Volume 683 Week 22 - Tuesday 11 September 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 683 Week 22 - Tuesday 11 September 2012 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2012. Volume:683;Page:5031. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 11 September 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
2012 Paralympic Games—Success of New Zealand Team 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice congratulating the Paralympic team on its performance at the recent Paralympic Games. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I move  
That this House congratulate the members of the 2012 New Zealand Paralympic team on their outstanding performance achieving six gold seven silver and four bronze medals and finishing ranked 21st in the world. 
 The 2012 New Zealand Paralympic campaign can be judged a real success and on behalf of the Government I want to acknowledge all of the athletes who were members of the team and congratulate them collectively on their achievement. 
I want to mention in particular Sophie Pascoe who added significantly to her previous successes on the international stage collecting three gold and three silver medals and setting two new world records and one new Paralympic record. We saw outstanding performances from a number of other athletes who were part of the New Zealand team. The achievement of 17 medals is all the more admirable when you note that there were only 24 in the team. On top of that New Zealand has come out as the leading nation per capita up on third at the Beijing Paralympics. 
The 2012 Paralympics broke a number of records with 2.7 million spectators filling the various venues and more than $70 million raised in ticket sales. Both of these are unprecedented figures. Two hundred and fifty-one world records were broken over 11 days. For our people to have succeeded in an environment this challenging is a very significant achievement indeed. I am therefore pleased to offer on behalf of the Government our congratulations to all of the members of the 2012 Paralympic team as well as their coaches support staff and families who played such an important part in their performance. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I also would like to join in congratulating our Paralympic team. It was a great moment to able to stand here and say that today New Zealand is on top of the world and that means that our medal total per capita was actually the best in the world which is a remarkable achievement. 
The incredible performance of our paralympians in London has been something that has made us very very proud. When our team comes home tomorrow it will bring with it 17 medals: six gold seven silver and four bronze. That is an absolute triumph and it is a significant improvement on the Beijing Paralympics when New Zealand was ranked third for medals per capita. This achievement reflects the hard work the dedication and the commitment of the Kiwi contingent. 
I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of the entire team of 24 athletes from 13-year-old Nikita Howarth who made her debut in swimming to Jan Apel who also made her Paralympics debut in sailing at the age of 61 which is an enormous inspiration to us all. Our athletes performed brilliantly across all of the events—swimming cycling rowing athletics equestrian sailing and shooting—and I would particularly like to mention the achievements of Christchurch swimming sensation Sophie Pascoe who won a medal in every event that she entered. It was a proud moment to see Sophie carry the flag into the stadium for the closing ceremony. She absolutely deserved the honour. Our team overall did us proud. I was lucky enough to meet swimmer Mary Fisher at the Upper Hutt “cossie club” just before she left for the games and I was struck by her commitment and the amount of hard work that she had put in to get where she was. She went on to win four medals including a gold. 
One disappointment for me however and I am sure for many other New Zealanders was that we were not able to see many of these achievements of all our team live on television as people did in other countries. We had to rely on delayed coverage or an international feed that did not focus on our Kiwi team. That is a shame and I hope it is different for the next Paralympics. To be able to see our athletes triumphing over personal adversity to excel at their chosen sport is an inspiration to us all. 
So I would like to thank our athletes and pay special tribute to all the unsung heroes around them: the coaches the physios the volunteers—all those people who put in enormous amounts of time so they could succeed. Thank you and congratulations on your success. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I wish to add the Green Party’s congratulations to our Paralympic team. To compete at the elite level in any sport requires determination commitment and sacrifice. Our Paralympic team had those attributes in spades. These Paralympics perhaps mark the point not only in this country but in others around the world where Paralympic sport is seen as elite sport in its own right. That is a great milestone to have reached. I share the concerns that David Shearer has just expressed about the decisions made by the sports editors of our media. I cite Richard Boock’s column in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 where he noted that the media had misjudged the public mood our desire to actually see our paralympian team competing on the world stage. Our team has been an inspiration to people living with disabilities. They have been an inspiration to those of us who look out the window and decide we do not want to go to training because it is too hilly or it is raining or we just cannot be bothered. They have also unlocked a gateway for the New Zealand public in that we may finally now honour the rights of people with disabilities to be full members of our own society. Thank you. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The London Paralympics were a great success and particularly so for our New Zealand team. New Zealand First stands with all parties here today in congratulating our paralympians on their efforts and great achievements. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I am really delighted to be able to share with every party in the House today the pride and excitement that we have experienced over these last 2 weeks with the amazing success of the New Zealand team at the London 2012 Paralympics. Yesterday as I landed at Whakatane Airport I arrived at the same time as a reception was being extended to welcome home Ngati Awa and Te Arawa mountain bike superstar Karen Hanlen. In reflecting on her meteoric climb to the London Paralympics she said her approach was built upon the philosophy that pain is temporary and pride is for ever. It is a philosophy that every single one of the 24 New Zealand athletes who competed at the Paralympics has demonstrated in abundance. 
These stars of many sports including cycling shooting swimming and shot-put have shown the world that even when others have said they could not the determination of these athletes revealed that they could and they are. In doing so they have lifted our collective pride. They have shown us all what we are capable of if only we believe. Our Paralympians are true champions for they have persevered. They have withstood every challenge and they have invested every moment of their lives in representing Aotearoa on the international sporting stage. In doing so they have shattered stereotypes and shifted perceptions. They have demonstrated that it is not the disability that defines them; it is the way they deal with the challenges that that disability presents them with. Within the disability sector we often talk about the aspiration to live a good life an ordinary life a life unburdened by the stigma and discrimination of a disabling society. The New Zealand Paralympian squad goes that one step further and reminds us that the only difference between the impossible and the possible lies in the spirit of determination. 
There have been some truly remarkable achievements in London. The talents of Sophie Pascoe left us in no doubt of the power of having a dream. Phillipa Gray Mary Fisher and Laura Thompson were not content with the honour of a gold medal; they went on and won silver and bronze as well. These are truly multi-performers. The former Disabled Maori Sportsperson of the Year Cameron Leslie not only earned gold in the Olympic swimming pool he is also a member of the New Zealand Wheel Blacks’ successful rugby squad. Each of our 24 stars and each of their coaches and managers and their families around us could teach us all about the power of positive thinking. The Maori Party applauds the New Zealand Paralympic squad for and congratulates it on their amazing success. Tenatatou katoa. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The extraordinary television coverage that we saw on the news at night was of the elation of the New Zealand winners with their gold silver and bronze medals. The sheer elation on their faces said everything about the quality of themselves their family supporters their team-mates and the whole of the country. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to give our warmest congratulations to the New Zealand Paralympics Team on its outstanding achievements in 2012. The team brought home a total of 17 medals including six gold seven silver and four bronze. Per capita country entered it must have been one of the highest. 
The Paralympians are an inspiration for all of us. They live with disabilities that many people would think would hold them back but instead they have gone on to participate and succeed in sport at the very highest level. I hope their success is of particular inspiration to young people living with disabilities who need to know that they can achieve anything with the support of the community with the support of their families and with the support of their country. Swimmer Sophie Pascoe is to be congratulated on her remarkable success in the swimming pool. She alone won half of New Zealand’s total gold medals. I am reminded this afternoon of my old friend from Whangarei Murdoch Ross who has cerebral palsy. A sign on his wall which has been there for the last 50 years says it all does it not: “Obstacles are what you see when you look away from the goal.” This attitude has truly done New Zealand proud at the Paralympics 2012. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I want to associate myself with the comments that others have made to congratulate our Paralympic team on its remarkable success at the London Paralympic Games. I imagine that many people felt that coming on the back of the successful Olympic Games it would be very difficult to firstly mount a level of interest in what would happen at the Paralympic Games and secondly to match what we thought was an extraordinary level of achievement by our able-bodied athletes in London. But in many senses our paralympians have surpassed them—not only Sophie Pascoe who must be probably our most successful Olympic athlete ever in terms of her medal success both here and in Beijing but also the team as a whole. This was a proud achievement by a committed and dedicated group of New Zealanders. 
I share the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and others that it was just a pity we did not get to see very much of it on television. I sincerely hope that television bosses will take that lesson on board when it comes to covering the next Paralympic Games because these are athletes of high quality high dedication high commitment and high skills. It was comforting and I think almost flying in the face of the lack of coverage that New Zealanders as a whole embraced the team over the last couple of weeks. Despite the anonymity of what we were seeing we got to know about these athletes and their successes and encouraged them in their ongoing endeavours. 
My warmest congratulations to them. They have done their cause and our cause as a country extremely proud. I doubt there will ever be a team anywhere that will go away with such small numbers and come back with such a high proportion of medal success as our paralympians. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economies International—Effect on New Zealand 
1. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What advice has he received on the impact global economic developments are having on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The global outlook remains uncertain. Europe in particular continues to grapple with longstanding problems of excessive debt with significant decisions being made in Europe this week. It has however demonstrated an ability to maintain stability while dealing with deep-seated long-term problems. Growth is expected to be maintained at reasonable levels in our second-largest trading partner China. The outlook for Australia is less positive than it was but it still remains one of the faster-growing developed economies. 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The parliamentary Opposition during the answer from the Minister was yapping out “Tidy yourself up. Why don’t you tidy yourself up?”. I make no comment about that but I think you are doing a great job and should berate them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member does remind members in the House that when they say “you” they are referring to the Speaker. I did look at the member who made that interjection. He seemed unaware of what he had actually said. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you look at the question it asks the Minister what advice he has received. Well we are still waiting to hear what that advice was. We heard just his opinion of how the rest of the world is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well one assumes that that is the advice he has received. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You might assume that but for the rest of us and the country we would like to know what advice he got and where he got it from. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been raised. Had the question asked what advice he had got and where he got it from there may have been a different answer but the question did not actually ask that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was what advice he has received. You could pad it out by saying “and from whom and what day did you get it?” but strictly speaking it is a simple question. I would like to know what advice he received not what his views are on the international economy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! During question time the right honourable gentleman has absolutely that right to ask that question. He can ask specifically for the source of the advice received. That is absolutely why supplementary questions are allowed. 
John Hayes 
: In the light of New Zealand’s increasing economic links with the Asia-Pacific region what are the immediate prospects for APEC economies? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The immediate prospects for these economies on our doorstep are reasonably good. The IMF is forecasting growth of 4.2 percent for the APEC area in 2012 and 4.5 percent in 2013. This is considerably faster than developed economies and compares with forecast world growth of around 3.5 percent. Ten APEC countries will grow by 4 percent or more this year which means that in those countries there will be more people with bigger incomes who are willing to pay more for our products. That is good news for New Zealand. 
John Hayes 
: How are international observers viewing the immediate outlook for China and how will this impact on New Zealand’s growth prospects? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister has no responsibility for international people—none at all. If he was asked about advice or reports or something like that he might have responsibility but we have been told that we have to be straight and down the line and have questions within the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. When they are written patsies there is no excuse— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member was fine up until that point. The member makes a perfectly reasonable point that Ministers can be asked their opinions about matters but if there is no direct responsibility for what they are being asked about probably the question should refer to advice or reports that the Minister may have received. 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The second part of my question and I will just repeat it asked how this would impact on New Zealand’s growth prospects. I think that is a very fair question to put to the Minister of Finance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a fair point in response. The latter part of the question indeed asked that and that is absolutely within the Minister’s responsibility. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Given that it is among the fastest-growing economies in the world what happens with China does matter to New Zealand. There seems to be a range of views but a general view would be that China’s growth will be a bit lower this year than it was last year partly because of the impact of lower demand in Europe. The way this impacts on New Zealand’s growth prospects is that it is our second-largest trading partner and Chinese demand for our products will determine our income to a significant extent. China is Australia’s largest trading partner and remains our largest trading partner so how Australia does is affected by China. 
John Hayes 
: What other reports has he received on New Zealand’s economic prospects given the significant challenges faced by economies in other parts of the world? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I recently met with representatives of credit rating agencies Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s. They have noted the good progress the Government is making in getting its own finances in order and returning to surplus while many other countries face many more years of deficits and rising debt. They note that our moderate growth rate and our positive household savings rate compare favourably with that of many other developed countries but they reiterate our need to reduce our high levels of household debt which remain as yet New Zealand’s single-biggest vulnerability to international economic events. 
Exchange Rate—Commentary and Potential Consequences of Devaluation 
2. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association the International Monetary Fund and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand that the New Zealand dollar is overvalued? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We do agree with their level of discomfort about the high level of the New Zealand dollar but we certainly do not agree with the view held by the Manufacturers and Exporters Association that the New Zealand dollar should be devalued to US60c. This would amount to around a 25 percent devaluation implying an exchange rate against the Australian dollar of just 58c. That means a drop in income and living standards across the board in New Zealand of about 20 percent. If they think there is a gap between us and Australia now then following the Manufacturers and Exporters Association call for a 25 percent devaluation that gap would widen into a chasm and thousands of New Zealanders would be leaving for Australia because of its much higher standard of living. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does he agree with John Walley Chief Executive Officer of the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association that the overvalued dollar has cost the exports sector up to $10 billion over the past 3½ years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not agree with that. We do agree that the high level of the exchange rate does put a lot of pressure on exporters. The Government is taking every measure it can to exercise its indirect influence on the exchange rate to help our exporters be more competitive. But we do not agree with the view of New Zealand First the Manufacturers and Exporters Association and the Labour Party that the New Zealand dollar should be significantly devalued. That would cut the incomes and the standard of living of all New Zealanders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will he acknowledge that the overvalued dollar is contributing to rising unemployment with hundreds of jobs being lost in the export sector every month—for example the 100 jobs recently lost at Tiwai Point the 120 redundancies at Solid Energy’s Huntly East mine the 100 jobs set to go at the Kawerau mill or the up to 400 jobs that hang in the balance at Spring Creek Mine all because of an uncompetitive exchange rate? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: All of those job losses are regrettable but probably unavoidable. What we owe to the people who have lost those jobs is to continue to support the many businesses that are creating jobs. In the last 2 years this economy has created 50000 net new jobs and over the next 4 years we expect about another 150000 net new jobs. In an environment of relatively low growth rates and grumpy growth some companies will be shedding jobs and more other companies are growing jobs. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it correct that under section 17 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act the Minister of Finance may for the purpose of influencing the exchange rate or exchange rate trends from time to time by notice in writing to the bank direct the bank to deal in foreign exchange within guidelines prescribed by the Minister in the notice which is not certainly you because you have got no experience whatsoever in this area? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes the member is correct about what is in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. However it would be irresponsible of any Minister of Finance of New Zealand to instruct the Reserve Bank to try to achieve what he the Labour Party the Greens and the Manufacturers and Exporters Association want and that is a 20 percent devaluation of the New Zealand currency. That would be extremely risky for the New Zealand taxpayer but worse than that it would cut the standard of living of every New Zealand household by 20 percent. 
Hon David Parker 
: If an inflated exchange rate lies at the heart of our exporters’ problems our external deficit and job losses why will he not do anything about it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What lies at the heart of their challenges was the very poor economic policy under the Labour Government where up to 2008 New Zealand lost competitiveness at a rate among the worst in the developed world. This Government is having to work very hard to re-establish that competitiveness. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand operates “best-practice” monetary policy or does he now accept that the economic objectives of the Reserve Bank should be widened to include more than inflation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I do stand by the statement and if the member read the policy targets agreement he would see that it does encompass other economic objectives. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether the economic objectives of the Reserve Bank which are actually laid out in statute should be widened to more than inflation and the Minister has not addressed that part of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member to repeat his question if there is uncertainty. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand operates “best-practice” monetary policy or does he now accept that the economic objectives of the Reserve Bank should be widened in the statute to include more than inflation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister the Minister actually answered the first part of that question. It is a shame the member did not restrict his question to just the last bit if he wanted that answered. The Minister answered whether he stood by the—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I gave the member the benefit of the doubt; I should have trusted my initial judgment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the light of the Minister’s first answer and given that he does have the power to do something about the overvalued dollar when will he stop Nero fiddling whilst New Zealand manufacturing New Zealand exporting and New Zealand jobs continue to burn? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I have already said the Government is working across a wide range of fronts from infrastructure to skills to supporting exporters in our export markets and to sorting out the allocation and use of our natural resources all as mechanisms to assist the competitiveness of our exporters. However we do not intend to pursue a devaluation of the New Zealand dollar that would cut the living standards of New Zealand households by 20 percent as advocated by the Opposition parties. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the extreme urgency of this issue I seek leave for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to have its first reading immediately after question time today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Schools—Supplying Food to Students 
3. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to food in schools that “most of those decile one to three schools have that and are dealing with the issue”; if so is he therefore satisfied that all children attending New Zealand schools are having their nutritional needs met and are arriving in classrooms ready to learn? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes the Prime Minister stands by his full statement which was that “In my experience most of those decile one to three schools have that and are dealing with the issue. But obviously you’ll see with a number of schools [for instance] on the waiting list for the KidsCan … that more needs to be done.” I also noted that the Government provides fruit in schools—indeed all decile 1 and 2 primary and intermediate schools are able to opt into this scheme—and the Government provides funding to KidsCan for its food for kids programme. As the member will know we all want children to have their nutritional needs met and arrive in classes ready to learn. The Government is keen to help where that is required but the fundamental responsibility lies with the parents of those children to feed them. 
David Shearer 
: Has he seen comments from the principal of Finlayson Park School in Manurewa who said that she is spending $9000 a year to feed hungry students and “that’s $9000 not being spent on teaching and learning” and is this what he meant when he said schools were dealing with the issue? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not seen those particular comments but I am sure that principal is doing everything she can to lift the achievement of those children. As the member should know it is important in the case of feeding children that the Government provides support where it is required but does not act in a way that takes from families the responsibility for feeding their own children. I know that the member does not believe it is their responsibility; he wants all children to be fed at school. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is sufficient. 
David Shearer 
: How does arguing about this issue resting on parent responsibility which we all agree on solve the problem tomorrow morning when more than 80000 children will turn up to school hungry? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have outlined the range of careful measures the Government is taking to provide help where it is most needed. We do not intend to go down the track of taking from families the responsibility to feed their own children. It is a fundamental responsibility of a parent. 
David Shearer 
: Given that his Government is spending $560000 on sports equipment for private schools and just $320000 on KidsCan on feeding kids in schools does he believe he has his educational priorities right? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes we do have our educational priorities right. We have committed $9 billion actually to the funding of achievement in State-run schools. What we recognise and that member does not is that it is important that the Government does not act in this area in a way that undermines the responsibilities of families to feed their own children. 
David Shearer 
: In light of his comment on fruit in schools is he suggesting that if a kid turns up hungry at school and is given a piece of fruit that child is equipped with the nutritional needs it needs for the rest of the day? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In some cases it might be. There are children who do have fruit for breakfast. In fact I thought under the previous Government’s Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programme it was trying to make our children eat fruit for breakfast. 
Tertiary Institutions—2011 Performance 
4. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: What reports has he received regarding the performance of the tertiary education sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 On Thursday last week I released the 2011 tertiary education performance data. The information shows that the universities polytechnics wananga and private training establishments have once again improved their course and qualification completion rates as well as their student retention rates. Course completion rates across the tertiary sector have risen from 77 percent in 2009 to 82 percent in 2011 with qualification rates over the same period increasing from 62 percent to 71 percent. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What has the Government done to help the sector achieve these results? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has incentivised better performance by providers by introducing performance-linked funding based on educational performance indicators including course completions qualification completions progression to higher levels and retention. We have also published on the Tertiary Education Commission website the performance information for all providers for the benefit of students their families and other stakeholders. The Tertiary Education Commission has supported the focus on performance by taking a more active investment approach and withdrawing funding from poor-performing courses and also from short award courses that do not result in formal qualifications. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What information has he seen regarding the performance of Maori and Pasifika students in the tertiary education sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: A recent report by the Tertiary Education Commission highlighted that the results for Maori and Pasifika students have greatly improved. Particularly pleasing is the strong increase in Maori and Pasifika course and qualification completion rates which have increased more than the overall sector average. Maori course completion rates are up 9 percent from 2009 to 2011 and qualification rates are up 7 percent. Pasifika course completion rates are up 9 percent from 2009 to 2011 and qualification rates are also up 7 percent. There is still more work to do but this is very good progress. 
Child Poverty—Financial Support 
5. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “I don’t think that [universal child payment] is at all likely; we went away from that some years ago. In New Zealand we have a very targeted system through Working for Families.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Metiria Turei 
: How does the very targeted in-work tax credit child payment system which he claims is better than a universal payment for children help the children of New Zealand’s poorest families whose parents do not work enough hours to qualify for that child payment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those families the member is referring to are of course on benefits or are the recipients of the guaranteed minimum family income. The in-work tax credit was designed by the previous Labour Government as a payment for those who were in what was then defined as full-time work. So by definition those who are not in full-time work do not qualify for it. 
Metiria Turei 
: If as the Prime Minister claims very targeted assistance is better than a universal child payment will he then support my bill which specifically targets a child payment to New Zealand’s poorest children whose parents cannot find enough work because unemployment is so high? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer is that the Government will not be supporting the member’s bill. But she is giving a misleading impression that children in households where the parents are not working are not the recipients of a child payment. Of course they are as part of the benefit payment. The member can argue about whether that payment should be larger—I suspect she thinks it should be—but there are child payments per child to beneficiary households. 
Metiria Turei 
: How is it fair to the children of families in Christchurch for example who lost their jobs due to the earthquake that they lose both their employment income and their in-work tax credit child payment? How does that give those kids who need it the most a good life and a fair future? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: For families in Christchurch it is difficult when they lose their jobs as it is for many other families where a job is lost. There is income support in place for those families which includes child payments. As I said before the member can argue whether they should be larger but child payments are incorporated. The in-work tax credit was designed on the principle of “work first”—a principle that I see has recently been endorsed by the Children’s Commissioner’s expert group. It is designed as a payment to families to encourage full-time work and appears to have been successful in doing that. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister not agree that the in-work tax credit child payment has failed to provide sufficient support to those families who need it the most and the children who need it the most because parents who might work but do not qualify for enough hours do not get access to that payment leaving more than 200000 children in families who do not qualify and who live well below the poverty line? Is that not a failure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not a failure of the in-work tax credit because the in-work tax credit was designed by the previous Government—supported by the National Party at the time—as an incentive to work. That appears to have been successful. If the member is concerned about the absolute level of income of those on benefit then she is quite free to advocate that there should be larger payments. But the in-work tax credit is there for a particular purpose and we do not intend to change that purpose. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why is the Prime Minister opposing all the options for a child payment that will reach the poorest of New Zealand’s children including the universal child payment that has been proposed by the Children’s Commissioner for those children zero to 6 years old and a targeted child payment as proposed in my bill that will go to the children of the poorest families when he knows that 270000 children are living in poverty—a situation that his Government is making worse? When will he step out of la-la land and do something for the poorest kids? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will not deal with each of the member’s propositions but the universal payment proposed by the Children’s Commissioner’s expert group is I have to say a bit unspecified. The group itself recognises that it would have to be paid for and I think it believes it could be paid for by reducing assistance to families a bit further up the income scale. When the expert group reports to the commissioner who then reports to the Government then of course we can consider all its propositions. The Government’s focus for low-income families is on dealing with those factors that would lead to persistent poverty and vulnerability. So for instance the Minister for Social Development has announced the social obligations which are part of the encouragement for those who are on benefit with children to get their children into early childhood education and part of the encouragement for them to look for appropriate part-time work and to get the kinds of skills that will help them lift income. So we have a strong focus on those families being able to get work as a top priority. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What advice has the Minister received about the impact on low-income working families of a shift away from the current targeted arrangement to a more universal payment in respect of children? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not asked for particular advice on that but I think I could guess what it would say. It would say that a move from a targeted programme to a lower universal payment would leave many low-income working families worse off to start with and secondly would leave them in a less beneficial position relevant to being on the benefit. It has been a focus of social policy regardless of party in New Zealand in the last 20 years to ensure that the reward for work is significantly greater than the income that one can receive on benefit. We intend to maintain that policy. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why on earth is the Prime Minister opposing any solution whether it is increasing the minimum wage food in schools a universal child payment for some kids or a targeted payment for the poorest kids? Why is he refusing to support any solution that will help the children he knows are in the worst poverty in this country? What did those kids do to deserve his Government’s neglect and derision? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I find those comments offensive actually. The Government is actually dealing with a wide range of complex issues to ensure that people have the opportunity to lift themselves out of the position they are in where they are on low income. The real danger to children is persistent deprivation that goes with low income. That is a relatively smaller proportion of the 200000 she refers to and the Government’s measures particularly in welfare reform which is a very comprehensive programme are designed to promote mobility for those families. But again I would deny the member’s assertion that the Government is treating these children with neglect and derision. That is typical of the kinds of exaggerated claims she makes to try to get into the political debate. 
Welfare Reforms—Outstanding Arrest Warrants and Requirements for Parents 
6. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What recent announcements has she made on the Government’s comprehensive welfare reforms? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Today we have announced that as part of the Government’s welfare reforms we are introducing social obligations for those beneficiaries with children. These social obligations will require that their children are attending 15 hours a week early childhood education from age 3 attending school from age 5 or 6 and enrolled with a general practitioner and that they complete core Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks. I believe these obligations are reasonable achievable and reflect the expectations of most New Zealanders. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How will these new social obligations ensure education and health services benefit vulnerable children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Many of our most vulnerable children are dependent on adults in the benefit system and this is an opportunity to make sure we give these children the best start in life. Research shows that only 40 percent of DPB recipients and only 60 percent of those on the unemployment benefit with a child of early childhood education age were attending early childhood education. We want to get that number up. That is one of the reasons the Minister of Education Minister Parata is targeting early childhood education attendance and has made it a key result area and certainly I am happy to support that with this initiative. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does every child in New Zealand at age 3 have access to early childhood education today? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No and that is why we have said with the obligations that if there are barriers that people cannot overcome we want to try to help them do that. But if they have got access and they are not taking it up then there may be sanctions further down the process. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What requirements will there be for parents who are not on benefits to fulfil her social obligations? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I said the Minister of Education is putting quite a targeted approach around those who are not actually attending early childhood education in that there is a requirement and it would be very helpful for them to be there. This is about those who are on benefits. We know that many of these children are our most vulnerable and do need that kind of support. We can put this lever in and we are. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear this next supplementary question. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What other announcements has she made that make changes to the welfare system? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is fair to say that it has been very comprehensive. Last week we announced that people with outstanding arrest warrants will no longer receive the benefit while evading the police. If someone has an unresolved arrest warrant we will stop their benefit until they do the right thing and come forward to the authorities. The truth is that at any one time there are 15—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Close though I am to the Minister I can no longer hear her answer given the level of interjection. It is not reasonable. All members have a right to ask questions. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Certainly the Opposition can call out but this is what is called doing your job. That party actually did not do it for 9 years so there is a lot for me to pick up and actually get right in the welfare system. So if it had gone back and done this many many years ago as should have been done—at any one time there are 15000 people in New Zealand with more than 37000 warrants and of those people 8200 are on a benefit. We are effectively paying them for being on the run from the police. I think that is disgraceful. I think it is disgraceful that that party let that go for 9 long years and it is time that this Government actually tidied that up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 7 Grant Robertson. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear this question.  
Environment Canterbury—Postponement of Elections 
7. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he agree with the statement by the previous Minister for Local Government Hon Dr Nick Smith “Under any circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than the elections scheduled for late 2013”? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I did at the time. Nick Smith made those comments in March 2010 and although it may have escaped the attention of the member we have had since then four major earthquake events in Christchurch. The member will also know that the quote he just read out from Nick Smith went on to say this: “The explicit intent is for the commissioners to withdraw and be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systemic issues are resolved.” The commissioners are doing an outstanding job and have made good progress but the job is not yet complete. 
Grant Robertson 
: How can it not be a broken promise to the people of Canterbury that they would be able to elect their own regional council when the former Minister said that under any circumstances elections would take place in 2013? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Because as I have just said to the member Nick Smith went on to say: “The explicit intent is for the commissioners to withdraw and be replaced … as soon as their task is achieved …”. Because of the earthquake event because progress is still not finalised around the Canterbury Water Management Strategy that job is not yet complete. 
