously provided certainty to the film industry? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes and I do not accept that there are inevitable negative outcomes as a result of this decision but I am very happy to talk to the industry about it. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Why is it important that parties are clear about the real nature of their employment arrangements? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: When parties determine the nature of their relationships the rights and obligations of the parties differ of course depending on whether they are classified as employees or contractors. Certainty of rights and obligations is critical in business as well as in law. That is why it is always best to address those issues clearly at the start of the working relationship—which was not done in this situation. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could the Minister explain to the House what it says about her Government’s whole-of-Government approach to issues when on the one hand the Hon Jim Anderton goes around the country trumpeting the big success of spending taxpayers’ money to the tune of $40 million to try to get the film industry down here and on the other hand her legislation is effectively canning that investment? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The legislation was passed by this Parliament and I do not believe that the two policies are in contradiction at all. They do in fact support each other. 
Paul Adams 
: In the light of the focus in the primary question on the implementation of the Employment Relations Act will the upcoming amendment bill allow employers to impose a 1-month prohibition period for new employees as vigorously promoted by the Minister for Small Business John Tamihere; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Why did the Minister change the law regarding this situation when prior to the Employment Relations Act it had been clear and extremely workable; and does she think it is in the best interests of New Zealand to now risk losing a $300 million film like  
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe 
? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I do not believe that in fact those projects are at risk at all. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Given that the Minister does not believe that the $300 million film  
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe 
 is at risk why on earth would the  
Lord of the Rings 
 producer say it was at risk; does he not know what he is talking about? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I cannot speak for the person who made that statement. What I do know is this particular case was decided on its own facts and that in fact it was stated within the case that the precedent consequences of it had been much overstated. As I said the answer is in the hands of the parties and of course I and the Government are always available to assist them to ensure there is clarity in their contractual relationships. 
Fuel Taxes—Customs and Excise Duty 
4.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much of the $1128 million “fuels excise and customs duty” that Transfund New Zealand estimates will be collected in the 2003-04 financial year is made up of “fuels excise” and how much is made up of “customs duty”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The breakdown from the Transfund estimate is that $912 million is excise duty and $216 million is customs duty. Treasury has slightly different estimates. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister give the House a clear statement whether there is any possibility that the Government will reallocate the entire 18.5c per litre in fuel excise tax currently allocated to the Crown account back into the National Land Transport Fund in the foreseeable future particularly in light of the recent financial forecast that the Budget surpluses may be reduced considerably? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. There is no prospect of that happening within the foreseeable future. It would certainly be fair to say that some possibility of diversion may occur depending upon the nature of Budget forecasts and the requirements for funding the Auckland roading system. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister of Finance think it is a good idea to spend an additional $800 million of petrol tax so that State Highway 20 a project running through the Prime Minister’s own electorate and one she once described as proceeding “over my dead body” can be built using tunnels; if so does he now consider that to be an expensive case of “under her dead body”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can assure the member that the Prime Minister is very much alive unlike his leader. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question had certain comments in it but I think the answer was out of order. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. No we do not have accurate estimates on any of the individual components as I understand it of the Auckland roading network at this stage—one of the interesting features that has emerged from the officials’ exercise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm to the House that if the total amount of money collected for the purpose of roading roading maintenance and upgrading and road safety—namely $2.25 billion—was used for that purpose then all these other funding arrangements supported by United Future would not be required? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. As I have pointed out many times that does not cover the full cost of roading. Some $1673 million of that goes into the National Land Transport Fund but as is well established the cost of capital for roading is not covered by the excise duty and other forms of income. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that unlike previous increases in petrol tax the latest 4c increase voted in by Labour and the Greens and opposed by all other parties goes entirely into the National Land Transport Fund with the effect of lowering the proportion of total petrol tax diverted to the consolidated account compared with the previous regime that pertained under the National – New Zealand First Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and I shall remain eternally grateful to the Greens for their cooperation in that regard. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister understand public concern about the allocation of fuel excise to the Crown account and their requests for accountability over this when the facts show that the Labour Government increased the amount of diversion in 1986 from 9.8c to 25.8c and the National Government in August 1991 increased it from 19.3c to 23.1c and will he confirm that this Government has no plans to increase the amount in a similar fashion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. As in many of these matters I do not intend to follow either Roger Douglas or Ruth Richardson. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What amount does he think is collected from all areas in respect of roading in this country and why is that amount not spent on the purpose for which it is collected which is what the New Zealand road user wants to happen? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member gave a pretty accurate estimate. My estimate was based on the Treasury figures not the Transfund figures. Transfund’s figure is $2246 million of which $1673 million goes into the National Land Transport Fund. But as I said the cost of capital is not taken account of in those simple cash sums. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister aware that in May 1998 the National - New Zealand First coalition Government made a small reduction in the amount diverted of 2.1c despite the fact that the leader of New Zealand First and Treasurer of the day had his own member’s bill drawn up that required all funds to be used for roads; if so does he think Winston Peters has any chance of achieving that goal in the near future? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question is out of order. The Minister has no responsibility. 
Larry Baldock 
: I seek leave to table the member’s bill I mentioned. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the member’s bill referred to. Is there any objection? There is. 
Schools—Network Reviews 
5.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: In light of his reported statement that the total cost of “network reviews” will be pulled back through the money saved by closing about 300 schools what is the total cost? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The cost of administering network reviews is minimal when compared with the extra money that the schools receive once a review has been completed. The total Ministry of Education budget for administering all reviews is less than $3.2 million. This compares with around $17 million that has been reinvested in schools in just one of the reviewed areas. Previously network reviews did save money because the money was pulled back into central government coffers. Under this Government the savings are reinvested in providing better schooling for children in the affected areas. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does he know the dollar amount of the projected savings with each review; if so what are they; if not what was the basis for his statement that these closures are cost-effective? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: To answer the second part of the question first it is experience. In answer to the first part of the question this Government does not predetermine the results of reviews. 
Hon Bill English 
: Yes it does. It does so. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member might say that. When the member gets a little better informed he might understand that communities are invited and have an enormous role in making decisions. If the member goes to Turangi or Putaruru and has a good discussion with the locals he will find that millions of dollars have been reinvested in their schools in a much better network that will last. When Bill English was Minister of Finance he confiscated the savings put them in his back pocket and gave them as tax cuts to the rich. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will appreciate that the Minister was completely out of order in his suggestions about Mr English and I suggest that you ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Mr English made interjections—as he is entitled to make—and the Minister is entitled to reply to them. If people make interjections members can reply to them. As far as I am concerned the answer addressed the question. However further supplementary questions can occur. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled Mr Hide. What is the member’s point? 
Rodney Hide 
: Mr Speaker are you saying that it is OK for the Minister to say that Mr English put the savings in his back pocket? That has been ruled out of order ever since I have been in Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I thought it was a reference to Mr English gaining personally from the savings then of course I would rule it out of order. I thought it was a metaphor that the money went back into the coffers of the country. I am sure that is what the member and everybody else thought it meant. 
Jill Pettis 
: Why is it necessary for the Government to conduct network reviews and what are the aims of those reviews? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The aim of the network reviews is to ensure that all children whatever their background and wherever they live have access to quality education that is sustainable well into the future. I should reiterate that 70 percent of the children in schools involved in network reviews currently live in urban centres of 10000 people or more. People who go around spreading malicious lies that this is a rural issue are away with the fairies. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister spending so much time and money bullying communities into closing successful viable schools when he and his ministry allow schools that are consistently failing their pupils and their parents to stay open? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have closed failing schools in my electorate such as Waiwhetu School. I have closed failing schools in the member’s electorate such as Ohai School. This Minister fronts up to failing schools in a way that no one now on the opposite side of the House ever had the guts to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You cannot possibly allow the Minister to rattle on in that way and end up saying that people in the National Party did not have the guts to do something. Those were the very words he used. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes and I think that on reflection those words will be withdrawn and the member will apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the per-pupil cost for small schools is significantly greater than for medium to large schools and that therefore the major long-term benefactor of school closures will be the taxpayer a reality that seems to have escaped the spokesperson for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If one looks in the very long term one sees that is the case. I reiterate to the member that for the first 4 years for operational matters and for the first 5 years for property matters all the money is reinvested back into the local network as opposed to the approach promoted by the National Party which would have it going to tax cuts. 
Metiria Turei 
: As South Canterbury schools report being told by ministry officials that neither choice nor quality of education counts in the review and in light of even Mr David Benson-Pope’s confession in a newspaper article that the Taieri community had its issues completely rejected by the ministry can the Minister not just admit that the review is designed to extract money out of education as 50 percent of any savings will go back into the consolidated account after only a few short years? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of issues there. In the Taieri review the second option put up by the facilitator was the one that I accepted. I do want to make it clear that I think it is much better to spend education funding on teachers teacher-aides and information and communications technology not to spend it on painting empty buildings in the way that the Green Party would do with its sustainable approach to empty schools. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: When the ministry analysed the cost savings of closing schools such as the one in Temuka did it also consider the extra cost to families for such things as new uniforms extra transport charges and the problems of special-needs children as well as the need to travel each day to and from Timaru; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No decisions have been made about Temuka and no recommendations have been made to me for that area. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Given that the cost of the $19.4 million review of Wainuiomata will not be recovered until the year 2017 does he know when the cost of the $32.4 million review of Timaru will be recovered; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am pleased the member asked me that question because she misled the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 with that information as well. Regarding the review in Wainuiomata the figures she gave included the $12 million in capital costs—$12 million that was going to be spent anyway. That is not anything to do with the net cost of the review. I am quite happy for the member to get a briefing on it so that she can understand the figures. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why does he not just leave it up to parents and communities to decide whether to have a 200-pupil school instead of his herding pupils across town or to another town to the school he thinks they should go to? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because around the country there will be a net 63000 drop in the number of primary pupils over the next 15 years and that will include I think about an 80000 drop in the areas outside Auckland. What happens if we let schools drift to failure in the way that members opposite want? Drift to failure is what happens on a relatively regular basis; I end up closing schools that have teachers and no pupils. 
Information and Communications Technology Sector Task Force—Government Response 
6.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister for Information Technology 
: What has been the Government's response to the report of the Information and Communications Technology Sector Task Force? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister for Information Technology) 
: 
 Very positive. The Government has responded to the report of the Information and Communications Technology Sector Task Force with a funding package of more than $14 million over the next 4 years specifically for information and communications technology and more than 30 new initiatives to support growth in New Zealand’s high-tech sectors including information and communications technology. The money will be targeted at various initiatives designed to support the task force goal of 100 information and communications technology companies each turning over $100 million annually by 2012. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How many information and communications technology companies currently have sales levels of over $100 million and what is the potential for more? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are currently 16 information and communications technology companies with sales of more than $100 million in New Zealand. I am told that over 80 companies have already signed up to the high-growth programme indicating that there is a high degree of support and enthusiasm in the information and communications technology sector for participating in this initiative. As the task force said there is no shortage of great ideas in New Zealand but a shortage of the managerial skills to take them global. Addressing this issue is a key focus of the Government response in partnership with the private sector. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: With regard to the communications issues raised by the task force did the Government consider the significant impact on all New Zealanders including the Department of Child Youth and Family Services courts and police of the Telecommunications Information Privacy Code 2003 which just this week has caused Telecom to shut down its nationwide search capability of the electronic white pages on the World Wide Web; if not why not. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. 
Corrections Department—Chief Executive 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department's chief executive; if so will he still have confidence in him after the State Services Commission inquiry into the so-called “goon squad” and the inquiry into the supervision of paedophile Lloyd Alexander McIntosh? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes and I await the reports with interest. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why does he have such confidence when is it not a fact that the reason he will not commit to an independent inquiry is that it may prove suggestions that the dangerous paedophile Lloyd Alexander McIntosh routinely flouted his parole conditions by making numerous phone calls to children by not living at his mother’s home as he was required to by failing to attend officially ordered counselling sessions and by frequently being unsupervised for long periods of time? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I have already indicated there is an inquiry into the matters that have been raised. The important point is this: it is a bit rich for that member to talk about confidence when the National Party has demoted that member from No. 8 to No. 15. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is irrelevant. 
Martin Gallagher 
: How has the Department of Corrections under the leadership of the current chief executive performed over the last 5 years? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Department of Corrections’ latest annual report shows that the department has performed well over the last 5 years. For example in the period since 1997-98 the number of breakout escapes decreased from 0.65 per 100 inmates to 0.12; the number of serious inmate-on-inmate assaults fell from 1.6 per 100 inmates to 0.02; the number of serious inmate assaults on staff fell from 0.08 per 100 inmates to less than 0.01. The department has been doing pretty well over the last 5 years. 
Marc Alexander 
: What assistance and/or hindrance did the Minister receive from other political parties with regard to convincing him about the need for a full and frank investigation into the activities of the “goon squad”; and what was he referring to when he mentioned “grandstanding by Opposition parties”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister cannot answer the last part of the question; he can answer the first part. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I had considerable input in terms of coming to a decision about this matter from the member who asked the question who came to my office and discussed the matter in a proper and cordial manner. I did see other members of Opposition parties grandstanding in the media and that is why I went cold on a select committee inquiry. This is not an opportunity for people to use that case down in Christchurch to try to ratchet themselves up in the polls. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider that answer very carefully. The substance of the question is serious but the Minister is trying to lift it into a sort of light comedy show. That is not fair to the people who are listening or will be reporting this afternoon’s proceedings. The Minister’s suggestion that Opposition parties—in particular the National Party—are not willing to cooperate with him and are grandstanding is totally unacceptable to us. Offers were made in this House using this forum for reasons that will become apparent during the course of that inquiry. I suggest the Minister may wish to apologise for those comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No if the Minister had mentioned the National Party I would have been down on him like a ton of bricks. He did not mention any party. I listened very carefully because I had told him he was responsible for answering only the first part of the question. The member has made his point and that is probably where it rests. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Given that the chief executive of the Department of Corrections and his actions in running his department will be under investigation in the State Services Commission inquiry into the “goon squad” what confidence does the Minister have and what confidence should Parliament have that the chief executive can lead an inquiry into the actions of his department in failing to maintain the supervision of a man who raped two children in this country? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The inquiries are quite separate. The first one which relates to the situation in Christchurch is in the public arena. The second one is about contracts with third parties and that is what the investigation will be looking into. 
Marc Alexander 
: Will the Minister assure this House that the terms of the “goon squad” inquiry will not be too tightly circumscribed so that the key issues of accountability simply evaporate into no-go areas and that the people found to be culpable will have the full measure of justice brought to bear on them no matter what position they currently hold in the Department of Corrections; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I understand from the State Services Commission the terms of reference are currently being worked through. I expect an announcement on this matter tomorrow. I say to the member that the whole issue of accountability will be part of it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Given that the chief executive of the Department of Corrections led an inquiry into the “goon squad” fiasco and this Minister is now dismissing that inquiry and requiring a State Services Commission independent inquiry why does he not take the concerns of the people of New Zealand seriously about the way he and his department are arranging supervision of dangerous paedophiles and call for the independent inquiry that we know will come in this issue eventually? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I do take the concerns of New Zealanders very seriously which is why we are looking into both matters. 
