Volume 631 Week 17 - Wednesday 14 June 2006 
Volume 631 Week 17 - Wednesday 14 June 2006 
[Volume:631;Page:3535] 
Wednesday 14 June 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Questions to Ministers 
Resource Management Act—Changes 
1. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What reports if any has he received on changes to the Resource Management Act 1991? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I have seen the most recent Transpower annual report for 2004-05. The only reference to the Resource Management Act in that document was a concern about how the Resource Management Act would work for a major infrastructure project that spans eight or more local authorities. That was exactly what this Parliament was considering when it passed the Resource Management Amendment Bill 2005 enabling the Government on matters of national significance to direct an application to be heard jointly where more than one council was involved. I have also seen Transpower’s latest 6-monthly report published after that legislation came into force. Contrary to the statements made by Nick Smith in the House yesterday that report makes no reference at all to the Resource Management Act. The Government had dealt with its concerns which may explain why Nick Smith failed to table the document in the House yesterday that he said he would. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind Ministers that their replies should be succinct. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What reports has he seen about the cost of doing business in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The latest World Bank report  
Doing Business 
 ranks New Zealand second in the world in terms of cost to business in dealing with consents and licences such as including Resource Management Act consent processes. Clearly this Government has got the balance right in terms of encouraging economic activity as well as environmental sustainability. When National voted against the Resource Management Amendment Bill and the Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill last year it was voting against the very changes that industry including infrastructure companies like Transpower had requested to make consents even more efficient. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does the Minister maintain that the Resource Management Act is not an impediment to improving security of supply of electricity when Transpower applied for a resource consent with the Auckland City Council 2 years ago for an upgrade of the Otahuhu-Penrose link—and this application involves no new towers no change in voltage only small engineering works to lift the crossbars to allow it to operate at higher capacity—but it will not get a hearing until later his year and a consent until 3 years after it applied for it and how are we going to get secure supply for electricity if a consent as minor as that takes 3 years? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would be happy to look at the particulars. Obviously one of the things about this Government is that it does not interfere in statutory processes but I would have to say that like all members of this House I would exercise extreme caution about any claim or statement made by that member. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What proposals has the Minister seen to change the Resource Management Act? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have seen a report that National would “tear the guts out of the RMA”. That was Maurice Williamson in the latest edition of  
Driver Magazine 
. I think National needs to come clean with the citizens of this country and tell people that it has no interest in proper environmental safeguards and that it does not care about the huge economic advantage that this country gains from its clean green image. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does he refuse to accept that the Resource Management Act is not part of the problem with regard to electricity infrastructure when in 2002 his Government spent $150 million on an emergency generation plant in the Hawke’s Bay because it was the only place where it was possible to get a consent and when it is widely accepted that it is in the wrong place—and Trevor Mallard has said as much—and that consideration is now being given to move it to Auckland or Christchurch; and if spending $150 million on a power plant in the wrong place is not sufficient to convince this Minister that change is required what would be? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: A recent analysis from the Ministry for the Environment indicates that public works generally are being consented to by councils within 3 months of application. A report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Transport 3 years ago concluded that New Zealand performs well compared with other countries in terms of the time taken for example for roading projects to commence. The average time from inception to start of construction for major New Zealand roading is 2 years quicker than in the UK and 7 years quicker than in the US. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was quite specific in respect of the consent issues around the emergency generation plant built in Napier that was in the wrong place. I have heard nothing in the Minister’s answers that even attempts to answer that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Certainly the member did have that. The member’s question was very long just as the Minister’s answers are very long. I ask the Minister to address the question succinctly. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I do not accept the member’s proposition. The study prepared for the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Transport shows that infrastructure projects are consented to very quickly and comparatively much faster than in comparable jurisdictions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with Dr Keith Turner that reform of the Resource Management Act is critical to securing the supply of electricity in New Zealand or does he intend to follow the path of David Parker ignoring Dr Turner’s advice and then having to make the excuses for the lights going out? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I note that Transpower on its own website makes the following statement: “Transpower recognises that the RMA provides a necessary framework for identifying and managing the environmental effects of development.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Dr Keith Turner is the chief executive of Meridian Energy. I made no mention of Transpower in my question. My concerns are as much about the generation as the transmission of electricity. I think the Minister should be required to answer the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a point of order.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table National’s 34-point reform programme for the Resource Management Act so that the House can be quite clear about National’s intentions for that Act. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I also seek leave to table a document which is the electricity transmission grid security Government policy statement of 1997 which says inter alia that the changes were intended to ensure that consequences of poor decisions in determining grid security standards rests with Transpower’s customers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any object? There is objection. 
Electricity Supply—Cabinet Policy Committee 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement yesterday that “improving transmission on the grid into Auckland is a very high priority for the Government”; if so what specific actions are proposed by the report to the Cabinet policy committee which she told the House would be received today? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes the Government has asked for a full analysis of the causes of the outage and for advice on actions to be taken to prevent such an occurrence in future. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can she advise the House whether any of the recommendations received today are brand new or did the report contain recommendations that have been patently obvious to everybody else in the last 7 years of her Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can advise that the advice I have received today is that under the current Government Transpower has been investing on average around $300 million per annum in its system. That is six times the $50 million per annum invested under National. That is the sort of action we get under a Labour Government. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why do the Prime Minister and her Ministers continue to deny that the Resource Management Act has caused considerable problems to Transpower in its endeavours to upgrade the national grid when Transpower told the then incoming Minister of Energy Trevor Mallard in December 2004 that it strongly supported a revamp of the Resource Management Act to boost the Government’s powers to intervene in projects and has indeed made a similar point in every annual report since 2002? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Transpower has been in touch with the Government today to say that it has not said anywhere that it blames the Resource Management Act for Monday’s blackout. That is the fact. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What has been achieved by the high-level ministerial infrastructure group chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister since it was set up 3 years ago and did it ever consider the weakness of the national grid’s single entry point into Auckland? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The purpose of that committee was to undertake an infrastructure stocktake. The stocktake revealed years of underinvestment because of failed market models. Under this Government investment in transmission is running at six times the level that it ran at under National. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why will the Prime Minister’s Government not take responsibility for the fact that it has now been in office for 7 long years and just deliver the solutions so clearly needed by New Zealanders instead of receiving yet another report stating that something should be done by somebody sometime? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Far from something being done by somebody sometime the Government has seen investment in transmission go up more than six times. The Government does not rely on failed market models of the kind that that member and his party endorse. 
Rodney Hide 
: What responsibility does the Prime Minister take as Prime Minister for the power blackout in Auckland on Monday and does she believe that as Prime Minister she can do anything to improve the situation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As Prime Minister I lead a Government that is committed to infrastructure investment and has increased the expenditure on transmission to six times more than the expenditure under National. That is how we on the Government side of the House deliver. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the answer the Prime Minister gave to my supplementary question. The question was quite specific. I asked what responsibility the Prime Minister accepts for the power blackout—she chose not to answer that—then what she as Prime Minister could do to mitigate the situation and make it less likely to happen again. The Prime Minister chose not to address that. She chose to address neither part of the question. The Standing Orders require that the Prime Minister address the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister did address the question by addressing what had been done. If the answer did not satisfy the member then that is not a matter for the Speaker. I do not arbitrate— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have not finished. As members well know it is not for the Speaker to arbitrate on the quality or fullness of answers. The question must be addressed and the Prime Minister did address the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I beg your indulgence to explain how the Prime Minister’s saying that the Government has increased investment sixfold—or a hundredfold or a thousandfold—in any way addressed either part of the question. The question asked what responsibility the Prime Minister accepts. She chose not to address that part of the question—not once; not in any way. She was asked what she could do as Prime Minister to mitigate the situation. She chose not to address that part of the question either. The point I am making is that of course—[ 
Interruption 
] Look I would need to live a long time to expect to get an answer out of this Government that satisfied me but it is required to try to address the question. The Prime Minister repeatedly chose not to do so. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled that the Prime Minister did address the question. It is not for the Speaker to explain anything more than the fact that the question was addressed. If it was not addressed to the member’s satisfaction as the member has said then that is not a matter for the Speaker. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Maybe you could help the House in this way. Is there any answer to any question that the Prime Minister could give that would be deemed by you not to have addressed the question? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member is now clearly challenging your authority and your rulings. The rules around that have not changed during his long absence from this Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No they have not. I ask the member to stand and withdraw and apologise for his comment. 
Rodney Hide 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Rodney Hide 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter. If this is a new matter that is fine but I have ruled on that matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Maybe for the benefit of those of us who are in Opposition you could at a suitable time provide that explanation for us to stop the confusion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure that the member is fully familiar with the Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
. 
Childcare—Grandparents 
3.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he stand by his statement that he remains committed to providing grandparents raising grandchildren “with the sort of allowances provided to foster parents”; if so what actions have been taken to achieve this? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In the 2005 Labour manifesto we said that we will “Extend the support provided for grandparents raising grandchildren and other carers on a pension in particular those taking on caring due to family breakdown to provide them with the sort of allowances provided to foster parents.” I am committed to delivering on this policy and I am pleased to inform the member and the House that this issue is under active consideration. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister confirm that he is willing to work with United Future on future policy work regarding kinship carers in an effort to bring action to this area which has been overlooked for too long; if not why not; if so what areas does he consider the most pressing? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I can confirm that and I welcome the interest and involvement of the member in ongoing policy development in that regard. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister consider giving grandparents raising grandchildren any assistance with expenses such as the legal fees they may incur in gaining custody when a parent of their grandchildren can get legal aid to maintain the status quo; additional help for grandchildren with special needs; or consideration of the financial circumstances of grandparents who are raising more than one grandchild; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am certainly happy to look at those issues. I point out to the member that the current entitlements include family assistance the orphans benefit the unsupported child’s benefit and the foster care allowance as appropriate. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister explain whether the difficulties in closing the widening care gap are primarily financial or legislative and can he provide details of those difficulties? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I do not have information before me that would enable me usefully to answer that question at this point. 
Electricity Supply—Government Policies 
4.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What Government policies if any have contributed to the electricity security of supply problems that saw Monday’s blackout in Auckland and led Keith Turner in February 2005 to note that New Zealand’s electricity grid is so overworked that some lines cannot be taken out of action for servicing and state that: “That is unheard of in the Western developed world”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The previous Government policy of industry self-regulation led to a significant under-investment in the national grid. That is why we established the Electricity Commission and I am advised that investment in the grid is now 500 percent—that is six times—higher than it was when we became Government. Having said that I say that the power cuts that occurred on Monday are not good enough and we will take appropriate action. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by Judith Tizard on radio this morning that Government members did know how vulnerable the electricity system in Auckland was because they had seen a whole series of reports; and if they did know how vulnerable it was why for goodness’ sake did they not do something? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government has done a lot in this area—for example through Government systems the approval last year of an additional $83 million for investment in transmission in Auckland. Twelve separate projects were put up by Transpower and 12 projects were approved. 