Grant Robertson 
: To whom are the commissioners running Environment Canterbury accountable: his Government or the people of Canterbury? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: At this stage the people who are responsible are the seven appointed commissioners. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may not have heard the question clearly. The question asked to whom they are responsible: the Government or the local people of Canterbury. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I apologise. I did not hear the question properly. The commissioners are responsible both to the Government and to the people of Canterbury. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is he familiar with the phrase “No taxation without representation” and why does he think ratepayers in the Canterbury region should continue to pay rates when his Government is denying them the right to be democratically represented at a regional level? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Because of the circumstances. Those Cantabrians had been asked to pay rates to a regional council that was the worst-performing regional council out of 84. They had been asked to pay rates to a regional council that an independent report concluded was ineffective and dysfunctional. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Will the Minister give an undertaking to the electors in the Canterbury region that they will be given the opportunity through a comprehensive consultation process to have a say on the main options for the reform of local government in the region before the Government introduces legislation to end the local democracy - free zone there? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is the intention of the Government to have the legislation put before the select committee. That will be the opportunity for Cantabrians to have their say. It is worth noting that at this stage the only negative comments I have seen have been from the Labour Party the Christchurch  
Press 
 and two former disgruntled Environment Canterbury councillors: Eugenie Sage and Kerry Burke. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he agree with the statement “Elections are central to democracy but they are not always on their own a magic or quick-fix solution.” made by Frank Bainimarama and which does he think is likely to occur first: elections in Fiji or elections for Environment Canterbury? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I do not think there would be any Government that wanted to roll over local democracy but when local democracy is not working as was the case recently with the Kaipara District Council Governments have to act. I note that in the case of the Kaipara District Council there was absolutely no criticism from Grant Robertson. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate my question had two parts to it but I do not think the Minister addressed whether he agreed with Frank Bainimarama or whether elections were going to happen in Fiji— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Given the nature of the question the answer was not too bad. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a serious question but what I am wondering is whether there has been some effect on the Government benches of your borrowing your tie from Mr Ryall. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I do not see how that is a point of order. The question that was being referred to was asking for an opinion and a precise answer is never possible when an opinion is being sought. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that show that the performance of Environment Canterbury has dramatically improved since commissioners were appointed? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Yes. I have seen a report that showed that this council under the commissioners processed 92 percent of resource consents within the statutory time frames in 2010-11. This is a massive increase from just 29 percent in 2007-08 under the former model. I am also aware of a number of very positive reports from a wide range of stakeholders in relation to last week’s announcements including NgaiTahu Local Government New Zealand Federated Farmers and a large number of mayors from the region. They all stated that the commissioners have been a dramatic improvement and have done a fantastic job. As I mentioned earlier the only negative comments that I have seen are from the Labour Party the Christchurch  
Press 
—and that would be of little surprise to any of us—and two former disgruntled councillors— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member should not be making those sorts of comments. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Why did the Minister not agree with his own department’s advice and also the advice of the Ministry for the Environment that there be a return to a fully locally elected democratic body under a transitional plan; if he did agree with that at any point why did he change his mind? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am aware of advice from officials that suggested a hybrid model as a transition. I am waiting to see the full report from the Land and Water Forum as to what recommendations it makes with regard to all regional councils around New Zealand. In the meantime officials gave advice to Cabinet and Cabinet gave it very full discussion and concluded that remaining with the commissioners was the best option for Cantabrians. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Given the Minister’s response he obviously has not read it. I seek leave to table the regulatory impact statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Threatened Species Protection—Increase to Penalties for Smuggling 
8. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What progress has been made to deter smuggling of our threatened species? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Given that this week is Conservation Week I am very pleased to inform the House that Cabinet has agreed to tough new penalties for those who are caught poaching or smuggling our native wildlife. The changes will increase the maximum penalty for smuggling native animals such as tuatara parrots and geckos from 6 months’ imprisonment or a $100000 fine to 5 years’ imprisonment and a $300000 fine. These new penalties will send a clear message to smugglers that taking our precious wildlife will not be tolerated. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other steps will be taken to help protect our threatened species from poachers and smugglers? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Before I call the Minister it is absolutely unreasonable to start interjecting before the Minister has even opened her mouth to answer. It is totally unreasonable and discourteous. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: On top of increasing the fines and prison terms Department of Conservation rangers will be provided with additional enforcement powers to ensure that smugglers can be more successfully caught and prosecuted. All of these changes will take effect through an amendment to the Wildlife Act and I look forward to support from across the House for this bill once introduced. 
Unemployment—Projected Rates and Industrial Sector Jobs  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 To the Minister for Economic Development—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have just in one breath admonished members of the Labour Party for making unnecessary interjection before a Minister had opened her mouth. Now I have called a member to ask a question and the National Party is interjecting before he has even started to ask his question. That is not courteous.  
9. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What was the level of unemployment forecast for 2013 and 2014 in the downside scenario of Budget 2012 and what is the level of unemployment for 2013 and 2014 as forecast by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment last week? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The answer is 6 percent and 5.7 percent and 6.2 percent and 5.9 percent. There are in fact a range of forecasts from different Government agencies. Treasury’s main forecast is for 5.7 percent and 5.2 percent and the Reserve Bank’s current forecast is for 5.5 percent and 4.8 percent. I am sure that somewhere within that range of numbers will be the right answer when it comes to pass. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How many jobs were lost in the June 2012 quarter to the nearest thousand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not actually have that number on me. There was a slight decline but over the last year there has been a very significant increase in the number of jobs. There is no doubt about it it is a dynamic market at the moment. We are currently seeing around 250000 jobs created every year and slightly fewer than that being lost every year. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question as you will appreciate was a very straight and direct one. It followed directly from the primary question. The question was about how many jobs were lost not how many jobs were created. Perhaps the Minister could answer if it was to the nearest 10000. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said that he simply did not have that information. There is nothing that the Speaker can do about that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What discussions did he have with NorskeSkog prior to its decision to halve production at its Kawerau newsprint mill with the loss of 100 jobs and did he offer any form of Government assistance as the Australian Government has done; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I was briefed by NorskeSkog at its Kawerau operations as part of one of my many regional visits around the country. It did not seek any Government assistance. It made it clear that it was contemplating this change which it then subsequently—very shortly later—announced for the first time. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Did he offer any? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The answer to the question of whether we offered an additional subsidy to retain the newsprint production is no. The member may or may not be aware that the newsprint industry is in decline. What we are working on with NorskeSkog is development opportunities for its geothermal and wood resources in other industries. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did he respond to the Kawerau job losses by saying that NorskeSkog is “very keen to grow their investment in biofuels” when one of the first acts of the National Government was to cancel Labour’s biofuel obligations? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well actually every day businesses and industries go out and invest in their businesses without requiring Government subsidies. In fact that is generally the preferred way unless you want to send the taxpayers into the poorhouse. We do try to seek to assist where we can in the research and development space but just running biofuel subsidies for the sake of it means that you would develop an industry that was not otherwise economic. These people believe that their industry can be economic and I encourage them to do so. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why then is the Minister prepared to subsidise casinos and media companies he used to own while leaving major manufacturers like NorskeSkog and Fisher and Paykel and all their employees to face the cold winds of an overvalued exchange rate and a Government that is missing in action? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There are about six questions in there from the member. Let me address one or two. Firstly we are not seeking to subsidise casinos. We are seeking to set up a conference centre in Auckland exactly the same as the previous Government did. Secondly on media companies we actually made a loan at the height of the global financial crisis at market interest rates. In relation to the overvalued exchange rate if the member is advocating following Mr Walley’s advice and dropping the New Zealand exchange rate by 25 percent and seeking to actually reduce New Zealanders’ standard of living and purchasing power by the same margin he should just come out and say so. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he stand by his statements that John Whitaker Chief Executive Officer of respected Dunedin exporter Farra Engineering “really does need to go and have a look around” and is “ungracious” and if he does should Mr Whitaker visit for example the Huntly and Spring Creek mines KiwiRail’s Hillside workshops NorskeSkog’s Kawerau mill or APN’s various operations which like so many other manufacturers have lost jobs in recent weeks? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well I would advise him for example to go and see Tait Communications in Christchurch Southern Cross Engineering in Christchurch Orion Health Xero and its growing business and Methanex in Taranaki and to talk to Bathurst Resources about what it is seeking to do on the West Coast talk to Marsden Point oil refinery for the upgrade there or talk to IBM and Unitech Industries which are setting up 400 jobs together in Auckland. The point is that we are in a very dynamic economic environment which we are always in and what the member is seeking to do is to protect jobs that have become uneconomic. It is very tough for the people involved but fundamentally the newsprint industry is going slowly out of business over time with things like iPads and iPhones. I appreciate that the member wants to prop up declining industries; we do not think that is the way to go. 
Louise Upston 
: Has the Minister seen any new ideas for increasing jobs in the manufacturing sector? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well I am not sure about new ideas so much as reheated failed old ideas from around 40 years ago. I have seen a proposal from a Mr Walley of the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association to somehow bet against the world markets with taxpayers’ funds and seek to devalue the New Zealand dollar by roughly 25 percent. That would reduce the purchasing power of every New Zealander by around 25 percent. It would increase food prices fuel prices and the cost of living by around the same margin and massively widen the income gap with Australia as the result of a 58c exchange rate against the Australian dollar. If the members of the Opposition want to sign up to that prescription then it is over to them but I cannot think of a more destructive economic policy for this country.  
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Off my piece of paper—is it a higher priority for the Minister to preserve jobs for New Zealanders including those at Solid Energy or is it a higher priority for him to reduce costs and tidy up State assets for sale into the mixed-ownership model? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The absolute priority of the Government is to work with Solid Energy on that case and actually give it the opportunity to be successful financially full stop. The fact of the matter is that the business is struggling at the moment as a result of a sudden change in international coal prices. The challenge is that the Spring Creek Mine is one of its more expensive mines but it is working very hard with the union and the workers at Spring Creek. We are hopeful of a positive outcome but it is very tough. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table Budget documents showing the $2.1 million subsidy— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member knows that we do not seek leave to table Budget documents which are available to all members of the House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that rule. Your ruling is that it is not proper to table documents that are freely available but the Minister said that he had not subsidised Skycity Casino— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Look the member is now seeking to litigate an answer by way of a point of order and that is just not on. That is totally outside the Standing Orders. Budget documents are available to all members— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Point of order Mr Speaker—a separate point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well if you wait a moment first. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a document compiled by the Parliamentary Library which tabulates 4188 recent job losses at workplaces including Canterbury’s Design Line Yarrows Colorado Group Pumpkin Patch KiwiRail Hurlstone Earthmoving Pacific Aerospace— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The House has got a sufficient guide to what the document is. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
Census 2013—Preparations 
10. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Statistics 
: What progress has been made in preparing for the 2013 Census? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Statistics) 
: 
 There is very good news for the House on this front. Following the cancellation of the census last year because of the earthquake I am happy to tell the House that we are now less than 6 months away from the next census which will be held on 5 March 2013. Statistics New Zealand has begun recruiting 440 district supervisors across the country and in total around 7500 census staff will be recruited across New Zealand—about 7500 census staff will be recruited. They will be gathering information from the estimated 4.6 million people in approximately 1.8 million households. The good news—and this is fantastic news—is that this time we are expecting a very very large percentage of all census forms to be filled out online using the internet. 
Ian McKelvie 
: What is being done to ensure that census information is available for decisions on electoral boundaries before the 2014 election? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well again I know there will be huge interest across the House on this. Statistics New Zealand has been working very closely with the Electoral Commission and Land Information New Zealand and as a result we have an agreed detailed time line for the 2013 year covering the Representation Commission process. I am pleased to inform the House that this work means that the Government Statistician will be in a position to announce the number of general and Maori electorates for the 2014 and 2017 elections in early October 2013. 
Environment Canterbury—Postponement of Elections 
11. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he think it is fair to require Cantabrians to pay around $78 million in regional rates annually with no elected regional councillors deciding how to spend those rates? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 In view of the extraordinary circumstances that Canterbury faces yes. What was not fair was for Cantabrians to have to pay rates money to a regional council in 2008 that was rated the worst out of 84 councils in New Zealand. What was not fair was that those Cantabrians had to pay rates to a regional council that was consistently described as ineffective and dysfunctional and when every mayor in Canterbury signed a letter to the Government expressing a vote of no confidence in Environment Canterbury and its councillors including the member asking the question. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Is the cancellation of regional council elections for what will be 6 years consistent with the statutory purpose of local government “To enable democratic local decision-making and action by and on behalf of communities”? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: As I said in an earlier answer it is my wish that local democracy works but in a case like in Canterbury where the regional council was not working was dysfunctional and was ineffective the Government had to act. 
Eugenie Sage 
: If he trusts the citizens of other regions to elect regional councillors who can provide “stable effective and efficient” planning governance and if he trusts district councils in Canterbury to elect district councillors why does he not trust Cantabrians to do the same for their regional council? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Because I am aware of no other council in New Zealand about which a report was presented to the Government that made comments like “the extent of the gap between the capability of ECan and what is required for it to adequately manage freshwater issues is enormous and unprecedented.” or “ECan’s performance … falls well short of what is essential.” or further “This failure requires comprehensive and rapid intervention …”. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Given that commissioners have been appointed now for the last 2 years what progress have they made if he is still harking back to 2010 and the failings he considers the council had then? What progress have commissioners made? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The commissioners have made tremendous progress. They have recently published the  
Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan 
 they have recently published the  
Proposed Canterbury Land and Water Regional Plan 
 they have recently made significant progress with the Canterbury freshwater management strategy and they have significantly improved the relationship with key stakeholders. As I mentioned earlier they have dramatically improved the compliance with statutory consent time lines. These commissioners have done a fantastic job. The job is not yet completed but the member should recognise that progress is being made. 
Schools Attendance Costs—Donations 
12. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by her answers to parliamentary written questions that show parents are paying 30 percent more in school donations since National took office? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I stand by my answers to written questions but to be accurate they related to all donations not only parents’ donations. As I am sure the member is aware the level of school donations is decided by individual schools and their self-managing boards in the context of our spending a record $9.6 billion on schooling and early childhood education this year despite fiscal constraints. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: How does she respond to the real cost of education which has outpaced Government funding resulting in parents of mid-decile schools paying an average of $30 more for each student in school donations than in 2008? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I said we are investing $9.6 billion in education this year. That pays for all the teaching and leading property curriculum resources and operational grants. If boards decide to have supplemental activities and they work with their communities for donations of that kind then that is a matter that is decided by those individual schools and their boards. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Given that schools are relying on donations to fund core programmes like Reading Recovery is she concerned that children at low-decile schools will miss out because their parents cannot afford to pay school donations? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: That is inaccurate. Reading Recovery is paid for out of Government funds not by donations. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to table a written question—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order is being considered. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question which is not on the website that shows that for the period 2008-09 school donations increased for mid-decile school parents and decreased for decile 1 school parents. This is not available on the website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. It is alleged it is not available on the website. Is there any objection to that? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Why is it not available on the website? That’s a fair question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Let us just deal with this. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: How does she reconcile that under the Government an extra $35 million in taxpayer subsidies is going to private schools which account for just 4 percent of New Zealand students while public school parents are being forced to stump up with an extra $23 million to cover schools’ rising real costs? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: New Zealand has long had a tradition of providing a diverse range of educational options to parents of which private schools constitute 4 percent of the 100 percent of provision. We continue to invest $9.6 billion this year into Vote Education to fund all of the costs associated with the delivery of the curriculum in all schools in New Zealand. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe that the Labour Party has exhausted its allocation of supplementary questions. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to ask another supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask a further supplementary question. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to raise an issue with you with regard to answers to written parliamentary questions. Where a Minister lodges an answer saying that they cannot provide an answer within the time frame and that they will provide the information subsequently and so on and then sends that information directly to the member concerned it is therefore not made publicly available. Your rulings have indicated that we should not be seeking to table information that is available through that system but where an answer is provided directly to the member not through the system—because the Minister has lodged a placeholder answer saying that they are not able to provide it—is it acceptable for us to then seek leave to table it in the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raises a perfectly reasonable point in my view. To me what I probably should do is investigate why the second answer is not actually made available on the website. It would seem to me that that is the more helpful answer to the original written question asked. I will undertake to investigate why it is not being—I accept what the member is saying that probably at the moment it is not being put on the website. It seems to me that that would be the best way to deal with the problem. But in the meantime I have no problem with the member seeking leave to table a document that it was alleged was not on the website. The House made its decision though in respect of that leave. But I will undertake to try to make sure that we get all those answers on the website. 
Urgent Debates 
State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Delay of Mighty River Power Sale 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate the Government’s decision to delay the initial public offering of up to 49 percent of Mighty River Power until March-June 2013. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Environment Canterbury—Regional Council Elections 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate the announcement made by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government that the election for Environment Canterbury will not occur until 2016 with a review occurring in 2014. These are both particular cases of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. I would have been inclined to accept either one of them. 
However there can be only one such debate on any one day. The Standing Orders provide that in these circumstances the Speaker must determine which is the most urgent and important. I have concluded given the more immediate significance of the Government’s decision to delay the sale of shares in Mighty River Power that it should have priority. 
Legislation has now been introduced to implement the Government’s decision to extend the Canterbury Regional Council’s governance arrangement and special water management decision-making powers. Consideration of this bill will provide an opportunity to debate the timing of the next election for Environment Canterbury. 
Urgent Debates 
State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Delay of Mighty River Power Sale 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I therefore call on the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. As Gerry Brownlee sort of cackles across the aisle the people’s assets are in jeopardy. We know that to be the case and we also know that the people’s assets are in jeopardy because of a Government that is now based on John Key’s political vanity and John Key’s pride because the whole of the asset sale process has been stuffed up and mismanaged from start to finish. So now what we are down to is not even I suspect ideology. We are not even down to ideology. We are down to that Government trying to protect and sustain John Key’s pride that come hell or high water he will sell the people’s assets beginning with Mighty River Power. 
The interesting point about this process is this. You would have thought that John Key the “fifty million dollar man” and I mean that with no disrespect the financial whiz-kid who probably has more experience in floating companies and initial public offerings than any member of this Parliament and many in New Zealand would see this process for what it is and would—wrong though he is because the people do not want their assets sold off—get this process right. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Would members leaving the Chamber please do so so that the member addressing the House is able to do so. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: A person of John Key’s financial experience a person who purports to maintain the public’s confidence a person who has massive commercial experience one would have thought— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Even a junk bond dealer. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —even a junk bond dealer as Mr Peters reminds me—that he would get this process right. We know of course that when the legislation was put in this Parliament he was warned about the significant issues as was Mr English as was the State-owned enterprises Minister and as was the Government as a whole. They were warned that you could shoot peas through the ownership cap. They were warned not to rush this legislation. They were warned about the issues that face Maoridom in respect of property ownership and maintenance of rights. They were warned by Tuwharetoa when they came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and told that committee—and they were lawyered up—what they believed about the clause as it was then based on section 9. That clause was negotiated by the weekend warriors in the Maori Party who went around the marae saying that they had done the deal with National that this would all be all right and that Maori interests and rights would be protected. Then National said: “Yes we’ve done the deal. These interests are protected.” Tuwharetoa of course before the Finance and Expenditure Committee warned the Government that that clause did not satisfy their legal advice. 
The Government was warned about all this of course and it ignored it. It rammed the State-owned enterprises legislation through Parliament in such haste—I think from memory 2 or 3 months ahead of when it was due—that we now sit here with a Waitangi Tribunal recommendation to delay and halt with pending and probable court action. 
Of course the Prime Minister’s position has changed every week. He was going to do it hell or high water. He has a mandate. He did not give a damn that 80 percent in poll after poll after poll—80-plus percent of Kiwis—said they did not want their assets sold. No the Prime Minister and the National Government would simply ram this through come hell or high water. He did not care that the economic conditions on the back of a global economic meltdown meant that this was the worst market environment—the worst market environment—to be flogging off the family silver. How many initial public offerings have we had in New Zealand in recent times? Not many I would wager in the private sector. But oh no this Government knows more than anyone else! 
We know that it is the worst time because by its own admission we can look at the Air New Zealand share price and look at what has now happened to Solid Energy. Even Mr English admits they are in no condition to sell. Look at Meridian Energy being bent over the barrel by Rio Tinto. Look at Genesis and Mighty River Power. Of course Genesis will face the same sets of Treaty issues that Mighty River now faces. 
All these signals were out there and anybody with half a working brain would realise that firstly you do not sell the family silver but if you are going to do it you do not do it in the worst economic times we have seen in a generation. But oh no Bill English and John Key—John Key the economic and financial whiz-kid—know better than all else. 
We know that Brian Gaynor said that the delay and the mess-up in this process will cause gross market uncertainty. We have already had other commentators say that this whole process has been mismanaged from start to finish. 
So where are we? Not only will the New Zealand people if this goes ahead lose their asset lose their dividend stream but if Mighty River Power is eventually put on the block it will be sold off in a fire sale. There is no way that Bill English Gerry Brownlee or any of the financial geniuses over there can say that they are going to get $5 billion to $7 billion for these assets now. There is no way in hell that they can make that play. 
The second point of course is the dishonesty of the last Budget. We now know that the Budget projections are in jeopardy. The other financial whiz-kid the sort of tricky trickster Bill English booked the proceeds from the sale of assets that have not been sold—now delayed some halted and maybe some or all I hope never sold. Those proceeds from the sale were booked in the Budget. Of course he did not book—he did not book—the revenue loss and the dividend stream loss that would flow from that sale once it occurred. 
Phil Twyford 
: That’s right—dishonest. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That as Mr Twyford said is—it is not just dishonest. That is gross dishonesty. We know that this has been mismanaged. I say the one benefit of the tribunal action and the halt is that every day that the New Zealand people maintain these assets within public ownership is a good day for our communities and is a day when they can still receive dividends which will be put into hospitals and which will be put into schools without the sale of those assets. 
 Of course the other great lie and untruth of this Government is that first it said it was about debt then that it was not about debt. It was not about debt; it was about buying other assets. Then when you unpack that of course it was about selling revenue-generating assets and buying non - revenue-generating assets like schools and roads. Last time I checked when you build a school unless it is a charter school or a private school which this mob pours dough into your local primary or secondary or intermediate school does not make a profit or a return to the taxpayer and nor should it. 
So the economic equation and proposition that these geniuses put to the public—because it sounds good does it not as a spin line—was: “We are going to sell some assets and we are going to buy other assets.” To the sort of great unwashed that might sound like a good line until you unpack it and realise that when selling revenue-generating assets and buying non - revenue-generating assets—I wager colleagues that even Gerry Brownlee with all his fingers and toes could work that out and calculate that—at some point the money runs out. It is gone. It is over because you are buying a series of non - revenue-generating assets. 
I say to—[ 
Interruption 
] Well Mr Brownlee sort of waxes on of course. I say this. The people will now get an opportunity to express their will and they will do that through the asset sale referendum which I believe with a high degree of certainty will now occur. In that referendum I would wager—and I am happy to take a bet maybe for a McDonald’s voucher or something like that with Mr Brownlee—that it will be 80 percent or maybe even more of New Zealanders who will vote to retain their assets. 
Then we are going to have an interesting series of debates in the 2-odd years leading up to the next election because there will be a problem at that point with the Government arguing in respect of mandate—in respect of mandate. If there is a referendum and there will be and if the response is overwhelmingly in opposition to the Government’s position and I believe it will be then no mandate will exist for the Government to proceed. So that is the other leg of the stool that is going to be cut out from under it. 
I thank those in other places who have ankle tapped this process. I thank them for this because it gives the ordinary citizenry in our community the opportunity to get those signatures—to get those 310000 signatures—to force this mob over here to have a referendum and then the people will have their say. 
In mismanaging the blunder over water this Government has opened the Pandora’s box in relation to property issues of State-owned assets because of its mismanagement. These issues will be examined in detail now as each and every one of those assets moves closer to the sale door. Because it has stuffed it up I predict that in the next 2 years we are going to hear a lot about reallocating priorities. We are going to hear a lot about Budget projections that have somehow moved and the Government is already prepping the ground of course because it keeps talking about: “Well if it doesn’t go ahead what’s going to happen? Oh we’re going to have to get into more debt.” Well I say to the Government that if it had not chosen to put in place a tax cut that gives those at the top the most and our communities at the bottom nothing as a result of which we are borrowing 300 million bucks a week then I suspect New Zealand might be in a different situation in respect of debt regardless I would argue of the global financial meltdown. 
So here are some questions for Mr English. What is going to be the position on Mighty River Power? We know the tribunal talked about “shares plus”. The Prime Minister of course immediately rubbished that rubbished the hui has corralled all his members and will not allow his members to go because they just do not want to know. It is hear no evil see no evil and pull the blankets up at midnight and hope the goblins go away—hope the nightmare is over. And when the blankets come down the sun will come up and all will be well. Well sorry the best thing this Government could do is get off its backside go to the hui listen to the communities and maybe come back with some proposals because it is all over the place. First it rubbished “shares plus” then it said it was going to go out and consult on “shares plus”. No one really knows what “shares plus” means but first it was against it then it rubbished it then it said it was going to go out and consult on it and then it said it would not participate in a national hui which I would have thought was a pretty efficient way to deal with a large body of our citizenry—a large body of our citizenry—called the Maori people. But oh no it will not go. I say to its Maori members over there— 
Shane Ardern 
: Is Labour going? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Labour will be represented do not worry about that Shane. Labour will be represented. I say that what the Maori members in the National Party should do is say to their chief: “We’re off. We’re going. We are not going to be stood down. We are going to engage in the democratic process and we’re going to go zip-lock our mouths and listen to the people at that hui.” and not be sort of trodden on by the tribal chiefs in the National Party. 
I do say in passing that it is extremely interesting that the Maori Party which purports to represent all things Maori all people Maori all culture Maori ain’t going to be within cooee of that hui—no disrespect. It is not even going to be anywhere near it. I say this. The challenge for the Maori Party is the same as it is for the National Party. The Maori Party pretends it is not in Government. Those members are Ministers of the Crown. They have the warrant they have the quarter of a million bucks’ salary they have the LTDs. They crow and crow that they represent Maori except they sold Maori out over section 9 in the State-owned enterprises legislation. They said they had sorted it out in terms of property rights issues. They represent Maori. They represent them so well that they boycott the national hui that the Waitangi Tribunal recommended that they go to. The question is why. Did they fall into line with the National Government sort of led by the nose? I would say that is a fair chance. Well they should show some guts. They should show some guts and they should actually attend that hui and listen to their people. 
So I say to Mr English could he use the debate today to explain to us how he is going to unbundle such a mess that has occurred? He and his Government have had what nearly 4 years to put this policy in place. At every turn from the passage of the legislation to the submissions being truncated to the water rights issue—having been warned of that—to no guarantee in the legislation that mum and dad Kiwis will be in the queue to a loyalty scheme that they said they did not need because Kiwis were going to keep these shares ad infinitum into the future. Then the Government came out with an expensive loyalty scheme where those who cannot afford to buy the $1000 to $2000 blocks of shares will pay for all the people who can but it did not need it of course because people believe in this so much! What a fiasco! What a stuff-up! I just ask Mr English aided and abetted by his colleagues whether he might want to spend the next 15 minutes explaining how he is going to unbundle this why we are preserving the Prime Minister’s pride and whether he will actually pull the pin listen to the people and keep the people’s assets in Crown ownership. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 One has to take what the Labour Party says about asset sales with a bucketful of salt because if it is those members’ desire that all these shares stay in the ownership of the Government then they have had every opportunity to stand up in this House and promise to buy them back after sale. Of course they have not. Neither the spokesman on State-owned enterprises nor the ubiquitous Mr Cunliffe nor the leader—none of them—have promised to buy the shares back when they have the capacity if they are the Government to go to the market and buy them any day of the week. 
The member talked about the Maori Party. I can tell that member that the Maori Party does a much better job of representing Maori interests than the Labour Party ever did—than the Labour Party ever did—because the Labour Party patronises Maori and tells them that they need the Labour Party to look after them when the Maori Party tells them that they can go and buy shares in this asset sale if that is what they want to do. The Maori Party believes that Maori can stand on their own two feet and make their own decisions. Labour has never believed that and never will. 
In respect of the decision the Government made around the delay in the float of Mighty River Power I will explain the context in which that decision has been made. The Government has been aware of Maori rights and interests in water since the day it came into office because these matters have been debated in the Waitangi Tribunal they have been part of a number of significant Treaty claims and from early on in the life of this Government we began discussion and consultation with individual iwi and with representative groups of Maori on their rights and interests in water. 
 When the Government announced the policy of partial sales back in January 2011 we were clear then about our obligations as Treaty partners to consult on that policy and that is what we have done. That consultation has been carried out in the context of a broader progressive and functional relationship with iwi across the board and water issues themselves have been dealt with in three different fora—four different fora really. One has been through individual claims and I just want to return to the member’s discussion about whether the Government would attend a national hui. I can assure that member that if there is one thing iwi are very clear about in this process it is that their rights and interests in water are theirs. They do not belong to nor can be represented by the Maori Council. The Maori Council has no rights and interests in water nor can any collective of the Maori Council and/or iwi negotiate with the Government about rights and interests because they do not have any. The rights and interests belong to the relevant iwi and hapu and we negotiate with them about their rights and interests. 
In the context of Treaty claims that is absolutely clear. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has been able to come to agreement with the Wanganui iwi after 150 years of their seeking to have an injustice righted and I must compliment not just the Minister but particularly the iwi leadership there who have grappled with their history in a way that can only be described as courageous to come to a conclusion over such longstanding grievance. That is just one water claim—a claim involving rights and interests in water—that the Crown has been dealing with. Others are at different stages of negotiation. Tuwharetoa has been referred to. It is a different sort of claim from Wanganui’s. It is a complex claim that leads to some reasonably tense discussion but is able to be advanced in the context of a relationship of respect. So Treaty claims have been one way in which these rights and interests have been dealt with. 