Industry and Regional Development Policy—Reports 
8.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: What reports has he received on the response to the coalition Government's industry and regional development policies and what do these reports indicate? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 I have seen many reports endorsing the coalition’s pragmatic and strategic approach to investing in industry and regional development particularly in those sectors that have the best potential to help New Zealand to continue to create more high-quality jobs and improve living standards for all New Zealanders. For example the response to the large-budget screen production grant includes the comment that this investment “allows the opportunity for New Zealand producers and directors to make larger-budget films in their home country which in turn will result in more jobs and will have obvious flow-on financial benefits for the local economy. The Government is to be congratulated for its continued support of New Zealand film makers and industry craftspeople.” Those words are from icon film director Peter Jackson. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What other industry sectors is the Labour-Progressive Government investing in to better enable the whole economy to grow faster and therefore produce more quality jobs and better social services? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government is investing a further $16.8 million in the biotechnology sector in response to the ambitious targets of the biotechnology task force to boost dramatically export earnings and bolster the number of locally based biotech companies. This is a positive step in the right direction for New Zealand according to task force chairman Bill Falconer. This is a critical sector for New Zealand’s future economic development—for which I note the National Party has no spokesperson. 
John Key 
: What percentage of the companies that have received Industry New Zealand grants go broke as De’Amalfi Survival Ltd did in March of this year after receiving $30000 in 2001; and would he still describe this company as he once did as a shining example of job creation innovation and success? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The way to have no risk and no failure is to do nothing which the National Party in Government had plenty of experience of doing—nothing. If one company out of 100 failed the National Party would evidently claim that this was a disaster. This side of the House claims when 99 companies out of 100 are succeeding that it is a success for New Zealand and it is about time this Parliament talked New Zealand up rather than down. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister “What percentage?”. I did not ask him what a hypothetically good result would be—one in 100. I asked what the actual percentage is of companies that fail in New Zealand. As the Minister will know it is a lot more than one in 100. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If the member would like the actual figures I am very happy to give them to him. But what is there about one in 100 that he does not understand? 
Dave Hereora 
: How does the coalition Government’s investment in economic industrial and regional development dovetail with its desire to promote higher living standards for Maori? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can that question be in order? If the Minister cannot answer a simple question in his own portfolio about the incidence of failure among companies how can he possibly know how successful his policies were when it comes to the issue of Maori involvement in commerce? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member can see what happens when the Minister gives his answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can I make a point? The point relates to the question. If the Minister cannot answer a previous question surely the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is just playing politics. I ask Mr Anderton to give the answer to the question. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: New Zealand is close to being at full employment with the official unemployment rate now at a 15-year low of 4.7 percent. What is unacceptable to this Government—and would be unacceptable I hope to all New Zealanders—however is that the unemployment rate among Maori remains significantly above the national average. The requirement therefore to ensure that all New Zealanders—Maori and Pakeha—are on the road to achieving full employment is urgent and will not be achieved in my view by adopting any of the policies recently announced by the new leader of the National Party. This Government will see that the unemployment rate is lowered even further. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister not talk to his colleague—the only colleague he has—Matt Robson thereby saving us all these self-serving egregious demonstrations that Mr Anderton still has an ego and that his old Alliance is still breathing? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I know that it must gall the former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand and Treasurer that this Government has so much good news to spread around the country when he had none at all but he will just have to wear it. 
Crop and Food Research—Genetically Engineered Onions 
9.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: How much public funding from which sources in which years has been received by Crop and Food Research for the development and field testing of herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered onions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 Crop and Food Research has received a total of $250700 from the Foundation for Research Science and Technology for research involving the development and field testing of herbicide-tolerant GM onions between 1999 and 2003. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: In light of the involvement of two large multinationals which will certainly expect their slice of the pie and the extraordinary statement by Crop and Food Research this week that it does not know who will own the intellectual property or how any commercial benefits would be shared can the Minister enlighten us on what the New Zealand public will receive in return for all this investment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I cannot because I neither govern nor manage the company. However it is routine amongst Crown research institutes in New Zealand to enter into some form of intellectual property arrangement which might be an equity arrangement a licensing arrangement a buy-back arrangement or whatever and I fully expect Crop and Food Research to do so. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How many of those Budgets that have been passed in this House through which public funding has been provided for the development of genetically engineered onions have been voted for by the Greens? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility for that particular question. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility for how the Greens voted on a particular issue. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: My point of order is that the Minister hasresponsibility in his particular portfolio for the preparation of Budget bids. The Budget comes before this House therefore it has to be passed one way or the other. All I asked for from the Minister was information about how many of those Budgets that he has prepared or have been prepared in this particular case have had the support of the Greens. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The particular part of the question relating to his portfolio and the Budget is in order and the Minister may comment. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: At least some of them. 
David Parker 
: What advice has the Minister received about the use of herbicide in conventional onion horticulture and the possibilities of reducing its use? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The idea behind the research at Crop and Food Research is to reduce chemical use on onion fields by about two-thirds. This is just as well because onion fields need a lot of chemicals. I am advised that between 10 and 15 different “toxic and persistent” herbicides are used each season. That advice comes from the Green Party. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If the objective is herbicide reduction why is New Zealand investing all this money in possibly reducing herbicide use by two-thirds—or as the onion industry submitted more likely by 40 percent—when organic onion growers are already reducing it to zero but funding for organic horticulture research has just been cut completely? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is possible to grow onions without chemicals. Indeed I am advised that some progress in mechanical weeding has been made. However even using a combination of flaming harrowing sowing in darkness plus brush weeding does not remove the need for all chemicals; therefore it seems that some form of chemical use should be an ordinary part of onion growing. If we are to go completely organic we will have slave labour or very high prices. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree with the recent report to his ministry by Professor Brian Wynne in which he said: “If the public has supported biosciences and biotechnology research and technology for 20 years or more it has the right to expect real evidence of the beneficial effects of this funding.”; if so what are the beneficial effects of the public investment in GE herbicide-tolerant onions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As with all research the effects lie in the future and remain uncertain. If they were not uncertain then they would not need to be researched. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is Professor Wynne right in his assessment that the public is concerned about and I quote from his report “the sense that Governments are primarily motivated by unacknowledged promotion of the commercial agenda whilst attempting to portray themselves as devoted to public protection and responsiveness.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Professor Wynne’s report is about 100 pages long. It is a shame that the member for the Green Party chooses to quote it so selectively. The conclusion of Professor Wynne’s report is very favourable towards this country indeed. 
Marine Mammals—Protection 
10.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What progress is being made on the protection of marine mammals? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Last night I announced three initiatives to improve the protection of marine mammals: an awareness campaign focusing on avoidable threats such as marine debris; the development of a threat minimisation plan; and finally a cooperative working relationship between my department and the fishing industry to reduce marine mammal deaths. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What has been the response of the fishing industry to the Minister’s initiatives? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Very positive. The Seafood Industry Council has welcomed the development of a plan for whale dolphin and seal recovery. Owen Symmans the council’s chief executive said yesterday that the seafood industry is keen to work with the Department of Conservation to develop practical solutions to marine mammal issues. I commend the industry for its responsiveness to conservation concerns. 
Australia—New Zealand Relationship 
11.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Does he stand by his statements made in the House on 4 November 2003 in answer to question No. 7 and by his press statement made on that same day? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Absolutely although I note that the date quoted in the press statement for the high commissioner’s speech was the date on which it was published rather than when it was delivered. By contrast the member’s own press statement of 4 November wilfully misrepresents New Zealand’s position and contribution in respect of our deployment to the Solomon Islands. He should be ashamed of it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did he state publicly on 4 November in relation to the deployment of infantry to the Solomons: “The company was requested in mid-August.” and why did he tell this House: “When it was needed and requested it was sent immediately.” when Cabinet papers reveal and defence officials confirmed at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee this morning that the Australian Government formally requested New Zealand to deploy an infantry company in July not on stand-by but alongside an Australian infantry company in the Solomons—a request his Government declined at the time? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is absolutely wrong. We did not decline the request. When I provide that member with all the Cabinet papers that show clearly and transparently the nature of the decisions made by this Government and he then misrepresents the position he has something to answer for. There was a general request at the beginning. We sent Brigadier Clive Lilley to the Solomon Islands. Clive Lilley said there was no specific job to do. We therefore did not refuse the request; we said we had the company on stand-by until such time as it was needed. When it was formally requested by the Australian Chief of Defence Force Peter Cosgrove it was provided within 3 days on confirmation that there was a task to do. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: In respect of New Zealand’s relationship with Australia what information does the Minister have on the Australian Government’s view of the importance of that relationship? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Earlier this year Australia produced a white paper on foreign policy in which it stated that New Zealand is Australia’s most important ally in the South Pacific and an important partner beyond. Just last week in relation to the matter raised by Lockwood Smith Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said on the two countries’ most recent joint effort in the Solomon Islands—that is restoring life to normality there—that it could not have been achieved without the contribution made by New Zealand and the other Pacific countries. Therefore Lockwood Smith saying that we did not make a sufficient contribution hardly stacks up. We made a major important and successful contribution. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Could the Minister answer the question without the bluster: did he deploy a New Zealand company to stand alongside the Australian company when first requested—yes or no? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As set out in Cabinet papers the company was placed on stand-by until a task could be identified. As soon as a task was identified the company was deployed. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If what the Minister has told this Parliament is the truth why does the Cabinet paper say— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question could perhaps be a little more felicitously stated. Could the member please have another go. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the Minister has told this House the facts why does he not come clean on the fact that the Cabinet paper says in respect of the request by the Australian Government in July for a New Zealand infantry company to stand alongside an Australian company—and a Fijian one by the same token—that the Government felt that the company would be involved in thankless tasks rather than the fact that it was not requested at all? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: All of the information is in the Cabinet paper which went on 14 July to Ministers with the power to act. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Well read it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I not only read it but helped to write it so I know what is in it. A general request was made. We responded immediately with about $6.8 million worth of military assistance including 105 service personnel. We said the company was on stand-by and it was on stand-by because Brigadier Clive Lilley told us clearly that there was not a task worth doing at that time. We said that as soon as a task became available we would meet a formal request—and we did. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is the Minister alleging that the head of the Ministry of Defence—the Secretary of Defence—did not tell the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the truth this morning when he said that the Australian Government formally requested New Zealand to deploy an infantry company in the Solomons not on stand-by but alongside an Australian infantry company in July not August? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I most certainly am not alleging that the Secretary of Defence is not telling the truth. Unlike that member he does not wilfully misrepresent the facts. I have told the member—and I will tell him for the third time today—that in response to the request as set out in the Cabinet paper I provided to him we provided 105 personnel and said that the infantry company was on stand-by if required. As soon as the evidence was provided that it was required it was provided. It cannot be clearer than that. The member has the paper; he can read it. 
Tertiary Education Commission—Student Numbers 
12.  
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What system or systems are utilised by the Tertiary Education Commission to verify numbers of students for funding purposes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Providers receiving student component funding are required to submit funding claims in advance for their intended enrolments. Those must follow clear and published criteria. All claims are verified through validation routines both by the provider and the Tertiary Education Commission to ensure that funding claims are consistent with Government guidelines. The commission also undertakes compliance visits to private providers to ensure that student information management systems meet requirements. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why is it that Carich is still waiting—having waited for several critical weeks—for the Tertiary Education Commission to provide it with a system to enable verification of student numbers in order to claim funding that would have kept it afloat? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not think that it is wise for us in this scene to get into who said what etc. The core of the data return is that Carich provided a forecast for the number of students the company thought it would teach and was funded on that. Subsequently it sought to change that and then sought to change it again. No other provider in the country is in the situation of trying to provide that data return three times. Until the company can do so it is very difficult for the commission to act. 
Darren Hughes 
: What changes has the Government made to the way tertiary education providers are funded; and when will those changes take effect? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: A key aspect of the tertiary education reforms is the introduction of an integrated funding framework that allows more strategic funding from the Tertiary Education Commission. The first funding profiles will be in place by the beginning of next year and the commission will then be able to use them actively to allocate funding. The private training establishment funding area has already been capped. From 2003 all additional private training establishment places require applications to a strategic priorities fund. The Carich issue centres on places for the 2002 academic year. 
Hon Bill English 
: How can this House have any confidence in the capacity of the Tertiary Education Commission to monitor student numbers when it now employs over 300 people itself and is running 30 percent over budget? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It may help if I mention to the member that nearly all the members of the commission come from the previous Skill New Zealand organisation which involves a regional network of people who are in the field. Included in the number he has just quoted are people who are on temporary contracts while the organisation is set up. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister about the budget as well. It is well known that the Tertiary Education Commission is 30 percent over budget so why does he not answer that question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the second part of the question. The Minister may like to comment. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My understanding from the Tertiary Education Commission is that it will come in on budget during the year. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Tertiary Education Commission collect data on the numbers of students who fail courses particularly in their first year because that poses a significant potential cost to the Government in terms of equivalent full-time student funding; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the area of private training for example—which I know is an interest of the member—he will know that most of the providers are funded on completion rates. Yes the Tertiary Education Commission does collect what amounts to failures. In the equivalent full-time students area it does require a data return but the member will know that one of the weaknesses of the system in the equivalent full-time students area is that students who are enrolled through until the end of March become recorded as students for funding purposes. My own view is that that is something that will need to change and I am waiting for a report this month on some changes that will be put in place in that area. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the required roll audit which was essential was dependent upon the Tertiary Education Commission providing a definition of what 2.4 weeks actually meant and that such a definition has not yet been provided? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I repeat that in this kind of debate there are always people who make one claim over the other. I say clearly to the member that from the Tertiary Education Commission’s point of view it has provided all data and assistance that it possibly could to Carich. Unfortunately even on the third try the organisation could not provide simple data on how many students it had enrolled for funding purposes for example and that is the core of the problem. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I asked had nothing to do with the answer the Minister gave. The answer the Minister gave was about what had occurred up to the point of the roll audit. My question asked whether it was the case that the roll audit could not take place until the Tertiary Education Commission provided the definition. The Tertiary Education Commission has not provided the definition and I am asking the Minister why that is the case. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: To clarify matters what I was saying in effect is that the commission has advised me that it has provided all definitional advice of the kind that the member is asking for. It has provided clear instructions as to what it wanted and it has not been able to get the data. 
Land Transport Management Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Management Bill be now read a third time 
. The Land Transport Management Bill signals a new era for the planning and operation of the country’s transport infrastructure. The legislation will ensure greater consistency in long-term planning of the networks a more integrated transport infrastructure and a multimodal approach to the sector and it will provide new mechanisms for funding roads. 
The legislation has been strengthened and improved by the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 165 in my name approved by the Committee of the whole House yesterday. Consultation requirements have been simplified and clarified. Efficiency and effectiveness now appear in the purpose clause of the bill and are taken into account when Transfund assesses applications or activities. Tolling is now permissible on new roading infrastructure provided there is community support for a project. The select committee has also decided to include a degree of flexibility in the bill in response to submissions. A project will require the specific approval of the Minister and civil penalties have been added where any conditions of the project are breached. 