Shane Jones 
: Can the Minister provide us with some information on the background of the Otahuhu substation and security supply considerations? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I am happy to. The substation was opened in 1927. A 110 kilovolt line was added in 1952. It became the main power supply for Auckland in 1954. The 220 kilovolt line was added in 1966. The earth wire was built in 1966. So the systemic problem at that substation has been there for some time. As far as electricity grid standards are concerned under the policy introduced while Nick Smith was a Cabinet Minister security standards were shifted from central control to that of consumers. This meant that the ultimate liability for breakdowns under a National policy was with consumers. This Government shifted it back. We have boosted the money but this Government still says that what happened on Monday is not good enough and we will get it sorted. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement by his predecessor Mr Pete Hodgson when he launched the Government’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy that it was far better to spend money on campaigns to reduce demand than to spend it on lines or power stations noting that the most recent review of the strategy shows that improvements have been less than in the time when we did not have a strategy and when we did not spend $100 million; if so why would he stand by such a ridiculous statement today? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think we have been making considerable progress—in policy development in that area and more important in grid investment. And we are doing it because we do not—as Nick Smith did when he was the Minister of Conservation— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know the member is very keen to try to talk about things 7 years ago. I actually asked a very specific question as to whether he stood by Pete Hodgson’s statement that it was better to spend $100 million on an energy efficiency campaign or to build lines and power stations. The Minister has made absolutely no attempt to say whether the Government stands by that statement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. We will hear the Minister finish his answer and I am sure he will address that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will start again if the member prefers me to repeat it. We need to do both and I think we are making considerable progress in both. We are making much more progress in transmission because we are taking central responsibility rather than putting it on to consumers—the mad approach taken by Nick Smith when he was a Cabinet Minister. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Was the Minister in stating on National Radio this morning that the answer was to get more engineers in charge—and noting that he is a former teacher and that Mr Parker is a former lawyer—indicating his support for a change of Government so that I and my associate Phil Heatley who are both engineers might be able to be put in charge? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Literacy is important balance is important and I want engineers doing engineers’ work—not bureaucrats as Don Brash wants. 
Treaty of Waitangi—Negotiations 
5.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: Has the Government made any important advances in Treaty settlement negotiations recently? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Yes. Most recently last Friday the Crown signed an agreement in principle with the Ngati Whatua o Orakei Maori Trust Board. The agreement in principle covers Ngati Whatua o Orakei’s outstanding claims in central Auckland Waitakere North Shore and part of Manukau. The agreement in principle is a major milestone that will address historical grievances in the Auckland urban area. 
Dave Hereora 
: Is the Ngati Whatua o Orakei agreement in principle a one-off or is there a growing momentum in the Treaty settlements process? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There is indeed a growing momentum in the settlement process. The recent Budget provided additional funding to the Office of Treaty Settlements allowing it to respond to the increasing number of groups ready to begin settlement negotiations. Currently the Government is in negotiations with over 20 groups covering hundreds of claims. In the very near future the Government will be seeking support for the Ngati Mutunga Claims Settlement Bill the fourth settlement achieved in Taranaki. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that the Ngati Whatua proposed settlement includes the right of first option to purchase over 170 Government-owned properties with a value well in excess of $1 billion which will therefore mean that rather than being a $10 million settlement this is a settlement that over time will be worth hundreds of millions of dollars? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that as with many previous settlements—in fact most previous settlements—there is a right of first refusal on a range of Government properties. If and when any of those properties become available they will become available at the prevailing market price and therefore it represents a comparable but better protected arrangement than previous settlements. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the extra $5 million made available to his department for Treaty negotiations over the next 5 years after adjustment for inflation means he will have less money year by year than he had last year? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I cannot confirm that. I can confirm for the member as I did this morning that the Office of Treaty Settlements is currently recruiting an additional negotiating team to boost its ability to enter into direct negotiations with claimants. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As you will see Madam Speaker this question relates to the operation of the Security Intelligence Service and accordingly it was lodged this morning addressed to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service the Prime Minister. During this morning my office was advised that the Prime Minister’s office had advised the Clerk’s Office that the Security Intelligence Service was not responsible for identifying terrorists nor for stopping them from entering New Zealand. 
Leaving aside the rather interesting question of what that leaves members of the Security Intelligence Service to do other than eat their lunch it raises a serious problem for the Opposition. I want to refer you to Speakers’ rulings on page 138 and specifically to rulings 3 4 and 5. Those rulings make it clear you are not obliged to accept the transfer of a question by a Minister and the Speakers’ rulings make it clear that where the information that is the subject of the question is so substantially held by one Minister your transfer of such a question would be an abuse. Speaker’s ruling 138/5 makes it clear that you do have the power to refuse to permit a transfer if the personal knowledge of the Minister who has transferred the question might be such that another Minister would have difficulty giving the appropriate answer. 
I refer you to the fact that yesterday I asked a primary question and some supplementary questions about the operation of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and clearly that was my intent with this question today. The designating authority under that Act is the Prime Minister and no one else. I put it to you that the Prime Minister in such a position would have knowledge within her grasp that no other Minister could be expected to have. Indeed there is only one Minister we can hold responsible and accountable in this House for the operation of that legislation. 
I make one other submission which is that this involves a matter of national security. Members of the Opposition have to accept in such matters that there are some things we cannot know. We do accept that and we try to behave with restraint in that regard. I put it to you Madam Speaker that there is a reciprocal obligation on the part of the Prime Minister in this case where there is information she can provide to be forthcoming and candid in providing it. Can I suggest that transferring the question is hardly consistent with such an approach. I invite you for all those reasons Madam Speaker to overrule the Prime Minister’s attempt to move this question to the Minister of Police. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The question refers to the Security Intelligence Service and other law enforcement authorities in relation to matters regarding terrorists etc. There are two points that need to be made about that. The first is that the police are the lead agency in respect of the prevention of terrorism not the Security Intelligence Service. The second is that the Security Intelligence Service is not in fact a law enforcement authority; it is an intelligence agency which is not the same thing. I am sure members will realise there is an important distinction between those two. I further add that the Terrorism Suppression Act is not within the responsibility of the Prime Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank both members. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have heard both sides of the argument at some length so I thank the member. I am prepared to rule. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: So you will not take my point of order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I have not dealt with the point of order that is already on the table so if I could deal with that then I would be very happy Mr Brownlee to take your next point of order. 
Speakers’ rulings 138/3 and 138/5 referred to by the member do not appear in this instance to be engaged because of the nature of the question. There is no one Minister who is so primarily responsible for the subject that that Minister and only that Minister can be expected to reply to it. The basic rule is that the question should be addressed of course by the Minister primarily responsible and that is in Speaker’s ruling 137/6. A question such as this one relating to the Security Intelligence Service and other law enforcement authorities clearly crosses a number of portfolios and could be answered by any one of a number of Ministers. It is for the Ministers to decide which Minister should answer the question in these circumstances and the Speaker cannot intervene. I refer members to Speakers’ rulings 137/7 137/8 and 138/1. 
Mr Brownlee you have another point of order. I do not want to relitigate the matter on this one but if it is a different point of order that is fine. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It relates to Speaker’s ruling 139/5 which makes it very clear that where a Minister indicates a question is outside his or her area of portfolio responsibility or challenges its validity it has to be reconsidered. Notwithstanding all the points Dr Cullen made it remains a fact that if the New Zealand Police are the enforcement agency they are working under direction from the Security Intelligence Service. The policy place is the Security Intelligence Service. 
There is no dispute about who the Minister responsible for the Security Intelligence Service is and this question—both when it was first lodged and when it was altered afterwards to accommodate the Prime Minister’s office—most certainly goes to the heart of the confidence the Security Intelligence Service has that its policy will be enacted. I think that on such a serious matter the Prime Minister should reconsider whether Speaker’s ruling 138/2 is an appropriate course for the Government to fall on because quite clearly it would mean the Prime Minister is indicating that many matters relating to the Security Intelligence Service have nothing to do with her and therefore sit well outside the normal perusal of this Parliament. That is not right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. In effect although it raised a different Speaker’s ruling it was substantially about the matter I have ruled on. But I will deal with the matter the member has raised specifically. Speaker’s ruling 139/5 deals with the situation where a question has been disallowed. That is not the case here; the question has been allowed. As I said I do not want to repeat the considered ruling that I have given; I have ruled. 
Terrorism—Border Control 
6.  
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Can she assure New Zealanders that the Security Intelligence Service and other law enforcement authorities have a robust process for identifying potential terrorists and denying them access to New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. The New Zealand Police which has responsibility for coordinating the terrorist designation processes for individuals and organisations advises me that the process is a robust one. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Will the Minister confirm the statement of Assistant Police Commissioner Jon White the head of counter-terrorism on Radio New Zealand this morning that the 88 terrorists designated by Australia and those designated by Canada on those countries’ own initiatives “also cover ones listed by the United Nations and have thereby been designated by New Zealand” or does she accept that Assistant Police Commissioner White is completely wrong in that statement and that although Australia and Canada have designated the approximately 450 terrorists listed by the UN Security Council each of those countries has also designated further terrorists who have not also been designated by New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In respect of the last part of the member’s question I can confirm that that is the case. However what is unable to be confirmed is Mr McCully’s figures of 88 terrorists on an Australian list and 50 on a Canadian list. The website will tell the member that in fact Canada and Australia have designated the UN list as New Zealand has although in the process of doing so those countries have also included—in Australia’s case—19 entities. However 15 of those entities are already on the UN list which means that four on the Australian list are not on a New Zealand list. 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: Four? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Four—not 88. Let us take the case of Canada. Mr McCully said there were 50 on its list; 39 entities are listed and 15 of them come off the UN list which leaves 24 not 50. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister concerned that the assistant commissioner of the New Zealand Police who is responsible for counter-terrorism whom the Prime Minister has identified as the chief adviser on terrorism matters does not understand the two different categories of terrorist that are defined in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and as a consequence was this morning labouring under the completely incorrect impression that New Zealand had formally designated the 88 people designated by Australia as terrorists whom we in fact have not so designated at all; if so what does she propose to do? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have confidence in Assistant Police Commissioner White. I do not have confidence in that member who I believe is using figures to make political mischief. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Will the Minister now expect that Assistant Police Commissioner White having realised his serious error should consider urgently recommending to the Prime Minister that she now designate the 88 people designated by Australia as terrorists whom he thought we had already designated but in fact had not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I realise the member had already written out his question so obviously he did not listen to my answer. But I am happy to table the information I have been provided that shows there are not 88 terrorists on an Australian list. In fact as I said there are 19 and 15 of them are already on the UN list which leaves four. I have been provided with that information; I am happy to table it so that the member can read it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that the leader of the National Party for the time being Don Brash was fully briefed by the intelligence and security people on Rayed Mohammed Abdullah then declared himself to be happy with that briefing and the form of enforcement; and what does she conceive this question to be other than a perennial attempt by that member to be the leader of the National Party or a vote of no confidence in the leader of the National Party? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think the answer is all of the above. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Would the Minister accept that given the relatively open border between New Zealand and Australia it would be a very good idea if our anti-terrorism authorities were working off roughly similar lists of suspected terrorists under our respective terrorism suppression legislation and can she explain to the House why this is not the case? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In fact New Zealand works very well with a number of countries and they do work off the same designated terrorist list. In fact the man who is the subject of this question is on no designated terrorist list. What the member is trying to do is to confuse a designated terrorist list with the fact that a man who was not on a designated terrorist list entered New Zealand. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: What confidence can New Zealanders have in this country’s counter-terrorism arrangements when the assistant commissioner of police in charge of counter-terrorism does not know who is on our list of terrorists how they got on that list or who is on Australia’s list and when the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service runs for cover rather than answering simple and straightforward questions in the House? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: What I find interesting is that the Leader of the Opposition has been briefed on this case and it appears that he is getting someone else to fire his bullets—because that member has been briefed. What is also interesting is that Assistant Police Commissioner White knows exactly what he is talking about. That member even in the time that he has been asking these questions has changed his tack. I put my faith in Assistant Police Commissioner White not in Murray McCully who is trying to make a political point. 