The second has been the Land and Water Forum. Explicit agreement was made 3 years ago with the Iwi Leaders Group that it would participate in the Land and Water Forum which is a broad-based representation of all sorts of groups that have an interest in how the water resource is used. At the same time there was agreement that we would continue discussion with the Iwi Leaders Group itself to see whether we could find common ground around water rights and interests as we have succeeded in finding common ground on a whole range of other complex issues whether it is the seabed and foreshore the emissions trading scheme Whanau Ora or the desire for greater social progress among Maori. So that is a third forum in which discussion has occurred: the Treaty settlement process the Iwi Leaders Group and the Land and Water Forum in which iwi are represented. 
Then of course there has been the consultation formally since January this year around the partial sales and in the context of that consultation the Maori Council has taken a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. The Government has been aware of the fact that at any time any claimant—in fact they do not even have to be a claimant—can go to the Waitangi Tribunal or can go to the High Court to test whether the Crown has met its Treaty obligations. The Maori Council has been to the tribunal and has indicated it will go to the High Court. 
If I can deal with the claim in the tribunal first I acknowledge the tribunal’s efforts to accommodate the pace of Government policy and Government direction on this issue. The second report of the tribunal makes a number of broad findings that are consistent with the Government view—that is that Maori do have rights and interests in water. The tribunal agrees with the Crown argument that the sale of the shares does not compromise those rights and interests or the Government’s ability to settle claims over those rights and interests. The tribunal actually agrees with the Government on that point. 
What that second report did do though was propose a very narrowly specified option which the tribunal believes is a set of circumstances—I might say a hypothetical set of circumstances—in which the Crown may compromise its ability to settle a claim if a claimant made that particular claim. So it is a hypothetical solution to a claim that has not been made and it is called “shares plus”. In fact the concepts behind that have been consulted on—the concept being that changes could be made to the constitutions of these companies which would give Maori interests some kind of particular or unique influence over the direction of the company. That was discussed in the consultation around section 9 back in January it has been discussed in other forums among officials and on both occasions rejected by the Crown. 
Nevertheless as we look ahead to the float and the prospect of legal action the Government has taken the view that we should dot the i’s and cross the cross the t’s to ensure that the asset sale programme can continue having fully and clearly satisfied our obligations as the Treaty partner. 
The delay allows us to achieve a number of things. One is further consultation on the detail of the proposition that the Watiangi Tribunal put forward. The courts in the past have made it clear that the Waitangi Tribunal recommendations are not binding but they should be considered and this is a distinct proposition so the Crown is going to consider it along with iwi. So we will be setting out over the next few weeks having issued documents that set out the detail of “shares plus” on a series of hui to consult on that issue. 
It will also allow time for the legal action which appears to be almost inevitable and that is time in a more considered way for the Crown and whoever takes legal action against the Crown to have those matters considered by the court. So the Crown’s consultation as a result of this which flows from this decision to delay the float is very narrowly focused on that proposition that has been put up by the Waitangi Tribunal. It is almost more important than the rest of the tribunal’s findings because it essentially accepted that the Crown was recognising rights and interests—we have done that—and has consulted extensively with Maori over the way it is able to proceed with the sales without compromising the ability to settle claims. 
The member made some reference to going to the national hui and I have already made the point that no national body holds a right or interest in water. There are another couple of reasons why we are not trying to make a national settlement prior to a sale. One is because of the uncertainty over what the rights and interests might be at some national level. It is actually the Crown’s view that there are not any. Some Maori hold a different view. It is very hard to make a national settlement which some have been seeking when it is uncertain what those rights are. A second reason is that it is not clear at all that there is a coherent view among Maori interests about what that framework should be. 
Can I finish by acknowledging and complimenting all the Maori interests—or almost all of them—that we have dealt with on the considered and progressive way in which they have dealt with this issue. Some do not support the asset sales. I must say that as time has gone on more and more of them want to participate in buying those shares because they see that as a way of expressing their interests in particular assets. But we have found with some exceptions—very few exceptions which get more media attention than they deserve—that the rest of them have been positive progressive and very testing of the Government’s position but not unreasonable in the same way that the Crown is not unreasonable. 
 This particular issue is just one more in a collection of reasonably complex issues that the Crown and iwi have successfully dealt with over the last 2 or 3 years. This one is on track. We are crossing our i’s and dotting our t’s to make sure that the asset sales can continue because they are important for New Zealand to keep our debt levels down to have those companies better managed and to have more New Zealanders participate in share ownership and have a stake in the economy of our country. Those are all things that Labour is against. It wants more debt less ownership and badly run companies. Actually that is what it wants. However this is on track and we have every reason to believe that the sales process will continue in the first quarter as the Government has scheduled. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on this urgent debate about the Government being forced to delay the sale of Mighty River Power and about the whole Government asset sale programme. We just had a speech from the Minister of Finance where right towards the end of the speech he got towards some of the rationale for why the Government is pursuing this. But I think what has been marked in this whole debate is that the Government has failed to make a coherent argument as to why it is going down this path. I want to go over some of the arguments it has put forward. It has kind of randomly put forward a series of arguments over time to try to explain why it is doing what it is doing. 
The first argument was the fiscal argument. The Government said that it has given away these tax cuts to upper income earners it has created a Budget deficit and somehow it has to try to fill the deficit and that is why it wants to sell these assets. Well the problem with this argument is that aside from the sheer immorality of giving large tax cuts to wealthy New Zealanders and making poor and middle New Zealand pay for it—aside from the immorality of that—in fact the Government’s asset sale programme makes the Government’s deficit worse. According to Treasury in the Budget Policy Statements of 2011 and 2012 the asset sale programme if it goes ahead would make the Government’s deficit worse by about $100 million a year. The reason for that is very simple: the assets make good returns and the cost of interest for the Government is actually much less than the returns on the assets. So if you are taking just a purely fiscal approach you would actually hang on to the assets because they make very good returns to the Government and the Government would be in a much better fiscal position to hold on to the assets. 
The second argument the Government put forward was that these companies need access to capital and that is why they need to be privatised. Of course these companies already have access to capital in the form of borrowing so the only new way they would have access to capital is being able to issue more equity or more shares. The only problem with that argument is that if the Government sells down 49 percent and if the Government is to maintain its 51 percent ownership of these companies then of all of the new shares issued by these companies the Government would have to buy half in order to maintain its position. It is very unlikely that this Government or perhaps future Governments would be willing to purchase half of all the new shares offered by these companies and hence the “access to capital” argument is not a very good argument because it does not really help these companies get access to capital. 
The third argument the Government has put forward is the argument around debt. This is a very strange argument and it is very strange because the Government can currently borrow at 3.5 percent. That is what it is currently borrowing at whereas these assets return somewhere between 8 and 18 percent depending on which numbers you look at on the capital. In fact what the Government is doing is selling assets that make very high rates of return in order to avoid debt that is very cheap. From a purely economic or fiscal point of view it is completely irrational to sell these assets in order to avoid debt that will cost you 3.5 percent when these assets are earning you 8 to 18 percent. That is the third argument which does not make any sense and is kind of irrational. 
The fourth argument is the market argument. The Government says it has to do this privatisation in order somehow to facilitate the electricity market in New Zealand. The problem with that argument is that the electricity market is an oligopoly—there is a small number of players. That will remain so whether it is privatised or not privatised. So that fundamentally does not change anything. In terms of making the market more efficient the Government has taken one step in this regard which is to move generating assets around. It moved generating assets from Meridian Energy to Genesis in order to try to make sure there is more competition in the market. That was possible only because the companies were State-owned enterprises. If the Government were to privatise the companies and they were no longer State-owned enterprises the Government would not have the ability to shift generating assets around in the way it just has purely it says in order to improve the functions of the electricity market. The one tool that it currently has because these companies are State-owned enterprises it would no longer have. So the fourth argument around market efficiency does not make any sense. 
The fifth argument the Government put forward is related to that; it is around prices. It argued that private companies have lower electricity prices than the publicly owned companies. In fact the truth is the opposite. Electricity from the privately owned companies is about 12 percent more expensive than it is from the publicly owned ones. At first the Government denied this research when the Green Party and Grey Power released it but then the Government itself was forced to acknowledge that Treasury had actually presented a paper to the Government that demonstrated that the claims made by Grey Power and the Greens—that the public companies were in fact 12 percent cheaper than the private companies—were true. So the fifth argument around prices does not hold water either. In that case as well the public companies have cheaper electricity than the private ones. That is the fifth argument that we have seen the Government manage to put forward. 
The sixth argument the Government put forward was around capital markets. It said that it would deepen and improve New Zealand’s capital markets. The problem for this argument is that in fact a lot of the shares will be sold overseas and increasingly so in future. In fact the Government it seems—in one of the proposals on the table—wants to actually list these companies on the Australian Stock Exchange in order to attract Australian investors into the companies. What we have seen with the Contact Energy float is that more and more of the ownership goes into overseas ownership. Moreover from the point of view of most investors—small-scale retail investors in New Zealand—what they are looking for is a safe company to invest in. They want safe returns because they have been burnt by the finance companies. So they are looking for a safe return something they can invest in. In fact issuing bonds as these companies currently can is actually a much safer instrument for most small-scale retail investors in New Zealand. When they are looking for somewhere to invest their money they would much prefer to buy a bond issued by a State-owned enterprise than to buy shares in companies on the share market. So in terms of New Zealand’s capital markets and in terms of looking at it from the perspective of small-scale retail investors in New Zealand it does not make any sense to do what the Government is doing. 
The seventh argument the Government has mounted is around the question of mandate. It has said: “Well if there’s no kind of rational reason why you’d want to privatise these assets if you can’t make an economic case for it we have a mandate. We won the election and therefore we can do it.” In fact when you look at the votes cast at the last election the majority of votes cast were cast for parties that opposed privatisation. Even if you include United Future ACT and National together in the camp that supported privatisation they got a minority of the votes at the election. A majority of votes at the election were cast for the parties that opposed privatisation—not just the parties represented in this Parliament but also parties outside of this Parliament which did not get seats in this Parliament because they did not make the threshold. So that is the mandate argument which is the seventh argument that the Government has put up. It says it has got a mandate. In fact it does not have a mandate. When you look at the actual votes cast most New Zealanders voted for parties that opposed the privatisation plan. Moreover of course when you look at the opinion polls probably about seven out of 10 New Zealanders are opposed to the Government’s privatisation plan. So there is no support from most New Zealanders. 
Then perhaps the eighth argument which we heard a bit about from Bill English just before is that it enables more New Zealanders somehow to participate in all of this. That is the kind of vague language that he was using. One can only assume that he means more New Zealanders can buy these shares than currently own them. Of course 100 percent of New Zealanders currently own these companies. If we look at who will be able to afford to buy shares in these companies a very small minority of people will be able to afford to buy shares in these companies. Most New Zealanders will in fact lose their ownership of these companies through the privatisation process because all New Zealanders currently own these companies and what the Government wants to do is hand them over to a very small number. 
So it does not matter which way you look at it. If you look at the fiscal position it does not make any sense to sell them. If you look at the “access to capital” argument it does not make any sense to privatise them to allow them to access capital. If you look at the debt position of course the Government is borrowing much cheaper than the rate of return on the companies so it does not make any sense to sell them to avoid debt. If you look at the market argument it will not in fact help the efficiency of the electricity market. If you look at the prices argument the private electricity companies are in fact more expensive. If you look at the New Zealand capital argument this will add nothing to the ability of New Zealanders to actually invest in this sector. If you look at the mandate argument a majority of people voted for parties against it. If you look at this vague idea of New Zealanders wanting to participate most New Zealanders will not in fact be able to participate because they will not be able to afford it. 
Every one of the so-called arguments that the Government has put up has been shot down. It has no arguments left and all it has left is ideology. It simply believes in privatisation. When you look at the arguments they do not hold water. So what is left? Well we hear it from the ACT Party which understands what is really behind this whole thing. It is an ideology of privatisation even if none of the arguments hold or none of the arguments stand up to close scrutiny. In fact there was always an alternative for these companies. They should be part of New Zealand’s green energy future. These companies should be exporting green technology and renewable energy technology to the world. Some of them are already starting to do it. They have the critical mass in terms of skills experience and capital in fact to do that. That is the alternative future for these companies. Rather than privatise them keep them in New Zealand headquartered here with research and development here. That is a much more prosperous future for our country. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The National Party has again been found out. It has been found out to be inept incompetent incapable and politically impoverished. This is a very very difficult time for the National Party which got itself back into power promising of all things a brighter future. What it forgot to mention of course was that the brighter future was for its mates whether they be domestic or foreign. But for the rest of us this debate today is about National members being found out to be the very thing that they claimed not to be—that is incompetent. To be not what they claimed to be—that is they claimed to be great managers of business and of assets. Why they would make that claim given their track record I would not know but that is what they said they were going to do and it is the reason why so many who should be part of this debate today have decided that they would be—ah I cannot say this can I? They decided to be where they could ignore the subject of the debate. I can say that. They decided to make sure that they could ignore the subject of this debate in the House today. 
The sale of State assets has been a fiasco from beginning to end. On every dimension possible the process has been totally flawed and each time surely around this country there are more and more voices saying: “But why would they do that?”. When all the fiscals all the economics and all the timing—everything—suggested “Don’t do this.” those members kept on saying they were going to do it which begs the question: who is pulling the strings behind the National Party? Forget the backbench over there. We all know that the backbench over there is cannon fodder and it demonstrates that every day. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Top-quality cannon fodder. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: But who is pulling the strings and calling the policy behind the National Party? These assets are valuable and making good returns to all New Zealanders. Forget the man from Epsom who was so proud of his campaign that he was seen pulling down his hoardings. It is the first time in the history of Western democracy that a candidate has been seen not putting his hoardings up but pulling them down weeks before the vote. So let us not hear any more from the man from Epsom because he categorises just what is wrong with a once-proud party which is that so many men and women whose mothers—who I think probably still love them—taught them to have character and decency and integrity have been so beguiled by the chance of one day maybe being a Minister are behaving in this obsequious toady way. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Ah! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The man from Epsom knows that—he said “Ah!”. He recognised that instantly. Already groups of New Zealanders are being set against each other on the basis of racial entitlement. They are being set against each other. Around this country the National Party is setting New Zealander against New Zealander all over New Zealand. You have got Maori versus Maori on this issue because—make no bones about it—the next lot of claims will be: “Well if we own the water then which of us owns the water?”. There comes the next volume of claims before the Maori Land Court all the way on to higher courts. Then you have got Maori versus the rest of New Zealand. Most of the rest of New Zealand is utterly confused as to what is going on here because those members’ great Prime Minister the man who has a bit of trouble with his diction and the Americans cannot understand him said that the water was owned by nobody—that no one owned the water. In the very next breath of course he purported to sell it. 
Then you have got the wealthy versus the rest of New Zealand and you have got the foreigner who will get it according to Treasury within 10 years against the rest of New Zealand as well. Do you remember the foreshore and seabed which happily was resolved by the Government of 2004— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: No it wasn’t. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —which did not have one Maori tribe on the coast Mr Finlayson. Not one coastal tribe from 2005 to 2008 would go public and oppose that legislation. With the greatest of respect Mr Finlayson you know nothing about the coastal tribes. You are flashing along as the great new white hope of the radical Maori but it does not entitle you to understand the subject and as someone whose family has lived on the coast for a thousand years I might know a little bit more about it than you. That is for certain. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The China Sea! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Pardon? Unbelievable! There he was of course acting for Maori before he got the job and then all of a sudden he is the new Maori friend. Look I have seen a procession of men like you Mr Finlayson. One was Doug Graham. He used to weep here and cry every night upon all these settlements. The very man who came from a party that promised to have a meaning to the word “national” that meant all of us. 
And who was it that campaigned on “Kiwi not iwi”? Which party did that? Which party predicated its whole recovery on the basis of “Kiwi not iwi”? And what was the issue that it campaigned on? It said the foreshore and seabed was divisive in terms of the legislation. Mr Finlayson surely remembers that given his claims to high jurisprudential memory. Surely he can remember? It was just a few years ago. Just a few years ago—he can remember that. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes it was—“Kiwi not iwi” all around the country. Did you hear a man from the Wellington legal fraternity Mr Finlayson saying that this was wrong and we cannot possibly say that because the coastal tribes are against it? Uh-uh not a word then—not a mutter not a murmur not a syllable not a sound. Yet hardly was the election over in 2008 round to the back room went the National Party and it did a secret deal with the Maori Party and now they have got a new foreshore and seabed set of legislative rules and already 27 claims. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Great! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Already 27 claims and Mr Finlayson for the National Party said “Great!”. What happened to national unity? What happened to New Zealand against the world? What happened to racial fairness? What happened to us striving to be what we are regardless of our background regardless of our race? Well under the National Party that is just a plethora of promises because today division and separatism is what its policies stand for and at the next election— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Oh rubbish! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no he can shake his head because you see it is one thing to go and skulk around the coffee bars of Wellington; it is something else to get out there amongst the real people. The mass majority of— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The member’s never done that! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes that is all he has done. But out there the mass majority of Maori and the overwhelming majority of the rest of the population are going to find out just how bad that legislation is. Of course this is Mr Finlayson on this issue of separatism who thinks that a new constitution by a specially hand-picked group of people with the Treaty of Waitangi as its cornerstone is a good thing for our country even though the greatest Maori there ever was in this Parliament Sir Apirana Ngata warned against such a thing. Mr Finlayson of course knows better because somehow—I do not know how he got it—he acquired a greater knowledge of both the Maori and the European and everybody else in the law and he thinks that a divisive constitution based on separatist interests is sound. If that is not bad enough— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What’s this got to do with MOM? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It has a lot to do with this because it stands on all fours. Then there is Whanau Ora—social development delivered differently—and now we have water. What used to be something that we thought was a gift from God or if we were atheists a gift from nature is now a gift from whom? Mr Finlayson and the junk bond dealer the guy who does a deal within an hour and moves on if he can—“Mr Spray and Walk Away”. It is a deal between him and Mr Finlayson but it is no longer what belongs to everybody in this country no matter how long they have been here or how recently they have arrived. 
So one of the great characteristics of being a New Zealander is what the National Party is prepared to trade away. Instead of prioritising the things that matter to Maori like housing education a decent health system First World wages and employment in their own country—no no—off it went and did a deal with all the radical Maori fellow travellers. It is in bed with them—and if it thinks that the majority of New Zealanders out there are going to swallow that no they will not. Our job is to go out and ensure that they are not wilfully and blindly ignored by the National Party in the ensuing months. 
It has been a total fiasco and a Cabinet paper warned National about that but I want to know this. Why was the National Party so stupid as to take this issue after the foreshore and seabed from where it was when we all owned it regardless of our background? And now we are going to have people owning it on the basis of race. How can that possibly be where our country wants to go in the 21st century? So if you are out there and you were once a National Party supporter my advice to you now is—I know you are desperately worrying about what your party is doing—do not give up. Do not stop being involved in democracy. Hang on because help is on its way and vote New Zealand First in 2014. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The next four calls are 5-minute calls. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will need only a 5-minute call to deal with that rant. I think Mr Peters has been waiting for years to turn up and give that speech on the foreshore and seabed. After he got tossed out in 2008 he simmered at home as we fixed up the foreshore and seabed legislation after the Labour - New Zealand First stuff-up. We are quite happy to stand and say it was entirely right to give Maori the right of access to justice something that he and “Auntie Helen” took away from them. But at least that was an entertaining speech which is more than I can say for the predictable contribution from “Comrade Norman” who simply recited all the same old arguments against asset sales. Look this debate raises two important questions. The first one is do Maori have rights and interests in water and if so what are they; and secondly does the partial sale of shares in Mighty River Power impact on the Crown’s ability to recognise those interests? So the general philosophical ranting about not liking asset sales is really a thing of the past. That issue was taken to the people in 2011 and the Green Party the Labour Party and New Zealand First lost. Tough luck! 
So we move on to the second question that I have raised this afternoon. The first is of course Maori have rights and interests in water and we have been recognising those over the last 4 years be the river the Waipa the Waikato the Kaituna or the Rangitaiki. We have tried to address legitimate issues in relation to Taniwha Springs. These are the sorts of issues that this Government will continue to address including Ngati Wai and I know that Ngati Wai are very keen to have their Treaty settlement and I am looking forward to dealing with the right honourable member’s brother Wayne Peters as we negotiate a good settlement for Ngati Wai. At some stage there will be a very interesting debate about the effect of legislation since for example section 21 of the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 which says that the sole right to dam any river or stream or divert or take natural water or use natural water is vested in the Crown and there will be a very interesting debate about the effect of section 354 of the Resource Management Act which carries over those provisions and says that nothing in the Resource Management Act affects any right interest or title to water acquired accrued or established by or vested in the Crown. We will have those debates but this Government is keen to do the right thing and to look at legitimate rights and interests in water. 
The second question which is particularly relevant for this afternoon’s debate—although it may have escaped the attention of the previous two speakers—is whether the sale of a minority shareholding in Mighty River Power impacts on the Crown’s ability to address the legitimate rights and interests of Maori in water and we say no. There was a hearing before the Waitangi Tribunal and the Waitangi Tribunal agreed with us in every respect but it introduced the issue of “shares plus” into the equation and this Government believes that it is right and proper to go and have a consultation with affected iwi to determine whether or not what the tribunal has raised could possibly have any merit. It was an argument on “shares plus” that was raised at the eleventh hour by counsel for the Maori Council in the course of the hearing. The tribunal has picked up on it and so we are going out to have a consultation. Over the next 10 or so days I will be meeting with people like Ngati Raukawa Tainui NgatiKorokiKahukura and so on and we will have that discussion because we are a Government that believes that consultation on those issues is right and proper and then in good faith we will make decisions about where we go to from there. 
So this is not a general debate—although I imagine that we will have another new left contribution from the pretender to the throne Mr Cunliffe in a minute or 2—about the merits of asset sales. They are the issues that need to be addressed. It is a very narrow question that is before Parliament this afternoon—raised amongst all that cloud and mist of nonsense by Mr Cosgrove—and it is about whether or not the potential sale of Mighty River Power impacts on the Crown’s ability to address legitimate rights and interests of iwi in water. We will be dealing with that issue in a calm and non-confrontational way—something of a surprise I am sure to Mr Peters—over the next few weeks before we make a decision on the issue. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the public want to hear more of this confused legal babble so I move an extension of time for Mr Finlayson. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot move an extension of time. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Put aside the fact that the sale of State-owned enterprises is the wrong thing to do. Put aside the fact that contrary to the claims of the last speaker Mr Finlayson polls made it clear at the last election that most New Zealanders did not want the assets sold. Put aside the fact that the Crown and the taxpayer will actually lose money and increase the national debt as a result of the sale because the dividends that they earn and the returns that they earn are greater than the cost of capital from the Government financing. Put aside all those facts and what have we learnt today? The Government cannot even do a bad thing well. It could not organise a booze-up in a brewery. It cannot even do a bad thing well. 
We have learnt today from Mr English some very interesting statements. He said the Government has been aware of the Treaty issues around water rights for the whole 4 years it has been in office and that it was clear about its obligations. Why then was there no effective Treaty clause in the original design of the sale and when the Government inserted one why then did the taxpayer pick up 100 percent of the risk for only 50 percent of the return? And if the Government was clear about that over the last 4 years why did nobody go to it and point out that it had Treaty issues before it banked the money in the last two Budgets? Forget for a moment that it did not bank the loss of dividends only the $6 billion - odd it thought it was going to get in cash. Why did someone not say to the Government: “Hang on. You haven’t sorted the Treaty rights issue.”? Mr English told us today that the Government is clear about those obligations. That is not what the Waitangi Tribunal has said. It is not what the Maori Council says and it is not what iwi up and down the country say. It is not even what the Land and Water Forum says. 
What an interesting statement from Mr English in this debate about “shares plus”. He said that the Government consulted on the Treaty and then rejected “shares plus”. Then the Waitangi Tribunal has come out recommending that the Government consult on it—so it still rejects it but it is going to “consult”. In ordinary language that is a sham. That is not real consultation. Real legal consultation is when one listens and is prepared to learn. It is not when one pretends to listen to dot the i’s and cross the t’s which is what Mr English admitted it was doing in the face of “almost inevitable” legal action. No attendance at the national hui: does that sound like genuine consultation? Is the Labour Opposition the only group in Parliament that believes that this is a complete nonsense and is inevitably going to fall foul of the law? 
We can be grateful to Geoff Bertram of Victoria University who has pointed out that if this sale goes ahead the consequence of these water rights issues will be to drive down prices and completely undermine the valuation of Mighty River Power amongst others. The book value bears no relationship to the market value. The only person in the world who thinks the price is going to go up as a result of this complete nonsense is Mr Joyce who says: “Wonderful! We’ll be able to print another glossy brochure and inform New Zealanders how wonderful it is.” Well that is not what Professor Bertram says is going on. He says that the assets are already overvalued because of a particular valuation method. Let me quote him: “If wholesale prices were 10 per cent lower … the discount rate 0.5 per cent lower and operating costs 10 per cent higher … [it] would wipe $1.2 billion off Mighty River’s $5b book value.” That is $1.2 billion—let alone the Treaty rights issues. 
This is a house of cards that is coming down around the Government’s ears. It is the one policy it sunk political capital into because it was going to transform our economy. Well that was a nonsense from the outset. National cannot even do a bad thing well. It could not organise a booze-up in a brewery and now it is up the Waikato River without a paddle. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia oratatou katoa e koreroneimotenei take nui whakaharahara e paana ki tenei kaupapa o te wai. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker and greetings to us all addressing this matter of huge importance and significance which relates to this topic about water 
.] 
On 24 August the Waitangi Tribunal issued  
The Interim Report on the National Freshwater and Geothermal Resources Claim 
 noting: “the matters in this claim are of national importance and at the core of the Maori-Crown partnership sealed in 1840.” We believe that the Government’s announcement last Monday to delay the public offerings of up to 49 percent of Mighty River Power has actually been quite important and pretty crucial in the sense of trying to move towards some sort of way of bringing the parties together. This gives us time to address Maori rights and interests in the water which was the substantive issue and which was confirmed and guaranteed through the Treaty of Waitangi. 
But I wanted to come to the House to specifically address some of the rubbish that came out of the mouth of the first speaker in this debate Clayton Cosgrove who was speculating that the Maori Party would be boycotting the national hui on Thursday. For Mr Cosgrove I want to set the record straight. Firstly where was he when all this discussion was going on? Secondly the Maori Party has actually been playing an integral role in trying to keep the doors of discussion open even as I speak—even as I speak. We played a unique role in creating the opportunity for debate around the mixed-ownership model. Contrary to Mr Cosgrove’s rantings the Maori Party will be at the hui on Thursday represented by our co-leader Dr Pita Sharples. This is something that Mr Cosgrove should know about and failed to explain because it has been well reported in the media over the last week. 
Can I say that our view has always been that issues around water are definitely in the hands of iwi and hapu. There will come a time when we do need to have a national picture. A national framework has been discussed in the past but that sort of discussion is something that needs to take place for iwi. They should have their own time and their own place to have their korero. The hui on Thursday is a natural follow-on from the hui called on 18 July which was called by whom? It was called by the Maori Party and the Minister of Maori Affairs with iwi leaders the Maori Council and claimants. We brought them together in I suppose a unique spirit of collaboration and of fighting for what is right. Naturally the hui as I say in conjunction with iwi leaders and the Maori Council is something that the Waitangi Tribunal in fact recommended should happen. That was a key priority for us—to try to get all the key players into the same room. It is just as important that all Maori interests have their space in the discussion away from politicians. That is the hui that is going to take place at Ngaruawahia towards the end of the week.  
I want to point out that a statement came out from the 18 July hui when we met with the Government and indeed the Prime Minister. The statement read something like this: “The Maori Party and the Government continue to support a process of negotiation between hapu and iwi and the Government on their rights and interests in water and the Government has undertaken not to legislate over those rights and interests.” That is a crucial statement because it set the scene for ensuring that we never ever have another foreshore and seabed debacle.  
I want to be clear that the Maori Party has been against the sale of the assets from the get-go and we continue to maintain that position. However we want to make sure that iwi the claimants and hapu have an opportunity to have their day and discussion with the Crown. Why? Because they have their interests at heart and they need to put their issues on the table. It is really disappointing that Mr Cosgrove chose to go down that line simply because we should set aside that sort of politics and really talk about the substantive issues: water ownership for the benefit of future generations issues of governance issues of management issues of allocation and issues of proprietary interest all guided by kaupapa of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. Those are things that we talk about all of the time. This is an opportunity for us to engage in work streams such as the development of the national framework out of the Waitangi Tribunal; the settlement with iwi leaders the Maori Council and other claimants; and a timetable for ongoing discussions. The recommendation of the Land and Water Forum for a national land and water commission means there is heaps and heaps to do.  
So we believe that the Crown needs to demonstrate active commitment to exploring the nature of Maori proprietary rights and interests in water and the announcement of a commitment to developing a national framework would certainly help prepare the groundwork for the second stage of that inquiry. There is a lot to do. We see a commitment to continue direct localised negotiations as critical in maintaining good faith with hapu. The hui that is coming up at Ngaruawahia is a good way to go. However at the first instance let us allow the people to have their say. Let us take a bit of time about it to get it right. Kia ora tatou. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I want to commend the last speaker in this debate Te Ururoa Flavell for being reasonable and grounded and for coming here to offer something to the House that we have seen from only this side of the House so far. There was no rhetoric there was no screaming and yelling and there was no pontificating for members of the public. Mr Flavell is a member who takes this issue seriously and represents his constituency in this extremely well. 