Public-private partnerships are arrangements in which the private sector and public agencies work together to bring forward projects that are difficult to fund under existing funding arrangements. The bill now contains a more flexible funding option around lease arrangements similar to the Melbourne City Link project in Victoria Australia. The bill allows for early conditional approval from the Minister of Transport who must be satisfied that any conditions are met before the concession agreement is entered into. 
Regional transport planning has been improved by emphasising the strategic focus of regional land transport strategies and by clarifying the relationship between various planning organisations. Regional councils will be able to own and operate public transport services and infrastructure and that was a manifesto commitment by the Labour Party. This legislation is not the end of the story and further legislation may be needed next year as a result of ongoing work being done between central and local government in the Auckland region. 
Some thanks are due given that we are in the process of passing this legislation. Firstly I acknowledge the work of the Green Party and in particular of Jeanette Fitzsimons. She and the Green Party have worked constructively and collaboratively with the Progressive-Labour Government on this important issue of transport. On many occasions the debate went long into the night and the highlight for me was the debate around the issues of traffic demand management. In 10 years’ time when that is such a standard thing in transport planning that no one even gives it a second thought people will look back to this legislation and see that it was indeed a landmark. I also thank the United Future party and in particular Larry Baldock who spent many hours with us in working through some of the issues particularly those around alternative funding mechanisms. I thank the members of the select committee and the chairs Helen Duncan and Mark Gosche. I also thank Roger Sowry who stood in in an acting capacity for a short while. 
I particularly thank the hard-working and dedicated officials who have worked tirelessly for long and hard hours on trying to work their way through what have been some extremely difficult concepts and turn them not only into policy but also into law. I thank them for their dedication and hard work; we are now seeing the fruits of their labour. In particular I thank the partners of the officials because they have had to put up with their partners working many hours late into the night here. They are due a special vote of thanks. We now give them back their loved ones hopefully in no worse a condition than when they left some months ago. I also thank the officials in my office particular Susan Graham and Michael Parker for the incredible work—now going back a very very long time—that has been done on this legislation. 
This is a particularly good bill. It is a landmark piece of legislation that will change the way in which transport is planned and delivered in New Zealand. I am particularly proud of it and I commend it to the House. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 This legislation is a shambles. It is all about lost opportunities. I want to start with the Minister’s long exhaustive list of thankyous. It was noticeable to me that the Minister started off by thanking the leader of the Green Party who had no role in the select committee process at all but was only involved in the “round the back of the bike shed” negotiations that the Minister had to go through with both the Green Party and the United Future party in order to try to cobble together what is a dog’s breakfast of a bill. It will not deliver private funding into roading in this country and it does nothing to solve Auckland’s problems. The Minster has had to go around the Auckland mayors and say this is not really the bill for them but they should not worry about that because the Government has some more legislation coming in February or March 2004 that will solve the problem for Auckland. 
This bill started out as being the panacea for Auckland’s roading problems and the great restructuring of New Zealand’s roading system to allow public-private partnerships to develop. It has finished its course of action with the New Zealand Automobile Association producing a special report that ranks this bill on a 10-point scale and scores it at two out of 10. When the Automobile Association goes through the bill step by step and points out that it scores only two out of 10 then the Minister has nothing to be proud of at all—nothing at all. I do not think I have ever seen legislation be so damningly criticised by everyone who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—by local government business organisations the Road Transport Forum and the Automobile Association. Every one of them said that this legislation would not work. 
In fact many of those interest groups said privately to us that they had gone to the Minister and explained to him that the bill would not work and that the Minister had said to them privately that he knew that but the Government has some more legislation coming and is beholden to the Greens so it can only do what the Greens let it do. A number of the lobby groups came to see me and asked National to please help Labour out here because Labour was beholden to the Greens and the Minister did not want the bill to go through like this. The Minister told the mayors to make strong submissions on the bill. He said to the Mayor of Auckland that the bill would not work but that he should make a really strong submission on it and the Government would change it. That is what he said to the Mayor of Auckland. He said the same thing to the Mayor of Wellington and to the Mayor of Hutt City—that they should make strong submissions on the bill and the Government would change it. So they made strong submissions and the Minister did change the bill but he changed it in the way that the Greens wanted it to be changed not in the way that the mayors and everybody else thought they would get the bill changed. 
Finally when the Minister was flushed out and said that he was sorry but he could not get this bill through without the support of the Greens—that he was beholden to them—I wrote to the Minister. I said to him that we would work with him to get sensible transport legislation that would work for New Zealand—legislation that would allow the private sector to invest in our roading networks. The Minister did not even bother to reply to me because by then the deals were already stitched. The deals were done and we are left with legislation that basically does two or three things. 
This legislation will allow Tauranga to get its second harbour bridge as a toll bridge. That will be the only public-private partnership in New Zealand to come out of this legislation. It puts in more consultation for roading development by regional councils and regional land transport committees. It puts in extra layers of consultation for groups to work through. It requires Transfund to give money to Maori groups to upskill themselves in the objection process so that they can object to roads that are being built or being proposed around the country. It removes from the regional land transport committees some of the road-user representatives and replaces them with iwi representatives. It allows foreign ships to be subsidised out of the Transfund account. 
The Labour Party fought night after night on the whole issue of having foreign vessels travel around this country picking up empty containers in Auckland and dropping them off in Wellington and Timaru. Labour said that was outrageous and the first thing it would do when it became the Government would be to stop that. Four years on this Minister of Transport has done nothing to stop that. In fact he has now come into the House with legislation that takes Transfund money and uses it to subsidise foreign shipping vessels. That is what this bill does and that is outrageous—absolutely outrageous. 
This bill according to Local Government New Zealand is not properly integrated with either the local government legislation or the Resource Management Act. Why is the Minister proud of that when he is so proud of this bill? If this bill is so fantastic I ask the Minister why he is scurrying around Auckland and telling people not to worry because a real solution is coming next year. I ask the Green members what the Labour Government has said to them today to warrant their support for this bill when they know that Labour is going around the Auckland mayors and undermining this bill by saying they should not worry because Labour will get support from someone else to undo some of this legislation and solve Auckland’s problems in a few months’ time. How much double-dealing can this Minister do? On this legislation he is doing more than the United Future party does in a normal week. 
I finish by coming to United Future’s position on this legislation. It has taken every position possible. The United Future members welcomed this bill when it came into the House. They said that the bill was fantastic and they would support it. But then when the pressure came on them they said they were working with Heather Simpson. That is what the United Future members told business groups and local government groups. They said that they were working with Heather Simpson—that they were writing things and dealing with her—and that they would get the bill changed. That is what the United Future members said. Then they got on to the select committee but virtually never came to meetings. Then they were sold out by the Government when the Government did a deal with the Greens. What will United Future do? Those members will vote for the bill. Where is the common-sense approach in that? They started off by supporting the bill then told everybody they would change it worked with Heather Simpson and won no battles yet they will vote for the bill. That is as consistent as it gets with United Future—and that party wonders why it has problems. 
This bill is a shambles. It will do nothing except for one thing: it does allow by the removal of the benefit-cost ratio Labour’s grubby political hands to be put all over the allocation of funds from Transfund. That is what this legislation allows. It allows David Benson-Pope’s grubby little Labour Party mates to be appointed to Transfund and to allocate the funds on the basis of political purpose—a sort of marginal seats fund to try to hold seats like Otago. I say to the Minister that that will be seen through by local government and by New Zealanders. National totally opposes this bill. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 That speech by the new No. 13 which is unlucky for some and unlucky for that thirteenth-ranked member was full of negativity. The difference between the member Roger Sowry and this side and this Minister of Transport is that National did nothing in its 9 years in Government. I was in local government in Hamilton and was deputy mayor of my city and National did diddly-squat. It did nothing. 
In the time I have let me pay strong congratulations to the former Minister of Transport the Hon Mark Gosche for the work he did on this bill. I also congratulate the previous chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Helen Duncan and thank her and her team for the great work they did. For the first time in a long time under the good Minister Paul Swain we will give this country an integrated long-term approach to land transport funding and management. What a pleasure it is to be a member of a Government that is actually doing something as against that remnant of an Opposition whose members did nothing in 9 long years in Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Brent Catchpole. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether because there was a bit of noise around the Chamber the member who was on his feet thought his time had expired. If he believes that the bill is so good I am sure he wants to use more than 2 minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member Brent Catchpole but I say to those two gentlemen one on my left and one on my right that they will desist. They have had their first yellow card. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the enormous amount of work put into this bill by the previous chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Helen Duncan. She did a tremendous amount of work and was very fair in listening to the submissions and in the work we did with her. 
New Zealand First does not believe that setting up tolls everywhere and anywhere is the answer to roading problems in this country. Congestion problems exist throughout the country and I will name just a few of the areas: Christchurch Wellington Tauranga and Auckland. They are examples of areas where congestion and roading problems exist. There are many other areas throughout the country. The use of tolling will simply make motorists pay twice. An 18.5c per litre petrol tax has not gone into roading but has gone into the consolidated account. Motorists pay that petrol tax yet they will be asked to pay a toll. They will be asked to pay twice. Therefore New Zealand First opposes the approach this bill takes of tolling everybody anywhere all over the country. 
Planning for Auckland’s motorways and public transport corridors was done 40 years ago in 1963. Sadly successive Governments have failed to provide funding for that network. Plans for the whole network were put in place 40 years ago but the funding has been piecemeal. Successive Governments have just knee-jerked from one position to another and have changed the priorities throughout the whole network. In other words each Government has based its planning on “The squeaky wheel gets the oil”. When one area has made enough noise priorities are changed. 
An example of Auckland motorway planning and key roading projects is the Albany to Puhoi realignment project north of Orewa which was supposed to have been finished by the end of December this year. That project had resource consent to feed traffic into Orewa until the end of December this year but the motorway has not even started. Now the roading is not expected to be finished until 2007-08. That is one example of a project that should have been completed straight away. The Mount Roskill extension is another example. That one should have been finished 2 years ago. It was planned and funding has been set aside for it. It should have been completed 2 years ago. It is now not expected to be completed until 2006-07. Once again there has been a knee-jerk reaction. The Government has shifted funding from one area to another and has not done a long-term plan for motorway projects in Auckland. 
I will give an example of how under this bill the funding will work. Each year every roading project will have to go into a bidding war and each year the priorities of each project will be reassessed and reshuffled. In other words one may as well just take a pack of cards and throw it on the floor and whichever one ends face up gets the money. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Ask them about the reshuffle. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The Minister bleating over there is asking for a reshuffle. Perhaps his position may be reshuffled shortly. The very junior Minister over there is asking for his position to be reshuffled; he is asking to be moved off that bench. Well watch this space; I think he might be reshuffled off within the next 2 years. 
But the bidding war is a ridiculous way of producing a definite planned approach to our motorway systems. If the projects have to bid each year if they end up being reshuffled each year and if money is not planned for a long-term project then how could that possibly solve Auckland’s motorway problems? That short-term approach is the reason for this situation. It was put to me recently that the motorway planners and funders of New Zealand take the approach that tomorrow is the immediate future next week is the medium-term future and next month is the long-term future. Why do we take such a short-term view of projects and try to fund them in the short-term? We should be planning 25 to 35 years ahead and we should plan the funding for it. We should plan where that money is going to come from and where that money should be going. We should design our approach so that the planning 
follow the trends and make sure that the trends are not getting ahead of the funding. 
Tolling is not going to solve that problem. To throw in a toll here there and everywhere is simply going to add additional costs to individual motorists using the road. I give an example where tolling has failed miserably. The anticipated number of road users of Route K in Tauranga was 10000 vehicles per day. That figure has been reassessed back down to 6000. Currently the usage is below 2000 vehicles and the tolling ends up barely paying for—if it is paying for—the manning of the tollbooths. We are not getting any money back from the project at all. So it is a totally short-term view of funding. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I would like to summarise now seeing as I have got members of the Government bleating away there. I have obviously hit a raw nerve amongst them. They really cannot stand the heat. The results of this ad hoc approach have done nothing to solve the motorway problems. If we consider the ad hoc approach to funding over the 40 years of Auckland’s motorway planning it is no wonder Auckland has gridlock for hours and hours. It is estimated there is about a billion dollars of lost revenue time and transport costs. If we add in the potential loss of business to our ports because goods from them cannot be transferred around the country then we see that the losses are far higher than that. The situation is great for other ports because they are picking up that transport and access but they cannot transport the goods back into Auckland. So it is a loss all-round. 
The short-sightedness of the planning of funding is a major cause of the problems around Auckland and everywhere else in the country. It is short-sightedness; it is short-term solutions. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Greens welcome the passing of this bill and celebrate 2 years of collaborative work with Labour to bring it about. It heralds a sea change in transport planning and direction. It is a move to a balanced multimodal system that matches each transport mode to its best use respects people and the environment and addresses transport demand as well as supply. I thank and congratulate the previous Minister of Transport Mark Gosche on his early work on the strategy and on this bill and I thank and congratulate the present Minister Paul Swain on seeing the job through so ably. I thank Helen Duncan for her excellent chairing of the select committee which made a lot of progress with the bill. I also thank the officials who have been so helpful. 
Let me go back to the beginning of the story. In late 2001 it was clear that more money was needed in the National Land Transport Fund if we were to address a serious lack of choice in transport options a serious overloading of the road infrastructure a wasteful underuse of rail and a frustrating non-existence of effective public transport and facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. Labour proposed a 4c increase in the petrol levy and every party voted against it except the Greens. Yes all those parties that in the last few days have grizzled about lack of funding for transport refused to support the funding increase. The Greens accepted the responsibility of funding a decent transport system but on condition that funding was spread in a balanced way across modes and the decision-making system reflected modern criteria of social good. 
The first step was the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 which clarifies where we are going now as a country. The second step is this bill which implements our agreement to change the objectives of Transfund Transit and local authorities. The new criteria for transport funding will take us gradually towards a sustainable transport system that can survive the huge shocks that are in store for us very soon—and the world is still in denial about those shocks. Nothing less will ensure the survival of our cities our commerce and our economy which currently are running on near empty. All major oil companies now recognise that world oil production has peaked or is close to peaking. Estimates of when the decline begins—and that of course is when the price begins to rise really steeply—vary from 5 to 20 years. What we do know is that currently we are finding one new barrel of oil for every four we burn. That is of course why the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and why it may well continue to invade Middle Eastern countries where most of the remaining oil is—hopefully without New Zealand’s support. 
The era of cheap oil has for a short moment in history made it possible for each individual in a few rich countries to carry a tonne of metal with him or her whenever he or she moves. It was never logical; it will not even be possible for much longer. Cars will remain a big part of the transport scene for a long time yet but we must start to use them more sensibly and we must start to develop the alternatives or face a future in which we can no longer move around. 
Driving the same necessity is the effect of all the oil we have burnt so far—accumulating exhaust emissions in the atmosphere which is starting to change the climate. Resource depletion and pollution are two sides of the same coin. They are two overwhelming reasons why this shift in direction has to start now. Add to that another reason: road crashes are the main cause of death for children under 15. Reduce the total miles travelled by car and those deaths will reduce too. 