Keith Locke 
: Would we not all know a lot more about the Ali case from the Government from lawyers and even from Mr Ali himself if he had been arrested and put through the normal deportation process rather than being summarily expelled under the draconian section 72 which had been used only once in 1991 to expel a Russian spy; would it not have been better to go down the normal deportation track particularly when the Minister of Immigration has assured us more than once that Mr Ali did not pose an immediate threat to our security? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think that what should reassure New Zealanders is that this man was detected and deported. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it the Minister’s understanding being part of the process as the responsible Minister that there was a briefing by the security and intelligence people of the leaders of various political parties Dr Brash being one of them; and does she understand that therefore if Dr Brash was unhappy with it he would have expressed his view on that briefing and that his failure to do so would surely bring some obligation upon other members of his caucus to either doubt the leader or keep their mouth shut? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have to say I totally agree with the member. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. For the sake of the House’s information I want to say that I made it clear that I had been briefed by the head of the SIS and I was very content with the action he had taken—nothing to do with when the guy came into the country at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but it is a point of information. [ 
Interruption 
] He is not the only member who has made a point of order in this House that was not valid. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I seek leave to table some documents. First I seek the leave of the House to table a transcript of Assistant Police Commissioner Jon White speaking on Radio New Zealand this morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the Australian list of names that have been designated under UN Resolution 1267 and UN Resolution 1373. The list contains the designated names that I referred to in my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You have identified the document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 350 in order to give the House some undertakings in respect of allegations made about the confidential briefing given to the Leader of the Opposition. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it personal to the member? 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Absolutely; I understand the Standing Order. In view of the accusation that was made across the House I wish to give an assurance to the House that after the Leader of the Opposition had received his confidential briefing from the director of the SIS he rang me to tell me that he had received a confidential briefing about a matter upon which I might be approached for comment. He told me that he had been briefed on it felt unable to tell me anything further and would appreciate it if I made no public comment on that matter if journalists approached me. I give the House an undertaking that Dr Brash has not at any time discussed with me the contents of his briefing from the director of the SIS. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an OPEC document that details the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. It explains why both National and Labour want to keep Saudi Arabia visa-free despite security concerns. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise this point in order to bring some accuracy to the House and I ask you to bear with me. I am raising it in order that the House’s records be accurate. Throughout question time both yesterday and today there has been much reference to a Mr Ali. The name of the person in question as far as I am aware is Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali. After that he will have a surname which will be his tribe—al followed by whatever it is. To continue to refer in the House to this man as Mr Ali is actually to refer to his great-grandfather whose name was Ali. In the Muslim world the first name is the given name so his given name is Rayed; the second name Mohammed is the name of his father—so he is the son of Mohammed. Because other people who look at our records will see that we have been inaccurate I ask that we give some consideration to this. As we insist that we call each other by our proper names and as we insist that when we refer to public officials we name them correctly I ask that in this House we at least get our record straight and refer to this man as Rayed or as Mr whatever his tribe name is and not continually refer to him in the House record as Ali because that is not his name—it is the name of his great-grandfather. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I am sure that members will have taken note of the point. 
Accident Compensation—Reports 
7.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any recent reports concerning New Zealand’s no-fault ACC system? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 As a matter of fact I have. I have seen a report of a health-care conference in Auckland where an American speaker from the Harvard School of Public Health Edward Dauer speaking at that conference described the Accident Compensation Corporation’s system of dealing with medical injuries as “the most sophisticated in the world”. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Did the report elaborate on those comments? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes it did. Those comments were backed up by a medical law expert Dr Marie Bismark whose research shows that compared with the private American system for dealing with medical injuries which is based on expensive litigation our no-fault accident compensation scheme is faster and fairer more patients can get compensation and rehabilitation and our scheme also contributes to future improvements in the health-care system. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does she intend to implement the recent ministerial panel’s recommendation that “those with impairment regardless of cause be entitled to a comparable level of medical social and vocational rehabilitation as those who receive ACC cover”; if so given the huge cost implications where will she get the money from other than from significant extra taxes? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In fact some parts of section 31 of the committee’s report have already been implemented. An example is the extension of the support from Work and Income services for people on an invalids benefit or a sickness benefit which showed at one trial site a reduction of 14 percent in the number of people on an invalids benefit compared with those who are without such services. That is not extra expenditure. That is extra finance to the Government and extra investment in New Zealanders. I thought the member might support that. 
Peter Brown 
: In the light of that favourable report from the overseas expert what credence does she give to many many New Zealanders who have some real genuine concerns and complaints about the Accident Compensation Corporation and the system? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am sure that a scheme as comprehensive in terms of cover as New Zealand’s accident compensation scheme is not without fault. Any systemic issue that the member wants to draw to my attention will certainly receive the appropriate response. 
Health Sector Strike Action—Junior Doctors and Radiation Therapists 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What action will he take to avert the current industrial dispute in hospitals that is disrupting the lives of thousands of patients? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I will continue to encourage the district health boards and the unions involved to seek a resolution as quickly as possible in the interests of the New Zealand public. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What steps has he taken to satisfy himself that the public safety will be assured and is he prepared to repeat the commitment of the previous Minister of Health that in health the buck stops with him? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The issue of life-preserving services is not a matter of policy or just of policy; it is a matter of law. My interest is to see that the law is complied with. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister realise how bad this strike is going to be? We have called around the district health boards today and close to 20000 patients will be disrupted— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That question was finished in about six words. To then give the House a speech on activity in the morning which is interesting for the National Party is not part of the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member re-put his question as succinctly as possible please. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Surely you will allow some leeway. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have allowed leeway Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You have asked him to reword his question. He was wording it perfectly satisfactorily. Mr Mallard may not be very happy with it but clearly that is because a major political point was about to be made which Ministers make constantly in their arguments and answers and they are allowed to get away with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just note for members that for some reason today both questions and answers have been of extraordinary length. While that is informative the Standing Orders do require both to be given as succinctly as possible. I have already drawn members’ attention to that in the House today. I am not asking the member to change his question; I am merely asking him to ask his question consistent with the Standing Orders. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister stand by his answer in the House yesterday that only 10000 patients will be affected by the industrial action in our country’s hospitals when today we have called around the nation’s hospitals and found that close to 20000 patients will be affected by the strike—with his own Ministry of Health admitting today there is a very real risk that the strike will see even more New Zealand patients culled from hospital waiting lists as a result—and how after 7 years it is everybody else’s responsibility but his? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is easily riled. I said in the House yesterday that more than 10000 people were involved and I believe that more than 10000 people will be involved. If indeed the member is correct and 20000 people are involved then that simply reflects just how much health service is delivered by this health system under this Government. I regret that more than 10000 people will have their appointments or procedures postponed if strikes proceed and I urge both parties to search for agreement if at all possible. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister realise that even if the strike is cancelled or shortened 20000 patients will have to be rebooked into the system making other patients wait longer and that his most senior officials admitted in a select committee today that there is a very real risk this will mean even more patients will be culled from hospital waiting lists under this Government’s edict? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am aware that if for example a resolution were reached today and the strike did not proceed many many people—thousands of them—would have had their first specialist assessment or their surgery postponed. The reason for that is of course that district health boards have been planning for this eventuality very carefully for months. 
Maryan Street 
: Are district health boards and unions required to plan for the provision of urgent care in hospitals during strikes; if so is the Minister confident that this planning is taking place now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. As a result of reforms introduced by this Labour-led Government which were not in place under the previous Government both boards and unions are now legally required to plan for and provide life-preserving services during strikes. I am advised that this planning has progressed well and I wish to recognise afresh the contribution that senior doctors and nurses will make if the strike does proceed tomorrow. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Is it not correct that the Minister and his ministry have deferred responsibility for response to the strikes to individual district health boards and that there is no official in his ministry who is in charge of ensuring a uniform coordinated district health board response to the junior doctors’ strike? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: District health boards and unions are responsible for industrial negotiations between them. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Is the Minister not alarmed by the fact that his ministry has admitted that the last time it briefed him on the strike was Monday morning and should he not be taking a more direct interest rather than palming off the responsibility; or is it like everything else we debate in this Chamber—that even after 7 years in Government when things go wrong it is always someone else’s fault? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: District health boards and the ministry began briefing me on the issue of contingency planning several months ago in order to assure me they were meeting their legal requirements. Briefings have been regular and have become more so in recent weeks including every day this week. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Not by your officials. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Can I just say to the member that I receive briefings from district health boards and from the ministry. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister advise how many employment-related disputes in the health sector have resulted in industrial action since Labour came to power in 1999 and can he also advise whether the trend is increasing? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I am afraid I cannot. I do not have that information at my fingertips. 
Maori Health—Plunket Funding 
9.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What percentage of the $34 million allocated to Plunket is dedicated to addressing Maori health and how is this demonstrated in the contract between the Ministry of Health and Plunket? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Just over one-fifth of all new babies in Plunket’s care are Maori but they probably receive somewhat more services than that because Plunket’s services are targeted somewhat towards lower socio-economic groups. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is it correct that Plunket has not performed well in the highest-deprivation area deciles 8 to 10; and what will the Minister instruct the Ministry of Health to do about that in the development of its Well Child contract? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I substantially disagree with the member’s assertion that Plunket has not performed well in the area of deciles 8 to 10 though it is true that it took Plunket a while to get there. The Government believes that Plunket’s face-to-face contracts are generally of a very high standard. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Government’s investment in Plunket increased since 2000; if so by how much has it increased? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This Labour-led Government has increased public investment in Plunket by more than 60 percent since 2000. This Government values the Well Child services that have made Plunket the institution it is today and this Government is willing to invest heavily in these services in order to improve the health of all New Zealand children. 