The issue is about the mixed-ownership model and what is right and fair. It is about keeping debt levels down getting the Government’s books back to surplus in a reasonable time being careful about spending Government funds and the money we are entrusted with by the taxpayer focusing on growth and investment in New Zealand boosting productivity and investing in the New Zealand economy—all things that members of the Opposition hate hearing from this side of the House. But when I am out and about in the country and in my electorate those are things that New Zealanders are focused on and that are important to them. 
In this we have made an announcement. The Government and the Prime Minister have been extremely clear. The Government’s position on water rights has been consistent all the way through. In common law nobody owns water. Actually I go on to say that in common law nobody owns the wind and nobody owns the sunshine either. But as far as this debate is concerned nobody in New Zealand owns water. I accept that there will be many groups including iwi who have interests in water. These are currently being addressed and have been addressed through a number of processes including through the Treaty settlement process. Our preferred model is developing control and management of water rights reflecting the relevant interests that iwi have. 
I want to be clear on this. This is not an issue between the Government versus Maori Maori versus the Government or Maori versus Maori. This is an issue that is important for New Zealand and has been going on for some time. I want to recognise that in Maoridom there are a number of views and voices on this issue and it is important as the last speaker said that these are considered and given time. When we were in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we dealt with this legislation Tuwharetoa came before us. They did raise issues as previous speakers from the Labour Party have said around their concern over water. But subsequently they wrote to the committee before we adopted the legislation and sent it back to this House to say that there had been a process under way with Government they were happy with the process they were committed to continuing with that and they believed it would offer them the redress that they sought. 
For the record this Government has an outstanding position when it comes to settling previous grievances under the Treaty. In fact the Minister Mr Finlayson has put a great amount of effort into this. It has been achieved issue by issue iwi by iwi and settlement by settlement. This is very much an approach that has been under way for some time when it comes to water and an approach that will continue when it comes to settlements around water—iwi by iwi not ownership but around interests. 
I want to ask members of the House to cast their minds back a year or two ago to my electorate and the edge of the electorate of the hard-working MP for Taupo Louise Upston and Mr Flavell in the Waiariki electorate. We came together with a great diverse range of people throughout New Zealand from local iwi and a settlement was made—it was signed in agreement with the Crown—over the Waikato River; many would say the mighty Waikato River. This is the largest river in New Zealand and from the edge of Lake Taupo flowing down to at least Hamilton issues around that river have been settled. There is agreement between local iwi and the Crown over management of this and the way forward. It was not about ownership; it was about the way forward. 
I just wanted to say that in our approach to this as a Government it has very much been about embarking on an important process with Maori to recognise some of their claims. We have implemented a Fresh Start for Fresh Water programme and established a Land and Water Forum a collection of over 60 parties including iwi to work through this process. So we have a record of recognising grievances looking where different groups in society have a claim where they have an interest and finding the very best way forward to deal with this on a group by group iwi by iwi basis. That is very much what we have said we will continue to do through this process.  
The final point I want to make is to ask what the Labour Party’s position is on the Maori Council’s claims. What does Labour really do to support it? We have Mr Shearer on record saying that he supports the Prime Minister’s position all of a sudden. He said that nobody owns water. But what we heard in conclusion was Mr Finlayson say that there was a settlement with iwi over Taniwha Springs. Taniwha Springs was a settlement over water something the Opposition is saying is impossible. We know Mr Shearer believes in that settlement. We heard on TV last night that he believes in taniwha so he believes in the settlement of Taniwha Springs. But the Government is being responsible. We are taking the issues into account. We will continue on this process for the good of New Zealanders. Thank you.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in this urgent debate which has been granted by the Speaker on the basis of there being an important decision forced upon the Government essentially and that is to delay its asset sale programme. I want to reflect on some of the justifications that have been given by the Government in respect of its underlying programme for asset sales and to try to show to the House and those who are listening how bereft of vision this Government is for the development of our economy in a way that works for working New Zealanders for those who need to earn a living in our country for those who in increasing numbers sadly at the moment because of the lack of hope in our own country are departing for greener pastures in Australia—or at least more profitable means of sustaining themselves in Australia. 
The Government at the last election said that it had to proceed with the asset sales because of debt problems yet it is now saying that even though it cannot proceed at the same pace with asset sales that does not pose a problem in respect of its management of debt. I find those two propositions inconsistent. I think National was always wrong in saying that the sales were about Government debt because of course the New Zealand Government books are some of the best in the developed world with very low levels of Government debt even after 4 years of deficits under this Government. The prior Labour Government of course is partly responsible for that because we ran Budget surpluses for 9 years in a row reducing Government debt from 48 percent of GDP—I see Tony Ryall laughs but it is true. We reduced gross Government debt from 48 percent of GDP to 18 percent of GDP and net Government debt to zero—or it was zero until they changed the method of measurement and then revised it to slightly above zero. But anyway net Government debt was close to zero and gross Government debt was down to 18 percent. So the country does not have a Government debt problem. 
We do have a private debt problem. It is notable that the most central or most important part of the Government’s vision for this 3-year term does nothing to address the problems of New Zealand’s private debt. Indeed there are a lot of other steps that the Government could take to improve the economic outcomes for New Zealand but one of them is not asset sales. 
By the time of the election we had Opposition parties saying that asset sales made the Government deficit worse but the Government denied that at the time of the election. It is a matter of record now and I think it is somewhat shameful record. We are meant to have transparency of accounting processes in New Zealand in advance of an election where the Government is forced to opened its books so that the public can see what the true state of affairs is. On the opening of the books in the pre-election period on this occasion Treasury allowed the Government to book the proceeds of asset sales without accounting for the loss of revenue that would accrue to the Government as a consequence of the sale of partial shares in some of these power companies and other State-owned assets. 
Andrew Little 
: Unbelievable. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As Andrew Little just said it was unbelievable. It really was unbelievable that Treasury was willing to sign off as fair accounts that showed capital coming in from the sale of State-owned assets so as to reduce future debt and future interest costs without showing the loss of revenue to the Crown that followed. It was absolutely abysmal practice and something that both Treasury and the Minister of Finance who signed off that pre-election fiscal update as well should be ashamed of because it really is a dropping of standards of public accountability. They are meant to be better in New Zealand. 
After the election by the time of this first Budget in this 3-year term of the Government the Government finally came clean through the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update which was released on 24 May this year. In it for the first time the Government acknowledged that its finances its deficit—its Government deficit; the operating balance before gains and losses—had gone backwards as a consequence of asset sales not forwards because obviously the price at which the private sector is willing to acquire assets the rate of return that it expects that is implicit in the price it is willing to pay the rate of return that it expects is more than the Government’s cost of funds. Treasury explicitly says that in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update. It says that the proceeds of sale from the sale of interests in these State-owned enterprises is not enough to cover the forgone profits which are a combination of retained earnings and dividends. The forgone share of profits is more than the Government saves on interest. So it did not need to do it from a Government debt perspective. It persists because of no other reason than ideology. 
The other reasons that Government members push in favour of asset sales are similarly flimsy. They say that the sales will increase people’s investment options in a way that will improve capital markets. Well at one level that is true. It is true that there will be another investment that is available to people in the private sector either privately or through their investment funds like KiwiSaver funds and the like. But really is our private sector so inept that the only way that we can improve capital markets is to sell through public capital markets what the Government has created? Is that really the vision that this Government has for the development of the New Zealand economy—that the only way we can improve the New Zealand economy is to sell what the Government has already created? What a backward uninspirational unaspirational vision that is of private enterprise in New Zealand. 
I am a believer in general in the efficiency of capitalism. I want most businesses to be run by the private sector rather than by the Government. But I certainly think that with infrastructure assets especially those that have monopoly characteristics—as we have in the electricity industry where we do not have a perfectly competitive market—it is in the interest of New Zealanders that those assets remain in State ownership. If there are monopoly rents being extracted—and I think there are in a lot of these infrastructure industries—then it is better that that monopoly rent effectively gets recycled through the tax system for the benefit of everyone rather than existing for the concentrated benefit of what are essentially the most wealthy people in society who end up owning a disproportionately far greater share of those assets over time in addition to overseas interests. The idea that we improve capital markets by allowing them to trade what the Government has already created is wrong and it is especially wrong when it comes to industries where there are monopoly rents extracted. 
If we think that this is not the case here let us reflect on the fact that New Zealand’s electricity prices have increased at far greater than the rate of inflation for many many years now including under both the Labour Government and this National Government. Let us reflect also on the analysis that was done by Molly Melhuish of Grey Power. I heard the Greens claiming credit for that. Actually it was Molly Melhuish of Grey Power who did that analysis and it has been made public by Opposition parties other than the Greens. The Greens have been singing that same tune as well. She showed that the average amount that is charged by State-owned enterprises to a domestic consumer is $265 per annum cheaper. That gap will narrow through privatisation of these shares. There is nothing clearer. If you increase the private sector disciplines it will not relate to just cost minimisation; it will also flow on to price maximisation and that gap will narrow. 
If this Government was serious about economic growth it would be doing things like introducing a capital gains tax so that people invest on the basis of the profitability of the investment rather than a tax bias. It would be improving the depth of the capital markets so that there is more money for businesses to expand and grow jobs and through universal KiwiSaver. It would be doing things to help control the rapid increase in our exchange rate rather than having the Reserve Bank focus only on inflation. It would be taking meaningful steps to improve the outcomes of our economy rather than having as the central part of its vision a policy such as this which is failing. Reflect on the fact that at the last election the most important part of the National Government’s vision for this 3-year term was asset sales and they are now held up. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 This is a snap debate about the Government’s announcement that we are deferring the float of Mighty River Power until March till June next year—market conditions. I thought the point that I would make in this debate is to address not only where the mixed-ownership model sits in terms of the Government’s wider economic plan but also the specific issues of why the Government took the decision that it did last Monday in respect of the need to consult further with Maori on a very small and specific issue raised by the Waitangi Tribunal. 
The mixed-ownership model the Government share float should be seen within the Government’s wider plan to control debt and support the New Zealand economy. This Government has been taking action across a whole range of areas in order to support the economy. If there is one thing this Government is on about it is securing and building our economy for the future. So we have been making changes across a whole range of areas: better public services to get better value for taxpayers making sure taxes are more competitive for New Zealanders such that the vast majority of New Zealanders now pay only 17.5c in every dollar in taxation changes we are making to the Resource Management Act in terms of business compliance and changes we have made to ensure that interest rates are low and that the cost of living and inflation are kept low. These are all part of a wider plan to build and secure the New Zealand economy so that people have confidence to invest in the future. It is really that investment that will underpin the growth and the improved prosperity that New Zealanders want. 
Fundamental to making sure we have low interest rates have low inflation and have an economy with low compliance and lower regulation is to make sure that we have our debt under control. What we know is that over the next 2 to 3 years debt is going to rise from about $54 billion now to $72 billion. Keeping it under 30 percent of GDP is important. That is the reason why the Government proposed the sale of a minority stake in these five State-owned enterprises in order to free up cash which can then be used to invest in important social infrastructure that helps our economy continue to grow. Those minority stakes are about 3 percent of New Zealand’s assets so it is part of—it is not the be-all and end-all—a wider plan the Government has to control debt and to support the growth of the New Zealand economy. 
The mixed-ownership model programme has been going through a stage by stage approach since the Government started this after the last election. We went through a reasonably comprehensive consultation with Maori in February involving 10 hui up and down the country attended by a number of Ministers to talk to Maori about their rights and interests in water and in this process and make sure that we listened to those. We listened to those comments such that the Government saw section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act in respect of the Treaty principles being brought into the new legislation. That would apply to the mixed-ownership model Crown shareholding and the Crown’s responsibilities—not to the private shareholders but to the Crown’s responsibilities. 
We know that the New Zealand Maori Council took a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. An indicative interim report was provided. The Government thought that that did not provide sufficient clarity on the concerns that were being raised by the Waitangi Tribunal such that another report came. That report made very interesting reading because it indicated that the positions that the Government had taken before the tribunal were pretty clear and pretty much accepted by the tribunal. But there was this one small area “shares plus” that was new and the tribunal has put it out there. The Government’s very strong view—and we took legal advice on this—is that we decided that it was important that on that one issue of “shares plus” we needed to consult with Maori in order to explain to them the reasons that the Government was adopting the position that it was adopting. 
Clearly there are some significant concerns around “shares plus”. I do not think the vast majority of New Zealanders believe that any one particular class of shareholder should have veto rights responsibilities or powers different from the others so that is clearly why the Government has a number of concerns around this area. 
We have made it clear to Maori in our correspondence that there are five areas where we think “shares plus” is not a viable option. The first is that we do not think that it is in the national interest for any group within the shareholder base to have the specific rights that were detailed in the tribunal’s “shares plus” arrangement. Secondly we actually think that all the forms of redress that the Waitangi Tribunal was proposing could if a Government wanted be addressed in other ways. Thirdly the relationship of “shares plus” to decision making and strategic decisions would not work in practice. Fourthly the company would be less attractive to investors because of this inequity of power amongst shareholders. And following careful consultation with Maori early this year a very careful and deliberate decision was made to ensure that the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty rested with the Crown and not with the companies as I said earlier on. 
So having looked at all of that and taken the advice that we have we have made this decision that it is in the interests and it is a prudent step to put the Mighty River Power float into the next window that was available and to spend the next 4 to 5 weeks consulting in order to show Maori that we have addressed this issue that was raised by the Waitangi Tribunal and that we think there are legitimate arguments for the position that we have made and also to give an opportunity for Maori to raise any issues that they themselves want to raise in response to the Government’s position. 
What we know is that there are about two windows each year when floats of this size could take place. One is in that March-April-May window and there is another in the September-October-November window. Clearly we have missed that September window and that is the reason why we have now made it clear in the Prime Minister’s statement that we will be having the first float in the first window of next year. Then there will be another public float and we will be asking the public to participate with the Government in that in the second half of 2013. 
This makes sense for New Zealanders. There are opportunities for New Zealanders in taking a stake with the Government in these companies. We think it is an opportunity for New Zealanders to consider saving in a different way. There are opportunities for KiwiSaver and other Crown financial institutions to be involved and indeed for Maori themselves to participate as shareholders. We think it also gives New Zealanders an opportunity to invest in a large local company. What we know is there are over $100 billion of savings on term deposit and many of those New Zealanders may in fact see that there are opportunities elsewhere with this. 
So the Government is pretty clear on the reason why we have taken this action. I think it is very prudent. It is very sensible. It is in the interests of taxpayers that we add as much certainty as possible in respect of the float. The Ministers are about to begin a series of consultations around the countryside. That material is available on the Treasury website in terms of our correspondence to the various iwi and I think it is also an opportunity for New Zealanders to reflect upon the fact that the Government share floats are part of a wider plan that the Government has in order to control debt and invest in the New Zealand economy. Every night on our television screens we see what happens when Governments do not control their debt and our country does not want to be in the position of some of these European and other countries. That is the reason why we want to continue to get ourselves in a position to control debt and invest in the future and that is certainly how the mixed-ownership model should be seen as part of that wider economic plan. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to nominate that the bill be referred to the Regulations Review Committee and move that the committee report to the House by 5 November 2012. 
This is a routine and technical bill—it comes before the House every year—but it is a very important bill all the same. The bill confirms or validates items of subordinate legislation that must be confirmed or validated by Parliament. This is a requirement of the empowering Acts under which the various orders or regulations have been made. The role played by the House in confirming or validating various items and in particular the scrutiny provided by the Regulations Review Committee provides an additional layer of protection in the regulation-making process. Should the House decide to withhold its approval for a particular regulation or order contained in the bill that regulation or order will lapse. That said this bill traditionally receives cross-party support. 
All of the orders and regulations in this year’s bill are certainly of a technical character. There are 16 orders or regulations listed in the bill that are to be confirmed or validated and they have been made under seven different Acts. I shall provide for the benefit of the House a brief summary of each instrument confirmed or validated by the bill. 
One set of regulations made under the Animal Products Act 1999 is confirmed. These regulations clarify that all fees charges and levies under the principal regulations are GST-inclusive. They also replace part of a schedule providing for unit charges hourly rates and call-out charges payable in respect of the export of live animals and animal germ plasm. I have not come across germ plasm before I do not think. Seven commodity levies are confirmed. They are a levy on navel oranges sold or exported as fresh fruit—as opposed to air force oranges which is a different category altogether—a levy on kiwifruit exported to countries other than Australia a levy on nashi pears exported or sold fresh in New Zealand a levy on all arable crops except maize grain and maize or cereal silage grown in New Zealand a levy on cereal silage and maize seed and a levy on asparagus. 
Five orders are made under the Customs and Excise Act 1996. They are confirmed. Rates of excise and excise-equivalent duties imposed on tobacco products and alcoholic beverages are adjusted annually to reflect the movement in the Consumers Price Index. This bill confirms the duties that were imposed on 1 January 2012 and 1 July 2012 respectively. A 2c per litre increase in the excise and excise-equivalent duties on motor spirits imposed on 1 August 2012 is confirmed. Two orders extending for another 3 years the prohibition on export and import of Antarctic toothfish and Patagonian toothfish are confirmed. 
An order made pursuant to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964 is confirmed. This order increases most benefits pensions and allowances to reflect the 1.77 percent increase in the New Zealand Consumers Price Index from the December 2010 quarter to the December 2011 quarter. It also increases the amounts of funeral grants payable under the Social Securities Act in respect of people who die—fittingly—on or after 1 April 2012. The order also makes some further supplementary increases to the level of superannuation. 
One set of regulations made under the Road User Charges Act 2012 is confirmed and these regulations specify the rates of charges for distance licences for road-user charges vehicles and in respect of additional weight carried by combination vehicles operating under the additional licence. Finally the bill confirms an order increasing war pensions lump-sum payments and allowances in line with an increase in the Consumers Price Index. The order also makes further supplementary increases to the level of veterans’ pensions. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 This is an annual ritual the introduction and first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. Unfortunately it has become a ritual. The Minister for Courts quite correctly said that these enactments dealt with in the bill are traditionally a matter for cross-party support and certainly that is not changing today. But what I want to do is try to make some observations about the utility of the process. 
I think in the spirit of the House trying to do its job better there are some ways that we could explore in order to use the time of members more efficiently in respect of this sort of exercise. I was encouraged by the Minister’s motion of referral because I note that it proposes a report-back date of Guy Fawkes Day 5 November. It might well be that that ought to inspire us to rethink the way in which this legislation is dealt with on an annual basis by the Parliament. 
I want members and those listening to have a very clear picture of what will happen from here. This legislation if it passes its first reading will be referred to the Regulations Review Committee. The Minister made a reference to the valuable scrutiny that the committee will perform and that is kind of him. Unfortunately this is what the Regulations Review Committee will do: it will write to each Minister and department responsible for one of the orders dealt with by the legislation and the letter that the committee writes to the Minister and to his or her department will ask whether or not there is an ongoing need for the particular order that is being validated or validated and confirmed. The Minister or his or her department will invariably write back and say to the committee that yes there is an ongoing need for another year or whatever the term for the confirmation or confirmation and validation is. The Regulations Review Committee having no way to test that response will accept the advice that comes back and it will report to the House that the enactments referred to in this bill ought to be confirmed or validated and confirmed as the case may be. 
That is the extent of the scrutiny that will come from the Regulations Review Committee and I can tell the House that as the chair of the committee in this term and the last term. With the deputy chair of the committee from the last Parliament present in the House he will remember that that was exactly what was done last time. 
The problem that we have with this system is that these Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) bills have been enacted by this Parliament for many many decades. They date back to an earlier era when there just was not the sort of scrutiny that we have now with our committee system. The fact is that the Committee stage in the House is recorded in  
Hansard 
 so that people can actually see the detailed level of scrutiny that is performed in respect of legislation. The bills date back to an earlier time when the thinking around subordinate legislation was very different from the way that that thinking occurs now. All we are doing by dealing with an annual bill like this is trying to preserve the form of the principle that all expenditure and all revenue raising by the Crown ought to be authorised by Parliament by the legislature. That is all this exercise is designed to achieve: to preserve the principle and the form of that notion. But as I have said it is simply a ritualistic exercise. 
Much work has been done on what it costs to run this House per minute. There are various exercises that indicate the expense that the taxpayers are put to as this House operates. There are actually more important and more significant things that we could be doing than dealing with this sort of annual exercise every year and this is precisely the speech that I gave last year when we dealt with this sort of legislation. It cannot be beyond the expertise of the Standing Orders Committee and the expert advice that it receives from the Clerk to be able to find a better way to deal with this sort of exercise. 
I would say that the beginning point ought to be that we should no longer legislate annually to continue with this type of exercise and we should no longer have primary legislation that requires ongoing confirmation or confirmation and validation because it is an outdated exercise. There are easier ways to do it. We could just deal with each of these matters in primary legislation or we could simply delegate a particular power to a Minister to deal with by way of Order in Council and have it scrutinised by the Regulations Review Committee in the ordinary course which is what generally happens in respect of regulations and new regulation-making powers every year anyway. 
We do not need to spend the time of the House every year in this way. Given the report-back date of Guy Fawkes Day I am hoping that the Regulations Review Committee will agree to report to the House not only in terms of the enactments dealt with in the bill but also to ask that we actually find a better way to use the House’s time rather than have an annual Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill which as I have said pre-dates the modern scrutiny methods that are now at our disposal and is not by any measure an efficient use of the time of the House. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 You may have noticed my nimble move across the House then to rise and take a call on this Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Nearly missed it. 
MIKE SABIN 
: Yes indeed. Firstly as a member of the Regulations Review Committee can I acknowledge the chairmanship of Mr Chauvel and also acknowledge the points that he raised. I must admit that this committee for me thus far as a new member of Parliament has been very much a learning curve. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Straighten your tie up. It’s tucked out to the side. 
MIKE SABIN 
: Oh it is too. Thank you Mr Mallard. That was because I moved with such speed across the House. Obviously it was blown under my jacket. In all seriousness the Regulations Review Committee is a committee that deals with very technical issues and the chairmanship of Mr Chauvel and his knowledge in this space is certainly very helpful for me personally as a member. So I do take heed of the comments that he has raised and the points that he has made to the House today in terms of the use of parliamentary time. I have heard figures of anything from $500 a minute to $6000 a minute in terms of the cost of running Parliament. I am not sure whether that depends on the quality of the speaker at any given time but I would suggest I am probably somewhere closer to the $500 mark in terms of this particular subject. 
The bill itself is a non-contentious bill as pointed out by the previous speakers and it gives effect to various orders and regulations and ensures that they are validated so that the business of this House and the orders that this bill deals with can proceed. Traditionally it receives broad support across the House on the basis that these orders and regulations tend to be routine and very technical in nature. I think that is certainly the case as acknowledged. If the House were not to validate these orders and regulations or confirm any items of delegated legislation then they would simply lapse and that would obviously be an unacceptable situation. 
The previous National speaker the Hon Chester Borrows stole my thunder to some extent when he alluded to all of the matters that this bill will be dealing with and I can simply add to that by saying that obviously in terms of Consumers Price Index excises and so forth the mechanics of this bill really deal in a substantive way with the changes that must occur with these things on an annual basis. 
I will conclude by saying that this is fundamentally a mechanism and an uncontentious means by which this House can deal with routine parliamentary operations and give effect to these orders and regulations. I would also like to acknowledge the comments that were made by Mr Chauvel as I said and I look forward to this discussion being continued so I can actually get my head around it a little further as to how a more pragmatic system may in fact operate. I am certainly open to discussing that. I have no problem with commending this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I too rise to support the referral of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill to the Regulations Review Committee. As a member of that committee I certainly look forward to the opportunity to address I think the concern that Charles Chauvel has raised. When I first looked at this particular bill and saw my name on the speaking list I thought I probably was not going to find a lot that I could say about it. But I am inspired by my colleague Charles Chauvel—as always—because I believe that what he has managed to do is to actually ask the House to confront a serious issue around a bill that might not look on the surface of it to raise such a matter. 
He talked about what was going to happen to this bill when it went to the select committee. It will go to the Regulations Review Committee and the committee will resolve to write to all of the Ministers and their departments in relation to each of these particular validation provisions. They relate to the Animal Products Act the Commodity Levies Act the Customs and Excise Act the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act the Road User Charges Act and the War Pensions Act. So there are Ministers in this House who will receive a letter I think from us asking for confirmation that in fact there is an ongoing need for the order or the levy so that we are able to report to the House that the criteria for confirmation and validation have been met. But I think Charles Chauvel raised a really good point: what is the point of that? We already do that when regulations are referred to the select committee. We do not actually need to have a confirmation and validation process in order for that to occur. So whenever regulations are passed they are referred to the select committee. If we have concerns about any particular elements of them we scrutinise them and we do write to the departments. 
Maybe the question that we want to consider at the select committee—as I say it never occurred to me that this would be an issue but having listened to the inspiring contribution of my colleague I am just wondering whether perhaps we should write to ask not just for confirmation that the confirmation and validation requirements are met but whether each one individually of itself should be in legislation that requires this process to occur. If in fact it does not require this form of debate and this form of scrutiny then perhaps something that we could add by way of value in our report back to the House is a proposal that we address this when we debate the primary legislation. 
If we look at the dates of the primary legislation of course they change in each of these validation bills. For example we have got the War Pensions Act which dates back to 1954 and the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act is 2001 but the Social Security Act of course is 1964. Then we have got some in the 1990s but then we have the Road User Charges Act 2012. So there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason as to which regulation-making powers are subject to legislation that requires confirmation and validation in respect of the stated time of lapsing unless they are either confirmed or confirmed and validated by Act of Parliament. 
I actually honestly think that it is time for Parliament to have this debate as to whether this very process is one that is perhaps past its use-by date. As a result of this legislation we could ask ourselves whether we need a confirmation and validation process or whether it should be reserved for the very exceptional circumstances. These do not seem exceptional to me: commodity levies around navel oranges kiwifruit nashi pears arable crops cereal silage maize and asparagus. Apart from some of them describing my favourite fruit and vegetables which would be particularly asparagus and nashi pears— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Cereal silage! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Cereal silage is not something that really has found its way into my diet. It was really just those two asparagus and nashi pears. But the point that I am making is why them and why not other commodity levies that are applicable or are they all the levies that are applicable under the Commodity Levies Act 1990? 
The other thing that I find extraordinary about this legislation is the same with every other one of these bills that has preceded it. The first job after setting out the purpose of the Act which never changes is to have a clause headed “Validations to prevent expiry do not cure invalidity etc”. That is to ensure that if there is something else wrong with the regulation this bill is not a cure-all; it deals with just the question of expiry. Then there is the clause saying the Act binds the Crown. But then we have the repeal clause and this is the same in every single one of these particular bills. Clause 6 of every single one of them is the repeal clause: “The Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act 2011 (2011 No 96) is repealed.” But the 2011 legislation would have repealed the 2010 one and the 2010 one would have repealed the 2009 one and the 2009 one would have repealed the 2008 one. I think you get the drift. So although the technical niceties I guess of the legislative framework would appeal to somebody who does not want redundant legislation sitting on the book which is something that I have been a champion for for many many years. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I don’t like redundancy. I don’t like redundancy. This is supporting redundancy. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Regulatory redundancy Mr Mallard. Perhaps regulatory redundancy is the kind of phraseology for what I actually do appreciate as a champion for quality regulation and a very good legislative framework. So even though it might meet that test one does have to come back to the essential question which is whether we could cure the real problem which is to address it up front when the legislation is passed. I do not recall any of the debates that we have had on a Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill actually going into the detail of any of the particular orders that are being validated. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I can remember. I can remember. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well Trevor Mallard is obviously going to take a call on this and speak for some considerable time on his memory of other examples which of course will find their connection to this particular one through the repeal clause because the repeal clause will have had exactly the same effect as the repeal clause does in this particular one. 
I did suggest to the whips that it probably was going to be relatively challenging to spend the entire 10 minutes that one has to speak on a bill on an important debate on any matter in the House. I did not think that there was going to be an opportunity really for me to explore some of these issues but the fact is that I have managed to do so entirely within the Standing Orders. That is a result of the absolute inspiration that Charles Chauvel does represent in bringing these important matters to the House. I do not know that others can see why these things are so important but I do think that they are. We are often criticised as a Parliament for not taking the opportunity to address some of the—I do not know—historical ways that we have dealt with things and not having a modern way in order to address these issues. This process may have been designed to protect against orders being passed that have not been subject to a debate in Parliament. There may be rhyme or reason that applies to that historically. But I seriously do not think any of these particular provisions have been reviewed and I hope that our select committee the Regulations Review Committee can in fact raise that with the individual departments when we write to them. 
I do support this bill and look forward to it coming to the select committee. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. I rise to take a very very short call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill because I would really like to acknowledge the contributions made by Mr Chauvel and the Hon Lianne Dalziel and even Mike Sabin who all rightly pointed out that there are some real issues around the process and whether or not it is really the best use of taxpayers’ money that Parliament spend a considerable amount of time debating what are just technical amendments. 