So this bill adopts bold new objectives: an integrated transport system where one can make connections between cars trains buses ferries and cycles and where each mode is used to best purpose; a safe transport service that notices the vulnerable—the children the pedestrians the elderly and even dare I say it the slow—a responsive system that replaces a rigid cost-benefit calculation based on untestable assumptions with an approach that meets needs where they are greatest and involves people in the planning; and a sustainable system that requires road builders to take care when crossing fragile ecosystems and avoid the siltation pollution and habitat destruction that so often go with road building’s cut-and-fill approach. Substantial new funding has been going into the National Land Transport Fund since April last year and to make sure that it is used for projects that meet the new criteria Transit is reviewing the major projects that were approved under the previous rules to see whether they still comply. 
We have heard some entertaining polemics in the debate this week. We have heard Roger Sowry complain bitterly about congestion then say he wants to see more traffic on the roads. He is utterly opposed to finding ways to reduce traffic and he wants to see more of it. How many hours a day does he want to spend driving? We have heard constant demands for efficiency to be put into the bill despite the fact it is there already in several places including the purpose clause. We have heard Larry Baldock bravely try to define “efficiency” when no one else could or would. He told us that “efficiency” means “efficiency”. That is helpful! Then he said it means moving people around without delay. I do not think economists would agree that that is efficiency—that is effectiveness and that is already in the bill too. We have heard Lockwood Smith declaiming against responsibility especially social and environmental responsibility. He just wants roads irresponsible roads—the more irresponsible the better one has to assume. 
Then there is Maurice Williamson who does know something about transport but his prejudices always get in the way. He says we just cannot get people out of their cars. He needs to let the facts get in the way of his prejudices. In the last 3 years in New Zealand with only a modest increase in funding and therefore in service and frequency we have seen a 25 percent increase in the use of public transport. It is simple really: if it is not there one cannot use it. The figures prove that if it is there people will use it. The Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd has just announced the next phase of the Auckland rail upgrade and a business plan to increase patronage from 2.5 million trips a year to more than 20 million. I had the very good fortune yesterday to meet Jamie Lerner the famous former Mayor of Curitiba the Brazilian city that has grown from 600000 people to 1.8 million and whose transport system still works. That is because public transport passenger trips have gone from 20000 to 2 million a day. If that city can do it we can. 
We have heard Peter Brown say we need more fuel tax to fund roads instead of tolls. But when we did exactly that his party would not vote for it. As I pointed out in question time today the latest round of petrol tax makes that better because for the first time none of it goes into general revenue. The proportion of petrol tax going into transport has just increased and the Opposition still does not support it. 
There is a particular kind of fury that erupts whenever the dominance of the motorcar over our lives is challenged in any way and we have heard a lot of it this week. I would like to sum up with a possibly politically incorrect quote from Mayor Jamie Lerner. Mother-in-law jokes are very non - politically correct but I feel OK about using it because I am a mother-in-law myself and I know my daughter-in-law and I would agree on this sentiment. He said yesterday: “The car is like your mother-in-law. You have to maintain a good relationship with her but you should never let her run your life.” 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support the Land Transport Management Bill. It has been a long hard process for everyone in getting this bill into its current form and I for one am satisfied that the bill is at least a good start. As should be expected for a party with only eight MPs out of a total of 120 United Future did not get everything it wanted. However we were able to ensure the bill is a lot better than it might otherwise have been. 
Mr Sowry’s comments earlier about submitters asking for many changes but not getting any completely floors me. Anybody looking at the bill in its current form can see the massive amount of changes and most of them were made at the request of the submitters who appeared before the select committee. The changes have resulted in a bill that is much better than the bill introduced to the House earlier this year. 
One of the common-sense changes that United Future was able to secure was to have reference in the Land Transport Management Bill to efficiency greatly strengthened. The reason we made this issue such a priority is that we believe that social and environmental considerations should be ranked in importance on a par with economic efficiency—not somewhere far above it. This is particularly important where the responsibilities of Transfund and Transit are involved. I have just been passed a little bit of good news from Tony Friedlander the Chief Executive Officer of the Road Transport Forum who acknowledges that the amendments to the bill with regard to efficiency will be of a great deal of benefit. I thank him for that. 
Many lobby groups and political parties all around New Zealand have spoken of the need for tools with which we can solve our transport infrastructure deficit. This bill does contain a few of the necessary tools. It contains an opportunity for local communities to use tolling as a means for raising the funds needed to build roads that those communities have determined for themselves are needed in their areas. One important case in point is that Greater Wellington now has the tools needed to raise the money for and build the proposed Transmission Gully motorway. It is in Wellington’s hands entirely. Tauranga also needs to build a considerable number of new roads and Tauranga will be able to make those decisions for itself. 
Peter Brown 
: We don’t need tolls. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: The speaker for New Zealand First was saying earlier that this bill will result in toll roads all over the country. That will not happen because communities must make that decision themselves. They must give full support to those proposals. We believe in empowering communities to make those decisions themselves. 
It is clear that the Minister of Finance’s comments today in the House completely passed over the heads of New Zealand First members. He said we cannot expect any changes to the amount that currently goes into the Crown account from fuel excise and that that is the way it will be for several years to come. The Rt Hon Winston Peters may dream about being Minister of Finance again but I have to say that today he is not the Minister and he is unlikely to be the Minister in the near future. Therefore we must look practically at how we are going to build our roads and tolling is one of the options that communities will be able to use—thanks to this bill. 
The bill also allows for public-private partnerships in a variety of ways. Private investors may engage in partnerships with central or local government on projects that have the potential for public good and for providing a fair return on private investment. 
After sitting through the Committee stage and hearing all the doomsayers predict that this bill will do nothing to help build roads I cannot help but think of a passage from the Book of Proverbs: “ ‘Bad bad’ says the buyer but then he goes on his way rejoicing about the purchase of his good bargain.” That sums it up really. Much of the shrill opposition to this bill is politically motivated—pure and simple. It has nothing whatsoever to do with its merits. Even groups comprising major transport operators—such as the Auckland chamber of commerce and Ports of Auckland—have been saying the bill is at least a start and provides a platform from which they can move forward. It is shameful for those Opposition parties which profess to be acting in the interests of the public and of business to be interested only in short-term political point-scoring when it comes to something as important as improving New Zealand’s infrastructure. New Zealand cannot afford to throw this bill out and start all over again. That would simply not be acceptable. We must move on. We must take what we have been given and build upon it. 
Much has been said in this debate about tools. The best way to describe this bill is as a tool-box. It is not primarily about the tools themselves; it is the tool-box that the tools will go into. It does not yet contain all the tools we are going to need. There are some tools in this legislation but there are more that can be added over time and will be thanks to the common-sense presence of United Future. The business leaders who met with Peter Dunne this week understood that. That is why they said that although the Land Transport Management Bill does not represent all the progress they want: “We are nonetheless here to encourage the Government to implement the bill with urgency and a commitment to taking the further steps necessary to achieve faster network completion in Auckland.” The colour of the tool-box as I have mentioned is also a little greener than we would like it to be. However that is the reality of MMP and it is the result of the three-way negotiation between the Government the Greens and United Future. 
United Future was pleased to have the opportunity to make changes to the legislation to the best of our ability. We are now prepared to accept what has been delivered and to encourage Transfund Transit local and territorial authorities road users—commercial and private—business and the general public to make the most of the opportunities it now offers for moving forward. As I have said we have begun to work already on cooperating with the Government to introduce the next bill which will be more about tools and less about the tool-box. Those tools are going to be a different colour from the tool-box and will address the concerns of those who know we must use every tool possible to deliver a transport network that New Zealanders can be proud of in the 21st century in which we now live. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 My constituents in New Lynn are hungry to see the twin tracking of the western line to west Auckland. They are pleased with the progress the Government is making on this bill which provides as my colleague Larry Baldock has said the tool-box into which we will insert this and other measures. I am pleased to support the bill. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak in the third reading of this bill. Our party has opposed this bill all along. What is really sad about this bill is that so many New Zealanders who sit in traffic every single day—it is 5 minutes to 4 and there will be a lot of them sitting there right now—have been really hoping that this Government legislation will solve their transport problems. Will this bill do that? No it will not. Absolutely not! This Government has raised expectations it has promised some real solutions and again it will be failing the people of New Zealand. 
Something like $2 billion a year is collected in petrol tax and road-user charges. Most motorists out there most people using the roads think most of that money should go back into improving our roading infrastructure. That is just common sense. We know that over the years most Governments have not put all of that money back into infrastructure; they have put only a proportion of it. Parties like ours say the whole lot should go back there because we have a lot of catching up to do around New Zealand. But the worst thing about this bill is that it is taking the bit of money that does go into roading and it is putting a lot of it into walkways pathways ferries barges buses railways—just name it it gets it. The amount of money that is left over is what will go into roads. It will be diminished. It will be less. 
The point about this bill is it will not add one more kilometre to our motorway roading network. [ 
Interruption 
] Whatever that Minister says who is sitting in the chair there he is telling—I cannot say “lies” can I? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: No I cannot say “lies”. He is not telling the truth. Can I say that? 
Hon Paul Swain 
: No. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: He is misleading New Zealanders— 
Hon Opposition Member 
: Telling fairytales. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: —telling fairytales. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The word “misleading” is beyond the pale too. I ask that that word not be used. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: “Fairytales”? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is OK; it is not OK only if it is “deliberately misleading”. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: So “fairytales” we agree was a good word to use! He is giving promises to people that the Government will not uphold. This bill will not solve the congestion problems. It has been estimated that congestion in New Zealand is costing our economy $4 billion a year. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: The Employers and Manufacturers Association made that up. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Well you take that up with them Mr Gosche. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: First I say to members on the cross benches that under Speaker’s ruling 53/4 they cannot interject because it muffles the microphone. Secondly would the member please not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: It has been estimated that the cost of congestion is some $4 billion a year. It is worked out on the fact that in Auckland alone 566000 people who work every day get stuck in traffic for more than an hour. Mr Speaker I say to you and to members opposite that New Zealand cannot afford that sort of loss of productivity. For goodness’ sake! This country is slowly slipping down the economic ladder. We are No. 21 in the OECD and we are about to go down to No. 22. We should be up with Australia. Many New Zealanders hoped this bill would solve the congestion problems in this country would increase our productivity and would allow us as a country to earn more and start to catch up with the rest of the world. It is full of hollow promises. That is a shame. 
This bill exposes this Government which spent so much of its first term in office trying to pretend how pro-business it is as being a totally anti-business Government. If it were not it would know that the No. 1 thing it must do as a Government is to make sure its infrastructure allows its people to get out there to work to make profits and to build up this economy and the wealth of this country. It has totally failed in that regard. 
When I look at this bill I see a bill that Government members have basically sold out to the Greens. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member who is interjecting had been present for the Committee stage of this bill he would know that although I am not on the select committee I did make many contributions during the Committee stage. 
I would like to raise a particular issue that I have spent a lot of time on—and that former Minister knows that—and that is the Albany to Puhoi realignment which is the northern motorway between Orewa and Puhoi. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government has the major motorway in New Zealand stopping dead in the middle of a paddock. That road then winds its way through a residential area before it hits back on to State Highway 1. That project was started in the early 1990s. The Environment Court held it up for 6 long years. The consents for that last piece of roading—7 kilometres—came through earlier this year. The Government previously had always said that the moment those consents came through it would make the completion of that road a No. 1 priority so that it was finished before more problems arose due to the consents lapsing and having to be reapplied for and so on. The consents came through this year in about April. Transfund New Zealand had $225 million in its bank account that was not going to be used because of the way it has to forecast its demand funding. The project was going to cost about $150 million. Instead of Transfund calling for tenders to get on with finishing that piece of State Highway 1 what happened? This Government through its mates on Transit and Transfund—its cronies; members should remember it is all done by ministerial appointment—decided to drop the priority of that section of road from No. 1 down to No. 6 No. 10 or whatever. 
The Government says this bill will be the way to solve that problem. According to the professionals who have looked at the private-public partnership provisions in this bill to allow tolling this bill is completely useless. If anybody even thinks about entering into that sort of relationship he or she will suddenly realise that it will not work. The investment money will not come in to allow the Government in partnership to finish that road unless the Minister instructs Transit and Transfund—the Minister can say he cannot do that but of course he can because of all his mates there—actually to make it the No. 1 priority. It is so damaging to New Zealand. The cost to the economy of our not completing that motorway has been estimated at $1 million every single week. On current predictions it will be at least 15 to 20 years before people can actually finish their journey on State Highway 1 without having to stop in a paddock then go through a residential area. 
This bill is a disgrace. That Minister and this Government have promised so much; they have promised that it will help to lift New Zealand and to get all the road problems out of the way but they will deliver absolutely nothing except a lot of kudos if one likes to the Green members who can go out there and skite about how they have now provided walkways cycle tracks and all the rest of it. This bill is an utter disgrace and I can say that the ACT party has opposed it from the beginning. It should be sent back to a select committee so that some proper work can be done on it and a proper bill put forward. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 Some people say the actions of members of Parliament outside this House bring this House into disrepute and others argue that the actions of members inside this House bring it to disrepute. There are people who would argue that the general debate is a fiasco and that the mud-slinging that goes on in this House brings nothing to democracy in New Zealand. But what really brings this Parliament into disrepute is what happens when a Minister is charged with a problem as large as this one and when that Minister and the Government have facts and statistics at their fingertips that are so overwhelming that only a weak Minister and a pathetic Government would choose to ignore them. 
This bill was heralded some time ago as a landmark piece of legislation in New Zealand. What an absolute joke that is!  
Trans-Tasman 
 wrote this bill up as being the pinnacle of the Minister’s career. I certainly do hope it is not because otherwise he will not have a Crown car to drive around in. That is how bad the situation will be. What an absolute joke this bill is! Larry Baldock of United Future the party that has had four positions on this bill—one in every direction of the compass—tried to tell us that this legislation is a function of MMP. It is a sell-out to the Greens—an absolute sop—and then a couple of things were added for the benefit of United Future just to try to make it feel good. What an absolute joke this bill is! The reality is that this bill is all about the Government wanting to go about forming coalition arrangements and shoring up its support which I might add it will desperately need in 2005 because the way the Government is going means it is absolute toast. The Government is running scared; it is like a deer in the headlights. But that is for another day. 
This bill is not about fixing the problems in Auckland. What are the problems in Auckland and New Zealand? Let me just talk about Auckland where 49 more people are added every day to a city that has not had its motorway network completed since 1963. Since 1963 the good people of Auckland have been waiting to have their motorway network completed yet every day we add 49 people and they bring 25 cars with them. What do we see? We see lost economic activity of something in the order of $1 billion to $2 billion—that is somewhere in the order of 1 to 2 percent of gross domestic product. Any member of this House would think that the Minister of Finance the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the Minister of Transport Paul Swain would take a moment to go out of their plush offices in the Beehive sit down get their calculators out and work out just how much tax revenue would come off $1 billion to $2 billion of economic activity. But they are so worried about firming up their coalition agreement with that hopeless party called the Greens that they cannot even work out that this country and this Government alone would make $200 million to $300 million. The Government does not want to tackle the problem—not with this legislation. 
The Government has made no attempt to look at the structure of roading in Auckland which is a complete shambles. The Government asked Barry Curtis to say a few words on its behalf because it did not have the courage to say that the structure was so unworkable that nothing would happen in Auckland. Seven territorial local authorities Transfund Transit the Auckland Regional Transport Network the Auckland Regional Council and Infrastructure Auckland are all in completely different places doing completely— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: We’re going to fix that. 