Tariana Turia 
: Why is Plunket negotiating with the ministry to use the $2 million of underspent funding that should have been spent on Maori and Pacific health to pay for the multi-employment collective agreement with nurses; and what action will the Minister instruct the Ministry of Health to take? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member has raised a matter about which I was unaware. I say to her that funding for Plunket is targeted not by ethnicity but by socio-economic deprivation therefore it is difficult for me to agree with her assertion that some Maori and Pacific funding has gone somewhere else. 
Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister consider that this underspend and reallocation of funding will address the disparities in Maori health; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s approach to the Well Child contracts be they with Plunket—which provides about 80 percent of the contracts—or with the other 60 or 70 Tamariki Ora Well Child Schedule providers throughout the country is based in part on socio-economic deprivation but it is not based on ethnicity. 
Terrorism—Border Control 
10.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Which offshore immigration office granted Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali a student visa? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that the office concerned was Dubai and that the visa issued was in the surname of Ali which was the surname applied under by the person concerned. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why does the Minister have confidence in the decision making of offshore offices given that as he has said Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali was using his own passport with his own photograph and with only one further name added and was listed in the US  
9/11 Commission Report 
 as an associate of terrorists when he was granted that student visa by the Dubai office to study at an English language school in New Zealand although he spoke excellent English? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have confidence in a multilayered security system that enabled us to identify Mr Ali locate him monitor him and return him swiftly to his country of residence. New Zealanders can have confidence in our security systems. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can the Minister have confidence in the decision making of offshore immigration offices when the office in South Korea granted a work permit to a man whose applications Immigration New Zealand in Auckland had twice declined saying he did not qualify in any way and would definitely not be getting a work permit? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have said to the member in the past if he wishes to bring individual cases to the attention of the Government he is always welcome to provide that information and we will act appropriately upon it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Which party was in Government—[ 
Interruption 
]; This is a sad one all right but there is much more—when Saudi Arabia the former country of residence of Rayed known as Rayed Mohammed Abdullah was made visa-free what was the year of that Government’s action and is there an “h” word that describes these questions? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am able to confirm that Mr Ali was a long-term resident of Saudi Arabia and that it was the previous National Government that made Saudi Arabia visa-free. The date of that action was 1 July 1999 the then Minister was the Hon Tuariki Delamere and the then Prime Minister was the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What assurance can the Minister give that no other persons granted visas to be in New Zealand are security risks when in some Middle Eastern cultures—as we have already heard today—what we call a surname is not necessarily used and when our immigration screening procedures seem to depend so much on a surname and can so easily be thrown by the inclusion of a further possibly perfectly legitimate name? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: My confidence is based on the following data. In 2005-06 to the end of May 2005 people were removed or deported or voluntarily departed from New Zealand 611 people were stopped from boarding aircraft to New Zealand 1322 people were refused entry at the border 49 successful prosecutions for immigration fraud took place 78 prosecutions were still before the courts 22 people were declined a visa because they posed an unacceptable risk and this one got part-way through the process. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why was someone deported without interrogation as to what he was up to when he had known links to the 9/11 terrorists had come to New Zealand on a student visa to study English although he spoke excellent English and was so keen to have further flying lessons that he approached no fewer than three different aero clubs; why was that person not interrogated as to what he was up to? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Quite obviously I am not at liberty to disclose the details of what questioning may have gone on with that individual as I am not at liberty to discuss other security-related operational details of that case. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why then has the Prime Minister confirmed that Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali was deported from New Zealand without interrogation when the Prime Minister herself stated publicly: “taking on a new surname and having flying lessons when he had enrolled to learn English showed a willingness to deceive”; why were greater efforts not made to find out the motives and the plans behind that calculated willingness to deceive in the interests of international security? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: While we are in the business of quoting the Prime Minister my personal favourite is the following: “I consider it a no-brainer that someone who has been a roommate of a 9/11 terrorist and who is having pilot training is here for no particularly good purpose.” 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When I set this question down for the Minister for the Environment because it relates to the New Zealand waste strategy and the five core policies in it I included a brief outline of what those five policies are which is a sound legislative basis for waste minimisation and management efficient pricing high environmental standards adequate and accessible information and efficient use of resources. My staff were told that my question could contain only three of those policies. It does not make any sense to me at all that that should be the case particularly when a brief look at the questions today shows that my question is not a particularly long one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is obviously a matter that was discussed with the Clerk’s Office. The assessment made at that time was that the inclusion of the other matters was not necessary to render the question intelligible. I note the member’s point that some of the other questions are a bit longer but it would be for that reason—that it was necessary for sense. However as this is a day for reminding members that all questions and answers should be succinct I think the point is usefully made. I think the question is understood by the Minister but I thank the member for raising it. 
New Zealand Waste Strategy—Core Policies 
11.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he support the five core policies of the New Zealand waste strategy three of which are: a sound legislative basis for waste minimisation and management adequate and accessible information and efficient use of materials? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that the core policy of efficient pricing would be assisted by a waste levy as supported by both local government representatives and most of the waste industry and contained in Part 5 of my Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill due for its first reading this afternoon and at what level does he think it needs to be set to provide an effective disincentive for waste generation? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I am generally supportive of a waste levy and to that end I have asked the Ministry for the Environment to facilitate discussions between stakeholders such as local government and the industry. In respect of the level I would like to see further discussion of that matter if agreement cannot be reached by those parties as part of the select committee process that I expect will follow. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does he agree that efficient use of materials would be assisted by the implementation of extended producer responsibility as contained in Part 6 of my bill to encourage brand owners to design waste out of their production and delivery systems and does he agree that the danger of wholly voluntary agreements such as we have to date is that they allow irresponsible brand owners to free-ride? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Broadly yes. I have been pleased with the progress to date in the voluntary regime for example in the printing and packaging industry but I do acknowledge the reality of the free-rider issue and I look forward to it being further canvassed in select committee discussions. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister believe that the Government should lead by example in the area of waste minimisation as my bill requires; if so how is replacing beige wastepaper bins with green wastepaper bins as is currently being done in Parliament consistent with that; and how is replacing water carafes and glasses with disposable plastic cups and energy-efficient water coolers consistent with that? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am pleased to confirm to the member that the Govt3 project is encouraging Government agencies to improve the sustainability of their activities and that all 43 core public service agencies are now involved in that programme. I am advised that the Parliamentary Service has had a recycling scheme in place since the early 1990s and is currently in the process of relaunching that brand. Although I am a little surprised that the member objects to his waste bins turning green I can confirm that I have no responsibility for the decisions of the general manager of the Parliamentary Service. 
Civil Aviation Authority Board and Chairman—Confidence 
12.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does she have confidence in the board and the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority in light of the comments by chairman Ron Tannock that the CAA had not grounded Air Adventures because it had not stuck to its own “no-compliance no-fly” rule; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes for the following reasons. Firstly Mr Tannock was not the chair of the Civil Aviation Authority at the time of the crash of the Air Adventures plane and only one board member from that time remains on the board. Secondly it is not the board that makes the decisions relating to the enforcement of the Civil Aviation Act and the suspension or revocation of aviation documents. Under the Civil Aviation Act it is the Director of Civil Aviation who has statutory independence from the board and the Minister in making these decisions. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: In light of the fact that Mr Tannock said that the authority had to face up to the responsibility of the accident and given the often-used quotes by this Government about accountability can the Minister tell this House the names of anybody—the chair board members senior management or low-level functionaries—who has either resigned or been sacked from or been disciplined in some way by the Civil Aviation Authority? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot but I can tell the member that the board has taken the recommendations from the coroner’s report and the auditor’s report very seriously. The board has undertaken to implement all the recommendations—and not only to implement them but to ensure they are shown publicly to be implemented. That is certainly far more progress than I can remember coming from any other similar accidents. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How does the Minister square away things within this Government when a “low-level messenger” as the Prime Minister called him was sacked on the day he leaked a Cabinet paper but the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority who openly admits the authority caused the death of eight good people by its failure to act—he admitted that; those are not my words—is not touched in any way? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I explained to the member that the board in fact does not make the decision as to who will fly and not fly; it is made by the director. The board’s responsibility is to deal with the director and I will certainly leave that in its hands. I am confused by Mr Williamson because on 6 June he put out a statement in the morning saying that we had to deal with the management; by the evening he had changed it to the board. So I am not sure whether he wanted us to deal with both of them. I cannot deal with the director but I am comfortable with what the board has undertaken to do. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers is the Minister aware that in section 665 of the coroner’s report on the Air Adventures crash he states: “One man one aircraft and one part-time assistant were not a safe critical mass and the safety processes of the Civil Aviation Authority should have detected that and prevented the flight in question.”; and if the Minister is aware of that statement will she inform the House just how she will ensure that the authority will detect such flights and will prevent them from taking off? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Those issues are addressed in the recommendations. There were 31 of them: six relate to the Minister of Transport and are now being looked at by the Ministry of Transport to provide me with advice; the others relate to the Civil Aviation Authority which has undertaken to implement the recommendations; and one relates to Crop and Food Research which is one it will implement. So I believe that action is being taken and that the issue is being taken seriously not only by the Civil Aviation Authority board but also by the Government. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Given that the Minister says she cannot take direct action with management but only with the board what has she directed the board to do about this issue in terms of making somebody—anybody—within the organisation take some responsibility for the ghastly crash that the Civil Aviation Authority admits would not have occurred had it done its job? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have required that the board ensures that all recommendations are implemented and that each month the progress on those recommendations and their implementation will be made public and published. That is the action I have taken. The member is aware that the civil aviation industry—I know it will have been filling his ear—believes that the approach that ought to be taken in civil aviation is one of making quality improvement rather than of putting people’s heads on stakes. I do not believe that that is the appropriate action for the board; I want it to implement the recommendations. The board needs to ensure that the director does implement them. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Can I ask the Minister whether she has any concerns about paragraph 545 of the coroner’s report which states that the law enforcement unit of the Civil Aviation Authority—which is ostensibly ring-fenced from the Civil Aviation Authority operational groups—was subject to considerable pressure from the general aviation group not to take action against Bannerman; and if that is the case why is the person and head of the general aviation group not being disciplined for taking that action against the supposedly independent ring-fenced body within the Civil Aviation Authority? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: He may well be disciplined by the director. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Really? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not know that but he may well be—that is up to the director. Anyone who has half a brain over there on the Opposition benches knows how the Act works; I know Maurice Williamson knows how the Act works. I cannot tell the director how to run his outfit. However I know that Maurice Williamson also knows that one of the recommendations is to look at that part of the Civil Aviation Authority and the authority has undertaken to do just that. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Can the Minister give this House an assurance today 14 June 2006 that no operators out there flying today have such question marks over their operation as Mr Bannerman did and that everyone out there is operating in a safe and proper manner? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The reassurance I received was from the board which received it from the director and the board believed there were no safety issues out there today. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: In light of that answer can the Minister now name one operator—just one—who has been grounded by the Civil Aviation Authority for poor shoddy operation in the last 12 months or since the Bannerman crash or since the Auditor-General’s report or since the coroner’s report? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do not think I can off the top of my head. But I can remember that Air Chathams was grounded— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That was years ago! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it was not years ago because the first Audit Office report I think goes back to the late 1990s and I know that Air Chathams was grounded after that. I cannot give an accurate answer; that is just from my memory. However I am happy to find out for the member. But I did think when I spoke to him that he was a strong believer in an industry that looked not for “name blame and shame” but for trying to have quality improvement within this industry. When I have met with members of this industry that is what they have told me. Whether they are from those organisations that own parts of the industry or those that operate it they say “Let’s learn from the experiences—” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Should he be left flying? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is quite obvious from the coroner’s report that he should not. That was a decision for the director and I think it is fair to say for the chairman who has already said that. The chairman has already said that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So why are we persisting with two regimes depending upon the size of commercial aircraft when most countries have one and when the current system is prejudicial against the interests of the safety of low-capacity aircraft passengers? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The model itself I do not have a great problem with. The fact is that what is identified in the coroner’s report is the general aviation sector—planes with nine or fewer passengers: helicopters top-dressing planes and so on—an area where there has been some concern for a small number of operators. I want to assure this House and New Zealanders that there is no concern at all with our Air New Zealand our Freedom Air Qantas and so on. That sector is not of concern. This coroner’s report goes to the area of some of those operators who have thought—and probably not for the first time—that they can get away with something they ought not to be able to get away with. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. The Labour-led Government was elected last year for a third term after an election campaign that was distinctive in two ways. Firstly Labour beat National notwithstanding the fact that National was richly and secretly funded by a clandestine group the Exclusive Brethren. It is an extremist religious group that Don Brash denied was funding National but it was later revealed that the group put $1.5 million into that party. I want to know right now from the National Party what it promised this extremist group in order to get that sort of money. National was supported also of course by another extremist group the Business Roundtable. We have a clear idea of what National promised the Business Roundtable in order to get funding and policy support from it. 