As the Green Party has looked in depth at the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill and found nothing particularly controversial about it we are happy to support its referral to the Regulations Review Committee. We would be happy to see an improved process by which the House does not need to debate every single time there needs to be a CPI increase in various things whether that is the duties on alcohol or tobacco or whether it is New Zealand superannuation payments. I do think it would be a much better use of our time to talk about some of the substantive policy issues that unfortunately do not come before this House for scrutiny—like for example the decision to spend billions of dollars on uneconomic motorways or the funding freeze on Radio New Zealand whose budget has not been updated to take into account increases to the CPI and is thus actually effectively a cut to something that is a fundamental and substantive issue that is important to New Zealanders. 
I think that I do not need to restate all the excellent points already raised by the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel so I will not take up the time of the House any further. I am looking forward to the debates on other legislation that is coming up today. Thank you. We commend this bill to the House. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 You can tell from the discussion in this House the extraordinarily I guess controversial and competent discussions we have in the Regulations Review Committee from time to time under our esteemed leader who gets through on a bad day in 15 minutes. None the less it is a— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Shh! Shh! Don’t tell the whips that. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: It takes quite a lot longer than that to get through the real business of the House though. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Are you mad? Don’t tell the whips. 
IAN McKELVIE 
: No no quite clearly the Opposition does not understand the intelligence of our whips for a start. 
 It is a great pleasure for me to take a call on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill at the first reading. The legislation may seem a little spurious to some but it is one of those tools this Parliament uses to ensure that democracy proceeds in New Zealand in a smooth and proper manner. 
I want to take a little bit of time—unlike I guess the members of the Opposition—to talk about the reason for these levies and charges that are imposed here and to talk about the relevance of one or two of them particularly under the Animal Products Act which looks at charging for inspection around hourly rates and vet inspections of animal exports. It particularly relates in this case to our equine industry. The equine industry in New Zealand is about a $160 million export industry. Every one of these 3500-odd horses that leave the country is inspected under this very piece of legislation so I think it is very relevant to some parts of our industry. When you look at things like navel oranges or kiwifruit navel oranges particularly in respect of Gisborne are a very important export. The Bay of Plenty of course has its kiwifruit. Both of these provide levies back to their parent bodies which help to develop further the agricultural industry in New Zealand. 
Of course we get on to the Foundation for Arable Research which deals with almost all of the seed industry in New Zealand in one form or another. I say for the benefit of Lianne Dalziel that she might not have eaten maize silage but maize silage really is the ruminant variety of muesli and often they add a little bit of cream or whatever to it. It is certainly a very valuable part of what we do in New Zealand agriculture. 
The other thing that particularly appealed to me was that this piece of legislation deals with pensions and I am just hoping that they will last a little longer. I was intrigued to see that it proposes a 1.77 percent increase to pensions and I am figuring that in 5 years’ time when I get to that stage it will have gone up by about another 9 percent which I am quite looking forward to. So for me this is a very relevant piece of legislation. 
I am not qualified to enter the debate as to whether or not we should be discussing this in the House or whether there are much better ways to do it. I suspect there are much better ways of dealing with this stuff but none the less some of the bits and pieces that are picked up in this legislation are very important not only from a revenue perspective for the Government but from a revenue perspective for all of those organisations that collect levies and fees to enable them to operate to carry out their research and to further develop our agricultural industry. So I have no problem commending this piece of legislation to the House and I look forward to the intense discussion we will have with the Regulations Review Committee on this issue. I commend this to the House and wish it well as it goes through. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First also supports this year’s Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. Amongst other things as we know the bill would validate this year’s New Zealand superannuation rate order which would increase the rate of New Zealand superannuation as set out in Part 2 by approximately 2 percent overall. For people living entirely on New Zealand superannuation this will even at almost 2 percent be very welcome. But I think it is hardly enough really for a reasonable retirement income these days when you take into account rates of increase in power the quite significant increases in local authority rates that we have seen in recent times significant increases in insurance for reasons that will be fairly obvious and many other basic living expenses. It seems to me highly unlikely that an increase of almost 2 percent would realistically cover all of that and a lot more. 
In fact over many years successive Governments have whittled away the New Zealand superannuation entitlement one way or another. As we know Labour wants to increase the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. The Government has not really shown its hand about what it plans for New Zealand superannuation in the future and as a result there is much speculation about what will happen to New Zealand superannuation in future years. One way or the other I think baby boomers are going to get a bad deal whichever of the major parties succeeds in 2014 and beyond. I consider that to be something of a breach of a social contract. We were told decades and decades ago that there was this social contract in the form of a taxation-based system whereby we would all pay our taxes over our working lives and we would get an entitlement to New Zealand superannuation from tax sources in the future. 
The point about this is that that is an undertaking that I think has been breached. It does not matter what people from Labour or National say people in the community know that it has been whittled away over time and that they can expect the same to happen in the future. In fact they also know that there is only one party New Zealand First which can be relied upon to keep the age of eligibility at 65 years with no reduction in the rate and the way it is calculated. When possible New Zealand First would increase the rate by at least 1 or 2 percentage points in relation to the average wage to recognise the hardship that we all know that people who are living entirely on New Zealand superannuation are suffering. We think as distinct from the other parties that this is affordable if priorities are well ordered by the Government and if we get real growth in the economy. I think that is also a priority that both parties have not done very well on. It can be done should be done and must be done. 
But in fact much more is needed too and there has been a huge silence about some of the main issues surrounding New Zealand superannuation. For example the issue of overseas pensions and eligibility for immigrants needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed urgently. Immigrants resident in New Zealand for at least 10 years still get full New Zealand superannuation whereas they may have made little or no contribution to the New Zealand economy. Then there is the New Zealand diaspora: a million people with half a million in Australia. It is a silver tsunami which may return to New Zealand at an unknown rate of arrivals in the future. Many of those even though they may have spent most of their working lives overseas may qualify and become entitled to 100 percent of New Zealand superannuation. 
On the other hand there are people who are bringing into New Zealand—and are entitled to bring into New Zealand—an overseas pension that they have earned overseas only to have it deducted under section 70 of the Social Security Act from their New Zealand superannuation even if it is a contributory scheme that they have earned overseas whereas KiwiSaver in New Zealand does not get deducted from New Zealand superannuation. So there are many anomalies—those and many more—and too much unfairness surrounding all of those issues especially for immigrants and expatriates returning to New Zealand which were not addressed by Labour and are not being addressed by National. That unfairness needs to stop. 
Those however are detailed issues for another day but they are urgent. For today’s purposes New Zealand First is happy to support the bill to validate the superannuation increases which are so sorely needed and I just regret that we cannot do more for people who are living solely on New Zealand superannuation. As many of them know New Zealand First wishes to improve the SuperGold card and other benefits that go with New Zealand superannuation. They cannot rely on either of the main parties to do any of that. Only New Zealand First really looks after people who are reliant on New Zealand superannuation. However for today’s purposes New Zealand First will be happy to support the bill. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I would like to congratulate Mr O’Rourke on managing to inject a hint of controversy into Parliament’s annual consideration of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill because that is no mean feat. I have been here for only 4 years but I seriously doubt whether that has ever been done before. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It certainly has. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Mr Mallard assures me that it has. Well as I look up at the packed public gallery at the moment I realise that this is not a measure that is likely to be detaining viewers at home in front of Parliament TV unable to tear themselves away from their sets. 
Nevertheless this debate is an opportunity to acknowledge and bring to public attention the work of our Regulations Review Committee. Its tasks are often conducted below the radar and are often seriously dry subject matter. Nevertheless it does perform a very important function. Although I am no longer a member of the committee I was a permanent member of the Regulations Review Committee for the whole of the 49th Parliament and as Mr Chauvel acknowledged a few moments ago I was the deputy chair for about 2 years. I would like to think that Mr Chauvel and I worked very well together in that time and I do acknowledge his sterling efforts. 
In fact Mr Chauvel has retained the role in the 50th Parliament. I am really not sure what crime he committed in order to be saddled with the task for another 3 years but apparently he enjoys the work. So if chairing the Regulations Review Committee makes Mr Chauvel happy I want to assure anyone who may still be listening that that makes the rest of his colleagues on all sides of the House delirious with excitement. We are absolutely ecstatic about his willingness. He has taken one for the team and we all commend him for that. When he spoke on this bill earlier in the debate his enthusiasm for the work was truly enchanting—if in fact heroic. 
The Hon Chester Borrows outlined the need for the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill to be considered and enacted by the House annually to ensure that various orders and regulations that must be validated or confirmed by Parliament do not lapse. So it is probably worthwhile to write into the record of this first reading debate that the bill validates or confirms orders and regulations under a range of legislation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Come on! We were promised 2 minutes. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Mr Mallard would like me to wind up. Would you like me to wind up fairly soon? I am being encouraged not to continue. I was simply thinking it would be worthwhile to bring into the public arena the fact that under this bill we are validating or confirming— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Bring back Martin Gallagher. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Well he is a fine man. I certainly enjoy his friendship and his support in his new role as a councillor in Hamilton. Yes I would say to bring him back to many fields of endeavour but probably not to this House any time soon. 
I will try for the third time to point out to those who may be listening and who are wondering what exactly Mr Mallard was trying to say that the bill validates or confirms orders and regulations under a range of legislation including—and this is the exciting bit—the Animal Products Act 1999. 
Louise Upston 
: The high point. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Yes it is the high point of the speech as Ms Upston has just acknowledged. Also the Commodity Levies Act 1990— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The deal’s off. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: There is more. Wait there is more: the Customs and Excise Act 1996 the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act which of course got Mr O’Rourke so excited a few minutes ago—that is the 2001 measure—the Social Security Act 1964 the Road User Charges Act 2012 and the War Pensions Act 1954. 
I will conclude by saying there are very good reasons for regulations to have expiry dates and there are equally good reasons for many of them to be renewed each year. Other members have queried today whether this is the best way to do that. I will look forward to hearing whether they can come up with a better way of achieving that objective but in the meantime I have great pleasure in supporting this bill’s first reading. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be reported to the House on or before 5 November 2012.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am getting to my feet only to check with my colleague who is the chair of the Regulations Review Committee whether the restricted date is one that has been the subject of discussion and agreement. If he nods then I will sit down. I am sure the debate at that stage will be concluded otherwise I will keep going. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Having paid close attention to my speech you obviously— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I apologise to the member. I was drawn away to the Speaker’s office at the Business Committee. It is clear therefore from either the nodding or the shaking that we are going to vote one way or the other on this. 
Motion agreed to. 
Marine Legislation Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move  
That the Marine Legislation Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. 
The purpose of this bill is to promote maritime safety and marine environment protection. The bill amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994—an Act that I am very familiar with—to enable New Zealand to accede to three international maritime conventions to improve the clarity completeness and effectiveness or enforceability of certain provisions in the Act and to transfer the local regulation of navigation safety from the Local Government Act 1974 to the Maritime Transport Act 1994. 
The bill also transfers the regulation of waste dumping and discharges from ships and offshore installations involved in seabed activities in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority. This change is achieved through amendments to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environment Effects) Act 2012. 
The bill will amend the Maritime Transport Act 1994. The Act provides a regulatory framework for the maritime transport sector. It seeks to promote safety in maritime transport protect the marine environment and implement New Zealand’s obligations under international maritime conventions. In June 2008 the Cabinet economic development committee agreed to amend the Act and those changes are reflected in the bill. Cabinet also agreed to transfer the provisions of the Local Government Act 1974 relating to navigation to the Maritime Transport Act 1994 with consequential changes as required. Cabinet decided in October 2011 to transfer certain environmental protection functions from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority. 
The main issues and the benefits of this are first of all the international maritime conventions. The bill enables New Zealand to accede to three international conventions to protect New Zealand’s maritime interests. The grounding of the  
Rena  
on Astrolabe Reef has highlighted the need to update New Zealand’s liability limitation regime for maritime claims. The bill will enable New Zealand to accede to the 1996 protocol to amend the international Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976. This will more than double the current liability limit. The limit will increase by a further 51 percent in 2015 when new limits under the protocol will come into force. 
The bill also enables New Zealand to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 which makes shipowners strictly liable for bunker oil spills. Claims for pollution damage from ships’ bunker oil will be treated as a separate category of claim. The increased liability limit established by the 1996 protocol will apply to such claims. This arrangement provides a more certain remedy for parties facing economic loss or clean-up costs because of bunker oil spills. 
Thirdly the bill enables New Zealand to accede to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil 1973. This will help protect New Zealand’s environment in the event of a shipping accident involving hazardous or noxious substances. The bill also implements amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 that establish an internationally applicable alcohol limit for merchant seafarers. 
The bill establishes clear functions duties and powers to complement the voluntary guidelines of the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code 2004 and maintains the division of central and local government responsibilities. These measures provide a stronger regime for the management of port and harbour and navigation safety. 
 The bill also contains miscellaneous amendments to improve enforcement modernise penalty levels and clarify the application of the Maritime Transport Act. On recommendation of the Regulations Review Committee the bill clarifies that the marine safety charge is a levy not a user charge and adds a requirement for consultation whenever regulations are being made to set or amend the levy. The bill also amends rule-making provisions in line with amendments already made to the rule-making provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Land Transport Act 1998. 
Transfers of discharge and dumping functions from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority are covered. The bill transfers regulation of waste dumping except emergency dumping and certain discharges within the exclusive economic zone and over the continental shelf from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority. This will enable discharge and dumping applications to be considered entirely within the new exclusive economic zone regime which has more comprehensive environment assessments and consultation requirements than the Maritime Transport Act. 
In closing the proposed changes will promote maritime safety and marine environmental protection through the enhancement of existing measures in the Maritime Transport Act of 1994—may I say a superb Act in itself. I commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Labour will be supporting the Marine Legislation Bill to the select committee. This is an omnibus bill that amends the Maritime Transport Act of 1994 as Mr Williamson was just telling us and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act of 2012—only recently passed into law that particular bit of legislation—to enact various international conventions around maritime safety and ocean pollution. This is a bill that is worthy of support. It is a reasonable bill. It is drafted to include a number of measures to boost port and harbour safety and give a little more teeth to the voluntary New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code. I will just mention some of those things. They are unremarkable but useful provisions. 
The bill will extend authority for a Maritime New Zealand director to take action where port safety is a risk to the safety of shipping or the marine environment—sounds reasonable enough. It places responsibility on port operators and regional councils to address maritime safety issues—nothing to object to there. The Minister of Transport is given power to make rules to ensure port and ship traffic safety. The Local Government Act is amended to move some provisions into the Maritime Transport Act and allow local government to apply national maritime safety laws without creating by-laws. Regional councils will be required to appoint suitable harbour masters—as they should—who will alongside enforcement officers be able to issue infringement notices for breaches of maritime laws. 
It is an unobjectionable bill; it is just a little late. In fact it is $50 million too late because this National Government is such a shambles it could not get its act together to pass into law international conventions that would have saved the taxpayer $50 million. When this Government came to office at the end of 2008 the briefing to the incoming Minister recommended that he implement and sign up to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage otherwise known as the “bunker convention and to a number of changes to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. If it had done that instead of shelving that important advice the New Zealand taxpayer would not be left in the position of having to fork out the lion’s share of $50 million to pay for the clean up of the  
Rena 
 grounding. 
This Government should be embarrassed today that this bill is a form of fronting up in this House to the New Zealand taxpayer for a massive waste of taxpayers’ resources because this Government is such a shambles it was not able to see the significance of implementing those recommendations from officials. Steven Joyce is on the record. He has acknowledged it. He said: “Unfortunately it wasn’t made clear there would be the effect that it is obviously having in this case in terms of the level of potential liability. It’s disappointing”—he said—“but you deal with the hand you’re dealt with.” Well that Minister was advised in the incoming briefing that this Government should implement these conventions. The work was all done under the last Labour Government. It was there on the desk of the new Minister but he could not see fit to implement those recommendations. As a result taxpayers are going to have to pay the cost of cleaning up the  
Rena 
 grounding. 
There is another issue that jumps out from this bill that I think is worth commenting on in this first reading debate. Due to the International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 the bill imposes an “alcohol limit of 0.05 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood on masters officers and other merchant seafarers performing safety security or marine environmental duties.” Why could the drafters of this bill have come up with this amount—0.05 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood? It is interesting. It is possibly a completely arbitrary amount—0.05. That is very interesting. That is the same 0.05 millilitres that the Government refused to legislate for people driving a motor vehicle. So it is OK for merchant seamen seafarers masters and officers to be held to that standard of alcohol consumption when they are in charge of a vessel on our coastline but it is not OK to expect the same level of people who are in charge of a motor vehicle on our roads. Well that is very interesting. 
Andrew Williams 
: Usual double standards. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Exactly Mr Williams. It is the kind of double standard that we have come to expect from this Government. What we know is that all the research and all the international best practice points to 0.05 millilitres as being the obvious standard that is required of someone who is in charge of a motor vehicle or a ship on our coastline. It is the obvious standard that people should be held to but what we know also is that the Minister of Transport pulled that provision and refused to support it because he did not like the optics because it might be seen to be a bit too nanny State for this National Government. Yet it is perfectly happy for merchant seamen and officers to be held to this standard and not allowed to have any more alcohol in their blood than 0.05 millilitres when they are in charge of a ship on our coastline. But apparently it is OK Mr Bennett for New Zealanders to drive a car when they have that much alcohol in their bloodstream. Well I am sure we will have some very interesting discussions at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about that. Apparently about 80 vessels would be affected by this change and the regulatory impact statement estimates that there will be 10 incidents per year that could be affected or avoided because of this new provision. This compares with the 34 percent of fatal car accidents that are linked to alcohol and what we know is that National will not against all the good advice it has had reduce the blood-alcohol level for motorists to 0.05 millilitres. 
It is interesting I think also to note that the 0.05 level is already less restrictive than that faced by a number of vessels already operating on New Zealand’s coastline. The two Cook Strait ferry operators have zero-alcohol limit and Pacifica Shipping the last remnant of our coastal shipping service which has been destroyed by the policies of this National Government has a blood alcohol limit of 0.04 for its employees. So a limit of 0.05 is not Draconian but it is too Draconian for National to implement that limit in regard to motorists. 
The third point that I want to make is that there are numerous other Maritime Transport Act amendments in this bill that relate to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. There are 37 pages of amendments to the exclusive economic zone legislation—legislation that this National Government passed only a month ago. What kind of shambles is this—that it would bring 37 pages of amendments to this House a month after the exclusive economic zone legislation was pushed through this House? What an absolute embarrassment! These amendments raise the question of why the Minister for the Environment Amy Adams had to dump the substantive changes in her Supplementary Order Paper 100 on the select committee rather than including them in the bill. It also goes some way to explaining why the exclusive economic zone legislation was rushed back from the select committee as the Marine Legislation Bill must be passed this year if it is going to meet the January deadline that is set down in the conventions. This is really a shambles. Why is this Parliament being asked to process these many amendments only a month after National passed its exclusive economic zone legislation? I think members on that side of the House have some questions to answer. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 To members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who are here we welcome the Marine Legislation Bill to our select committee. I am sure all members will be working hard and diligently to make sure that it progresses through in a speedy and timely manner. I would just like to thank the acting Minister Maurice Williamson for his work in this area. Maurice Williamson has had a long history in transport matters especially maritime ones—[ 
Interruption 
]—a long and proud history as members of the Opposition are saying. 
Then we have Mr Phil Twyford who has just resumed his seat. Phil is a good member of our committee. He is a good member. He is somebody who listens and works hard so he is a good member. When he started off his speech the first 5 minutes were brilliant actually. He was going through the legislation and saying that he agrees with the changes that are being made and saying how supportive he is. The only thing he forgot to tell you was that it was a shame the Labour Party never did it when it had the chance. 
When Labour was in Government it did not pass the maritime legislation that was needed to protect New Zealand against a situation like the one caused by the  
Rena 
. Labour had the opportunity to do it and did not do it. It is all right to come into this House now and say in hindsight: “If you look at the statement to the incoming Minister it says that you should have passed this legislation.” when we had 9 long years of Labour members sitting there not passing it not doing anything and leaving it for a good National Government to have to deal with. 
We have had to deal with the problems that have been inflicted upon this country and this economy by the previous Government and this is just another example of what it did wrong and what we have to deal with now. So it is a little bit rich for the Opposition to come into this House now and talk about delays and things like that. Those delays are not the effect. The real effect is that we had a previous Government that would not do it when it should have done it and now we have to pick up the pieces. We are cleaning up after them. 
This bill is a good bill and I presume that the Labour Party will support it all the way through. I think Labour members will recognise that the bill has a lot of things that are needed and should have been done when they had the chance and I think they will support it. I think the New Zealand First Party will support it as well. I do not think we will have a problem there but I think you will find that the Green Party members will be the only people voting against it and that is because they will not read it and just want to vote against it like they normally do for everything else. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I find that offensive. Even I find that offensive. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: But I think that most reasonable parties in this House will vote for it. That is good. It means that we as a country can deliver good legislation going forward. Mr Mallard is over there saying something that is incomprehensible but that is typical over on that side of the House. 
When we look at the legislation we see there are some main provisions. There are some changes made to a number of other pieces of legislation and they include changes to the oversight of port harbour and navigation safety and the implementation— 
Phil Twyford 
: What a shambles. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: —of some international maritime conventions and protocols. Mr Twyford is again saying it is a shambles. His Government did not do it—that is the message that we have to get through to New Zealanders not the message he is trying to promote which is deliberately leading people down a path that is not the case. The real case is that Labour did not do it. There are also changes relating to the making of maritime and marine protection rules and the transferring of the regulation of the discharge and dumping of waste. 
So there are some very important changes there. All New Zealanders want to have a strong and beautiful natural environment on their coastlines. We are a country that has a lot of coast and coming from an inland city we are very fortunate to be able to go to— 
Hon Members 
: Where? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The great city of Hamilton to those members who did not know. The ability to go to our harbours and enjoy our beaches is something that all New Zealanders love and cherish. This is important in providing that environmental balance in our community and hopefully the Greens will support it because they see the need and the desire to look after those environmental aspects. 
Brendan Horan 
: How much oil has been taken off the beaches? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: How much oil has been taken off the beaches? I do not know whether you can get oil off the beaches. Maybe that is something that the New Zealand First Party is looking at in its dreams. The reality is that you normally drill for oil I think members of the New Zealand First Party will find. 
This bill is a good bill. It is important for us going forward in regard to maritime legislation. This is a bill that makes the necessary changes. It is a bill that is overdue but it has been overdue for many many years and the Opposition cannot blame the Government for that. This is a bill that achieves the right result and we look forward to the select committee working through it in the best way possible. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 David Bennett who has just resumed his seat has clearly been asleep for longer than I thought. I know he has been asleep for some time but it was clearly longer because he appears to have forgotten that the  
Rena 
 did actually run aground on Astrolabe Reef. A large amount of oil washed up on the beaches Mr Bennett—a very large amount of oil—and ordinary New Zealanders got out there with their shovels and their buckets and put their gloves on and helped clean up those beaches because it mattered to them. Meanwhile they said to themselves: “What is the National Government doing? What’s it been doing to make sure that when things like this happen the cost to New Zealanders is mitigated?”. The truth that Mr Bennett knows is that when his Government came in in 2008 not only had a select committee recommended that these conventions be signed up to but the drafting instructions for this legislation for putting those international conventions into New Zealand law—which would have significantly limited the liability on New Zealand taxpayers—had been written. 
We have the Official Information Act documents that show us that the drafting instructions were already written. The Government was ready to go on this and it sat on it. It sat on this from day one of coming into Government. Then in October 2011 we had the worst ever maritime disaster in this country and that Government over there had had 3 years to get that law in place. The work had been done by the previous Labour Government. It was ready to go. The conventions were looked at and studied the drafting instructions were written and that Government let New Zealanders down by not making sure that legislation was in place. 
Today we have New Zealanders who believe in protecting their coastline and who got out there and worked hard to make sure that they cleaned up those beaches. They have been let down by this Government because this Government failed to put in place the law so that there was an obligation on those shipping companies to meet their fair share of the costs. So today the bill comes here and we support it because of course it is the right thing to do. But we support it knowing that this need not have happened. New Zealanders need not have had to foot such a huge bill if the Government had done its job properly and implemented these conventions. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Before the break we had been discussing the Marine Legislation Bill and in particular the aspect of the bill that the Labour Party strongly supports which is finally passing into New Zealand law the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage and the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. These are two essential pieces of international law that can protect New Zealand’s environment and New Zealand taxpayers and that should have been done by this Government which when it came into office in 2008 had a bill. The drafting instructions had gone to the Parliamentary Counsel Office—we have got the papers; it shows that—and it sat on its hands. We have had had a lot of criticism coming across the House about what the previous Labour Government had done. What the previous Labour Government had done is do what it should have done: it had taken those conventions to a select committee and the select committee had looked at them and approved them. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When was that? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That was in 2008. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: 2008? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That was in 2008. The Government comes into office it gets a briefing that says these are ready to go the drafting instructions have gone to the Parliamentary Counsel Office and it sat on its hands. Then in October 2011 we had New Zealand’s worst ever maritime disaster which at the moment the Government thinks will cost us up to $50 million and this Government sat on its hands. It means that we will wear the majority of that cost as a country. This Government has let New Zealanders down. This Government has let the people of the Bay of Plenty down because it failed to do its job and put these conventions into law. So today a bill comes to Parliament and we say: “Yes thank you very much that’s great.” But it is too little too late from this Government. 
While we are on the subject of the  
Rena 
 it stands to me as remarkable as we come towards the 1-year anniversary that we still have not had a proper comprehensive inquiry into our worst ever maritime disaster. This merits a royal commission. I know Gareth Hughes from the Greens has been calling for that Labour has been calling for that and the Government does not want to talk about it. It does not want to talk about it because it sat on its hands for 3 years when it should have been putting in place the conventions that would have limited the liability for the taxpayer. It does not want to talk about it because in those 5 clear days after the  
Rena 
 ran aground when so little happened when something could have been done to prevent the worst of the damage nothing happened. There should be an inquiry into the  
Rena 
 and it is outrageous that this Government has stepped back from that. So we do welcome the introduction of these conventions into law. We know that this is the right thing to do. The Government knows it is the right thing to do. It is just that it has taken it 3 years to finally do the right thing. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What have they been doing? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: What has it been doing? That is a very good question Ruth Dyson. What is this Government doing? It is distracted on issues and stuff-ups of its own making around asset sales. It is not doing the kind of work that is actually important for protecting our environment and protecting New Zealand taxpayers. 
I want to move on to another matter which my colleague Phil Twyford did raise and that is the change within this particular law around the question of blood-alcohol limits for masters officers and other merchant seafarers performing safety security or marine environmental duties. This comes under the International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. This is an important area. We want to be assured that people controlling vessels in our area are not under the influence of alcohol. So it is fantastic to see that the bill will impose an alcohol limit of 0.05 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. That is a very good limit. It is a limit that obviously makes sense for people who are using vessels in the seas. Would it not also make sense for people who are using things on land in New Zealand? The other side of the House have been telling us: “Oh no we can’t reduce the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood inside New Zealand.” But suddenly a bill shows up in the House that says we need to do it when people are in control of vessels in our waters. We support that on this side of the House but I look to the other side of the House and I say: “Why aren’t they capable of putting this in place for the safety of New Zealanders on the roads in New Zealand?”. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Ah! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Joyce is here. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Because you were so good at that! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Joyce is on the other side of the House. Mr Joyce used to think this was a good idea. He went on radio and said: “I was shocked at how much wine I could drink and still be under the limit.” But then he backed off. He backed off. The focus group must have mentioned the nanny State word and Steven Joyce backed off. This is the right thing to do on the high seas Mr Joyce. It is the right thing to do in New Zealand. But once again the National Government lets down New Zealanders by not doing the right thing here on land but instead it puts up a law that says yes this should be right for masters on the sea. Well that is good; we support that. But it is time for Mr Joyce and the National Government to actually get up and do the right thing for New Zealanders on the roads not just on the high seas. 
The last matter I want to come to in this bill is the 37 pages of amendments to the exclusive economic zone legislation. Those people watching on Parliament TV tonight who follow Parliament regularly may be aware that we have spent quite a lot of time recently on the exclusive economic zone bill so it is some surprise to find that there are another 37 pages of amendments to a bill that we have only just passed in this House. I guess we should count our blessings. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper that she did put up on the exclusive economic zone legislation was long enough and it would have been a whole lot longer if this had happened. But it does point to the absolute shambles that is lawmaking under this Government. 
Maggie Barry 
: It’s called negotiating with you people. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Maggie Barry says it is called negotiation. That well-known mediator and peacemaker Maggie Barry is telling us that it is all about negotiation. Well what we know on this side of the House is that this is a bill that should pass. We are supporting it on its first reading but it is a bill that should have been before this House long ago. It would have limited the liability that New Zealanders have had from the  
Rena 
. It is something that we want to see pass through this House but this Government needs to own up to New Zealanders that it let New Zealanders down by not putting this legislation in place when it already had the legislation drafted and when it knew it was the right thing to do. It sat on its hands to New Zealanders’ cost. Finally tonight it is doing something about it. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on this Marine Legislation Bill. We are talking about something of great importance to New Zealanders: our oceans. In New Zealand we love our oceans and we want to protect them. We are a coastal people. It is not just about how we get our income from our vibrant fishing and aquaculture industries; it is also where we play and it is where we recreate. This is where we boat we fish and we surf.  