JOHN KEY 
: We have been waiting for a long time for the Minister to fix it and we would be absolutely delighted if he did. The National Party would cheer him on because that is why the Hon Roger Sowry wrote to him and asked him whether we could support the Government. Roger Sowry pleaded and begged with the Minister and the Minister did not respond. Why not? It was because of those words: “I’m sorry we’re a bit busy doing our coalition arrangements with that hopeless party the Greens and that four-position party United Future. We’re just a little too busy to write back to you and thank you for putting the people of New Zealand before politics.” 
That is what has happened with regard to this legislation. We will have to wait until further legislation comes into the House to fix the problems. This Government is in paralysis—like a deer in the headlights—and is absolutely terrified. The problem is so big that the Government does not know what to do. Quite rightly like the song sung by the Little River Band the Minister said that help was on its way. Well help is on its way in the form of the general election in 2005. Let us bring it on for the National Party. The National Party will get into office and it will solve the problems for the people of Auckland and New Zealand. They will thank us and we will get more fan mail than David Beckham gets from the people of Manchester and Madrid. That is what will happen in 2005. Members can put a ring around that date; I am very very confident about that. 
The provisions on consultation in this bill are a disgrace. Submitter after submitter came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and pleaded with the committee not to make the provisions on consultation worse. Most of them asked nicely for that though some of them did not even ask nicely. Some of them demanded that some of them thumped the table and some of them just asked the Government to help them out by reducing the consultation a little bit. The consultation provisions outlined in the bill virtually went beyond the letters of the alphabet. It is unbelievable. It takes three pages of the bill to look at the consultation that has to take place. What does that mean? It means that the Minister has been running around the country with the Hon Dr Michael Cullen trying to put up a smokescreen that a lack of construction companies will stop Auckland’s roads being fixed. What an absolute hoax that is!Is he telling me that on this entire planet we would not be able to find construction companies to build $10 billion worth of roading that needs to be built in Auckland? I do not think so. If the Minister does not have enough credentials to get out the Rolodex and ring up some of those companies he should write back to the Hon Roger Sowry and the National Party and we will help. 
I shall talk for a moment about public-private partnerships. They have been heralded in this legislation on toll roads as being a great success story and the reason why this bill is here in the House. Like the rest of the bill those provisions are a complete and utter joke. First off the provisions concerning public-private partnerships are prescriptive the very thing that every submitter asked us not to make them. The Government went in the opposite way from what submitters had asked for and made those provisions prescriptive. Now I am prepared to accept the Minister moved his position and that instead of 30 years being the maximum length of duration for a public-private partnership he had changed that to 35 years with a 10-year extension. That is it. However the Minister demanded that a free alternative road be provided. The very day after the second reading of this bill in the House Transit said that it wanted to build an alternative harbour crossing in Auckland 500 metres from the existing harbour bridge. This legislation would stop that and that shows how hopeless this legislation is. The Government has said that existing highways cannot be tolled so how can we ever make congestion lanes or “hot lanes” happen? We cannot do so. 
One thing this legislation does is to prove that pork-barrel politics and coalition agreements are alive and well here in New Zealand and are operating extremely well. One thing the legislation will not do is to fix traffic problems for the benefit of the people of New Zealand. The Minister knows that so he has set up a joint officials group. He has lobbied hard against his own bill and will introduce new legislation that has been well and truly “de-Greened”. Maybe then Auckland will have a new road or we will have a new road elsewhere in New Zealand. We all live in hope of that but not with any great degree of assurance that it will happen. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow that member who has to travel 15 kilometres from his home to his electorate in Auckland. I am pleased to stand to support our Government and this wonderful legislation the Land Transport Management Bill. New Zealand will benefit economically socially and environmentally from this legislation. We are a Government that keeps its word. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
:  
That speech was so short and sharp it even caught Mr Speaker on the hop. Whatever we say about this bill there is certainly a varied range of views. The Greens want to get everybody into trains or buses or on skateboards. I tell the Greens that there is no show of that for two reasons. First the average New Zealander loves his or her motorcar. Let us be absolutely honest about that; New Zealanders like their cars. Second another little bit of information the Greens may like to take on board is that in the UK in areas where a lot of people travel by train they have a major stress problem. People are looking into the stress experienced by those who commute to and from work by train. That is true. Mr Gosche may laugh at that but it is absolutely true. 
Nobody should be ashamed about enjoying driving a car and wanting to drive a car. In an island or two three or four islands as big as these ones there is plenty of room for the number of people who drive motor vehicles here. Approximately 2.6 million motor vehicles are on the roads in this country and there is plenty of room for them. It is in isolated areas—and I have to say large isolated areas when I talk about Auckland—that there are problems. There are problems in Tauranga and as my colleague said earlier in Wellington to some degree and in Christchurch. Those are the areas where the solutions should be concentrated. There are 92000 or thereabouts kilometres of road in this country and only 60-odd percent of it is even tar-sealed. We have motorways up north that end almost in a paddock. We have motorways that come down to little more than two-lane roads in areas of New Zealand where we should have major highways. Why do I say that we should have major highways? Because the motorist has paid for them time and time again. 
New Zealand First believes that we should look seriously at the 18.5 cents per litre of petrol tax that goes into the Crown account. Mr Baldock asked a question earlier on in the House about what New Zealand First did about that etc.—or something along those lines—and I would like to answer that because the Minister could not. I think that he was ruled out of order. When New Zealand First was in Government we transferred 2.1 cents per litre of the petrol tax in 1998 from the consolidated account into the roading account. Had that process continued as New Zealand First intended at the time instead of 18.5c per litre going into the Crown account right now it would be down to 8c per litre and a further 10.5c per litre on a basis of 2.1c per litre a year would have been transferred across to the roading account. As a result of that our problems with roading and with congestion in this country would have been a lot less serious than they are now. 
This country is crying out for a comprehensive roading policy. The average New Zealander is crying out for something positive. Larry Baldock accused Opposition members—I think he was targeting New Zealand First members and he might have singled us out by name—of looking short-term and he then went on to say that this bill was just a tiny part of the solution. When he wanted to explain the bill he talked about the tools in the tool-box saying that this was the tool-box and that was a tool. I guarantee that not one New Zealander who listened to the radio broadcast of this debate at that time would have understood what the dickens it was that United Future was talking about. I do not think its members even know that themselves. They talk of efficiency and then cannot define it. 
It is time that Parliament addressed this issue positively. I say to the Minister—and I think he has actually taken a little note here—that he should specifically identify the major concerns in terms of roading in this country. He should spell them out to let the nation know what they are and he should specify the time frame by which those problems should be taken care of. He should identify the costs and then— 
Hon Paul Swain 
: They’re all in there. It’s called the Transit 10-year plan. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister is bursting at the seams here and I can tell he has taken this on board. He should then specify a practical way of addressing the funding because this bill does not do that—and the Minister knows it. He is not nodding now; he is turning away. The Minister should tell us how to solve the problem but he does not know how to do so. 
This bill is about generic road tolling—building road plazas all over the country at the whim of God knows whom. I do not believe that tolling will actually happen to any great degree because basically this legislation is not flexible enough for the private investor. There will not be enough profit in it and the risks are too high. I agree with my National Party colleagues here and say that very very few people will take advantage—if advantage is the right word—of this legislation. It is not the most efficient use of the motorist’s dollar to invest it in concrete toll plazas that are manned 24 hours a day 7 days a week and to pay an administration cost for all of that. It is not the most efficient use of the motorist’s dollar to pay a profit motive and to have to pay interest back to a private investor. 
There is a far better way to address the funding issue and that is to charge the petrol motorist through the petrol tax and the diesel and commercial operators through road-user charges. We believe first and foremost that the motorist is already being overcharged in that 18.5c per litre petrol tax and we welcome that report—the invisible report being compiled by the invisible man—that only the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport know anything about. I do not think that anybody has read it. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: It’s coming. 
PETER BROWN 
: Have they seen it? Well if the Minister knows of its existence he should have brought it to the House before this bill was passed. I give the Minister my assurance on behalf of New Zealand First that if that report justifies the 18.5c per litre petrol tax going into the consolidated account we will not argue. We will examine that in detail but we will not argue against it if we are satisfied it is fair. Then we will be pushing for a regional fuel tax as I have outlined on road-user charges in terms of the commercial diesel operator and on the petrol tax in terms of the private motorist. 
This bill was an ideal opportunity to address the core problem of roading in this country and the inconvenience and extra costs that it imposes on motorists and the commercial world. I give the Minister one out of 10. The Automobile Association is more kind than me and gives him two out of 10. I believe in the old philosophy. I am an old-fashioned guy though members would not know that by looking at me. I am a bit old-fashioned but there is a little piece of advice I give to the Minister: do it once; do it right. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a third time. 
Commissioner for Children Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 5 November. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of comments on this bill. I start by saying that the National Party supports the Commissioner for Children Bill. We support the office of the Commissioner for Children and I as a previous Minister of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services was pleased to work with two former Commissioners for Children—the late Laurie O’Reilly who brought to the office his considerable legal experience and did an outstanding job in developing advocacy services for children and the recently retired commissioner the Hon Roger McClay. 
Roger McClay brought both parliamentary and ministerial experience and his education background to the office and became a very strong advocate for the independence of the role. He achieved a considerable amount not the least of which was a substantial amount of funding for the office which I know he was particularly pleased with. Many of the aspects of this bill pick up on the work that was done by Roger McClay. I think in particular of the consultation with children that is included in the bill. That is something that Roger McClay was particularly keen to see developed and it is good to see that that is now required in the bill. National certainly supports that. 
A large part of the bill spells out the way in which the commissioner will be appointed and that is a step in the right direction but I regret that the bill has not gone further and required that there be multi-party consultation and consideration around the appointment of the commissioner. It is my view that the Commissioner for Children needs to be somebody who has the respect of all sides in Parliament. Previous commissioners have enjoyed that and it is fair to say that they have had to earn it which is right but we should be moving to a position whereby the appointment to the commissioner position is done more on a multi-party basis. The role is too important to be seen as one that does not enjoy the confidence of all parties in the House. The bill goes some of the way in that respect. It states that the vacancy should be advertised and I note that the position of the current commissioner was advertised even though the bill is not yet law. It was good that the Minister at least followed what will be the law when he went through the process of appointing the current commissioner. 
I want to say to the Minister Steve Maharey that it is an absolute disgrace that a bill that was introduced to the House on 29 August 2001 and that has had only 2 hours of submissions has taken until 6 November 2003 to be passed. It is not as if anyone will vote against it. Everyone supports it yet it has taken that Minister over 2 years to get it to the second reading stage. That is hopeless and it is a tragedy given that that Minister really has not had his eye on the Department of Child Youth and Family Services which the Commissioner for Children’s office is set up to monitor. 
We have a bill that will strengthen that office. The office’s role is to monitor the Department of Child Youth and Family Services but that department is almost more dysfunctional than the kids it is meant to be looking after and the Minister has done nothing. A report was done by Mick Brown but Steve Maharey ignored the vast majority of its recommendations. He did not do anything to make sure that the department was strengthened but sat on his hands rather than get this bill through Parliament. Steve Maharey has overseen tragedies in children’s lives that mean quite frankly that he should be resigning. For the life of me I cannot understand why the chief executive of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services Jackie Pivac has been required to fall on her sword while the Minister Steve Maharey wanders around preening himself and pretending that none of it happened on his watch. 
This is a Minister who has not introduced one new Social Workers in Schools programme. He has not introduced one new Family Start programme. Those are all programmes that were designed to take pressure off the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and when operating they do. In Porirua City in Rotorua in Hamilton those programmes work stunningly well. This Government has huge surpluses but it has not introduced one new programme in that area. It has done nothing to take the pressure off the entry points for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and now the Minister takes over 2 years to get to the second reading stage of a small bill that will strengthen the monitoring procedures of the agency—the office of the Commissioner for Children—that looks over the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. 
Steve Maharey has been a total failure as a Minister. That is why he lost the portfolio of Department of Child Youth and Family Services. He should be apologising. He should be tendering his resignation because there has been horrendous misconduct against young children in this country. The department that has had the responsibility for overseeing the care of those children has not done it. If the Minister stood in front of the mirror and looked at his own actions rather than at the cut of his suit and his haircut we might get someone who along with the Commissioner for Childrenis prepared to stand up and protect children. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party welcomes the long-overdue return of the Commissioner for Children Bill to Parliament for its second reading today. We first considered this bill in the House in October 2001 so as the previous speaker has just pointed out it has been a bit of a long haul since then especially given that the Social Services Committee reported back in April 2002. This is one of those useful pieces of legislation that seems to have really good cross-party support. I know that most people on the committee in the previous Parliament were pretty supportive of the overarching purpose of the bill: to strengthen and clarify the role of the Commissioner for Children. 
As a number of submitters pointed out despite New Zealand having first established a Commissioner for Children under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act in 1989 and ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1993 the commissioner’s efforts to advance the rights of children in this period have been hampered by a number of factors. These included a lack of statutory independence for the office underfunding a dearth of any real willingness to involve children themselves in decision-making processes and an overall relative lack of power in advocating for the interests of children. By the late 1990s a number of organisations in the community were so concerned about the comparatively low-level status of the commissioner that they were lobbying hard to convert the role into an Officer of Parliament—like for example the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—and a member’s bill to that effect was put together by the Alliance. 
The Social Services Committee heard submissions and considered that member’s bill and through the process we came to understand that turning the commissioner into an Officer of Parliament simply was not the way to go. Instead of the role being expanded and strengthened by that course of action the commissioner would lose much of the ability to advocate on behalf of children which is a huge and core part of the job. Thus the Green Party like a number of groups that gave submissions turned with enthusiasm to the new Commissioner for Children Bill that is before us today. Our overriding concerns were that the office of commissioner be strengthened and that its independence and autonomy be reinforced. 
One of the best features of the bill is that the office becomes independent of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services as there has always been an underlying tension between its advocacy function and its structural dependence on the department. That has been particularly highlighted in cases for example where the commissioner has reported on problems relating to the department itself. A second key feature of this legislation is the way in which it entrenches in New Zealand statute the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to which we are a signatory. The convention is actually written into the legislation as schedule 2 and will in future act as a set of guiding principles for the commissioner. That is a great step forward for the children of this country as the convention enshrines among other things the right of children to be heard where they are capable of forming their own views the right of children to be free from violence and the right of children to a standard of living “adequate for the child’s physical mental spiritual moral and social development”. 
This is a wonderful manifesto to be held at the heart of this new law especially at a time when nearly one-third of our children live in poverty and when so much of our society seems wracked by a culture that sees abuse and violence against children as acceptable. One has to look only at the current pro-smacking campaign to see the extent to which adults are prepared to go to maintain their legal right to physically assault and deliberately humiliate the children in their care. 