The second distinctive factor of that campaign was the fact that National offered the biggest electoral bribe in this country’s history in the form of $9.5 billion worth of tax cuts. It was the biggest and most unsuccessful electoral bribe in this country. When National Party members came into this House and said they wanted tax cuts in the Budget they ignored the message clearly given by the electorate that the electorate—the people of New Zealand and the parties that make up the majority in this Parliament—prioritised investment in infrastructure and social spending over the tax cuts that were the alternative. 
Everybody in this House would acknowledge that Labour has delivered socially. It has put families first by giving through the Working for Families package tax relief to those people who need it most. That would be at risk if National introduced its tax cuts. Labour has restored the position of superannuitants to whom the National Party dishonestly promised things in the 1990s and failed to deliver. National delivered the opposite—members know it and they cannot deny it. Labour has invested strongly in health—there has been a 77 percent increase in expenditure on health. That would be at risk if the National Party provided tax cuts for wealthy friends. Labour has delivered in education. It has delivered progressive initiatives such as the paid parental leave provision and 4 weeks’ minimum annual holiday which the National Party promised to cut at one stage then not to cut—but if it ever had the chance working New Zealanders know exactly what it would do. 
Labour has also decisively reversed the rundown in infrastructure that occurred under the National Government in the 1990s. There has been a sixfold increase in transmission lines maintenance in this country. That did not happen in the 1990s and we have seen the consequences of that. There has been a $13.4 billion investment in transport—that is something the National Party talked about but failed to deliver to Aucklanders who have to put up with traffic congestion as a result. Labour has made investment in the defence forces; the defence forces were sadly run down by the cold war warriors in the National Party. This Labour Government has put $3.3 billion into new equipment that was badly needed and $4.4 billion into personnel. 
Where the electorate also made the distinction between the two parties was in terms of the quality of leadership. People compared the National Party with the Labour Party and saw that they did not match up. The National Party knows that and Don Brash knows that. Don Brash promised to go if he was not elected at the last election. That is just one of his election promises that he had the opportunity to deliver on but he dishonoured. He is still there notwithstanding the fact that he is being stalked by Gerry Brownlee Bill English and John Key. Why is he still there notwithstanding his failures? It is because those three members hate each other more than they despise Don Brash and that is what keeps Don Brash—successfully for us—in his current position. 
 Let us have a look at what the National Party actually believes in because the quotes are all there. Don Brash wants to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation New Zealand Post the energy companies and Kiwibank. It is no wonder he put up tax cuts and not the real agenda. New Zealanders would never have elected the National Party on that agenda. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Never in the history of this Parliament has the Opposition had so many issues to use. In fact to paraphrase Winston Churchill never have so many people had so many issues and so little time in which to take them apart—be it the Taito Phillip Field inquiry which was to have taken 11 days and now 11 months or something later has still not come to fruition; be it allowing terrorists into the country and then after many months saying that at least we found them; be it the energy crisis that Auckland faced on Monday; or be it Television New Zealand’s (TVNZ’s) absolutely wonderful clip about the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues a responsibility that most people in her electorate did not even know she had. 
But I say to this House that the best of the lot—because it is possible to pick only one in 5 minutes—was the Michael Cullen interview with Guyon Espiner. I say to those members who have not seen the interview that they should go on the web. It is still on the TVNZ website; it is there for playing. Members of this House will know that politicians when they are off the record will normally be far more candid and more honest than when they are on the record because one has to be reasonably circumspect when one is on the record. That does not apply to Winston Peters who is neither at any time. Regardless of that the Minister of Finance was unaware that the camera was rolling. 
Members should listen to what he said; it is wonderful. He said—and I have to get this right because there are some breaks and pauses here—“And the  
Dominion Post  
leads with the story ‘$8.5 billion surplus and still no tax cuts’. So? What’s the connection?”. Well one could ask anybody that. Has anybody ever realised what having a surplus means? It means that one is taking money from the people over and above what one is spending. People in their households know that if they have $100000 and they spend $75000 in the year on running the place they have a $25000 surplus. That is what they have. But Michael Cullen says: “So? What’s the connection?”. I want to ask Mr Peters something because he seems to be going on about not understanding. I ask him this. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Lassie. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: One cannot call him Lassie; that is not parliamentary. I ask Mr Peters what size the surplus has to get to in order to be— 
Craig Foss 
: Supersize me. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —a super-sized upsized surplus. What if it was $15 billion? Would Dr Cullen still say: “So? What’s the connection?”. That is right. Members should work with me on this one. What if it was a $20 billion surplus? What would Dr Cullen say? 
Hon Members 
: “So? What’s the connection?” 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is what Dr Cullen said on TVNZ and I sat there thinking I could not believe he had said that. I cannot believe that Dr Cullen does not know that the general public out there knows that if the Government is running deficits it is very hard to give tax cuts—I understand that—but that when a Government is running surpluses that is when the time comes to do so. 
Dr Cullen tries to blur the margins by saying there is not really a surplus because the Government is spending a lot of the $8.5 billion on capital expenditure. Well I say to people again that they should take the household example. If someone has $100000 of income and $75000 of expenditure $25000 is left and if that $25000 is used to buy some investments can that person now say he or she does not have a surplus? Of course someone cannot say that because that person has bought a $25000 asset—possibly a revenue-generating asset—so on a cash basis yes he or she does have a surplus. Dr Cullen is now bringing in expenditure on investments that will last for decades—expenditure on investment in a whole lot of infrastructure and so on with value that will last for decades—and saying it actually comes off the surplus. Members should go to the Inland Revenue Department and see whether it will let them take expenditure on their new house as an expense. Members should try to do that. Do members know what the Inland Revenue Department would say? It would say: “So? Where’s the connection?”. That is what the Inland Revenue Department would say. Members would be buying an asset that will appreciate. It has nothing to do with their income. 
Dr Cullen showed his true colours. The reason he is so angry now is that he thought the interview was off the record and he is highly embarrassed. 
It is no wonder that the Prime Minister wants his scalp. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I think the question the Hon Maurice Williamson needs to answer is where his vote is going in terms of the leadership of the National Party. Where is his vote going? [ 
Interruption 
] It is going for Maurice! He said he is going to vote for himself. That means there are four in the ring and I hope the member when he puts his name up in his National caucus gets a seconder because if he does not there will only be three and that means the voting procedures will become less complex—not that they are not complex enough now. 
The prisoner’s dilemma in the National Party is as follows: people who voted for the Hon Bill English when he lost the leadership the last time that party had a spill do not want to vote against Don Brash the current leader because if they do that John Key will win. One thing we know about Bill English’s supporters is that they do not like Dr Don Brash but they like John Key even less. That is the prisoner’s dilemma. So those members are supporting the current leader of the National Party the very same person who defeated the Hon Bill English by accident—do members recall that it was by accident? Bill English’s supporters are supporting Don Brash now because they do not like John Key at all. 
The National Party went into the last election saying it was in favour of policies for the mainstream but it funded its campaign by use of Exclusive Brethren money which is the antithesis of mainstream. Shadowy white men who do not vote fronted up with more than a million bucks—[ 
Interruption 
]—National members do not like it—and the National Party had the gall to say it was representing the mainstream. 
The National Party put $11 billion on the table. There has never been a bigger bribe in New Zealand’s history—not ever; not even Muldoon went near that. The National Party put $11 billion on the table and its members took their laptops around the country to show individual New Zealanders how rich they would become. They bribed they deceived by saying they were mainstream and they lost. They bribed deceived and lost—and that is the lesson. New Zealanders are not stupid. They looked and they decided that the country would not be able to afford the $11 billion. 
But what has happened since? In every question time since the election the National Party has required the Government to spend more money—not that National would have had a chance to spend it if it had won the election because it would all have gone on its big bribe. Even in today’s question time the National Party said it wanted more money to be spent. But National members went to the electorate only 9 months ago with $11 billion worth of bribery and they lost. 
I am very very pleased that this Government is still here because it is delivering on Working for Families and it is delivering on transport. Do members know that $750 million extra went into the health sector a few weeks ago? If the National Party had been in Government it would have spent the extra $750 million that Labour has spent on the health sector across the entire Government vote. I do not know how much the health sector would have got. It would have got little or nothing. It might have had a decrease yet National members send letters to Ministers all around the place that say they want more money to be spent. Those members question the Government every question time demanding that more money be spent. They have an attitude to politics that is best summed up by a word beginning with “h” that is not able to be used in this House. That is the situation with the National Party. 