As we saw over the  
Rena  
incident which has been touched on numerous times in this debate that sacred relationship that we have with our moana—our water—in New Zealand was shaken right to the core. Oil on our beaches was not this academic thing you saw on TV and in the papers; it was something New Zealanders could see they could touch and they could smell. It was something that they were deeply shocked about with our Government’s response and its failure to act with the haste the urgency the expertise and the infrastructure needed to respond to what was our worst maritime disaster. 
I regularly went to Tauranga in the days and weeks following that disaster and what I saw there was almost like a relationship someone has when someone dies. In the first days we saw the shock—people could not believe what was happening on our waters. Then we saw the anger—anger because there was no one on the beaches to clean up the stuff. There were no booms at some of the estuaries. Then we saw the sadness—the sadness as those dead birds and those dead animals washed up on the beaches. So it is good to be in this House—the House of law in New Zealand—to be debating how we can improve our marine environmental and safety protection legislation. 
Looking at the structure of the bill—it is an omnibus bill—I think it has three main parts of importance. It amends a couple of bills the Maritime Transport Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act. It makes a couple of big changes. The first is to amend the Maritime Transport Act in terms of port and harbour safety local regulation and navigation safety. In terms of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and in terms of marine pollution regulation it changes the way that rules and regulations are developed. And lastly it allows New Zealand to accede to the three international maritime conventions that we have talked about and that I will talk about at some length. 
First up I would like to say that the Green Party is welcoming the introduction of this bill. We will be supporting it. We urge the public to make a submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We want to hear from experts because there are some good parts in this bill and there are a few questions we would also like to raise. 
 In this contribution I would like to touch very briefly on some of the environmental and safety protection changes advocated in this piece of legislation but then touch on the financial liability we saw with the  
Rena.  
First up the safety provisions in the legislation we think make a lot of sense. They look pretty common sense from a cursory reading. That is why we welcome hearing from the harbour masters and hearing from the experts and hope they make submissions to the select committee. 
The bill gives effect to the amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. This is something that we have heard in this debate. It is curious that this Government is quite happy to go against all the international evidence all the calls from New Zealanders—both experts and lay public—for a lowering of the blood-alcohol level. Internationally it is quite happy for seafarers watchkeepers and people doing environmental monitoring around ships to have a blood-alcohol level of 0.5 but when it comes to people driving a tonne of metal down the road at 100 kilometres per hour it is quite happy to have legal intoxication. I think it is quite curious and I think the mad contradiction of the Government’s policies has been quite graphically highlighted with this provision. 
We are seeing 37 pages of amendments to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act—37 pages about a law we passed only a month ago. I think the Government benches should be embarrassed. It is an absolute shambles. You have got to ask what is happening in the Government’s decision-making processes to have this happening. Are these different Ministers not talking to each other? It is an embarrassing shambles. It highlights the sloppy process. It is mostly highlighted by the fact that we saw over the  
Rena 
 that it was the taxpayer who had to pick up the tab because of the Government’s laziness because of the Government’s incompetence and also because of the Government’s simple inability to read the briefings to the incoming Minister that advocated New Zealand signing up and acceding through legislation to three international conventions that would have protected our taxpayers when this accident occurred. 
This accident was foreseeable this accident was avoidable and the taxpayers’ money could have been better protected but because of the decisions made by the Minister Steven Joyce who is in the House the taxpayers had to front up. We know from former Minister Nick Smith that the cost of the  
Rena 
 oil spill to date has cost the taxpayer $130 million. It was not only shock that people in the Bay of Plenty and around the country saw; it has had a huge fiscal impact on the taxpayer. 
What we know is that Steven Joyce must be the most unpopular Minister around the National Cabinet table. Well that is what we hear from the Whale Oil’s blog anyway. It is a cunning case study of how a Minister can leave a mess for other Ministers. What we saw was that in 2008 Minister Joyce had on his table a briefing saying: “You need to protect the taxpayer.” The Labour Government had done all the work. It had even started drafting the thing. Minister Joyce said: “Oh no don’t worry; a future Minister can deal with that. The taxpayer will pick up the tab.” Just like in transport the Minister the “Colossus of Roads” went around the country announcing $14 billion of motorways then he left it up to the current Minister Gerry Brownlee who has to face the music that there just is not enough money in the kitty. We saw it with the biofuels strategy. We heard this morning on the radio that Steven Joyce is now welcoming NorskeSkog moving to Tasmania and enlarging its plant. All of a sudden biofuels are on the Government’s agenda despite the fact that in May the Government scrapped all biofuel support. It is curious as a case study in how a Minister can leave a mess for other Ministers. The serious issue is that his very purposeful decisions have meant that the taxpayers have had to pick up the tab. 
It is good that we are seeing these international liabilities finally getting acceded to after some of them were negotiated decades ago—decades ago—and taxpayers picked up that tab. It is good to see. But I also want to point out that the Government is missing a whole bunch of other steps. It is good to see that the Government has finally listened to our oil spill protection plan released in October last year but unfortunately it missed out a couple of the other parts that the Green Party was calling for like an inquiry into the  
Rena 
. It is almost a whole year since we had the  
Rena  
disaster. We have had a couple of Government inquiries but no broad-based inquiries looking at the role that these—in many cases—untrained foreign crews have in New Zealand waters. We have one of the least regulated shipping regimes in the world. What role did that play? We need an inquiry to look at why on earth the Government did not have oil spill equipment in the country. It is meant to be able to deal with an oil spill of 3500 tonnes but it struggled and needed two airplane-loads full of equipment to cope with a spill of only a few hundred tonnes. We need to know why the Government refused the advice of both corporates and unions for a rapid response multi-purpose oil spill response vessel. That is why we need an inquiry. It is high time the Government got on and announced one. 
We need to ask the question of why the Government has not taken the advice of the Green Party—again in our plan—to adequately fund the Oil Pollution Fund. This Government raided it. There was $12 million to cope when accidents like these happen. The Government raided it and left only $3.4 million but we know that the cost is $130 million. We know that the Government raided Maritime New Zealand’s transport pantry leaving it without adequate funds. The Government has ignored our advice to recycle the funds from the fuel excise levy paid by boaties which currently gets spent on the roads. Why does it not use that to adequately fund Maritime New Zealand to protect the environment we love? Lastly what about compulsory shipping lanes and bringing back a form of flagging Kiwi vessels on our waters? 
I will not go into detail on the three maritime conventions. I have got to add that although we are increasing the amounts that the New Zealand Government can access in case of an accident like this—when a ship spills and bunker fuel goes out—there is no change to the Resource Management Act which was also shown to be woefully inadequate. There was a $130 million cost but under the Government’s law it could claim only $600000. It saw the light with the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and actually increased that amount but why are we not amending the Resource Management Act to allow those penalties to be increased here? Why are we not increasing the insurance amount required for oil drilling? We know that the Government wants to go on this risky dangerous deep-sea oil drilling binge. We know that in the Gulf of Mexico it cost the American Government and oil companies $40 billion yet this Government says: “Oh it’s all right guys just have $30 million in insurance and that is all you need.” 
We also see the Government failing to sign up to the Oil Pollution Compensation Fund’s supplementary fund which in the case of a tanker having a spill means that the Government has got access to more than US$1.7 billion. Again it is a missing piece of the puzzle that we will be raising in the select committee and hearing about from the experts. We look forward to engaging constructively. We acknowledge that this legislation is trying to improve the legislative regime for New Zealand and as such we will work constructively to try to improve it even further. Kia ora. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 It is a shame that a significant event like the  
Rena 
 grounding has been turned into such a political football here tonight. I think it is worthwhile acknowledging the people who spent hours and hours and hours on the beaches cleaning up the oil. I think it is worthwhile acknowledging the people who have risked their lives to try to dismantle and take containers off that grounded vessel. The people who acted immediately the first responders to be on the scene so quickly and to be doing the work to try to sort out that situation as quickly as possible should also be acknowledged. So rather than turning it into a political football I think we should firstly be acknowledging the excellent work that has been done on trying to recover from that. 
If you were to listen to the speeches of the Opposition members you would almost come to believe and understand from their speeches that the Government drove the boat on to the reef. In fact no this Government has actually acted pretty quickly and very swiftly to deal with the consequences of that disaster. I think Steven Joyce and other Ministers who were involved should actually be congratulated on it too. 
This legislation the Marine Legislation Bill is about making changes to the oversight of port harbour and navigation safety. It is also about making changes to implement our international maritime conventions and protocols. We have been criticised tonight—although there seems to be cross-party support for the legislation—and there has been a lot of criticism about the time that has been taken for these protocols to see legislative change. I think it is worthwhile looking at the dates however that these protocols were actually signed because we are getting the criticism that this Government has done very little to implement the protocols. But in fact many of these protocols were signed a long time ago and actually before the Labour Government came into office last in 1999. 
If Labour members want to criticise National for not implementing these protocols fast enough they should really be looking at their own record whereby they failed to implement these protocols as well. The Protocol to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims was signed in 1996. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage came into effect in 2001. So if one wants to criticise the time that has been taken one should look in the mirror when making comments like that. 
The fact of the matter is that there was a disaster in New Zealand that has led to this greater impetus for these protocols to be enacted through legislation. We should be saying good on the Government for doing that well done to the Government for putting in place legislation to bring these protocols into effect and let us all work together on ensuring that the legislation we have in front of us is as well written as it can be and enacts the protocols in the way that we want it to. 
I also want to touch briefly on the question of the protocol that sets the maximum alcohol limit of 0.05 grams of alcohol which is going to be implemented through the legislation. Yes I heard the criticism from Opposition parties on this as well but I think there is actually a very logical explanation for it. If one actually reads the bill you will see that New Zealand is a party to the International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers—for seafarers. That is actually a 1978 protocol. I think there were several Labour Governments in place post-1978 if we are to be consistent with our points. Yes that protocol does recommend that a maximum alcohol limit of 0.05 grams be implemented but the logical reason why it is different from what we have in place for road users is that it is around risk mitigation. You have to say that if there is going to be somebody behind a multimillion-dollar vessel carrying hundreds of millions of tonnes of oil with the risk that it could cause millions of dollars’ worth of damage to New Zealand’s sea and to New Zealand’s beaches then yes you would have a greater risk mitigation strategy in place. That is what this is around. 
If we were to take the logical conclusion of what the Opposition parties are arguing that any laws around what happens at sea should also be reflected in what happens on land with vehicles then I would like to bring up the case of aviation. I come from an aviation background. In aviation the aviation rules the regulations actually do not allow pilots to have any alcohol in their blood when they are flying. No crew member in aviation can have any alcohol in their blood. So if the Opposition parties are saying that if there is a 0.05 gram limit for people at sea then that should also apply on land for vehicles then I am guessing that they are also arguing that if there is a zero limit for aviation then there should also be a zero limit for vehicles. I look forward to them coming out and telling the New Zealand public that there is to be a zero limit for alcohol for vehicles because I do not think that would go down very well. 
Let us all get behind this legislation and realise that it is implementing some important international protocols that arguably should have been put in place some years ago. But if we are going to be critical about the timing then we should all look in the mirror because it is a case of several Governments having not implemented those protocols. We are taking the steps now to do that and that should be congratulated. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Marine Legislation Bill. New Zealand First will support this bill through the first reading but with reservations. The New Zealand First stance on firm regulation for the safety and protection of our shipping harbours and environment is robust and well documented. How sad it is that if it was not for the deregulation of our shipping industry by the National Government in the early 1990s a disaster such as the  
Rena 
 would never have occurred. As I said we will support the first reading but based on increasing the damage liabilities and enforcing alcohol limits. 
There is a question mark about our processes. We need look only at the petition by the people of Gisborne—the good people of Gisborne. They wonder about our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s effectiveness in fair robust discussion and dissection of submissions because you see the people of Gisborne were ignored. There were 10800 signatures on a petition but the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee ignored them. So New Zealand First is very concerned about the nature and fair determination of that select committee. The question has to be asked whether this committee is up to asking the hard questions of submitters and to going with what is fair and true rather than party majority - based outcomes. 
You know I found it very interesting listening to “Mr Fait Accompli” earlier—that is the chair of the select committee David Bennett. You see I was there at the select committee when the soft wet-towel questions were asked of Maritime New Zealand. It was little more than Government propaganda. That is what we have had from this Government regarding the  
Rena 
. It has been interesting listening to people talking about the  
Rena 
 disaster as if all the oil is cleaned up but it is not. There are still at least 10 tonnes or more of oil in the  
Rena 
. I have been talking to the experts about that. 
 You know let us now consider some of the propaganda. Do you remember the week before the election when Mr Joyce came out and said that all the oil had been cleaned up? Do you remember that? It was a week before the election. I have an iPad here with photographs. I can pull them up if you like. I will do that because it is interesting. Listen up you National backbenchers over there. Cast your eyes on this. Hold on—it takes a little while to pull them up sometimes. It is just like the National Government and how the people of New Zealand are pulling you up [ 
Interruption 
]—you see they are waking up! Here we go. So here we have a picture of oil on the beach. I have got here a picture of an Irish tourist at Christmas with oil all over her feet. I have in here a picture of my daughter who is 6 years old off Papamoa beach in January with oil in her hair and her ears. I have in here pictures of locals who had to even make tools to collect tonnes of oil off the beach. 
You know it is just amazing because one would never think we would have such propaganda in New Zealand that anybody would get away with it or that they could block the media from going out to that boat. You see I probably know more about the  
Rena 
 because at night I went to where those foreigners who were cleaning up the  
Rena 
 the salvagers were going for their dinner and their drinks all on the taxpayer. So I found out exactly what they knew about how much oil was taken off the  
Rena 
 and about the processes involved which this country was kept in the dark over. Even now when we ask the Government how much of the taxpayers’ money has been spent on this clean-up members over there come up with a figure like $38.9 million. But we know that it is much more than that. You see we in Tauranga know about the “spillionaires” who have been created. We know about the relatives of certain members who have these massive crane contracts. We know all about that. 
You know when this Government is asked about the true cost to the taxpayer of New Zealand and the people of Tauranga why do you not include the lost jobs the devastation on the businesses and the thousands who have left Tauranga because of the devastating effect that the  
Rena 
 has had on tourism? And while we are at it where is the associate transport—oh I should not say that. Is it not amazing how the Associate Minister of Transport has managed to avoid this bill? We needed Simon Bridges to be standing up for the people of Tauranga through this bill—you know the squeaky-voiced one. It is amazing his voice is so squeaky because it should be a whole lot smoother for the amount of oil that has spilt on the Tauranga beaches which he has done nothing about. It should be smooth like Mr Joyce’s. But I will say— 
Jonathan Young 
: This is shameful. 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: No what is shameful is the woeful inadequate effort that this Government has made for and the woeful inadequate service that this Government has given to the people of Tauranga and the people of New Zealand over the most devastating oil spill that we have ever had in this country. 
But I will say that this bill does have some potential because this bill does set out to give regional councils powers to appoint harbour masters and enforcement officers and to establish navigation by-laws. It empowers regional harbour masters and enforcement officers with the authority to issue infringement notices for breaches of maritime rules. It also almost doubles the liability limits for maritime claims for loss of life injury property damage etc. So there are a few things in here that are very good. 
However I am concerned when we look at changing the Maritime Transport Act so that the director of Maritime New Zealand has the power to take action when port management poses a risk to shipping and/or the environment. I am concerned about that because unlike the backbenchers of National over there I live in Tauranga and I was there. I was there when we had 5 days of beautiful weather and the National Government did nothing. It sat on its haunches. Then on the 6th day when the weather started to get bad and it realised that it better do something it held a public meeting and it was at Tauranga Boys’ College. It was in the hall. Those National members were there with the national appointee this director of Maritime New Zealand. And what did they organise in this hall that fits about 800 people? They organised a very small video screen which nobody could see. They could not even organise a sound system that would work for all the people who were in there so nobody really heard anything much from that day. 
I remember asking the question of Simon Bridges who was chairing that meeting “What are you going to do on Thursday when the winds turn west by north-west?”. The answer was “Oh we are hoping for a change in the weather.” You see a person of the sea or that area should have known and would have known that when the winds turn west by north-west there that oil was heading down to Maketu to devastate the endangered dotterel population. 
You know there is a lot to be said about this bill. It is pretty big. Here it is. Is it not big? We might end up with some legislation in here to punish polluters of a maritime nature but where in this bill are the safeguards of oil and pollution response? Sadly this bill lacks the essential ingredient: it lacks the preventive cure. Thank you. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Normally I would say that it is a pleasure to follow Brendan Horan as a speaker but I am afraid— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Sit down then. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well it is not quite that simple Mr Faafoi. The reality is that he wasted an awful lot of his speech dealing with minutiae and dealing with personal difficulties that he has with other members of Parliament and there was very little concentration on the Marine Legislation Bill. Indeed it is quite interesting to hear the expressions of commitment that people have to the environment when something has gone wrong. I would have thought it more beneficial to the public to this House and to the level of debate to concentrate on what the bill will do. People are permitted to say what their connection with the environment is but they should realise—this is not a criticism of Gareth Hughes not a criticism at all—that others have an association with the marine environment as well. 
Indeed a lot of my early years of life were spent being an oyster farmer in Hokianga. I was very conscious of the purity of water and the need for that sort of thing. But so much concentration has been given to the tragic event of the  
Rena 
 that I am not sure exactly what people think legislation can do. No law that I am aware of can give absolute protection against accident against marine breakdown against human failings in officers and crew. 
Much has been made that this legislation could have been introduced at an earlier period. Well if you look at the legislation we pass I would have thought that that applies to most legislation. Generally we follow behind the requirement rather than in anticipation of the need. When we do do that I notice this Government comes in for a lot of criticism. Just think about that. Just dwell on it a little. 
It is said that this bill could have been introduced as soon as we became the Government. Well if it was that close—and I reflect the view of my colleague Mr Jami-Lee Ross—why could it not have been done a little earlier? Why is it that now after an awful event it should have been done earlier? Why was legislation not introduced by the previous Government? I do not think that we are going to be told that. I do not think we are going to be told. But I do encourage the members opposite to reflect on their criticism of our not having legislation in place to deal with events that may not have happened in the past—may not have happened in the past—and of our introducing legislation so that we can cope with events when they do happen. 
I reflect back to  
Q+A 
 on Sunday when our Minister of Internal Affairs was talking about legislation that could be introduced to process large numbers of people who have not arrived yet. Will we be criticised for that? I guarantee we will. But perhaps Opposition members will think about things a little in the light of their response and reaction to this particular bill not having been introduced earlier. These changes that are going to be introduced show that National is committed to building a more competitive and productive economy with a commitment and a balance between strong sensible legislation and effectiveness towards the environment. It provides certainty around the laws that are involved as well as improving safety and enforcement practices and environmental protection. 
The main provisions of the Marine Legislation Bill—rarely touched on in speeches so far from the other side of the House—make amendments to the Maritime Transport Act and the exclusive economic zone legislation including changes to the oversight of port harbour and navigation safety. 
Phil Twyford 
: I said that. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well I am sure you did. Actually I heard that your speech was one of the better ones—and I am sorry but on that score that does not say a lot Phil. But I did hear it was one of the better ones. It concentrated on the bill on things like implementing the international maritime conventions and protocols—which is a really good idea—changes relating to the making of maritime and marine protection rules and transferring the regulation of discharge and dumping of waste. 
Our safety procedures in our ports and harbours will always need improvement towards being state of the art. They are expensive pieces of infrastructure. Amendments will give clear authority for Maritime New Zealand to take action in situations where port management poses a significant risk to the safety of shipping and of the marine environment. This will reinforce the important role of regional council harbour masters in maintaining maritime safety. 
This is a useful piece of legislation. It is incorporating changes to other legislation. That too is a good thing. I cannot see why members on the other side of the House are getting quite so upset. They should be pleased. They should in the words of one of my colleagues who spoke earlier be pleased. They should say well done to National and I know that in their heart of hearts that is what they want to do. That is what they want to do. 
They are smiling nicely because they know this is a useful piece of legislation. They are smiling nicely because they know they can give us a little bit of stick but we have done what they should have done. We have done it now. We are facing up to it. We are meeting the requirements. Members opposite are basically pleased. They will join us in voting for this bill. I would hope that New Zealand First will join us in voting for this bill. I would hope that the Greens and all the other parties will vote for it because there is no danger in it. There is no harm in it. It is a good bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I want to begin by praising the Hon Gerry Brownlee the Minister responsible for this legislation the Marine Legislation Bill. I say that it is an absolute pleasure for me to be standing in this House and supporting it. 
I just want to give a little background to the frustration that we on this side of the House are feeling not about the content of the legislation but the fact that had it been introduced when the select committee recommended and the House understood it was to be progressed then the New Zealand taxpayer would be $50 million better off. I bet every single person in this House could think of a really good use for $50 million—a better use for $50 million than cleaning up oil on the beaches of Papamoa and Maketu as Brendan Horan has so graphically illustrated. In my electorate we could have a lot of fences between my constituents’ homes and the rocks that are making their houses unsafe. That $50 million would actually protect the whole lot of them. They could all go back and live in their homes instead of living in horrible garages and caravans as they currently are. 
But that is not to undermine the excellent quality of this. Mr Auchinvole and his colleague from Auckland Mr Ross I think did not seem to— 
Phil Twyford 
: Lee Ross. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —sorry Lee Ross—realise that actually the reason— 
Hon Members 
: It’s Ross. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I was right the first time. It is very confusing when you have so many names! I am sorry about that. He did not seem to realise about the international conventions that this legislation puts into practice. The bunker oil convention is the critical one and that did not come into force until 2008 so it was not actually possible for legislation to have been introduced under the Labour-led Government of the time. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee looked at that convention reported back into the House and said it should be passed into law. The incoming Minister— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: When was that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: At the end of 2008. The incoming Minister of Transport got a briefing that said that this legislation was ready to go and it should be introduced so that we could update the Maritime Transport Act in 2009. For some reason and I am sure that members in the House will ask the Hon Steven Joyce what his reason for not progressing it was the Government chose to not progress this legislation which had already been considered in the convention consideration of the select committee and which was ready to go. So that was 2009 early on in the piece. We know what happened. On 5 October 2011 the  
Rena 
 ran aground on the Astrolabe Reef. Jami-Lee Ross—if I say it like that I am sure I will get the combination of first names and second names correct—basically said “Well we weren’t steering the  
Rena 
. We didn’t ride it on to the reef. It wasn’t the Government’s fault.” Well nobody said it was actually. I remember Steven Joyce raising the same point at the time. What we said then and continue to say now is that had the Government done the right thing and passed the legislation which was ready to go then the people who were in control of that situation would have been liable for the costs. 
Actually it is only a percentage of the costs because I have been there and seen what damage it did to the communities. I know that the people who rely on seafood as part of their culture and way of life were devastated by what happened to their surrounding areas. I know that the people who operated the tourism facilities in Tauranga Papamoa the Mount—in those areas—were devastated that their livelihood was threatened by something that they were not even sure they were going to get compensation for. Thank goodness the Government came to the party and supported those businesses but it was not required to. It was goodwill and I want to acknowledge the Government for doing that. But the point that Labour the Greens and New Zealand First have been making is that this legislation that could have protected the taxpayers and was all ready to go and had been worked on was totally ignored by the Government. We cannot understand that. What have the Minister of Transport and his predecessor been doing for the last 4 years if they could not progress a bill that not only was ready to go but had cross-party support in this Parliament? 
The second part of this bill is an amendment to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act of 2012. It is really interesting when you look at the fact that we have been waiting for 4 years for this bill to come in to protect us against damage such as what occurred with the  
Rena 
 reefing and yet the second part of this very same bill has got 37 pages of amendments—37 pages of amendments—to the exclusive economic zone legislation to a bill that we passed just a matter of weeks ago. How can it be? A bill that has just gone through this Parliament not rammed through under urgency—it went through a proper select committee process—did not get support from our party because the very point of it was not achieved in the legislation. Numerous amendments were ignored by the Minister and subsequently by her colleagues. Great efforts were made for a bipartisan approach. A multiparty approach would have followed in terms of the exclusive economic zone legislation because we considered it was something too important to just override for some sort of petty political point-scoring. But the Minister went ahead and said “No I’m not going to alter it. I’ll just go ahead.” Now just a matter of weeks later we see 37 pages of amendments. I think that is a bit of an indictment really on the shambles of process that this Government has been operating under. 
The Minister of Transport is clearly not on top of this bit of work. The fact that it has taken him so long to get it out of the cupboard and into the House has cost us $50 million. The Government day in day out tells us about cuts to front-line services that we have to put up with in our constituencies because there is not enough money and here it is frittering away $50 million because it could not get the bill on to the Order Paper fast enough. That is just bad management actually. It is bad House management. It is a shambles and it reflects very poorly on the Minister. The Minister for the Environment has an equally poor reflection cast on her in this legislation. There are 37 pages of amendments to a bill on which the ink has hardly dried. It was only in the last sitting period that this Parliament was debating that legislation. 
I just want to conclude by acknowledging the criticism I suppose that perhaps was a little unfair that Chris Auchinvole who spoke immediately prior to me talked about in relation to Brendan Horan’s speech. He said that Mr Horan had got quite obsessed with “minu-ties”. I know that a number of my colleagues have been discussing this very point at some length today. I know that Richard Prosser Brendan Horan’s colleague has been tweeting about that very subject and has made awards on this “minu-ties” subject. I want to just acknowledge Mr Speaker—not the current Speaker in the chair but our regular Speaker—and I also want to acknowledge H V Ross Robertson and Alfred Ngaro who are three of the male members of the House who are wearing their new ties today and who look extraordinarily dashing in their ties if I might just say so. So thank you Mr Auchinvole for acknowledging that. It is great—[ 
Interruption 
] I beg your pardon. At the risk of being named and sent from the Chamber can I also acknowledge Mr Deputy Speaker your extraordinarily classy tie and say how well it looks on you. 
Seriously it is really good to be able to support this legislation. I am disappointed that it has taken so long to come before the House but I look forward to its speedy progress through to its passing. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise in support of this omnibus bill the Marine Legislation Bill that is being presented to the House tonight and to hear a number of interesting speeches from members from all sides of the House—some more enlightened than others. I cannot help but just point out to the honourable member Ruth Dyson who has just resumed her seat that she said in her speech that the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage was adopted in 2008. Well in fact a quick check of the bill indicates that it was actually adopted in 2001 which would have given plenty of time for Labour to have enacted legislation and taken some action on it should Labour have chosen to during its 9 long years when it had the opportunity. 
But this is as I said an omnibus bill that amends the Maritime Transport Act. It is important in my part of the world because I represent the very fine electorate of Coromandel. It was on some beaches in the Coromandel electorate where oil nurdles—the little plastic things—and noodles as well timber milk powder and other assorted flotsam and jetsam of course washed up from the  
Rena 
. I do not think any of us would deny for one minute that the  
Rena 
 incident was anything other than a huge tragedy and an environmental blot but ours was a Government that acted I think quickly responsibly and with great efficiency. I want to take this opportunity at the introduction of this Marine Legislation Bill to thank the citizens of Coromandel—the people the volunteers the services the providers and the contractors—who assisted so nobly in the clean-up work. They did it with great enthusiasm not only because there was an immediate risk but also because they have a long-term heartfelt interest and passion in their local environment and their local area. So this bill actually goes a long way to ensuring that environmental matters are taken care of—and that provision on bunker oil is in my view extremely important. 
But I remember it well because at that stage when the  
Rena 
 did go aground I was but a mere hard-working candidate. I can remember going down on to the beach at Waihi at one point and finding there people who had just met with a fellow who had come down from Auckland in his shiny shoes for a few minutes and a photo opportunity. His name was Phil Goff. He was “Shiny Shoe” Phil—“Shiny Shoe” Phil—and at that point he was of course leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition. What a lot happens in 12 months—what a lot happens in 12 months. 
I would just like to go through for a minute or two and review a couple of the speeches that we have heard tonight. Of course the Hon Maurice Williamson introduced the legislation to the House on behalf of the Minister of Transport Gerry Brownlee. He gave I thought an excellent introduction. He set out all the relevant points about the bill and the fact it was an omnibus bill and then we had a very good and I thought quite well-prepared and well-considered presentation from Phil Twyford. So I would like to compliment Phil on that presentation which I thought was a very useful contribution. David Bennett of course made his almost always succinct topical and very presentable presentation. David Bennett is of course the chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and he will be guiding this bill through the select committee process. I am looking forward to taking my position on that select committee and being very much part of that team. 
Grant Robertson made what could be described only as yet another leadership bid speech. It was powerful. It was compelling. It was probably the best speech that an aspiring Labour Party leader has made certainly today but probably also in the most recent weeks. We will see more of Grant Robertson’s leadership speeches I am sure. And then we had Darren Hughes. Darren Hughes gave a speech and it was the first time I have been aware—[ 
Interruption 
] sorry Gareth—Gareth. It was the other—he is gone is he not? He is the one who has gone. It was Gareth. He is the one. Probably what got me interested in that was that that is the first speech I have heard given by that member where fracking was not mentioned. That would have to be a first from that member in this House. Then we heard Jami-Lee Ross give a very very good presentation. He made excellent points. I am surprised that members opposite have difficulty remembering the member for Botany’s name because his is a very very good name and he is doing a very good job. 