A further area of Green Party concern with this bill lay around the appointment process for the commissioner. Like a number of submitters we felt that the pre-existing appointments process under the National Government and the one established in the new bill had not and would not necessarily bring about the best result. We were particularly anxious that the person carrying out this critical function should not be a purely political appointment but that there should be an open and transparent process with involvement from relevant groups in the community. If it were done in that way there would be a lot more support for the office in society at large which is a prerequisite if a position of this nature is to have any real success. We were pleased then that the select committee agreed to amend the bill in a way that I think deals well with those concerns. I believe that the recent appointment of Dr Cindy Kiro to the position while not carried out under the new law is a shining example of what can and should happen when the Government takes community consultation and relevant applicant skills and experience seriously. 
One final comment I would like to make at this stage of the debate concerns the provision in the bill for consultation with children. During the select committee process the Green Party pushed hard for the addition of a clause that would require the commissioner to develop appropriate means of consulting with children so that their views can be taken into account when the commissioner exercises his or her function. Given the relationship between the office of the commissioner and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child commitment mentioned above I would like to thank the other members of the previous select committee for supporting that amendment and I look forward to seeing how our new commissioner implements it over the next 5 years. 
The Green Party commends this bill to the House and I look forward to its final enactment very shortly. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the Commissioner for Children Bill. I think it is fair to say that the growth and influence of the role of the Commissioner for Children has earned it a very real place in New Zealand culture and New Zealand society over the years since it was established in 1989. Roger Sowry has already referred to the outstanding work done by the late Laurie O’Reilly and we could also add to that the recently retired Commissioner for Children Roger McClay. I would like to take this moment too to wish the new commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro all the very best as she now takes up the task ahead of her in this most important area of establishing a commission and a commissioner who will look after and endeavour to improve the lot of the children in this country. 
I might say as an aside that in the year 2000 I was fortunate to convene a large gathering at the WestpacTrust Stadium a gathering that was to celebrate the 2000th birthday of Jesus. We had 28000 people come to the stadium that day. We ended up covering all of the very significant costs involved in setting up the concert which had an orchestra and many stars such as Sir Howard Morrison. We gifted the surplus that we raised on that occasion to the Commissioner for Children. We did so because of the tremendous concern in this country about the abuse of children and we thought that if we could make some small financial contribution towards the goal of reducing that it would be worthwhile. So I would like to note that little involvement that I had personally with the commissioner at that time. 
 It is fair to say that far too many New Zealand children are at risk. The statistics in this country are distressing. Far too many children are growing up in poverty. Far too many children are growing up without a father in the home. That trend is not improving but is deteriorating as we speak. We must not ever imagine that putting in place a Commissioner for Children will in and of itself reverse that situation. After all organisations such as the Department of Child Youth and Family Services very often provide an “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff” service. They are there after things have gone very wrong. 
I find it quite staggering sometimes to hear in the House—as we did from the Hon Roger Sowry—that somehow or other Steve Maharey is responsible for children being abused in this country. To me that is just a buck-passing system whereby we neglect the real problem which is: what went wrong in that home at that time? Where did the breakdown commence and what are we going to do about it? How will we build a fence at the top of the cliff? Instead of that we— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would not normally interrupt on what you will probably rule is a debating point but having been a Minister of Social Welfare I am very sensitive to the issue of child abuse and of accusing a Minister of being responsible. I certainly did not do that. I just said that the Minister should have done something to strengthen the department. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me put it this way; that was an intervention and I suggest that the member might rephrase what he said. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I would like to do that. I was dismayed to hear the Hon Roger Sowry calling for the Minister’s resignation because of his failure on the basis that children continue to be abused. I think that this kind of thinking—and I am not referring just to that but to the kind of thinking that says that Coral Burrows’ death was the responsibility of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and then says that it was the responsibility of Ruth Dyson—completely misses the point. We should not be looking just at symptoms but at the underlying disease. The underlying disease is obviously the breakdown of the New Zealand family. 
Therefore it is United Future’s position that we need to start building a fence at the top of the cliff. To start to do that we need to go back to working with the Commissioner for Children and very shortly also with the Families Commission. We need to analyse what the problem is why the New Zealand family is breaking down and what we can do about it. I believe that that is a task that all of us in Parliament should be behind wholeheartedly. It will take another generation but it is very important that we make a beginning for the sake of our children who are after all our future. 
The other point I mention—which I do not think many people have—is that 24 pages of the bill are taken up with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which is set out in great detail. One paragraph in Schedule 2 in the preamble to the convention really struck me as I read it. It states: “Recognising that the child for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality should grow up in a family environment in an atmosphere of happiness love and understanding”. I think that statement encapsulates very clearly the goal that we all have for the Commissioner for Children and for the families of New Zealand—that every child might grow up in an atmosphere of happiness love and understanding. 
I think that never in the history of this planet has anything been more thoroughly researched—and there are now literally thousands of studies—as trying to determine what is the best environment in which a child should grow up. The stunning thing about those studies is that they all come to the same conclusion—that households headed by married couples have the highest average income the best outcomes in terms of education for their children the best outcomes in terms of the health of their children and by far the lowest participation in the abuse of and violence against children; and there is the lowest interconnectedness between such families and subsequent appearances before court in the criminal justice system. 
Therefore for as long as United Future is in Parliament its refrain will be that we need to begin as a society to promote and support marriage in every way. I believe that if we do that then we can begin to put a fence at the top of the cliff and begin to reverse the breakdown in the family that we have been seeing for the last 25 to 30 years—for a considerable part of my life. This breakdown by the way now costs the taxpayer about $5 billion a year. How much we could all get by way of tax cuts if we could rebuild family life in this country! I am very proud to support this bill on behalf of United Future because we believe that it is also part of the solution that we seek. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 This is a good bill and I am pleased to support it. I think that in the interests of children whom we all purport to represent and care about we should get on and get the bill passed. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the second reading of the Commissioner for Children Bill and I start by following a previous speaker—and no doubt others did as well—in commending the work of the previous two Commissioners for Children the late Laurie O’Reilly and the recently retired Roger McClay. I think we have shown good foresight in setting up that position. It is a pity that under the tenure of both those men we have seen an increase in child abuse and poverty among children. We have seen children come into enormous difficulties in our country. This underpins exactly why the bill is important and why it is proper that we add some statutory functions for the commissioner. National will support the bill for these reasons. 
We have recently seen in the last 2 weeks what enormous pressure the Minister Steve Maharey’s department is under. Frankly we have seen the chief executive of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services step down. No doubt she felt bound to do something because nobody else seemed to want to take responsibility or the rap for what has been happening in that organisation over the last 2 or 3 years. It seems entirely unfair given Jackie Pivac’s very open and honest comments about the enormous difficulty she was under in trying to discharge responsibilities with her team of people. This seems to be a situation where the Minister weakly stands across the House preens himself and smiles in the way he smiles as though everything is going nicely and is hunky-dory while in effect we have a Government agency in free fall. It is a great pity that the chief executive has had to take it upon herself to more or less take the blame for what has been happening in that department while the Minister Steve Maharey stands clear. He is letting someone else take the rap for the appalling things that have happened in the 2 years that he has taken to get this tiny little bill—tiny in size but very important in its aims and objectives—to the House. It has taken him 2 years to start to move this bill on and of course that is a disgusting and appalling state of affairs. 
Our children of course are our future. I know we all think that and we all say that. Maori often refer to our children as being taonga and precious and of course they are precious because in them we invest all our hopes and dreams for the future and we like to think that in whatever we do we are creating a better world for them. But as I say recent events have shown us that New Zealand children are among the worst-off in the world in terms off poverty abuse and the violence they have to suffer. We have a Government that likes to say that it is here for all the ordinary people and we have a Minister who likes to stand there weakly and pretend that everything is fine in terms of his own responsibilities but he has been shown to be talking through a hole in his head quite frankly. 
It is unfortunate that we have some examples to refer to. There was the case of the little girl in the Wairarapa recently. Her father Mr Burrows made that call to the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. What happened? Nothing. Then finally he lost his little girl. There was also the example of the two other little girls up there and so on and so forth. How much longer will it be before Minister Maharey actually wakes up steps into the real world and really shows that he cares for the children of New Zealand? When will that Government show that it really cares for the children of New Zealand? As long as those members sit there in power with the power to do something about it and we get these appalling things happening to our children— 
Mark Peck 
: Say sorry. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Listen to that member! I do not know what he is suggesting that I should say sorry for. He is sitting in a Government that appears to be doing nothing absolutely nothing for the children of Aotearoa.He should be ashamed of himself.He should say he is sorry. He has been sitting in Government now for 4 years. What has he done to protect our little ones? Nothing. It is all very well getting into power but members actually have to show that they can exercise the responsibility that comes with that power and do something that makes a difference for the children of New Zealand. That is what Government members are meant to do. If they have not learnt that then they should not be sitting on that side of the House. 
I come back to our children—New Zealand children—and to the responsibility incumbent on all members of this House to show not by words but by deeds that we actually do care about these little ones. Thank goodness that the Commissioner for Children will be getting new functions but as I said it is sad to see the department that has primary responsibility for children the Department of Child Youth and Family Services under the severe pressure it has been under for the last 2 or 3 years and we have to wonder how genuine the members of the Government are. It is a shocking state of affairs when we have the kinds of results and statistics we have which show that our children are the least cared for in the world. Our children are the least cared for in the world—that is very hard to say actually. It is very hard to say that but it seems to be the case. 
Unless Minister Maharey steps into the real world takes some responsibility for what has been happening to our children in the last 4 or 5 years takes some responsibility for starting to dig into the underlying problems that beset families in this country—which then result in the kinds of things we have seen over recent years—then he has failed the children of Aotearoa. He has no right to come into this House weakly sit there stand there in his smug way and pretend everything is all right—because it is not. 
As I said I commend the work particularly of Roger McLay. I have been in this place during his tenure and I think he did a sterling job trying to look out for our children particularly those who are in difficult circumstances. He did a great job as did the commissioner before him. I do not know Cindy Kiro personally. I have not met her but I am certain that she will have her heart and soul in her kaupapa which is looking after our children. I just hope that she will have the proper support from this Government. I hope this Government will get off its chuff and properly support and resource the Department of Child Youth and Family Services so that it can do a better job for our children. Steve Maharey should get on and enlarge some of the things we did when we were in Government. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I will take just a very short call first of all I say to the member who has just spoken that she should stop crying alligator tears. That party across the benches cut the benefit. Who does Georgina te Heuheu think got hurt by the benefit cuts? It was the children. The innocent victims of the benefit cuts were children and for her to stand up and say that this side of the House does not care about children is just so much cant. It was members opposite who brought in market-related rentals—so children could not get food or go to school with shoes on their feet. 
That member had her chance. The fact that she is on the real back bench now is an indication of how successful she was when she was in Government. It was also cant for her to stand up and say that conditions here are the worst in the world. She should go and have a look at conditions in Kenya and Jakarta. Half of the world’s population live on less than $2 a day. For that woman to spin that sort of rhetoric is just so much cant. She knows that it is not true and to raise that sort of debate in this House is lower than low. I say to her that she has had her chance. This Government has got on and done a whole bunch and this bill is part of it. For Georgina te Heuheu to get up in the House and speak as she did is just so wrong and she knows it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Commissioner for Children Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Children’s Commissioner Bill. name changed to Children’s Commissioner Bill. 
Electricity and Gas Industries Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill be now read a first time. 
 I will be recommending that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration. In the interests of providing certainty and stability for the electricity and gas sectors I believe that it is important that this bill be passed without undue delay. To facilitate this I will seek leave for the committee to sit during the sitting hours of the House. 
The electricity and gas industries are critical to New Zealand’s economic growth. The Government’s policy objectives are set out in the Government policy statement on the gas industry released in March 2003 and in the draft Government policy statement on electricity released for comment in September and due to be finalised later this year. This bill updates the statutory framework to give effect to Government policy decisions on electricity supply security and on governance of the electricity and gas industries. It reflects the Government’s overall objective to ensure that electricity is delivered in an efficient fair reliable and environmentally sustainable manner to all consumers. It also reflects the Sustainable Development Programme of Action and other relevant Government strategies such as the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and the growth and innovation framework. The inability of the electricity industry to reach agreement on self-governance arrangements has required the Government to take responsibility for industry governance. The gas industry is considering developing its own self-governance arrangements and it is important that backstop legislation is in place should it be needed. 
The bill amends the Electricity Act the Gas Act the Electricity Industry Reform Act the Commerce Act and the Crown Minerals Act. 
Amendments to the Electricity Act update the functions and results required of the Electricity Commission. Enhanced powers for ensuring security of supply are provided including enabling the commission to contract for reserve energy supplies. Existing electricity governance regulations relating to the wholesale market generation transmission distribution and retailing of electricity are replaced by a more extensive range of regulation-making powers. These new powers which are now necessary given that the Government rather than the industry is the regulator relate to the securing and use of reserve energy consumer protection the promotion of retail competition improved information for market participants better hedge and contract markets and the development of distributed generation. Recognising the importance of open access to processes for resolving complaints relating to electricity companies the bill requires all electricity distributors and retailers to participate in a complaints resolution scheme approved by the Electricity Commission. 
The Electricity Industry Reform Act is amended to increase the amount of generation that lines companies may own. This includes reserve generation and new renewables without limit and other generation up to 25 megawatts or 10 percent of maximum network load. The bill also abolishes the unnecessarily restrictive requirement that generation owned by lines companies be connected to the lines company’s network. 
The establishment of the Electricity Commission means it is important to clarify boundaries between it and the Commerce Commission in respect of controls on electricity lines companies. The bill does this. In particular all Commerce Act powers relating to Transpower’s pricing methodology are repealed and the Commerce Commission must not set quality standards for Transpower. The Electricity Commission will hold these responsibilities. Further the Commerce Commission will have to take account of electricity governance regulations before exercising any of its control powers in relation to quality standards applicable to Transpower pricing methodologies for lines businesses and levies payable. 
The bill also provides for the transfer to the Electricity Commission by Order in Council of all Commerce Commission powers in respect of the control regime for electricity lines. These powers can be transferred either for Transpower or for distribution businesses only after 31 December 2005 and if certain specified tests are met. The Electricity Commissionhas an enormous workload before it and in the meantime it makes sense for the Commerce Commission to complete its current work on the control regime for lines companies. 
The bill seeks to provide consistency to the regulatory framework covering the gas and electricity sectors reflecting the linkages between them. Its regulatory powers in respect of the gas industry may be further refined as we work through the legislative process in parallel with the industry’s efforts to define its preferred governance arrangements. The bill includes provision for the Electricity Commission to be expanded to govern gas if necessary and for it to be renamed the Energy Commission in that event. The bill amends the Crown Minerals Act to provide regulation-making powers enabling more extensive disclosure of information relating to gas and oil reserves. This will enable improved investment decisions and enhanced security of electricity supply given the importance of gas for electricity generation. 
Although the bill contains an extensive range of regulation-making powers the gas and electricity Government policy statements make it very clear that the Government expects the Electricity Commission—and the Energy Commission if it is ever formed—to use persuasion promotion and the provision of information and model arrangements to achieve policy objectives wherever possible. The regulation-making powers are there as an incentive for reaching voluntary arrangements and are to be used only if necessary. 