What we do not know of course is how secret its secret agenda is these days. Does Dr Brash still say: “Frankly I don’t care who runs the schools.”? Does Dr Brash still say: “I would have done what President Bush did in Iraq.” or that the nuclear-free legislation would be “gone by lunchtime”? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just remind members to look at Speakers’ rulings 58/4 and 59/1. Those rulings relate to members not being able to move seats in order to facilitate their making interjections. I just caution members about that. Secondly Mr Hodgson made a hard-hitting speech so some interjections could have been expected but not so many as to drown out the member. The Chair will not allow a member to be drowned out. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I assume in that regard that you will be asking Steve Chadwick Miss Yates Miss Street and Miss Mackey to all go back to their seats so that we do not have to put up with the paint-stripping performance we heard throughout that speech. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 If National had been able to form a Government after the last election what would we have had? We would have had Don Brash as the Prime Minister. He was the leader of the National Party only because the secret funders—the insider traders—said: “No Brash; no cash”. Gerry Brownlee—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. One is to do with the outrageous comments being made by the Deputy Leader of the House. The second point of order is that usually the debates in this House go from side to side. I never thought the Opposition would be so weak so early in the term that we would have two Labour speakers speaking one after the other. I want to know whether that is the kind of form we can expect —in which event we will take the second speaking slot on this side of House because as least there is somebody talking common sense in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will just make a point of observation. Members can never allege that another member has lied. That is absolutely out of order. If members do not like what a member says they can therefore speak in the debate. The matter can also be referred to Madam Speaker as a breach of privilege. All members in this House are honourable members. Their words are unreservedly accepted and all members will get a fair and equitable opportunity to address the business of the House within the Standing Orders that govern our proceedings. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Gerry Brownlee would have been the Deputy Prime Minister. Bill English would have been the Minister of Education and Associate Minister of Finance. Members might remember that Bill English was a Treasury official when it did all the work that was done behind the scenes in the 1980s and 1990s. 
John Key would have been the Minister of Finance. Everyone in this House should see a movie called  
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room 
 then consider whether a money market trader that is a gambler—a good one but a gambler nevertheless—is the sort of person we want managing our finances in New Zealand. 
The next National member is Nick Smith who would have been responsible for the environment and the Resource Management Act. We would have had unfettered development. If he were responsible for energy he would be like Max Bradford on P. In respect of building and construction I ask members to remember the 1991 Building Act. Members might also remember that the funding of standards changed dramatically in the middle of the 1990s. There was no interest from the sector and no standard. No standard was ever given for monolithic cladding systems and that is why we had leaky buildings. 
Tony Ryall would have been running our health system. Hospitals would have been run as businesses with cash registers at the doors. There would have been a loss of institutional knowledge—like we had in the 1990s—as good people left. Intuitive senior nurses and democratically elected boards would have been sacked. Why would we ever let Tony Ryall run our health system? As for Judith Collins I was told that she joined a women’s organisation just before the election then left it straight after the election—she was gone by lunchtime I was told. 
The National Party has two faces. I ask members to remember 1990. National delivered a mini-Budget before Christmas. That mini-Budget contained the benefit cuts and the Employment Contracts Act—a package designed to go together. It was designed to give the appearance of increased productivity by cutting wages and conditions of employment and it was planned. The election was on 27 October Parliament was sworn in in November and the Employment Contracts Bill was introduced in December. It was written before the election. Who wrote the Employment Contracts Bill? It was not the Department of Labour because National was in Opposition. The National Party delivers not on its public promises but on its secret private deals and secret agenda. 
The public must never forget that National has one face for the public and another face for its secret meetings with its secret funders. National received $1.2 million from the non-voting Exclusive Brethren. We know that now but we did not know that the figure was $1.2 million before the election. Who paid for those really big billboards and whose idea were those billboards? A member of the National Party certainly did not come up with that idea. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How much did the unions put in? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I ask Mr Brownlee what the quid pro quo was. We know by looking at some of the fundamentalist websites overseas that women’s rights were in National’s sights—legislated morality in the name of family values. That is what we would have had from a National Government. I say to those new liberal members on the National Party’s back benches that you would have been dragged into this and some of you would have been happy to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Some of them would have been very happy to see the non-liberal approach as we had legislated morality in the name of family values. But I know that some back-benchers would have been appalled at what National was prepared to trade in exchange for the money of the Exclusive Brethren. Labour members understand family values better than the Opposition because we know that family values are underpinned by a commitment to economic and social policy and that is why Labour has the confidence of the House. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do so in the break between one person speaking and the next because I think it is discourteous to break up a person’s speech. However Mr Peters does not think the same way. Mr Assistant Speaker Mr Peters took a point of order a while ago which you did not actually respond to about the Opposition not taking its proper calls. I would have thought that it was clear to anybody who read the order of calls sheet for today that the No. 3 call went to the Progressive party which Pete Hodgson took because Mr Anderton did not take it and the No. 4 call went to the Labour Party as it was— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Williamson. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mr Assistant Speaker I want to get this very clear. Mr Peters took the point of order even when his associate the Hon Brian Donnelly pushed the order of calls sheet in front of him and pointed out it was a Progressive party call then a Labour call. I saw Mr Donnelly pointing that out but Mr Peters decided to break up Lianne Dalziel’s speech—his own coalition partner. You did not respond and I think you had a responsibility to tell this House and Mr Peters that he had got it wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Williamson. The point is well made. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Hansard 
 will record that I raised two issues in my point of order. One was in respect of Gerry Brownlee calling somebody in this House a liar—we all heard it; he should have been ticked off in front of the House. The second issue of course was not as Maurice Williamson described it. When I sat down I was shown the paper not beforehand—bad luck! 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to reflect on the fact that the only question the National Party is asking today— 
Hon Member 
: What’s that? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Well it is the same question the whole country is asking: what does the Labour Government do when it has a tough month or is in a tough spot? We know what Labour members do when they are in a tough spot. The very first thing they do is send their Minister of Energy to Paris. And why do they send their Minister of Energy to Paris? 
Hon Member 
: Why? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I will tell members why. The reason is that there are hot showers in Paris the lights are on in Paris and the power is running in Paris—and it is not running here in New Zealand. So this Government has sent the Minister of Energy to Paris. 
The second thing Government members do when they are in a tight spot is make Winston Peters the Minister of Foreign Affairs so that he will stop shooting Asians. That is what they do. That is the second thing they do when they are in a tight spot. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was an outrageous comment for the member to make. Not only would it harm our international reputation if someone were to take that member seriously—which is probably highly unlikely—but the point is that he should not be making those sorts of outrageous statements. If National cannot do better than that it should put the member down and put up somebody else who has some competence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that members make disparaging remarks about each other all the time. If it is a personal reflection it is out of order and if the member is taking exception under Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections” I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. Everyone knows that the member is the de facto Minister of Foreign Affairs. The real Minister is Phil Goff and I apologise to that member as well. 
What else does Labour do when it gets into a tough spot and has a tough month? Well of course Michael Cullen goes on the managed exit list. He joins an illustrious group of people on that list. Actually Michael Cullen is unsure of whether he will stay or go but he joins Ann Hartley on the list. Michael Cullen and Ann Hartley are on the managed exit list along with Jill Pettis Dianne Yates and Russell Fairbrother. We also know that Jim Sutton was offered the post in Ottawa but he has declined it because he believes he is so invaluable to Labour that he should stay. 
So with the Minister of Energy overseas the lights out in the South Island and everyone having cold showers with the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen joining Ann Hartley Jill Pettis Dianne Yates Russell Fairbrother and Jim Sutton on the managed exit list with Marian Hobbs saying that Wellington has been shafted by Labour and with Taito Phillip Field saying that his future is in the lap of the gods we are in a very interesting situation indeed. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It’s like Schindler’s list—it’s getting longer and longer. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is like Schindler’s list. One Minister who is in a tough spot—and in whom I have been taking a particular interest—is the Minister of Housing. I have been chasing the Minister of Housing around the paddock for a couple of months now on the issue— 
Hon Member 
: What a ghastly thought. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is a ghastly thought—thank goodness I never caught him. He has been telling this House through questions for oral answer telling me through answers to formal parliamentary questions and telling the media that the chairman of the Housing New Zealand Corporation found out about the whistleblower’s gagging order on the same day as the Minister did—7 April. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Same day? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: That is exactly the same day. Apparently the Minister went into a lock-up “please explain” meeting on 9 April to discuss this gagging clause which he and the corporation were aghast about and was told at that meeting—where attendees were locked up for several hours—that the chairman found out about the gagging order on the same day as he did. He was told that the chairman did not break the no-surprises policy—as the Prime Minister explained—but that the chairman found out on the same day as he did. Well we discovered yesterday after months of posing questions to the Minister and receiving denials and confirmations that the chairman found out on the same day as the Minister did that on the eve of the Minister of Housing’s departure overseas on some junket the chairman of the Housing New Zealand Corporation in fact knew about that gagging order over 2 weeks before he told the Minister and over 2 weeks before this Minister told the media and this House. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 The National Party needs to come clean about its real agenda for New Zealand. The only thing that National is excellent at is spin—and some of those members take a hell of a lot to spin round. But the people of New Zealand are very very wary of a party whose history is one of cuts. Would that party have funded the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary? Not on your life! Would that party have funded the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust? Not on your life! Would that party have funded the velodrome in Southland? Not on your life! Those members would not have had a bar of that because they would want to put the money into individual pockets. So the National Party is one that is full of cuts. 
The people of New Zealand have not forgotten National’s “mother of all Budgets” in 1991. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Did this member get an invite to Phil Goff’s barbecue? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Maurice Williamson may have forgotten that but the people have not. It was the Budget that cut benefits. After the news about that Budget came out I was on a bus and a woman came on to the bus and burst into tears. She said: “Look what that Government up on the hill has done. Look what it has done to the people of New Zealand. Look at the benefits it has cut and the poverty it is about to induce.” The people of New Zealand have not forgotten that and the National Party has not changed its spots. It is still a party of cuts. 
This is the National Party that brought in market rentals with all the consequences for health and child poverty that followed. Do people remember the stories of the crowded homes and of three families living in one house? Do people remember the families who were living in garages? Where are those stories now? They are not out there. Why have we cut meningococcal meningitis? The reason is that we have done things about raising the standard of housing in New Zealand. That party is the same National Party that cut superannuation. It is the same party as my colleague reminded me that introduced the Employment Contracts Act. Have those members changed? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: An excellent bill. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: As Maurice Williamson has just indicated—no way! It is still the same party. Don Brash John Key and the bankers are leading the party instead of the farmers—Bolger Shipley and English. That was the old National Party but now we have a party of bankers out there. They are people who have an economic agenda that is about feeding out the rich. People may not believe me but they should listen to those members’ words. Dr Brash wants to succeed and take up where Ruth Richardson left off in 1991. This is his quote: “to talk of ‘the horrors of the 1990s’ is to talk cattle manure.” Dr Brash wants the 1991 job finished. Do people remember? It began with cuts and it will continue with more cuts. 