But the prize tonight for the most bizarre speech was of course Brendan Horan’s speech. It was a very very bizarre contribution. Brendan Horan is rapidly developing a reputation in this House for being the Forrest Gump of New Zealand politics—the fellow who is always there when action and great deeds and moments of history are there. He is always there to collect up spots of oil to take photos on his iPad and to show them or attempt to demonstrate them to the House. 
What about the bill? Well the bill amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and it will of course make provisions that are far stronger than we have seen in the past. It is a timely bill. It is a bill that is I think well endorsed by all sides of the House. In particular it is a bill that seeks to substantially increase the amount of compensation payable for incidents like the  
Rena 
 and that I think is a very good thing. So it is with great pleasure that I endorse and commend this bill to the House. I am looking forward to participating in the select committee proceedings under the very capable chairmanship of David Bennett to hearing submissions on it and to bringing it back into the House once it has passed the select committee process. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought he was supposed to be speaking— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. That is not a point of order. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Don’t yell. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well I need to make myself heard. If members do not sit immediately they are at dire risk of getting some further action against them. The next call I think is a split call is it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I did not want to interrupt either of the following speakers. I seek leave to table the sheet from the website of the International Maritime Organization showing that the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage came into force on 21 November 2008. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none. It shall be tabled. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a split call? [ 
Interruption 
] Split call—a 5-minute call. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill the Marine Legislation Bill which is somewhat belated. I am looking forward to its consideration in the select committee because as some of my colleagues have pointed out there is an awful lot more to this bill than just the issue of the belated implementation of the conventions that would have made such a difference had they been in place during the  
Rena 
 disaster. I respect my colleagues on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I want to point out that it is now chaired by David Bennett but I have been in Parliament since 2005 and I have been on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee all of that time. So I have very clear memories of what we did in 2008 before the last election around these particular conventions. 
I have in front of me the recommendation from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee around the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage—the bunker convention—and also the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976. There was a majority recommendation to the House that these conventions be taken note of and preparation be made for their implementation but what is even more interesting when you go back to that time is who was on the select committee. Who was on the select committee? Well David Bennett the member who spoke before dinner and said “Oh! The Labour Government should have done something about it in the last 4 years.” He was on the select committee. But it gets even better. It gets better than that because the Hon Maurice Williamson was the deputy chairperson of that committee— 
Phil Twyford 
: He introduced the bill! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: He introduced the bill tonight—he introduced the bill! He was the deputy chairperson and here he is trying to defend his Government’s abysmal record. Then if we have a look at who else was on there there was Kate Wilkinson. What is she now? She is the Minister of Conservation. How interesting. How embarrassing that must be for those members. My speculation is that they became so overexcited about the idea of being Ministers when the National Party became the Government in 2008 that they forgot all about the work the important work that had been done on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and will continue to be done—and they forgot to brief the incoming Minister Steven Joyce who was then the Minister of Transport. Of course we also know that the ministry briefed him when he was the incoming Minister and said that it was preparing to introduce legislation to update the Maritime Transport Act. Well it has taken an election in 2008 and another election for this legislation to hit the House. 
Phil Twyford 
: They should be embarrassed. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: They should be embarrassed by that. 
I just want to make a couple of other comments. I know there are other really important things that we have to talk about tonight so I do not want to take up too much time. But I did want to— 
Maggie Barry 
: Sit down then. 
DARIEN FENTON: Yes 
 thank you Maggie Barry as polite as always—polite as always. Really constructive you know—a really constructive member of the House. We really enjoy your contributions thank you very much—thank you very much. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Don’t be sarcastic Darien. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Oh am I being sarcastic? I thought being sarcastic was that member’s forte actually. 
 However I did want to observe that there are other things in this bill that will be very important for us to consider. There are issues around port safety that are included in this bill. I will be very interested to hear the submissions from various people about port safety because we do have an issue about port safety in New Zealand with a very very unregulated port system and coastline. I do think actually that while the Government was so busy including all sorts of references to the Local Government Act 1974 it could have included a very very important one that would have incorporated my bill which would ensure that there was transparency and that there was accountability for ports companies when it comes to the Official Information Act. It has not done that of course and we all know that part of the problem with the  
Rena 
 is that we have an unregulated coastline and that the Government ditched the very successful programme of the Labour Government around Sea Change and moving towards coastal shipping as part of an integrated transport strategy. This will be a very very interesting select committee but I do hope that at the end of it the members take more notice than they did of the last consideration we had on this issue. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from the International Maritime Organization showing the bunker oil convention was adopted on 23 March 2001. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is none. 






Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Are you seeking a call? Denise Roche. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member should proceed. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call for the Greens. As you have heard from my colleague Gareth Hughes we will be supporting the Marine Legislation Bill because we believe it does start to address some of the weaknesses in our legislation around protecting our waters from the marine disasters that we saw so clearly with the grounding of the  
Rena 
. It was an entirely predictable accident and I think others have mentioned that already but the deregulation of the 1990s which has carried on through until today actually has resulted in an enormous number of rust buckets—ships that are sailing under flags of convenience with foreign crews that are plying their trade around our coasts and in our ports—which are adding to the risks that we have. So it is good to see this Government wanting to introduce some regulation at last. 
It is really good to see the inclusion of the International Maritime Organization conventions in this bill although we note that the ones around oil spills and liability for shipowners still do not make them liable for paying the entire cost of clean-ups. We support this bill’s intention to amend the Maritime Transport Act to enable better local regulation by local authorities relating to local port and harbour safety. 
There are a few things that I am hoping will come through in the select committee—and I am on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as well. There are a couple of gaps. One is that this bill and the exclusive economic zone legislation as well does not address the issue of emissions of particulates and carbon dioxide emissions from the container ships and cruise ships that are berthing in our cities’ harbours. But there is a convention that we might want to sign up to—that is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. We have got close to it with one of the conventions that is in this bill but we are not quite there. 
It would make sense to adopt some of the regulations that are international best practice now because the Auckland Council is already saying that there are huge peaks in carbon dioxide emissions from the dirty fuel that is used by container ships and cruise ships while they are berthing in Auckland. The Rugby World Cup last year was a great success for our country but during that time the dangerous emissions that came from dirty fuel from the cruise ships that were berthed there were quite beyond what is normal. 
We would also like to see this bill take into account some of the other international regulations around speed. Generally with the beefing up of the local authorities’ ability to set some safety and environmental regulations in their own ports there are still some issues around their ability to set the speed of the container ships in their harbours. We have got that situation in the Hauraki Gulf where I live. There is a population of Bryde’s whales. There are only 250 of them in New Zealand. They are very rare. There are 40 to 50 of them that live in the Hauraki Gulf and most of them are living and feeding and resting around the shipping lanes. The harbour master has set the speed limit for the area that he controls at 12 knots. However the ability of a Bryde’s whale to survive ship strike at 12 knots is pretty limited. There is a much better prospect for them surviving if the speed is under 12 knots and it is an even better situation for their survival if it is under 10 knots. 
The Environmental Defence Society has actually worked alongside the Hauraki Gulf Forum and the Department of Conservation to look at ways that we could be asking the Minister of Transport to start to have some regulations around speed. I would suggest that since this bill takes into account the fact of driving those great big container ships under the influence of alcohol we should be looking at the speeds that those things are going at because as we know from the  
Rena 
 disaster the faster you go the bigger the mess. Thank you. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand here and talk to the Marine Legislation Bill. I am going to be brief so shall we just dive right in? The other side has carped on about this bill but I am very pleased to stand here in unambiguous support of it. The Opposition has suggested that there is something fishy about this bill but I would like to assure the House that I am giving it my seal of approval. They have tried to distract us with talk of the  
Rena 
 about blood-alcohol levels and how they relate to driving and so forth. We have even had attempted distractions around the date of the bunker oil convention which we now know definitively was ratified in 2001. 
But you see Opposition members have gone on and on just for the halibut and if they are going to object they should at least have a porpoise. Of course they just sat around and did nothing and that has been one of the themes coming from us tonight—that the Labour Party in particular sat around for 9 years and did nothing. You might say that they had no net effect. 
We need to get this bill through the House because this National Government will not leave the environment and the economy floundering. We have had a whale of a time—a whale of a time—listening to their arguments but they are rather shallow if you get my drift— 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is confused between the adoption and ratification of a convention— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a point of order; that is a debating point. We do not use points of order to enter into the debate. 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: Yes absolutely fishy fishy. It is semantics really—no good puns on that. All puns aside this bill is a serious matter. I think we need to acknowledge and thank Minister Brownlee for sponsoring this bill Minister Williamson for moving the first reading and of course I add my voice to the chorus of support for the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett. 
I am deeply committed to legislation that is clear and concise and my colleagues have clearly outlined the elements of this bill so I am not going to continue to go into it. I do want to acknowledge of course that this bill is continuing to modernise transport law. We have had similar changes in the areas of civil aviation and of course in land transport later. This should hold us I believe in good stead until we deal with space transportation in the future. 
We are a world leader. New Zealand is a world leader when it comes to health and safety. This is also important in terms of New Zealand. This is an economy built around shipping. Needless to say we all came to this country by ship and shipping is in our blood. I am sure that every member of this House will agree that the protection of our environment and our economy is a major concern for all New Zealanders and I am looking forward to seeing this bill supported by all sides. This bill should not be the one that got away. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Land Transport Management Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. 
This bill will amend the Land Transport Management Act 2003. The Act provides the planning and funding framework that channels around $3 billion of central government funding each year into road construction and maintenance and public transport. The bill is part of the Government’s ongoing efforts to cut unnecessary red tape and create a better more effective legislative framework for transport. The bill will lead to streamlined decision-making and fewer prescriptive planning processes for those in the transport sector. It will allow councils greater flexibility to plan for the needs of their region and it will ensure that both central government and local government get better value for money from their investments in public transport. 
The bill has three main components. First it will remedy some problems with the planning and funding framework for the Land Transport Management Act 2003. That framework imposes processes that are duplicative repetitive and prescriptive which leads to uncertainty excessive paperwork and unnecessary compliance costs. The bill will make the Act easier to use and understand by focusing its purpose and decision-making criteria on achieving an effective and safe land transport system and replacing the regional land transport strategy and the regional land transport programme with a single regional land transport plan. It merges the national land transport strategy and the Government policy statement on land transport funding into a single Government policy statement on land transport. It also removes the obligation on regional transport committees to include representatives of sector interests instead leaving it to elected representatives to decide whom they need to hear from. 
The bill will also amend the Act’s funding and planning provisions by enabling future projects to be funded by borrowing where there is a good case to do so and the Minister of Transport and Minister of Finance agree. It is worth noting that in the last year more than 5.5 million journeys have been taken on the Northern Gateway—a toll road funded by debt through the previous Government. By repealing the regional fuel tax provisions we acknowledge that this form of taxation needs to go because its costs would end up being spread across all regions. 
The second significant area of change is the Act’s tolling provisions. The bill will replace duplicative statutory tests applying to the approval of toll road schemes with a single high-level test requiring them to be efficient and effective. It will also rely on the Privacy Act rather than on an anonymous method of payment to safeguard privacy. It will reduce potential barriers to public-private partnerships in toll road building and management by removing the requirement for special concession agreements. The final change in this area is to enable the existing toll road in Tauranga—Route K—to be brought under the toll road regime that applies to other toll roads in the country. 
Finally this bill establishes in legislation a new policy framework for planning and contracting public transport known as the Public Transport Operating Model. This follows a review of the Public Transport Management Act 2008 that found there was little incentive for operators to invest in public transport services or for them to come up with innovative ways for improving services. The legislation will require all public transport services in a region to be segmented into units and provided under exclusive contract to the regional council. Regional councils will be required to identify in their regional public transport plans the units the policies on units and the other public transport services the region intends to financially assist. Services that are not part of a region’s core public transport network will be exempt from operating under contract and will be identified on an exempt-services register held by the relevant regional council. 
This bill will repeal the Public Transport Management Act 2008 and carry over relevant provisions into the Land Transport Management Act. 
In closing may I say that Parliament in passing this bill will ensure that New Zealand has a durable piece of legislation that promotes an effective efficient and safe land transport system. It also recognises that New Zealanders want such a system. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is a bad bill. National has corrupted the decision-making and resource-allocation process for building new State highways. It is spending $1 billion a year on seven hand-picked motorway projects. It has politicised the whole business of building State highways in this country. Secondly by pouring so much money into these white elephant motorway projects it is locking this country into a high-carbon fossil-fuelled dependent transport future. In the process it is neglecting public transport and it is neglecting the maintenance of our State highways and our local roads. It is doing this country a disservice. Those two qualities—the politicisation and corruption of our decision making and resource allocation for building State highways and its obsession with roads at the expense of every other part of our system—are the two qualities that define this wasteful and mismanaged transport policy under this National Government. 
This bill reflects that policy and what it does is it sets in concrete the wasteful and mismanaged approach that National has taken to transport. It sets up a gerrymandered decision-making process for new transport projects. It puts into concrete its obsession with roads at the expense of everything else and it centralises more and more decision-making power in Cabinet away from communities and away from the Public Service. How does it do this? For a start it gets rid of the existing purpose statement in the Land Transport Management Act. Currently the Land Transport Management Act’s purpose in section 3(1) is “to contribute to the aim of achieving an affordable safe responsive and sustainable land transport system.” Well under this bill that is gone—it is gone. Let us apply the “Holiday Highway” test to this provision in this bill. Is the “Holiday Highway” affordable—$1.7 billion for a duplicate route that at best will slice 5 to 10 minutes off the journey between Auckland and Wellsford? Is it safe? No because a $400 million job would actually fix the accident black spots much more cheaply and much faster. Is it responsive? No it is not responsive to our country’s transport needs. Is it a sustainable transport solution? No it certainly is not. It is an overpriced gold-plated duplicate motorway route. 
OK what else does it do? There are five transport objectives that also appear widely in the Land Transport Management Act. They are set out in section 14(a)(ii): “(A) assisting economic development: (B) assisting safety and personal security: (C) improving access and mobility: (D) protecting and promoting public health: (E) ensuring economic sustainability;”. They are five criteria that should be the guiding principles of our transport system. Under this bill they are gone; they are gone by lunchtime. Let us apply the “Holiday Highway” test again. Does the “Holiday Highway” assist economic development? The Minister of Transport likes to say that it is going to solve all the economic problems of Northland. For $1.7 billion you could buy a lot of high-quality economic development in Northland. Would the “Holiday Highway” assist safety and personal security? No we have already talked about the fact that the Operation Lifesaver alternative for $400 million would solve the safety problems on that road. Does it protect and promote public health? No. Is it a model of economic sustainability? No it is the opposite. If the Act was used properly these principles these criteria would mean that projects that meet those criteria would be prioritised. But this Government’s approach is to make the land transport management legislation less sustainable less economically viable and less concerned with sustainability and with public health. 
The project level decision-making criteria under this bill—the criteria that we have been discussing—are swept away and they are replaced with three criteria that this Government is using to drive its agenda of the roads of national significance. What are those criteria? First to give effect to the Government policy statement—all right? So if Gerry Brownlee says: “Yes we’re going to build the roads of national significance” he has a tick in the first box. What is the second criterion? Effectiveness. Well what is the definition of effectiveness? It is whether it will deliver on the strategic fit. So the second criterion is whether it will deliver what Gerry Brownlee wants! OK two ticks in the first two boxes. The third criterion is efficiency or the benefit-cost ratio. That Minister does not even believe in the benefit-cost ratio because the other day in this House he gave an entire speech to the House saying: “Actually don’t pay too much attention to the benefit-cost ratio because it is not very important.” So the three criteria are—first what is the Government’s policy statement? Let us build the roads of national significance. What is the second criterion? How good the project is at delivering on the Government’s policy. What is the third criterion? The benefit-cost ratio. The Minister does not even believe in it. So the Puhoi to Wellsford “Holiday Highway” rates on the first two criteria very poorly and on the third criterion it is not even very good either yet it can still be funded. 
This is how Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce have totally gerrymandered the decision-making process for how they spend $1 billion a year of our taxes on white elephant motorway projects. That is what this bill is about. It enshrines a circular and self-serving politicised decision-making model for how we spend billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. Any pretence of rationality in the decision-making process has been dispensed with. Any expectation that our transport system will be integrated and multimodal has been done away with because under this bill the references to rail and coastal shipping are being deleted from the purpose statement of the Land Transport Management Act. 
We have two other big objections to this bill. One is that it takes power away from local communities. Does that surprise anybody? This is the Government that killed democracy in Canterbury and it does not give a damn about the democratic rights of communities. Look at the local government legislation that is before the House at the moment. It is all about taking power away from the elected representatives and local communities. So it should not surprise us that in this bill the Government abolished the mechanism that would allow communities to use a regional fuel tax that was introduced by the last Labour Government to ensure that communities at least had the potential to raise money in their own communities and to exercise some autonomy about their transport priorities. Even though the current legislation keeps power in the hands of the Minister that is not enough for him. That Government wants to abolish altogether the right and the opportunity to institute a regional fuel tax. That provision is all about giving the two-fingered salute to Auckland because that Minister has not only already said it cannot have a regional fuel tax to fund its transport agenda but also already ruled out network charging—congestion charging. The Government does not want Auckland or any other community to have any autonomy in their transport priorities. 
The bill also reduces the obligation to consult communities on regional transport plans but that is academic because under this Government there is no money available to fund local transport projects anyway because he has spent it all on the roads of national significance. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s utter rubbish. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: It is virtually impossible to fund a new State highway project in this country because there is no money left in the kitty. The third objection that we have to this bill is that it allows the New Zealand Transport Agency not just to borrow for cash-flow smoothing as it can already do but to borrow to increase the size of the transport budget. It makes toll roads easier to implement and it also makes it easier to use public-private partnerships for big transport infrastructure projects. Although we on this side of the House are sceptical about whether public-private partnerships can even deliver value for transport infrastructure projects we are not in principle opposed to any of those three mechanisms. But we are opposed to a transport policy that blows the budget on gold-plated low-value projects and then comes back asking to use the credit card. This is a bad bill. It is entirely consistent with this Government’s wasteful and mismanaged transport policy and Labour will not be supporting it. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 First before I talk too much about the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill I just want to say that a lot of the information that that last member Phil Twyford said was simply incorrect. There has been an increase in maintenance funding and many of our transport networks are doing well because of the investment this Government has made into transport. I would like to commend our Minister of Transport for the hard work that he is doing following on from the good work the Hon Steven Joyce did in this area in setting up a very strong network for New Zealanders in transport going forward. 
I want to take just one example and we can use this example to look at the arguments put forward by the Opposition here. Let us have a look at the Waikato Expressway. The Waikato Expressway is the best thing that has happened to the most productive region in New Zealand and that is something that this Government should be very proud of. It took 30 years—a generation of advocacy—to get that road. This Government is building it and we are building it on time and within budget and that it good for the people of the Waikato. 
I want to see those Opposition parties come to Hamilton and say what they say in this House to the good people of Hamilton because we know what this road means. I will tell you what this road means. What is the biggest asset that Hamilton has? The biggest asset is our proximity to Auckland. That is our biggest asset. What does this road do? It makes us closer to Auckland. It links us to the fastest-growing city in New Zealand. That is what it does. What else does that mean? That means that Hamilton can be a hub for services in the north half of the North Island. You see the investment in the hospital you see broadband you see the work at the university. All those things are leading to jobs and they are leading to a future for the people of Hamilton and they are dependent on that road. 
That road is crucial for the growth of our city going forward. We will fight in this House and we will fight in election campaigns and we have fought in election campaigns and beaten the Labour Party in Hamilton on that issue. The Labour Party has come to Hamilton and said: “No we’ll give you a train to Auckland instead of an expressway.” 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: What? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: A train to Auckland. An expressway worth $2.4 billion or a train worth $2 million—go figure what the people of Hamilton decided to choose. They want the expressway because they know what it means. We hear the Labour Party and you will get it from the Greens next saying that there is this utopia of public transport that will solve all our issues around transport: “Don’t worry about the costs of it; we do not need to work out the costs around public transport. We don’t need to work out what the subsidies actually will be around public transport because we say it is public transport. It works it’s cheaper it’s greener it’s better.” That is rubbish and we look forward to hearing that from the Green and Labour Party members as we go through. 
I will tell you about the train to Auckland—the train to Auckland that the Labour Party wanted and the Greens would love. They put it on during the Rugby World Cup and guess how many people went on that train at a time when it had an event—you know people were travelling from Auckland to the rugby in Hamilton. 
Hon Members 
: How many? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Nine people! Nine people went on a train—nine people. The better part of this is that this train is going to have a subsidy of $15000 per commuter per year. So 90 people go on this train apparently—that was about all it could carry—and it would have a $15000 subsidy for each of those people. New Zealanders would be paying $15000 for 90 people’s travel plans for the year. That is a great deal! It is a great deal! That is the Labour Party. That is the Green Party. That is the reality of public transport. When you put it on how many people went on it? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How many? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Nine—nine people went on it. That is the reality of public transport. That is the reality of what the Greens and the Labour Party will talk about. 
But let us have a look at what Hamiltonians actually want. They want growth they want jobs they want a future and they want direction and what are we giving them? The road to give them that. They are getting the link to Auckland and they are getting the link to their economic prosperity. The Labour Party is very quiet now because it cannot win a seat in Hamilton and it knows it cannot. The reason it cannot is that we are delivering for that city when the Labour Party did not and never will. If you do not win Hamilton you do not win Government. That is how simple it is in politics. We are delivering for that city as we are throughout New Zealand. 
This is a good bill and I implore anybody who has any problem with that to come to Hamilton and see the reality of what this bill means. For the productive heartland of New Zealand the future economic base of this country you need to invest in infrastructure this Parliament needs to invest in infrastructure—and this Government has invested in infrastructure. It is delivering and you can see the results. So come to Hamilton. We welcome you there. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 This piece of legislation the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is typical of a Government that is either ignorant of or deliberately blind to the long-term consequences of the decisions it makes today. This piece of legislation does nothing to support good-quality transport infrastructure in New Zealand. Normally with the National Party what we say is that it narrows its view simply to a thin economic analysis of anything—anything the National Party does. It overrides the social implications. It overrides the environmental implications. But in this legislation it has narrowed things so far that there is not even economic criteria any more in its decision making around transport infrastructure. The only criterion is whether these projects fit National Party policy. That is the only criterion that the New Zealand Transport Agency will have to consider when it is deciding whether it should be building transport infrastructure. But that is wrong because not only do we need economically sensible and viable infrastructure but we need our infrastructure to be socially viable and environmentally viable as well. 
I want to go through the criteria that are currently in the Act and that this National Government is going to get rid of and consider what the impact will be on our nation. The first criterion is to give effect to the Government policy statement. That one gets to stay and as my colleague Phil Twyford pointed out the only thing that that means is “Does it fit the Government’s policy?”. Whether the Government’s policy makes any sense at all on economic social or environmental criteria does it fit the Government’s policy? Tick—that one fits. Is it affordable? That is a question the National Party should always be asking. Is it affordable? Well we have already seen what this Government’s view is on transport infrastructure. It does not matter whether it is affordable. As long as it is a road then build it. Build the darn thing whether we can afford it or not. Its view is “Gold plate it build it with eight lanes or 20 lanes who cares! As long as it is a road we will build it if we are in the National Party.” Is it integrated? Well it does not matter any more whether the transport infrastructure is integrated because there will be only one form of transport infrastructure and that is the roads. 
Is it safe? We have already seen what this National Party thinks of road safety and transport safety. Mr Bridges should be interested in this. He is of course the Associate Minister of Transport. I was in his electorate the other day and I was talking to people about transport infrastructure and transport funding. Do you know what the council told me? It told me how its funding for road safety promotion had been cut as 75 percent of its work had been funded by the New Zealand Transport Agency and now barely 50 percent of the work is being funded by the New Zealand Transport Agency. That has resulted in a net cut in road transport safety promotion activities by the council in Mr Bridges’ region. Those activities are not undertaken just for fun. They are undertaken because there is an evidence base behind them that says that they improve road safety. This Government has no interest in road safety. It is cutting the funding already and it is going to take the criterion that building transport infrastructure should be safe out of the legislation. Is it sustainable? Well we know that the Government is not interested in sustainability. Does it assist economic development? Well as my colleague Phil Twyford also pointed out the Minister of Transport does not even care about benefit-cost ratios. He does not care about economic sustainability. He does not care about affordability. He cares just about building roads. 
Here is the one that I am really upset about. It is the criterion that asks whether it protects and promotes public health. This may sound like a bit of a tangent but there are four huge looming costs to our health system. They are confronting us right now and they are going to confront us even more in the future. One of them is cancer the second is cardiovascular disease the third is diabetes and the fourth is respiratory disease. I am not sure whether there is much of a link between transport infrastructure and cancer although I would not be surprised if there is one but there certainly is a link between transport infrastructure and our ability to tackle cardiovascular disease diabetes and respiratory disease. We need more investment in active transport. Cycling and walking as genuine transport options need to be invested in. If we want people to change their behaviour if we want people to move to rail or walking or cycling then we have to build decent infrastructure that actually entices them and makes it useful and worthwhile for them to undertake those forms of transport. 
So in the interests of public health in the interests of saving our health dollars and making sure that our health resources are available to the people who need them we need to be building transport infrastructure that supports good health and supports people so that we can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease and the same with diabetes. Respiratory disease is an issue that this Government completely overlooks in its health policy but again the emissions from vehicles and the location of transport infrastructure is an important factor in the incidence of respiratory disease. If we could do more with that again we would be saving our nation a lot of money and we would be doing a lot of good. We would have healthier more productive better-off people in our country. But these are things that this Government is either ignorant of or deliberately blind to. 
Social responsibility—Mr Bennett talked about his pet transport project and his hatred of a rail link between Hamilton and Auckland. Well my pet transport project at the moment is the rail link between Palmerston North and Wellington which is very similar to the proposed link between Hamilton and Auckland. Many people use that link every day. For many people that is their sole way of getting to work and getting to the job that happens to be in Wellington when they live further up the line. For many of those people the loss of the train will mean the loss of the ability to have that job. They will either have to move from where they are at the moment into Wellington or they will have to give up that job and get a job somewhere else. Not everybody has a driver’s licence. Some people—and this might come as a bit of a shock to this Government—have disabilities that prevent them from being able to drive a car; therefore they need alternatives choices options in transport infrastructure. But this bill is not about options or choice in transport infrastructure. This is about the National Party’s narrow focus on its roads of national significance. 
Finally there is environmental responsibility. Well we know that public transport particularly rail uses significantly fewer resources than private car-based transport. So in the long-term environmental interests of this country we need to be building better public transport infrastructure. But this Government simply is not interested. It is a conservative Government that is not interested in trying to lead change. It is not interested in trying to improve our nation. It is not interested in trying to improve our economy. It is not interested in trying to improve the nation’s health. It is simply interested in supporting the status quo and continuing on with tired old ways of doing things. 
This is not a piece of legislation that will take New Zealand forward. It is a piece of legislation that simply reinforces the Government’s desire to pursue a policy that makes no economic sense no social sense and no environmental sense. We need better thinking from our Government on transport infrastructure. We need a Government that is thinking about the future and is interested in building an integrated and responsive transport system not one that is stuck in the old ways and the ideas of the past—the think-big projects that the National Party is so well-renowned for. We do not support this legislation. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I do have quite a lot to say about this bill. I will start by saying that it is really a shame that the Government is missing this incredible opportunity that we have in transport policy to achieve the goal that it says it wants to achieve which is economic productivity. We have the opportunity to build a consensus really across Parliament to achieve what all New Zealanders really want from their transport system. 
 But unfortunately as was well articulated by David Bennett this Government is stuck in the past. It is stuck in 30 years ago. He said that he was so happy that finally the Waikato region was going to be getting the Waikato Expressway a project that the region has been advocating for for 30 years—30. I think that speaks volumes about where the Government is placed in terms of its transport thinking. It is stuck in the past. 
The Green Party will not be supporting this bill—not because everything in the bill is bad; some things are arguably quite good. But when you take it in the context of the current evidence-free transport policy and priorities the changes that this bill makes could allow some monumentally bad projects to go ahead. That is firstly because the bill allows for additional borrowing to pay for transport infrastructure. It allows for borrowing over and above covering cash flow. At a time when the Government is arguing that we need to sell strategic assets that are providing a healthy return in order to supposedly pay down debt the same Government is gearing up to borrow billions to pay for uneconomic motorways. It is really tragically ironic that it is going to be borrowing to pay for motorways that will not even deliver the economic development that it says it wants. The idea that the cost of infrastructure with long-lasting intergenerational benefits could be spread over the years through borrowing is not a terrible idea in and of itself. However this Government is prioritising very bad State highway projects that simply do not make economic sense. They certainly will not substantially benefit future generations. So in this context borrowing is extremely dangerous. It is going to saddle future generations with debt for projects that they will not even benefit from. 