The Electricity Commission will not be independent of the Government. That is deliberate because the commission exists to give effect to Government policy. However the bill includes amendments to the Electricity Act to provide a number of checks on ministerial powers. The Minister can no longer recommend a regulation or make a rule without a recommendation from the commission. The Minister can no longer reject or defer a recommendation unless he or she considers this will better meet the commission’s objective. The Minister cannot amend the commission’s recommendations unless this gives “substantive effect” to them. And the commission is no longer required to consult the Minister before making recommendations. The prohibition on a court from invalidating regulations or rules because of inadequate consultation has been deleted. However to avoid a potentially chaotic situation a 6-month grace period is provided before any regulations may be made invalid. 
This bill sets the legal framework for the next phase in the development of New Zealand’s electricity and gas industries. The Government looks forward to working further with the electricity and gas industries and consumer groups to ensure we meet the challenges of a sustainable energy future. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I come to this area somewhat as a novice but in the few days that I have been given the opportunity as National’s spokesperson on energy to start to talk to industry groups one thing is certain—they do not like this bill. I can understand why the Minister—who has suddenly had to leave the Chamber— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: They have had their chance. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Minister Cunliffe says they have had their chance. I am sure they will be interested in that view. They are saying that this bill is too bureaucratic; that it will result in huge costs and those costs will be passed on to consumers; and that it is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. I do not pretend at this stage to go around saying that there is a concerted view and the Minister is not listening to it; that the bill is being driven by Treasury; or—as Minister Cunliffe has implied—that the bill is in the House because the Government is fed up the industry has had its chance so we are going to deal with it. I do not know which of those arguments is right but I intend to find out. 
It is interesting that some 6 weeks out from Christmas with the House sitting for only 3 or 4 more weeks the Minister has decided to have this bill dealt with while the House is sitting. Clearly he has convinced the United Future party that it should support this bill and I hope United Future or someone will tell us whether there is an agreement that this bill will be passed before Christmas. If it is not going to be passed before Christmas then we are being asked to hear submissions in a hurry—effectively trying to shut the industry and business groups out of the submission process along with some of the energy trusts that are pretty fired up about this legislation. Clearly the Government and United Future want to shut out those groups and pass the bill before Christmas or have a hurried submission process and bring it back to the House in March. That seems a bit hopeless. We all know we cannot deal with it in February because we have the Prime Minister’s statement and a whole lot of other stuff going on. So for reasons I do not yet understand the Minister is trying to rush this bill through. 
The bill creates more regulation and in the form introduced it creates more compliance costs. It is interesting that in terms of gas and electricity the bill as introduced and the commentary written by the Government officials state that compliance costs will increase but they are not able to say as yet by how much in each industry. I would have hoped that perhaps the United Future party would have proven to be a bit of a brake on the Government with this but so be it. 
What is interesting is that there is a sword hanging over the gas industry. The Minister has the gas industry out there looking at itself trying to devise some sort of self-regulatory environment and then putting into this bill the ability for the Electricity Commission to take responsibility for gas industry governance if the gas industry’s proposed self-governance arrangements do not work. Before it has even got off the block before it has even started the Minister has a sword hanging over its head with this bill and this regulation. He is saying: “If you don’t get it right then I will be able to come in there and do something to you”. To use Minister David Cunliffe’s line by way of interjection before it has had 2 years and that is why he has had to sort it out. He nods. He is not even going to give the gas industry 2 years. 
In reality I do not know whose bill this. We know that the Minister lost control of the industry during the energy crisis. The Prime Minister suddenly decided that Pete Hodgson was no longer a safe pair of hands. He could not manage it and was losing his rag around the energy companies. He was sidelined and Michael Cullen set up and headed a committee of Ministers. To be fair the ones I talked to had a lot of faith in Michael Cullen running the process. The Minister indicated that it is now back in his hands and that is probably why we have a bit of over-reaction here. There is a lot of bureaucracy a lot of recommendations the commission will be able to decide to do things and the Minister can totally ignore it. From what I have managed to pick up from this Minister that is all part of the bit of revenge that is going on towards the industry. 
In the speech he read to Parliament it was interesting that the Minister went out of his way to state that the commission would not be independent of the Government. He was very determined about that. He said something—as he does—about that being the way it should be. When we look at the Government appointees to the commission we see that Peter Harris the Council of Trade Unions economist is there and before that Michael Cullen’s economic adviser. Michael Cullen has clearly put that person in there so that he has a line into the commission and can keep tabs. This Minister might have his portfolio back but he is certainly on a very short leash. So Michael Cullen has him there and he has former Labour Party city councillor David Close there as well. He is clearly making sure that this body has a pretty good political input into it from the Labour Party. 
But they are not the majority on the commission. Obviously the commission has some good people on it who have industry experience. To make sure they do not have the run over the politics of this issue the Minister has been quite careful to make sure —as he stated in the House—that the commission will not be independent of the Government. By stating that right up front one can assume that if the commission starts recommending things the Government finds politically difficult then the Government will just not act on those recommendations. The bill actually spells out that the Minister does not have to accept the commission’s recommendations and can choose to ignore them. That is an odd thing to put in legislation. I do not know whether there is a precedent for that but if the Minister ignores those recommendations it is at least spelt out that he or she must  
Gazette 
 that. But I am not sure of the time frames around that whether the Minister has to give reasons or how transparent the process will be. 
In the obviously truncated time we have we will work through these things in the select committee but I am keen to see that we have something that is transparent. I am starting to get the smell of a Minister who has set up a commission who says it will solve any future problems with the electricity market and if the gas market does not look like doing what he wants then he will sick the commission on to that as well. But if logic looks like overcoming politics if people in the industry give good technical advice that is not politically palatable to the Minister then he will ignore it. 
We want to make sure that they can give free and fearless advice—something that is becoming a little bit of a rarity when dealing with this Government. Members can ask any of the Government departments about that. I suspect that we will see a commission that is set up in the same way—a commission that will be more political than anything else that will be used by the Minister to control the players in the industry. That is probably why the players are very nervous about that and why they will be even more nervous now that the Minister will try to ram this bill through the House. 
Perhaps the next Labour speaker—I see Mr Cunliffe is itching to get out of his seat—will tell us whether this bill will be passed before Christmas. If it will not be passed before Christmas why is it so urgent; why do we have to put the companies through this on such a truncated time frame? National will oppose the introduction of this bill but we will work in the committee to see if we can get something better. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I acknowledge that Roger Sowry says he is a novice in energy matters. That perhaps means he is on his way to an “outage” of his very own on these matters. Can I also acknowledge Mark Peck the chairman of the Commerce Committee who along with the Minister will be pursuing the implementation of this legislation. 
I would like to take us back very briefly to the introduction of the previous electricity bill which I had the privilege to chair through the then Commerce Committee. It was based on a very simple idea—as much opportunity for the market as possible and regulation only when necessary. That legislation gave the industry the opportunity over several years to regulate itself by coming up with a package of measures under a Government policy statement—which it has singularly failed to do. In retrospect the industry has failed to do so for a very good reason: the structural differences between the interests of various categories of industry players are such that no matter how well that group was led it was impossible for those players to harmonise. Generators have one set of interests transmission interests have another set and the retail sector has another. That is just in electricity alone without mentioning the problems specific to the gas industry where the market is highly concentrated and there is great uncertainty as to the actual level of the reserves that are still in the ground. 
 So we are being absolutely consistent with our philosophy—that is as much market involvement as possible and regulation only when necessary. Guess what? Regulation is now necessary. The ironic thing is that even the market itself is begging us to do that because it wants to have certainty and clarity. The market knows that having clear direction will save it a lot of uncertainty and compliance costs and will allow it to move forward. 
Above all this country needs energy. This not a university debating society exercise for the benefit of the National Party caucus. We want the lights to stay on. That is why we cannot afford to have another 2 years of dilly-dallying. Let us get this bill passed. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It is not very often that when I hear Mr Cunliffe speak I agree with just about everything he says. In fact this must be the first time ever. In a manner of speaking he even acknowledged that the Government has been dilly-dallying for something like 4 years that we have had enough of that and that he does not want there to be any more dilly-dallying. I agree with Mr Cunliffe that there needs to be a degree of regulation in the electricity industry. New Zealand First was saying that prior to the 1999 election. Indeed I had a phone call from the Rt Hon Helen Clark when she was Leader of the Opposition seeking our view on that and asking for support if and when Labour became the Government. We said prior to that election that we needed a bit more regulation in the electricity industry. The Minister has had one shot at it. He had one shot 2 years ago and did not get it right. To a large degree he ignored our recommendations and chose to go with the Greens just as the Minister of Transport has done earlier this afternoon with regard to roading—ignored common sense totally ignored New Zealand First and he will now have to come back for another bite of the apple. 
We have major concerns about the electricity industry and not-so-major concerns about the gas industry although we do have concerns there. Our first and foremost concern is about the security of supply. This country should never have had to go through what it went through during part of this year and the year before. In this country we should have sufficient power to be able to flick the light switch on and not worry about it. We should be able to say to New Zealanders that electricity is there for their use at a reasonable price. Leaving it to the market as Mr Cunliffe said will not work. There has to be a degree of social conscience and social responsibility in energy policy. 
In summary we advocate a bigger cake of electricity for want of a better term. In this country we need electricity to be produced by hydro wind and solar generation. There is a lot of know-how out there that is not being implemented in this country. With a little bit of incentive and assistance we could harness that technology a good deal better. We also need electricity to be produced from coal. We found to our cost that we have to import coal. Thousands of tonnes of coal now go through the Port of Tauranga to help to solve a problem that had there been a little more foresight would never had occurred. It does not make sense to New Zealand First to export so many millions of tonnes of coal a year to be burnt in power stations in countries that have not signed up to the Kyoto Protocol so that we can harness wind and solar power. We need electricity to be produced from all four methods. 
However there are other concerns with regard to electricity that worry New Zealand First. Some of that concern revolves around the lack of competition in the retail sector and to a degree there is also a lack of competition in the wholesale sector. It has all become very regionalised. We are concerned about some if not most of the lines charges that go particularly to elderly folk who scale back their use of electricity and in fact use it with a sense of guilt as if they are robbing the country of something when they put their light switch or television on. We are concerned about the prices that go through the roof from time to time and we have a particular concern for people on fixed incomes who live under that sort of scenario. A lack of transparency in the accounting system affects the bills that some people receive from their various suppliers. All those issues concern New Zealand First. I do not know whether this bill will address all those concerns but I hope that it will do so. 
I fail to understand why—and this is where I agree with the Hon Roger Sowry—we are pushing this bill through the House so hastily. Why does the select committee have to sit so frequently when we are coming up to a Christmas period? I do not believe there is any real intention to push this bill through the House before Christmas. I do not think that is possible or practical. We should be taking our time and getting it right. That is the advice I gave to the Minister of Transport this afternoon: do it once; do it right. This bill is this Minister’s second attempt at addressing the concerns in the electricity industry. It is his second bite at the same apple. I do not believe we should be doing it in such haste. I urge the Minister to take note of the old saying: less haste more speed. 
New Zealand First intends to play a positive role in the development of this bill. We will listen to the submitters with interest and take on board what they say. The Minister and I have worked together in the past. We do not always agree but I think he would confirm that he always gets a genuine response from New Zealand First. 
We are concerned about the gas industry. We are running out of gas so unless we can find more gas in the reasonably foreseeable future it will have a limited application to our lifestyles. That is of some concern. There is a possible need for some form of regulation that is not there at the moment in that industry. 
I do not intend to say a great deal more except to say that we welcome Parliament looking at these two industries with a view to tightening up on the regulations and taking a balanced approach. We hope this bill will address the major concerns—or all the concerns for that matter—that we have raised and that were raised earlier by the Minister. We will apply ourselves as diligently as possible to ensuring that when this legislation comes back to the House it is workable fair and produces energy for the average New Zealander in particular at a reasonable price. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I find myself in some real agreement on some aspects of the bill with Minister Cunliffe who talked about certainty. Indeed National has talked about that and Mr Brown from New Zealand First has talked about that. Certainty is absolutely essential. All of us would agree that certainty of continuity of supply is paramount in this industry. The real question and where the ACT party differs from many others is how we achieve that certainty. Is not the real question how we can achieve certainty in this essential industry? 
Do we achieve it by having more Government involvement? Let us think about it for a moment. If there is more Government involvement there are essentially more controls and more regulation. Where is the incentive for industry players for those involved in the industry in terms of the technologies that are developing regularly—almost weekly—in this field? Energy source throughout the world is becoming in the eyes of some more scarce. Others say at least 50 percent of the world’s oil reserves are as yet totally untapped. 
But that is not a question for New Zealand at this particular point in time; we are focusing on some of the problems that have occurred just recently in New Zealand in terms of electricity shortages because of a lack of storage in the southern lakes for one. There has been a surge in prices when the level of those lakes has fallen. The Government and the public are not happy with that and they believe that regulation of this industry is the answer. 
The ACT party unequivocally says that no it is not. In fact electricity or indeed gas is no different from any other raw material. One moves it to a manufacturing and distribution source and then one either wholesales or retails it. It is exactly the same with every other industry. For example take the food industry—one that I am involved in. I produce a raw material but I do not have to have controls and regulations. Goodness me I have gone through that phase as so many in the farming community have and it just does not work. It sends the wrong incentives. It will be the same with this bill which the Government seems to be urging through the House with some real haste. What we need in order to ensure continuity of supply is constant investment. 
People within the industry should be looking for new alternatives. Indeed I do not disagree with the Greens that we should be looking at solar sources wind and the whole host of opportunities that prevail. But the Government in its foolishness in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol has taken away absolute certainty of New Zealand’s electricity supply by essentially turning down the massive resource we have in New Zealand called coal. There is no shortage of energy source in this country whether it be hydro energy fossil fuels in the form of coal wind energy solar energy or some other source that we have not yet tapped or even thought about. There is no shortage. The problem is we have more Government more bureaucratic controls and less market determining the future of this industry. For example we have only to look at the Government monopolies—and they do have a virtual monopoly in this industry. It has Meridian Energy Genesis Energy and Mighty River Power. They are the major manufacturers. I ask the Minister why the dividends that the Government is taking from this industry are not going straight back into generation capacity. 
Again we have no shortage of even hydro capacity in this country. At least 36 sites throughout the North Island and the South Island have been identified where hydro development is still extremely viable. We are faced right now with developing the Waitaki River purely because Government controls preclude the ability to have smaller hydro schemes—and I can think of a number in the Otago area that could have taken place if the Resource Management Act did not preclude them. We are about to destroy one of the great braided rivers of New Zealand—possibly even the world. That is not because of private enterprise corporations or irrigators; that river will be destroyed because of regulation because of Government control. Not industry but the Government will determine the future of the Waitaki River and nobody else. Legislation is going through this House right now. Changes to the Resource Management Act will ensure that that happens. I emphasise the point that it is not the market that is destroying the environment destroying our great resources; it is Government control and regulation. 
 There are far better options. For example a far better option would have been the Dobson scheme on the West Coast. It would have been far better to use our coal resources and even—dare I say it—revisit the nuclear option. Those are the trade-offs that New Zealand ultimately will have to make. I do not believe that the people of this country will continue to allow this sort of thing to happen on rivers that are used for whatever purpose whether irrigation or recreational activities such as fishing. 