In May 2002 Dr Brash told the  
Dominion Post  
that reform that boosts work incentives by reducing benefit levels the longer someone remains out of work is desirable. He wants to slash benefits. Dr Brash talked of a lifetime limit for which an individual could gain benefits so if the individual cannot get work Dr Brash wants him or her to have no money. He wants people sleeping under bridges. That is the kind of world that Dr Brash wants. That is the real National Party. 
The 1990s agenda is not completed. Do people remember that it was Don Brash who demoted Katherine Rich—who is a good woman I have to say that. Why? It was because Mrs Rich objected to a section dealing with penalties for women who had more babies while on the domestic purposes benefit. That is the reality of the National Party. By contrast what is the reality of Labour? We have the lowest unemployment rate—300000 new jobs have been created since we have been in Government. That is something to be proud of. That says something about the health of the community and about having a united community. 
The extension to the Working for Families package means we have seen people drop out of having two or three part-time jobs and settle for one-and-a-half jobs because they can afford to as a family unit. That is what Working for Families has done. 
It has also made a significant investment in health. Labour has had the brilliance to move into primary health care instead of always being the bucket at the end of the drip dealing with tertiary care. The Government is building more homes and has removed market rentals. 
 National has a negative future plan for New Zealand. It is a future of cuts and despair. It is a future of raising the age of superannuation eligibility. That is what Dr Brash has talked about. National will provide a divided community. By contrast Labour builds a community and holds it together. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Who was it who said “one law for all”? No it was not the National Party; it was New Zealand First. But like so much that National members have stolen from us they do not know how to practice it. On National’s breach of the law I say that the media must get the facts straight and stop buying the myths and the spin in relation to National’s non-payment of GST on its broadcasting allocation at the last election. We have to ask ourselves a few simple questions. What does the law say? What did National do? What are the effects of National’s actions? Who is out of pocket? 
If members read today’s paper they will see that the chief executive of the Electoral Commission said yesterday that National could repay the money without a legislative change. National has some lawyer members and they know exactly what I am saying. On that basis the answer is that National is making its current claims totally spuriously. The answer is straightforward. No matter what National members say the law says there is a limited amount that parties can use for the purposes of broadcasting at an election and that amount is set by the Electoral Commission. Right? 
National was lucky enough in getting the amount it did. It received several times the amount that New Zealand First received even though it did not get more than twice the vote we received. It received several times more than New Zealand First did then it went out and spent more than that. The point is that rather than National members taking their good fortune and playing by the rules they abused their providence and corruptly tried to grow their broadcasting expenditure even further. That is a fact. 
So what did those members do? Well they broke the law. They breached the Broadcasting Act by overspending. This is what people seem to forget. They have already been referred to the police over this matter so why on earth is the media falling for the line that National cannot pay because the law has to be changed? That is total bovine scatology and those members know it. For Don Brash to now claim as he did this morning that we in New Zealand First want National to break the law shows what a totally incompetent fool he can sometimes be. There he was on  
Morning Report 
 making a prize fool of himself and saying that New Zealand First is responsible for National not paying the broadcasters. What total humbug! I have to ask whether this is the first time— 
David Bennett 
: Pay your legal bills! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The member should listen sunshine when I say I have paid mine so he should not tell this House a lie. Unlike the member who has the courage of a sparrow I face up pay up and take people on. The member has not heard the end of it—make no bones about that. I will have the member laughing on the other side of his face before too long—make no bones about it. He must just be patient. 
I will ask this question about the matter. Was this National’s first election as it was for the Maori Party? If the Maori Party had done this it might have been understandable because this was its first election. No it was not National’s first election. It has been having outings since 1938. The law has been in force for 20 years. National knew the law but decided to circumvent it. 
Hon Member 
: Is this your last one? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No it is not my last one. More important the member will stay over there whilst he has that attitude. He will stay there as long as he has that arrogant attitude. 
I received an email from a businessman the other day. He wrote: “I was self-employed for 11 years and in that time if I made one mistake if I was one day late I was penalised to the full plus interest on GST PAYE ACC and income tax. The National Party did not rewrite the law for myself or my fellow taxpayers when we made mistakes.” New Zealand First members could not have put it better ourselves. That is exactly what is happening here. National overspent and it has the absolute born-to-rule arrogance to think that it will stop the whole of Parliament so National can be seen not to break the law. I am sorry but who voted against the clean slate legislation? Who voted against Nandor’s wipe the slate clean bill when the Greens put that bill before Parliament? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the member’s full name. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I mean the Green member who put up a bill about wiping the slate clean on crime. National voted it down and now Don Brash says he wants to wipe the slate clean. There is a word for that. 
Hon Member 
: What about Harry Duynhoven? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: National voted against Harry Duynhoven as well. He was totally innocent and there was no money involved. There is a word for that and it starts with “h”. National members are super-good at this hypocrisy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to the member that using the “h” word like he has is an imputation and members cannot get around the rules about unparliamentary language by a circumlocution. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect unless you are a soothsayer you would not know what the “h” word is. Unless you are clairvoyant or a soothsayer you do not know what word I was using at all and you cannot therefore rule me out until I offend in a way that you understand and comprehend. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Peters. Both of us have been here a long time. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 We have to pity the National Party’s dilemma. What does a party do when its most basic philosophy most basic beliefs and all its policies are not only completely discredited but are so unpalatable to the voting public that they would result in the party surely not getting elected? The answer is quite simple: it does not release any policy detail whatsoever. We in the Government are often asked in this House why we refer all the time to the National Government of the 1990s. It is not simply because Labour inherited such a huge social economic and infrastructural deficit that New Zealand is still paying for it today; it is because that was the last time we received any policy detail whatsoever from the National Party. That was the last time we had any idea of what a National Party would do in Government. So we have to refer back to those times. 
I know that the National Party does not like going back there—to do so would prove in practice that everything National stands for today would be a complete failure in the future because it was a complete failure back then as well. We know that the National Party has only one policy at the moment and that relates to tax. Even on that we do not have any detail because National has acknowledged that its policy at the last election might not now be affordable despite the fact that the entire way through the election campaign Labour members were telling National that it would not be affordable. 
I wonder what would have happened if National had been elected and forced to implement its extreme promises during the election campaign. Well I will tell members. In Budget 2006 we would have been facing cuts in spending in health education and infrastructure that once again would have destroyed the fabric of this country particularly in provincial New Zealand. I have often said and I will say again that at the last election I was absolutely astounded that a party vying to be the major party in Government was allowed to get away with having absolutely no policy detail in the major area of Government spending which is health. 
I was also amazed that National members were allowed to get away with going around the country and promising to double treble or quadruple Government spending in every single area of Government expenditure and that not one person in the media said: “Hang on the emperor has no clothes. National cannot possibly afford to cut revenue in the way it is suggesting.” Let me take David Bennett as an example. I see him over there. He thinks we should buy up all private land that has a camping ground on it and is being sold. Who will pay for that? David Bennett thinks that is Labour policy. Our policy was to do up Department of Conservation land so that it could be used for camping grounds. In any case if the Government was looking to purchase land the stupidest thing to do would be to come out and say that it thought it would buy some land. The stupidest thing to do would be to indicate that it might be interested so that landowners then rack up the price. But of course the National Party does not care about that. National members care about getting their names in the paper rather than getting outcomes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to help the member who is on her feet. She should read the Landcorp annual report and realise just how stupid her own Government is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That was yet another “not a point of order” from Mr Brownlee. 
The National Party does not tell us what it stands for because it is an extremist party led by a man with an extreme right-wing agenda. He is a man who does not care who runs and owns our public schools and he has said that publicly. He is a man who said our nuclear-free policy would be gone by lunchtime. He is a man who would have had us participating in the Iraq war. National has never talked about how much money it would have cost if that policy had been implemented. He is a man whose policies are so extreme that the Exclusive Brethren feel comfortable with him. 
National can set up its liberal caucus and decide that it needs to get more “touchy-feely” to re-engage with certain sectors of our community but it will take more than wearing New Zealand designer clothing to reconnect with the communities that National members have lost touch with. I thought it was very interesting that National members have decided they need to get back in touch with the arts culture and heritage community and with women voters at the same time that they are describing women members of Parliament as being like Lady Macbeth because we have given up our femininity. I say that the National Party probably does not need to look very deep to see why it has an issue with women voters. As my colleague Marian Hobbs pointed out Dr Brash said that to talk of the horrors of the 1990s is to talk cattle manure. I suspect that is easy to say when one is on a Reserve Bank Governor’s salary. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Yesterday the European Parliament by a large majority called for the closure of the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay. Earlier this year I had a similar Guantanamo Bay motion on the Order Paper but Labour vetoed our having a debate on it in the House. I would like my fellow MPs to become a little bolder on this important matter and risk offending the Bush administration because there is hardly a Parliament in the world where the majority of MPs are not for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. 
This week the Bush administration’s total lack of humanity was exposed when it described the suicide of three Guantanamo Bay inmates as an “act of war” and a “good PR move”. Everyone knows that it was the result of the three men’s despair at being illegally detained denigrated and mistreated year on year without charge and without any prospect of release as is the case for hundreds of other prisoners in the Guantanamo Bay hellhole. 
The abuse of human rights at Guantanamo Bay should also motivate us to be better—to not act in an arbitrary manner against foreigners in our country and to give them an opportunity to explain themselves with legal representation if they want it. This is true whether people are refugees like Ahmed Zaoui or here on a student visa like Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali from Saudi Arabia. In Mr Ali’s case the Government admits that he was not posing any immediate threat to New Zealand security but it summarily bundled him out of the country on a Draconian section 72 removal order for no apparent reason other than to avoid his getting legal representation and being able to convey to us his side of the story. Surely such due process and the Government’s accountability for its actions is relevant when Mr Ali was interrogated intensively after September 11 by American officials who decided he was not a security risk and let him stay in America. 
We also should not be helping George Bush to fight his wars whether in Iraq or in terms of his preparations for nuclear war. That is why it was disturbing to find that Rakon one of our premier companies is developing crystal oscillators—be they shock-hardened or G-hardened oscillators for smart shells or radiation-hardened oscillators—to military specifications laid down by the US defence contractor Rockwell Collins so as to enable the guidance systems on missiles whether or not nuclear-tipped to work well in the environment of a nuclear exchange. 
The deception involved is also concerning because last August when I raised concerns Rakon put out a press statement saying that it: “was not privy to the end-use systems equipment or applications developed by its customers.” That contrasts with what it wrote in internal emails in that same year as recently exposed by the  
New Zealand Herald 
. These showed that Rakon did know and that it was developing its oscillators on contract for specific military end uses. Rakon also did not tell the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which governs the export of strategic goods the full story about the end uses. It did not tell the ministry it was developing radiation-hardened oscillators and what their end use was. 