The proposed legislation also opens the doors to public-private partnerships and really this is just a back-door way of borrowing. It is definitely still borrowing but it is keeping that debt off the Government books in the short term. I think that when we look overseas at examples of public-private partnerships particularly in respect of transport infrastructure what we find is that they are extremely damaging for the public sector and they are extremely costly for the taxpayer. We compiled research on Australian public-private partnership roading projects that should be highly relevant to the Government’s plan to use public-private partnerships to fund some of its roads of so-called significance. Here is just one example: the CLEM7 Tunnel in Queensland. The initial forecast cost was $1.2 billion. The actual cost was $3 billion. The traffic forecast at opening was 60000 vehicles. The actual traffic during a lower toll period—this is the peak—was 34000 vehicles. That is about half of what was forecast. The forecast for 2012—this year—was 100000 vehicles. And if you can believe it the number of vehicles using this project has fallen even further to 28000. That is about a quarter of what was forecast to use the project. 
If you look at all of these Australian public-private partnership roading projects over the last few years you will see that they are all basically debacles. If you look at the literature from Europe as well you see consistently that there is an over-prediction of the benefits of roading projects through public-private partnerships and toll roads in particular. The reason for this is actually really understandable. It is that the entire methodology that we have used in our transport planning for the past 50 years or more is actually biased towards cars. It overestimates the benefit of improvements that allow more vehicles to flow through an area and it underestimates the cost. 
If we look at the actual evidence then what we can understand in a way that really the National Party should be able to understand is that there are a large number of market distortions in our transport network. That has led to an extremely unbalanced transport system which in the case of New Zealand is very very costly and it is going to become even more costly as we face rising fuel prices. We have the opportunity to do things differently: to spend less money and to achieve the transport outcomes we want—the efficiency and the effectiveness. We have the opportunity to reduce congestion—spending less money and investing more in trains and buses. I am really sorry that David Bennett is not here because I think that if he actually looked— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
JULIE ANNE GENTER 
: Excuse me. Sorry Mr Speaker. The previous speaker David Bennett mentioned that the reality of public transport was that people did not take it and it required huge subsidies. But I think he has not actually looked at the numbers because in Auckland for example public transport patronage has been growing extremely fast and patronage on the rail network in particular is almost 30 percent higher than what was modelled by Auckland Transport’s model 2 which is the public transport four-stage model’s demand for public transport and road projects. 
At this point in time when the Government is arguing that we need to reduce debt at the same time it is taking the exact opposite approach to transport infrastructure. There could not be a more opportune time to actually reduce the amount of money that we are spending on transport infrastructure and make it smarter make it more effective and make it more targeted. 
There were a few interesting observations in the board paper that went to the New Zealand Transport Agency about public-private partnerships which are quite relevant to this bill as this bill is going to allow public-private partnerships. Now we see that the New Zealand Transport Agency is actually already preparing a business case for public-private partnerships for certain roading projects. One of them was that Transmission Gully obviously is not a good option for a public-private partnership even though the Government has been talking about it being an option. The reason it is not a good option for a public-private partnership is that it does not have a good business case. Every Government analysis of that motorway project has shown that there simply is not the demand to justify the tolls that would be needed to pay for the project. So what does that tell you? It tells you that actually the project is not economically viable. Going to the private sector is not going to make viable a project that is not economically viable. All it is going to do is take the risk and put it on to the public. Actually we have seen that the model of public-private partnerships that the Government is actually investigating does exactly that. It is called the availability payment model which means that tolls go to the Government and the Government pays the private companies an annual payment for building and maintaining the road. This model puts all the risk of low patronage on the Government and on the taxpayer which we have seen in Australia and in Europe where consistently toll roads have less patronage and lower revenue than what was forecast in the business model. 
All the Green Party is asking for really is some economic rationality and evidence to be applied to transport policy in a way that really the Government should be quite open to. I would be quite happy to sit down with the Government and help it because I know that I have more expertise in this area than it does. I am really interested in working with the Government because I genuinely believe that Government members are going to live to see the day when everyone in New Zealand realises that these projects were a terrible waste of taxpayers’ money. They are going to regret ever supporting them. These roads will be like the motorways in Greece which are completely empty cost billions of dollars and did nothing—nothing—to create economic growth. That is very understandable because once you have an existing road network the benefits of replacing or duplicating a link diminish as time goes on. If you were putting a brand new link in where there was no road before maybe there would be some economic benefits. But there are already roads between Auckland and Hamilton. There are already roads between Puhoi and Wellsford. The marginal cost of duplicating that road is enormous and the benefit is so tiny because it is only a few minutes saved.  
I would like to conclude by saying that the Green Party will not be supporting this bill until such time as the Government can demonstrate that it is capable of an economically rational transport policy. Thank you. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I think it is a bill that will go down very well in this House once it has been through the full select committee process once all parities have had an opportunity to fully consider the exceptional benefits that can come from the bill and once we have had an opportunity to go out there and consult with the public on the benefits of the bill. 
 Approximately $3 billion annually from central government is spent on transport and from local government approximately $1.5 billion. We need to ensure that we are getting the best value for money with our transport regime that is in place. We need to also ensure that we lower the compliance costs where we can and this bill seeks to do that. 
I want to pick up on a few comments about the roads of national significance and particularly on one I heard from Julie Anne Genter just before. She was making some comments about Greece and about how we may run into a situation where we end up with motorways that are empty. I have to say that I realise she is a little newer to Auckland than I am but I do not know any motorways in Auckland that are empty except in the dead of the night. 
Aucklanders in particular along with many many New Zealanders around the country are crying out for even greater investment in infrastructure—transport infrastructure—around the country. They are crying out for greater investment in roading infrastructure around this country. New Zealanders have endorsed our plan for the roads of national significance. They have welcomed the roads of national significance policy. 
As David Bennett has spoken about people in parts of the country have been waiting years for some of these projects to go ahead. Let us remember that 92 percent of freight in this country moves on roads. Let us remember that we want to build a stronger economy in this country. Let us remember the economic potential that these roads of national significance will help to open up. Let us remember the New Zealanders who rely on good quality infrastructure to operate their businesses to get to work and to get their families to and from engagements around their cities and around the country. New Zealanders are welcoming this policy and we are proud to stand behind it. 
The great panacea the great project that the Opposition and some people in Auckland are proposing to solve all the transport problems in Auckland is the central business district rail loop. Let us remember that in 2041 the central business district rail loop will remove only 1400 cars from the road out of 29000 cars that will be travelling on the road. Let us remember that their great hope for transport change in Auckland would see transport benefits of only about $300 million to $400 million based on an approximately $3 billion project. 
Phil Twyford 
: What’s your alternative Jami? What’s your alternative? 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: It is the projects that we are spending money on Mr Twyford the projects that we are putting funding into. It is the $12 billion that this Government is investing in roads of national significance the $3 billion that we spend on transport every year—the $3 billion that is going into better quality infrastructure something that the Labour Government underfunded underspent on and did not put a priority on which New Zealanders are crying out for and are looking to this Government to continue. The roads of national significance policy is worthwhile continuing. It has been endorsed by the voters at election time and they will be able to see it implemented further through the passage of this bill. 
There are other important provisions in this bill around changing the purpose and getting a more effective efficient and safe transport system. By combining planning documents we will see more efficiency gained. By giving the New Zealand Transport Agency the opportunity to borrow further if the opportunity arises for future projects to be looked at earlier than expected and by simplifying the tolling process that organisations have to go through if they wish to consider a tolling project the bill will enable more cost-effective tolling projects to be proceeded with. 
This is a good bill. It deserves to be supported by Opposition members. If they do not support it tonight they should at least look at it properly through the select committee process. If anyone will be ashamed at the end of this process it will be those people if they do not support a good piece of legislation that allows greater investment in important transport infrastructure around the country. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: That’s not this bill! 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: I must say after listening to the honourable Mr David Bennett speaking—do not worry Mr Bridges we will get to you. We will cross your bridge when we come to it. I will say that after listening to the honourable David Bennett I am sure that Vogel would be rolling in his grave to see the chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so blinkered so blinded so averse to common-sense transport infrastructure such as rail. It is very interesting because the honourable David Bennett has obviously been taking note of the Prime Minister “Mr Spray and Walk Away”. He has certainly given a big spray to those KiwiRail workers who are losing their jobs and to those people in Gisborne the 10800 people who signed that petition that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee decided to just ignore. His comments really do cast serious doubts on the competency of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and its ability to be fair and true and to deliver something other than party-based outcomes because we all know that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is heavily weighted in the Government’s favour.  
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Oh well that’s why there are rotten sleepers! 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: As I said Mr Bridges we will talk about rotting sleepers. I will talk to you about them later. 
But let us talk about tolling because this bill is intended to facilitate and in fact ease the facilitation of road tolling. We in New Zealand First have real concerns about expanding the role of toll roads. The notion of streamlining the process to introduce more toll roads we see as being against the wider public interest. Imposing tolls upon key roads inhibits New Zealanders from travelling on them. We already know about all the people who are living in poverty although that side of the House tends to turn a blind eye to that. Similarly the more toll roads in New Zealand the greater the impact—and that is an adverse impact—on domestic and international tourism. 
This Government needs to front up as to why it is relaxing mechanisms surrounding the introduction of toll roads. Could it possibly be for its Aussie mates in the Macquarie Group? [ 
Interruption 
] I notice in the bill—let us get around to Mr Simon Bridges. In the bill we see Route K there. I was hoping to see in this bill that the Government would be taking over the debt from the Tauranga ratepayers. There was its opportunity to do something for the people of Tauranga but no it is not in there. 
Let us talk about borrowing because within this bill is a fundamental change allowing the New Zealand Transport Agency to borrow to build roads. This is a very significant change and not one to be made lightly. What is missing is the justification for this profound change. Where is the evidence that this is necessary? Where is the cogent argument? Where is the compelling case for doing this? What is actually behind the move? Earlier tonight the members on that side of the House criticised this side of the House for our attention to detail. We know that the devil is in the detail. Given the state of the economy and our level of debt giving the New Zealand Transport Agency more borrowing powers needs to be fully explained and justified. It is quite simple. All borrowing powers need to be carefully considered. The Government needs to be quite clear. It needs to front up and tell us what is really going on. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Didn’t you listen to Gerry’s speech? 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: Well I heard Gerry’s speech but I was wondering what happened to the $12 billion set aside for the roads of national significance. What has happened to the petrol taxes that we pay? What has happened to the exorbitant prices that New Zealanders are now forced to pay with road-user charges? What happened to the jobs? Less debt more jobs—was that not what the National Party campaigned on? Now it is pushing forward with a bill that allows greater borrowing for the New Zealand Transport Agency. So what are its priorities? The bottom line is this: as it stands New Zealand First cannot rubber-stamp the New Zealand Transport Agency having additional borrowing powers without a full and proper explanation by this Government. 
Let us go on to public-private partnerships. This bill will reduce potential barriers to the use of public-private partnerships and the public should be very worried at this development—very worried indeed. Private business is there for a profit and usually a handsome profit. Much-touted public-private partnerships have been one of the great ways in fact of hoodwinking the public. They have often proved to be a bonanza for private interests but usually at the public expense. 
John Hayes 
: What a string of clichés. 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: Well what private business would want to get involved in a public-private partnership if there were not a great profit in it for them? But when it all goes bad the taxpayer of New Zealand is left footing the bill. When things go wrong it is us the taxpayers who pay. We oppose the privatisation of New Zealand’s roading network by stealth. The last thing we need or want is for New Zealanders to be paying some overseas corporation for the use of the roads here in our own country. 
This bill does have a couple of merits however. New Zealand First supports the Government’s aim of reducing needless bureaucracy which often impedes large-scale transport projects. However New Zealand First cannot support this bill as it currently stands. New Zealand First will not stand for relaxing regulations around road tolls nor will we idly stand by and allow this Government to implement further public-private partnerships at a greater cost to the taxpayer. Therefore New Zealand First opposes this bill. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: No don’t sit down—there’s more. But wait there’s more! 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: There is more coming Mr Bridges. You are going to have to wait for that one but it is very soon. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is on this occasion to follow Brendan Horan. He has asked some questions. He nearly redeemed himself—nearly redeemed himself—by saying that there were two points that New Zealand First would support in the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. He got one out but could not bring himself to say the other. He could not bring himself to say the other so I will have to canvass a few just to see whether these are what he would have supported. We are not doing just roads; we have invested $4.6 billion in a 10-year KiwiRail Turnaround Plan— 
Simon O’Connor 
: How much? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: —including $250 million—$4.6 billion billion with a “b”—over 2012-13. We have committed $1.6 billion to improve and electrify Auckland’s rail system and invested—wait for it—$500 million to upgrade Wellington’s rail. We are already working well. 
Why we are asked by Mr Horan is National doing this? It is because National is committed to building a more competitive and productive economy and we must get the infrastructure right. We are building a better transport system which is vital in order to transform New Zealand’s future and to create more jobs with higher incomes. We are committed to simplifying and to modernising New Zealand’s transport system so that it is efficient cost-effective and fair for all users. I ask you if this were an election year would these be things that New Zealand First said it would espouse? Yes. Yes they are in keeping with its policy. I cannot see where Mr Horan’s objections are coming from. And the suggestion that somewhere behind it all there is a conspiracy does not quite ring true. It does not quite ring true. 
Let us just reflect on how well we have done with our infrastructure. I think back to our forebears our predecessors. I remember Mr Holyoake saying—I am sure it shows what age I am I suppose—that we would have a road to within 5 miles of every primary producer. I used to go for a haircut 30 miles into Hokianga on a metal road—not much fun. We should enjoy what we have got in terms of good roading. New Zealand has done remarkably well. I believe and I stand to be corrected that in terms of mileage we have more sealed roads than Japan—certainly more per head of population. 
New Zealand has done very very well with its infrastructure. This bill will improve things even further. It seeks to deal with what is an important issue for all communities ensuring that our transport system is efficient cost-effective and fair for all users. I remember Mr Anderton finding to his horror that there were insufficient roads in Gisborne to get the timber to the mill. We need— 
Brendan Horan 
: There’s insufficient rail in Gisborne thanks to the National Government. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well we have heard about rail. We heard a very very lucid piece from the chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Mr David Bennett who spoke— 
Phil Twyford 
: I wouldn’t call that lucid. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well it was lucid actually. 
Phil Twyford 
: I think you mean loose. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No no no it was lucid. He really got it together and he gave us the figures. He told us what was happening. Rail has a way to go. Well I believe in rail. The West Coast needs rail very much indeed such as the Midland Line for taking the coal out. But it is a bit disturbing to find that it does not actually make much money on the job. 
Phil Twyford 
: Talk about the bill Chris. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well we will talk about the bill and I am glad—I am glad—that there is such a demand to hear about it. The bill will require improvements to central government’s planning and funding framework for land transport activity as well as changes to streamline the assessment of toll road schemes and the creation of a new policy framework for building long-term partnerships between regional councils and public transport operators and the public-private partnership system which the previous speaker had such a fear of. This bill handily covers those particular things.  
The bill shows this Government’s commitment to getting the best value for dollar and to removing ridiculous duplication which has been allowed to clog the arteries of public transport. I support this bill and I want to leave room for other National speakers to be able to speak about it. So I will close by saying that I am supporting the bill because I believe it to be noble of intent forward of thinking and realistic in its goal seeking. Its goal is to ensure that the people of this nation get the best services. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. It is not the first one I have taken a call on in my time in Parliament. I think this is No. 2. There was the Public Transport Management Act as well which the Labour Government implemented and which this bill actually repeals as I understand it. 
Phil Twyford 
: I think this is the worst one. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well I am sure it is the worst one. I am going to talk about how good the other ones are. 
As always we had a fantastic speech from David Bennett. One of the things I really like about David Bennett—you know he has got a lot of flaws but one of the things I do like about him is he does try to promote his own area. He does like to talk about the Hamilton expressway an awful lot—an awful lot—but I was really interested because what he does not talk about is the problems with public transport in his own city. I was really interested to see a press release from the Waikato Regional Council today saying that passenger transport bus fares are going to rise by 5 percent for children and adults on the council’s rural services which include Te Awamutu Cambridge Huntly Raglan Paeroa Morrinsville and Taupo. I know this goes into the areas of some other members. There are other National MPs who are electorate members— 
Andrew Little 
: What does the member for Taupo think of that? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes well the member for Taupo is involved in that. But anyway the reason I was saying this is that throughout New Zealand public transport is operating in an extremely constrained funding environment and as a region we are being asked to do more with less because the Government has capped funding for the next 3 years and has told the council that it expects the amount of money recovered from fares to increase to 40 percent by 2017. So you know I would really like to hear from the National members the electorate MPs for those areas. They should stand up and justify this bill on the basis that in their areas poor people who live in rural communities—the rural communities that they say they represent—are going to be having to pay more for public transport. 
What this bill does of course is repeal the Public Transport Management Act which had a lot to do with public transport and a lot to do with making sure that we had better public transport through councils. As I said I would like to rehearse the history of the Labour Government because we had the first Land Transport Management Act in 2003. That was the biggest change in land transport funding and management since the 1980s. Prior to that the framework of land transport management and funding was incredibly flawed. There was no strategic direction. It did not allow an integrated approach to be taken to land transport because it focused on roading and—hello—here we are back at the beginning again. What was happening before that Act was we had no long-term planning and the rules regarding the funding of public transport were constraining and inflexible. So that Act along with the Public Transport Management Act and also an amendment to the Land Transport Management Act in 2008 made significant strides in our land transport systems including public transport. 
One of the significant things about the Land Transport Management Act was hypothecation. 
Hon Member 
: Hypothecation? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Hypothecation—that is right. That changed the way that fuel excise is used to provide more certainty for future investment. It was a Labour Government that brought about hypothecation. It augmented central government transport funding through regional fuel taxes which allowed regions to fund more projects which of course this bill does away with. We increased investment in public transport tenfold and funding for passenger transport services. 
In case anyone forgets it was Labour that initiated double tracking in Auckland electrification the extension of passenger transport to other parts of Auckland the reopening of railway links and the North Shore busway which has been such a success. I know my colleague Phil Twyford is keen to see that success replicated in his electorate of Te Atatu. Going down the western motorway it would be a wonderful thing but I fear we may have to wait for a Labour Government for that to happen. But he will campaign. He will have— 
Maggie Barry 
: Long time away then. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well that is very nice of Maggie Barry given that her— 
Phil Twyford 
: Maggie you got one; we want one too. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. That member’s electorate has one so why can west Auckland not have one? If this was not such an ungenerous Government it would consider that. 
So this bill undoes much of that really good work that was done over several years under a Labour Government under some fantastic transport Ministers including the Hon Annette King and others. Instead it is being framed as being about streamlining and increasing value for money but all it does is open the door for borrowing for more State highways tolling and public-private partnerships. It is also about increasing central government control over the transport system and making sure that local people have almost no say. It is also about sharpening the focus on economic efficiency by removing social and environmental criteria. 
All you have to do is have a look at the difference in the purpose statement in this proposed bill. Under the previous bill there were a number of things and my colleagues have gone through them. Under the previous purpose statement the legislation had to give effect to the Government policy statement; it had to be affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable; it had to assist economic development safety and personal security access and mobility—I have not heard the words “mobility” and “access” mentioned at all tonight; it does not matter does it—it had to protect and promote public health ensure economic sustainability and it talked about social responsibility. Public transport is a public good and transport and access to transport is also a public good. 
In respect of environmental responsibility I would have thought that in this time of 2012 even a National Government could bring itself to say the words “environmental responsibility”. Instead what we have is a purpose statement that is reduced to so-called streamlined project level decision-making criteria. Three things: give effect to the Government policy statement be effective and be efficient. What a disgrace! 
Phil Twyford 
: That just means: “Does Gerry want it?”. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: What? 
Phil Twyford 
: It just means: does Gerry want it? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Oh does Gerry want it? Well that seems to be the only criterion that we have had for all of the roads of national significance. Of course the Government has realised that those roads are far too expensive and it is going to have to borrow to pay for them. It just will not accept that some of the decisions it has made around those are just ridiculous. 
I suppose you could almost call this bill the “Gerry Brownlee - Steven Joyce Justification for Roads of National Significance— 
Dr David Clark 
: “Gerry-mandering”. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: A “Gerry-mandering Bill”. It is a “Gerry-mandering Bill” that is all about sort of post—what is it? Post facto—post— 
Dr David Clark 
: Ex post facto. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is the one. It is a justification for a real disaster of a policy—a disaster of a policy—which is seeing gold-plated roads being built up and down the country. There is that smell of bitumen in the Minister’s nostrils. 
 What this bill is about doing is justifying the policy of roads of national significance doing away with the very balanced approach that we had under the previous Land Transport Management Act and the Public Transport Management Act doing away with a balanced approach to transport and doing away with important things like reference to integrated transport coastal shipping and rail. The only thing that seems to matter to this Government is that everything has to go by road. It is so short-sighted— 
Phil Twyford 
: So 1950s. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: So 1950s that is right. It is so last century. It is so last century as one of the Ministers said once and I think that is a disgrace. 
I am part of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am looking forward to having a debate with David Bennett about why the people in his electorate are having to pay more for their buses and why he keeps justifying the roads of national significance when the poor people in his area the people in rural areas whom he says he represents will not be able to afford to go on buses and will not be able to afford public transport. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In electorates like mine in the Coromandel we like roads. Unlike the Greens we like roads because we need roads. Roads are what provide us with the wealth and the productivity efficiency that we need in our provincial and rural electorates around the countryside. The National Government is committed to making a brighter future for all New Zealanders and we do that partly by building a strong bold big bright infrastructural network around the country that involves roads. 
I want to commend my colleague David Bennett who happens to be chairman of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which will shortly consider this very good bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill for his passionate advocacy on behalf of the Waikato Expressway. What a good local MP he is. What a good local MP he is that David Bennett. He spoke so vigorously so passionately about the benefits that the Waikato Expressway will bring unlike the Green member Julie Anne Genter who seemed to want to create for us a nirvana of a Green-inspired vision of the world that sounded to me something akin to the Amish state of the South Seas. It was going to be an Amish society without the Bibles however but one where we were on horses and carts with those red safety triangles on the back of the little buggies. That is what we would be driving around on on our unsealed pathways around New Zealand if Julie Anne Genter and the Greens have their way. 
So this is a wonderful piece of legislation and the second good piece of legislation that has been introduced tonight under the name of Gerry Brownlee. It is about growing a better future a better infrastructure for New Zealand. I rise to support the bill. I commend this bill to the House and I am looking forward to participating in the debate at the select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell at 4 minutes. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and to reiterate Labour’s opposition to this piece of legislation which will only ever take us backwards. If ever there was a concern about why the New Zealand Transport Agency should be given extra borrowing powers one does not have to look too far back in history to understand why because this was the Government agency that made a financial error in the last financial year of—wait for it—$182 million. It miscalculated $182 million and had to get additional Crown financing to cover that gap. That is the level of mistake the agency made and this Government now wants to give it greater powers to borrow to cover its mistakes. 
The principal question for me in this legislation is how will this bill help the regions? How will this bill help the regions? Coming from working actively in a regional area the region of Taranaki home of the Ranfurly Shield and home of the brave I can say that it is a region that has suffered hugely from this Government’s transport policies or lack of priorities in roading and in transport. It has had little support. There has been little support from this Government for regional roading. This bill represents a greater concentration of power when the issue for regions at the moment is just how much input and how much power local authorities and their transport committees can actually have. This bill represents a greater concentration of power in the centre and in the roading agency and that will not help a bit. 
Let me talk about a couple of examples in Taranaki which are issues that have been longstanding and where the local committee and the local community have long expressed a need for priority and a need for funding. They are safety issues. One is the Normanby Overbridge in South Taranaki. They put up their submission to get it on the plan this year and it was knocked back. This is a bridge that is a death trap. It has killed a couple of young chaps already—in fact just recently. This is a community that is hanging out for roading improvements. It will not be that expensive. They have already attempted to divert local money into what is a State highway to fix the problem but they cannot get it fixed and they cannot get the New Zealand Transport Agency on board to fix it. The most recent long-term plan that the New Zealand Transport Agency produced has not fixed the problem at all. Then there is the road north of New Plymouth State Highway 3 which goes for about 100 kilometres. It has major problems with paving there is no shoulder there are issues about the bridge abutments and the uneven surface and there has been no money at the centre for it. The region has tried to use regional funding to fix up bits of that road but it simply is not enough. What will happen now if this bill goes through as it is is that we will just see an even greater concentration of power in the centre and less voice for the local community. 
Let us have a look at one aspect of this bill: clause 61 which amends section 96. Under section 96 at the moment there is a quite explicit and clearly set out approach to be taken when the agency is considering the funding of roading. It requires the agency in terms of its operating principles to “exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility”. That includes a host of things: that it avoids to the extent reasonable adverse effects on the environment; that it ensures in relation to its functions and to the extent practicable it consults with persons and organisations in the region; that it takes into account the views of the local community; and that it meets the requirements of consulting with local Maori. All of that goes in this bill—all of that goes in this bill. If this bill does one thing that is bad amongst everything else it is that it guts the opportunity for local communities to have a say and an input into the priorities for their transport needs and that is wrong. 
It is characteristic of this Government in so many respects. It is not just in Canterbury; not just in the Canterbury Regional Council. Now we are seeing it in this legislation too—taking away the local voice and taking away the voice of the people. It has happened so commonly with this Government in the way it operates and the legislation that it is passing and we are seeing it here now too. It is unnecessary and it is bad. It is one reason why the Labour Party will be opposing this legislation. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill or as it more accurately should be called the “Land Transport (Put it on the Credit Card and Pray for a Brighter Future) Bill”. This bill—this bad bill—simply does a few bad things for New Zealand. It does not go about transport the key way which is that we should be discussing how to get around. Let us not make up stuff and exaggerate as we heard from the National backbench about horse and carts. Let us have a discussion around how we design our transport systems that work for us in 2012. How do we design a transport system that is going to work for the future? How can we have a multimodal system where we have a role for road safety improvements rail coastal shipping walking and cycling to boost our economy and to get us around our cities cheaper and faster and how can we provide it? 
The Government has not gone from that approach. It has gone from the Steven Joyce “Colossus of Roads” transport approach which is to put it on the credit card. He has gone around the country spending $14 billion on just seven new uneconomic motorways and now he has found that he has dug himself a fiscal hole. He has left the mess for Gerry Brownlee the current Minister of Transport and now the Government has to put it on the credit card. The bill also streamlines toll roads in New Zealand—and I want to quickly touch on the privacy implications there—and then reduces local input in decision making when it comes to it. It is simply incredible that in a time of austerity when we are facing nearly $70 billion in gross national debt and when we are seeing the Government cut various Budget lines this Government is quite prepared to put more uneconomic motorways on the credit card. It is simply mad when we know that some of them have negative benefit-cost ratios. 
Take Puhoi to Wellsford. Independent consultants found that it had a benefit-cost ratio of 70c. This means that any member of the Government would get laughed out of a board meeting if they were going to borrow a dollar and get only 70c in economic return. It does not make sense. What we are seeing is a time of record high oil prices declining road traffic and public transport patronage breaking records and going through the roof. This Government is looking towards the 1950s to borrow more for motorways. It is like Julius Vogel in the 1870s borrowing billions to build bullock tracks not the high technology of the time. It does not make sense. 
But what this bill also does is reduce the privacy of New Zealanders. This bill quite deliberately in its streamlining of toll roads removes previous legislative requirements for personal information to not be collected. It has raised the Privacy Commissioner’s red flag. She is concerned and we look forward to her submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The question is why the Government is doing this. I have not heard a single member on that side of the House talk about this issue. It is likewise with the Public Transport Operating Model changes. I have not heard anyone on the Government side say why they are doing it because the truth is that they want their mates—their mates who donate to them—to cherry-pick the most profitable routes and leave the least profitable routes up to the councils. 
At the same time this Government wants to take away the local community representation—the non-voting members on regional transport committees. It wants Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee to tell all of our cities including Coromandel which has had its local road budget slashed to pay for Auckland to pay for Wellington and to pay for Waikato that there is no money for Coromandel. This is what we are seeing going forward with road safety. 
We could be spending that money on road safety improvements. We could be spending that money saving the Gisborne rail line. We could be saving that money getting a rail link between our first-biggest and third-biggest city but we cannot because Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce have raided transport money and raided the transport pantry. They have run out of money and now they have to put it on the credit card. Now they are saying that your privacy will not be respected and your local decisions will not be respected—in fact they are going to take those people off the regional transport committees. 
At the same time they are also saying to Auckland: “We are not going to let you decide what you do with your transport money.” They are explicitly stating in this legislation that we cannot have regional fuel levies. If Auckland wants to do it if Auckland wants to go forward it should be able to do it. This Government is the block to Auckland going forward and it is going to get punished down the line. 
At the last election the Green Party went to the New Zealand electorate with a modern plan for smart transport that would have saved the taxpayer money that would have paid down debt and that would have invested a considerable share in the central business district rail link in light rail for Auckland in rail and in coastal shipping. What we lack from this Government are road safety improvements which would actually save Kiwi lives now. There is a better way of doing it and this bill is the absolute worst way you would go about it. Kia ora Mr Speaker. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Look the heart of this Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is about efficiency in transport and I can think of no better way to honour that than by supporting the bill and asking that it go to a vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.