I ask where we will get our energy sources from if the Government is shutting down the options on us. It effectively has done so. I do not see that we have much option at all. We have to look at the transmission of power throughout New Zealand. I am told that no real investment has gone into Transpower for about 10 years yet our population is surging in growth—under the centre-right I might add not under this Government. I think of the huge surge in growth in Southland for example. The demand for power in Southland is precluded because we cannot find enough energy at this time. All of that has happened not by the free market but by the Government stepping in and saying: “These are the regulations. These are the controls.” We are facing power shortages over the next few years. The scribes around Wellington tell me we will have major power shortages in election year regardless of whether the lakes are full or empty. We cannot keep pace with the demand. If we are to grow our economy by 3 or 4 percent as we need to do we cannot keep pace with the demand. So we are faced with major problems into the future and indeed in the immediate future. 
The signal that the Government is sending to the industry is that it wants the industry to invest but it will control the industry. I ask members what happened in California. What happened when investment stopped as soon as regulations started? There were blackouts. I am not sure whether that will happen in New Zealand but if we continue down the path of belief that Governments controls and regulations are the best way to ensure investment in and development of the industry then I suspect we condemn ourselves to a pretty bleak and rather dark future. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill on its first reading. It is important legislation in that it addresses in a clear and consistent manner several problems that have arisen in the electricity sector. We may not agree with every detail but it is good to see the Government taking such bold and decisive steps with an issue as important as energy infrastructure and supply. Dithering is really not an option particularly with regard to the medium-term security of New Zealand’s electricity supply. I agree with Gerry Eckhoff when he says that we are facing in the near future—over the next few years I think—a grave risk of the demand for electricity outstripping supply. We certainly must do all we can as a Parliament to try to ensure that that does not happen. I think we also have to appeal to the people of this nation to stand together in solidarity and clearly face the fact that we will be short of electricity. We need therefore to come together as a nation and determine a way through this situation. This is not a time for provincial or parochial attitudes; this is a time for us to pull together. We will either pull together on this one or sink together I greatly fear. 
United Future’s policy in principle is to support a free-market model for the New Zealand electricity industry. However as a party of common sense we know we cannot cling to free-market preferences on a purely ideological basis regardless of verifiable facts. Indeed I understand that it was after the Californians completely deregulated that blackouts started and they have gone back to regulation to put that situation right. We understand that in the real world of practical policy outcomes things do not always work out as well as they should in theory. For this reason we are pragmatic enough to accept a compromise based on the adage of as much market as possible and as much Government as necessary. Security of supply stability of price clarity and consistency of regulation are all essential to New Zealand’s economic growth and social well-being both now and into the foreseeable future. 
The facts speak for themselves. We have had two electricity shortages in the past 4 years. We are confronted with scientific projections from both the public and the private sectors that show a looming and serious shortage of readily available gas supplies upon which a large proportion of our electricity generation capacity over the last 15 years or so has relied. Probably the most important part of this bill is the provision for the Electricity Commission to contract for reserve electricity. Provision of reserve capacity to ensure that New Zealand has secured its supply—even in a one-in-60-years dry year—is vital for our economic stability particularly for major industrial investors. It is also vital for the peace of mind of our most vulnerable citizens and I am thinking here particularly of say elderly people living through a South Island winter. The fact is that a shortage of electricity affects all our lives in a multitude of ways. 
That is not to say that the reserve capacity scheme is the only way or even maybe the best way to deal with the problem but it is at least a robust well-analysed way that should not result in too many extra costs for the average consumer. There are few other strategies that can meet those benchmarks at present. 
We will be watching with interest the submissions to the Commerce Committee with regard to the emphasis the bill should have on ensuring that adequate hedge contract options are available for commercial electricity users. We are also interested in strengthening the regime for the holders of guaranteed electricity supply contracts such as Comalco to be able to conserve electricity during a dry year then on-sell on the spot market the electricity it has saved. A market-based electricity-savings regime is something we view favourably and we are interested to see to what degree submitters think it could at least reduce the amount of reserve capacity that the Electricity Commission has to have available. 
 Another preliminary concern United Future has about this bill is the level of regulatory power being given to the Minister of Energy. Although we are pleased to see that the Minister can act only on recommendations from the Electricity Commission we are not so pleased about all the exceptions to the rule. For example the Minister may decide not to act on that recommendation or may defer for any period making a decision on the recommendation. We will be watching the submissions to the select committee for suggestions about those things as well. 
One aspect of this bill that United Future is unreservedly pleased about is the inclusion of efficiency in the objectives of the Electricity Commission. That alone provides us with some confidence that the new regulations will not be allowed to become an unnecessary burden on New Zealand’s economic growth but will instead be of assistance in that respect. 
We are also pleased to see the backstop regulatory powers regarding the gas industry. It is good to see that the gas industry itself will be given an opportunity to create its own industry rules as the electricity industry was. But failing that a regulatory regime for the gas industry that integrates with the new electricity regime will be a positive step forward. 
Overarching complaints about resolution systems for both the electricity and the gas industries are also a positive step. It is vital that ordinary household energy consumers have an overarching complaints regime to which they can voice their concerns. I add as an aside that right now I am the meat in the sandwich of a battle between Genesis Energy and Contact Energy about who will pay to shift a meter at my house that has been incorrectly installed. I am about to take a personal complaint to someone to ask how I can get that meter shifted 12 inches and who will pay for it. I have so far been dealing with the matter for about 4 months. That is a personal anecdote illustrating why we need to have some organisation with the authority to say: “Look guys sort it out and get on with it.” In addition earlier this year I had a bill from Genesis Energy for $4500 worth of gas that it said I had consumed in 6 weeks. My personal experience in 2003 of the energy industry has not been very positive. That is the second problem I have had. 
That is not to say the bill provides all the answers to New Zealand’s energy problems. Even as it provides us with the means to move forward and address energy issues such as security of supply the Government may be pushing us backwards in other areas. For example an obsession with alternative energy supplies such as wind and the delays and uncertainties around a carbon tax under the Kyoto Protocol together with the uncertainty about whether Russia will sign that protocol mean that we may be unnecessarily delaying the proper use of our abundant coal supplies—a concern that Gerry Eckhoff has already mentioned. There is also an obsession with maintaining the exact configuration of the conservation estate—a preservation mentality rather than a land resource issue mentality—which means that promising new hydroelectricity generation schemes such as the proposed Dobson dam scheme are stopped before they can begin. The Resource Management Act has also in some cases proven to be a barrier to electricity generation. 
However that said the Minister of Energy is to be congratulated on the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill. It provides a robust regulatory response to the problems facing the gas and electricity industries and appears to do so with due consideration to economic realities and to the need to keep regulations clear and compliance costs as low as possible. On that basis United Future has pleasure in supporting the bill and its referral to a select committee. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of this legislation. I commend it to the House and congratulate my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson on its introduction. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I wish to take a brief call on the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill. I am particularly concerned about the compliance costs and the regulatory regimes that will be put in place. As the Hon Roger Sowry mentioned in his address National is opposing this bill. However we will be interested to see what the submissions to the select committee state. Page 23 of the explanatory note under the heading “Business compliance cost statement” states quite clearly that compliance costs will go up but there is no indication of how far they will go up. 
We are seeing increasing costs in all sectors of business with this Government. We have had 17 new taxes over the last few years. We are seeing here that the cost of doing business in New Zealand will rise rapidly. If we want people to invest we have to have a climate that does not make disincentives for investment and that does not have the compliance costs that will be associated with this. 
The fourth paragraph on that page states: “A business compliance cost statement will be written at the time the Minister of Energy recommends regulations pursuant to the regulation-making powers in the Bill.” This Government has increasingly legislated by Order in Council using regulations to increase the cost of doing business. As Gerry Eckhoff mentioned in his speech regulations do not allow for investment and he quoted the situation in California. As soon as regulations are brought in they stifle investment. One of the things we are concerned about is the way this bill is drafted and specifically the points about the business compliance cost statement. 
Roger Sowry made the point that this bill coming into effect will not actually stop any shortages of power. We are concerned that this is just another introduction of a compliance cost in legislation that does not allow for investment and that stifles initiative and the innovative approach that we need to adopt in this country so National will be opposing it. 
I said earlier and I will repeat it that we will be very interested in seeing what the submissions are likely to be. We question why this bill is being rushed through at this time. Why are we doing this at this time? It is our view that the haste is unnecessary. Submitters need to be given the opportunity to have a fair lash at this and to be able to come up with alternatives to be able to look at what we believe are the shortcomings in this legislation specifically on the regulatory creep as I call it that we are seeing with business compliance costs. Those are the points I want to mention. National opposes this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 81 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 21; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I move  
That the Commerce Committee consider the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time when the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). 
 referred to the Commerce Committee 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 40 
New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move that the Primary Production Committee consider the bill and that the bill be reported back by the end of February 2004. This bill seeks firstly to validate and implement a settlement agreement between the Crown and industry concerning the under and over-recovery of costs by my ministry and the Department of Conservation since 1994. The costs of fisheries services and conservation services incurred by the Crown in the management of New Zealand’s fisheries have been recovered from the fishing industry since 1994. 
Section 265 of the Fisheries Act 1996 requires the Minister of Fisheries to have regard to any under and over-recovery of costs in a previous financial year when recommending a new levy order. Since this obligation was established in 1996 there has been no adjustment. A joint working-group of industry representatives and Ministry of Fisheries officials was established in December 1999 to determine the extent of under and over-recoveries of costs since October 1994. It was also asked to develop a process for dealing with under and over recoveries in future years and to make recommendations to me on methods to resolve those historical issues. The joint working-group unanimously recommended that a negotiated and agreed sum of $24.6 million which includes interest be returned to the industry by the Crown by way of a non-discretionary reduction in future levies. In return for this reduction in future levies and to ensure that this settlement is durable this bill validates the settlement the historic levy orders and the cost recovery rules. It confirms that as Minister of Fisheries I have fulfilled all obligations to have regard to costs over-recovered and under-recovered from 1 October 1994 to 30 September 2002. I have agreed to the recommendations of the joint working-group. 
This bill validates and implements through legislation the settlement of a longstanding issue to the satisfaction of all parties. I am grateful for the hard work and effort of all of those involved in the joint working-group process from both the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council and the Ministry of Fisheries. This complicated issue has taken some time to resolve as it concerns levies recovered up to 8 years ago. Implementing the settlement at fish-stock level will take 2 years to complete for the majority of levy payers and up to 7 years for some other fish-stock categories. Having the bill reported back to the House no later than the end of February next year will enable the implementation of the new levy regime from 1 April 2004. 
The second function of the bill is to amend section 233 of the Fisheries Act 1996 in response to a recent Court of Appeal decision to ensure that the law reflects the original parliamentary intent. This section contains the Act’s highest band of offence provisions aimed at poaching and black-market trading. Offending of this nature poses a serious risk to the sustainability of high-value fish-stocks. It undermines the integrity of the quota management system and impinges on the rights of recreational and customary fishers. 
In March 2002 the Ministry of Fisheries undertook a large undercover operation to detect and prosecute this type of offending. Fisheries officers were successful in identifying offenders throughout the poaching and black-market chain from offenders on the beach to the foreign exporters of illegally taken fish. Recently the Court of Appeal concluded that the imprisonable offence designed specifically for this type of offending was largely ineffective due to a drafting error. The original provision made it an offence to knowingly contravene the Act for the purposes of obtaining a benefit under the Act. The Court of Appeal held that commercial gain was not a benefit under the Act. 
The proposed amendment would ensure that people who knowingly contravene the Act and obtain a benefit or intend to obtain a benefit commit an imprisonable offence. “Benefit” is defined to include all types of economic gain. This proposed amendment has been developed promptly to ensure that Parliament’s original intent is reflected in law and that offenders can be prosecuted effectively. 
Finally this bill includes a technical amendment to place it beyond doubt that the word “Act” throughout the Fisheries Act 1996 includes rules and regulations made under the Act. This is the applicable definition of the Interpretation Act. Including it in the Fisheries Act should ensure that legal challenge to the current interpretation of the word “Act” could not render offences against fisheries rules and regulations unenforceable. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The National Party will support this bill. We believe that it is an important piece of legislation and we will also be interested to see what submissions go to the select committee. I want to make brief points about trading in illegally obtained seafood. The bill replaces the present section 233 of the Act which makes it an offence for any person to knowingly for the purpose of obtaining any benefit under the Act receive or possess any fish aquatic life or seaweed otherwise in accordance with the Act. It is also an offence to engage in any commercial activity involving the taking possessing receiving procuring processing conveying selling of or otherwise dealing with any fish aquatic life or seaweed otherwise than in accordance with the Act. 
We believe that the bill will strengthen those provisions. It redrafts these offences one of which relates to obtaining a benefit by knowingly performing one or more of these actions and the other relating to knowingly doing one or more of these things with the intention of obtaining a benefit. So the word “benefit” is defined to mean “includes any privilege property pecuniary advantage or valuable consideration of any kind whether for that person or any other person.” We can see that definition in clause 6. So it more clearly defines an offence to trade in illegally obtained seafood and it overcomes the effects of the decisions in the court case the Minister mentioned earlier on. 
The other area that we think is important—the Minister mentioned it and National wants to reiterate it—is the over-recovery and the under-recovery of levies. The bill replaces section 265 of the Act relating to the over-recovery and the under-recovery of levies for the costs of fishers and conservation services. These amendments will we believe strengthen the way the fishing industry operates. They are important changes and National is supporting them for those reasons. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I find myself in the somewhat strange situation of agreeing with the House. The ACT party will be supporting this bill. There do appear to be some pretty sensible changes here especially the changes relating to those who seek deliberately to destroy the fishing stocks of this country through poaching. I can only agree entirely with those who have been promoting the quota management system and I believe that my colleague Rodney Hide was one of those who was instrumental in the early days in getting the quota management system in place. We must absolutely ensure the sustainability of this most valuable asset we have of our coastal shores and deep water. 
I have to say that I am searching in vain in the explanatory note for a comment where the Government says: “Sorry fishing industry. We got it wrong. We overcharged you by $24.6 million.” No such apology is forthcoming but it is pleasing to see that the industry is prepared to get together with the Government and iron out this anomaly. I have no idea what the opportunity-cost might have been to the industry of being overcharged by $24.6 million. I cannot help but reflect also that many people in this country would see a surplus of $24.6 million in the ministry’s coffers as somewhat similar to the $5.6 billion in the Government’s coffers. Many would regard that as the taxpayer being overcharged by the Government. Maybe we should return that as well. I think that would be a rather nice Christmas present by way of tax cuts. 
However it is good to see that the ministry has done something right by returning that money to its rightful owners. Again I reiterate the importance of adequate penalties being imposed upon those who break the law—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister is interrupting. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Sit down so we can get it passed. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: He wants to go home. Well I think it is important that political parties in this land actually have their say—not just the Government which is getting a bit arrogant about this whole business. But I see the time is almost upon us so I will finish by saying that yes ACT will support the Government on this particular issue but with the cautionary note that the Government does have to be a bit more careful about how it levies and charges the public of this country. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Primary Production Committee 
 referred to the Primary Production Committee 
 for consideration that the committee report the bill by 27 February 2004 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has beena sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.