Unfortunately the ministry now seems to be buying Rakon’s old line that the oscillators are not specifically military. In a reply to a written parliamentary question that I received this week the ministry ran the argument that radiation-hardened oscillators are also useful in: “satellite communications and the aerospace industry.” The point is not whether the oscillators have civilian uses but whether they were developed up to a military standard or threshold which they were. One thing in Rakon’s emails that gives the game away is that Rockwell Collins’ specified that nuclear-hardened oscillators need to function correctly at a depth of 135 metres. That suggests they will be used for military missiles because those are the only missiles that need to be launched from an underground silo or a submarine. As a nuclear-free country and as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty we should not help America improve its capacity to fight a nuclear war. Instead we should be pressing it to fulfil its commitments under the non-proliferation treaty to engage in comprehensive nuclear disarmament. 
Another area in which we should be careful not to go down the American track is policing yet that is what this Government is doing by starting a trial of the Taser stun gun whose 50000 volt charge has contributed to the death of over 150 Americans in recent times as documented by Amnesty International. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I rise to speak today about a Government that is hanging on by its fingernails. 
David Bennett 
: I hope it doesn’t bite them! 
ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes I hope it does not bite them. We know this because we can see what is happening. Even in this House yesterday Mr Speaker your authority was challenged by one of your own members. That tells us that this Government is in disarray. I am on a select committee with poor old Taito Phillip Field. He is a good guy. He is acting more like a member of the Opposition in that select committee because he knows— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’s close to being one. 
ANNE TOLLEY 
:—that he is close to being one. He is on the managed exit list; there is nothing surer. Of course the Prime Minister has to look after people like our friend Taito Phillip Field and Marian Hobbs who is in the House and who spoke in the general debate earlier on because there is only a one-vote majority. In order for this Government to hang on until grim death it has to look after those who are looking for an exit. 
Last week the Hon Ruth Dyson who is the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) said in a media release: “Turning young offenders around before they become adult criminals is one of the most important things the youth justice system can do.” I agree with her. But I ask that Minister what she has been doing for youth justice for the last 7 years. It is quite clear from the capability review that was released at the same time as the Minister made that statement that she and her department have been doing nothing. They have been sitting on their hands while the youth justice system has been floundering under heavy bureaucracy under poor management from a lack of funds and most important from a lack of focus within the Child Youth and Family Services structure. 
Back in March the State Services Commission pointed out to the department that it had not given a high enough priority to completing the youth justice capability review despite continued attention from the judiciary. The judiciary itself has been saying to this Government that it needs to know exactly what is happening within youth justice. It said it needed that capability review completed so that it could see some improvement in the way we look after our young people who are getting into trouble. It has been 3 years since the baseline review directed the department to complete a capability review and it took 2 years to complete that—the department came back and asked for a year’s extension. So after a review said that this Government did not know what it was doing in youth justice a report was put out saying that this Government still did not know what it was doing in youth justice. There is not enough funding not enough emphasis and not enough staff and it shows in some of the figures coming through on our youths who are getting into trouble. 
Nothing has changed under this Minister and this Government. The recommendation in the 2003 baseline review that we should have dedicated staff positions for youth justice has not resulted in anything happening. The capability review states this should happen and all of a sudden we are supposed to believe the Minister when she says it will fall into place in the next few months. With the merger of Child Youth and Family Services with the Ministry of Social Development youth justice will be buried even more. The chief executive of the ministry himself labelled this new big superministry of social development as the Borg mothership. Well I fear for our youth offenders under that sort of structure. 
National actually backs the Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft who has been calling since 2004 for youth justice to be removed from the management of the Child Youth and Family Services because it could not balance youth offending with its care and protection role. Right throughout the capability review and right throughout the baseline review that point was made strongly and this Government has sat on its hands and watched. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I want to talk today in this general debate about the vacuum where National’s policy ought to be. A lack of leadership is reflected in a lack of policy. In recent times a lot of sound and fury has come from National Party members signifying nothing. We have seen them join the ranks of the barking over the microchipping law implementation—the original legislation that at least in part they supported at the time of its passage. We have seen them braying over possible disruption from industrial action in the health sector when a Labour-led Government attached the health sector code of good faith as a schedule to its Employment Relations Act—a code that guarantees the maintenance of life-preserving services in the event of industrial action. 
That measure was put through by a Labour-led Government. It was done in a way that represents this Labour-led Government’s way of proceeding—by consultation and by getting parties together to agree. In the present situation the district health boards and the unions have agreed through negotiation and arbitration on systems that need to be put into place to ensure that life-preserving services are provided during any industrial action. That is a careful balance protecting both the safety of the public and workers’ right to withdraw their labour. The process was arrived at a couple of years ago in the form of a code of good faith. That code has recently been added to the Employment Relations Act. It is an effective and a balanced measure. 
Further Parliament has recently approved financial appropriations for the 2006-07 Budget. The best the National Opposition could do was to ritualistically trot out half-hearted speeches in opposition. I have used three out of numerous examples I could use to demonstrate the lack of policy alternatives put up by the National Opposition. The National Party looks like an unfocused lobby group. It is a band looking for a wagon. It leaps upon any noisy issue to maximise activity but completely lacks effectiveness. 
Why is that? The reason is its lack of policy. No alternative Budget has been put up. Numbers of National MPs are secretly very impressed by this Government’s investment in infrastructure. We are putting billions of dollars into public transport roads and infrastructure and that will clearly move our country forward. What does the National Opposition offer? Nothing! It simply offers sound and fury signifying nothing. 
Why can those members opposite not offer this country an alternative? There are two reasons. First of all they are incapable of devising alternatives and secondly they are incapable of agreeing on what the alternatives should be. What do we know about their current policies and the real agenda of their current leader? Let us go to a couple of quotations. In his term as leader of the National Party Dr Brash has said: “And I don’t want us to be afraid of the electorate by watering down our message.” He said: “I have a personal view and at this point I am not expressing it.” He has said things of that order that have led commentators to say things such as this quotation from the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “Brash brings with him a baggage of extremist economic policies that thankfully I had thought had been rejected by mainstream political parties. It’s as though the mistakes and excesses of the past 20 years have passed him by unseen.” Further the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 states: “… the voice of ignorance narrow political advantage and selfishness: the voice of Don Brash.” 
I will tell this House what New Zealanders see in this Labour-led Government. They see secure confident leadership. They see capable and dedicated front-bench members. They see a united caucus driving forward with a clear agenda to transform this economy for the benefit of all to support families to get on and to build pride in New Zealand’s unique national identity. All three of those characteristics are completely lacking in the Opposition. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 What we are looking at day after day is a very worried Government. This is a Government and a Prime Minister who are hanging on to power—but only just. Everything they touch turns to custard. They cannot even keep the lights on in Auckland. This is a Government that is very very worried. 
They look across the House and what do they see? They see us. They see the proud National Party. They see an invigorated caucus led by Dr Brash just waiting to take back the Treasury benches. They see 24 new MPs each one of them working away making their mark sizing up the Ministers on the other side of the House and waiting for their chance to be the next Government. We look at them and what do we see? 
Anne Tolley 
: I try not to look. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: We have to look at them. Even from the back benches we have to look at them. 
What do we see? We see the managed exit list. We see the list of Ministers who have risen and quickly fallen again. We see the list of MPs who are just waiting for their managed exit. How many of them are there? Poor old Marian Hobbs was absolutely shafted over the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary. All that the loyal hard-working Marian Hobbs wanted was $3 million for her significant projects fund. She did not get it for Karori. Invercargill Queenstown and Dunedin got it but poor old Marian Hobbs got nothing. 
Taito Phillip Field turns to God. God knows whether he will stick with Labour. And what about Jim Sutton? No he did not want to become ambassador to Canada. What about him? He was defeated in Aoraki. Well maybe there is Niue. 
Even worse this is the Government that will not take responsibility for its own actions. How many years has it been in power? It has been in power for 7 long years and still it cannot take responsibility for its own actions. This is the “run for cover” Government. This is the Minister of Finance who sits on an $8 million surplus but cannot see the link between that and delivering tax cuts that will benefit all New Zealanders. 
Worse still whose fault is it? It is the media’s fault. Of course it is not the Government’s fault. And what about the worst offender of all? What about the do-nothing Minister—my friend Mr Jim Anderton the Minister responsible for drug policy. What will it take for Mr Anderton to tighten the regulations around the sale and supply of party pills? A survey released yesterday showed that one in five young people has tried party pills—20 percent of our population has tried party pills. Is that not enough to make Mr Anderton act to tighten up the regulations? Clearly it is not. Sixty percent of the people questioned in that survey released yesterday believed that the present regulation of party pills is too light. 
Now is the time to act. We must move quickly to protect our young people. Mr Anderton is the Minister in charge of drug policy. He is the man who needs to take responsibility because we now find that the problem of party pills is much bigger and much worse than we ever imagined. Mr Anderton has sat on his hands while the evidence has mounted—the evidence from surveys and from evidence-based work but also the anecdotal evidence that is building up and up on this issue. 
Finally I want to send a message to Mr Anderton. He may not have acted to shut down the party pill industry but I have. I have got a party pill shop closed in Oamaru—one down many more to go. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Points of Order 
Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to introduce the Broadcasting (2005 Election Broadcasting Reimbursement) Amendment Bill forthwith. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly free to seek leave. Is there any objection? There is. 
Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill 
Second Reading 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill validates the uses of Alfred Cox Park which is a centrally located park in the city of Gisborne that was gifted to the borough of Gisborne in 1944 under a deed of trust. The uses currently are contrary to the Reserves Act 1977. Every Saturday morning a flea market is held in the grounds and an excellent i-site has been built at considerable expense as part of the Gisborne Visitor Information Centre which is an important part of Gisborne’s tourism. 
Alfred Cox Park was classified as a recreation reserve in 1985 but in 1966 the council had allowed the public relations office to be replaced by the visitor information centre that I have just mentioned. Prior to 1990 part of the land was also being used for the flea market. Both of these uses according to legal opinions obtained by the council and scrutinised by parliamentary counsel are contrary to the Reserves Act 1977. So the Gisborne District Council is promoting this local bill which was accepted by the Clerk of the House in June 2005 after several false starts. My predecessor Janet Mackey MP promoted the bill originally and as the newly elected electorate MP I am delighted to continue its progress through this House on behalf of the Gisborne District Council. 
I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for the time and effort it put into the scrutiny of this bill and I thank the officials who came up with good solutions to some of the legal problems that were raised during the select committee process. The committee received several submissions on the bill. The submission from the council outlined the history of the park and the activities that have taken place. It referred to the establishment of the public relations office and its subsequent replacement with the visitor information centre. The council had consulted with the two current users of the reserve and also with members of the family of Alfred Cox. 
Two differing legal opinions were obtained. The solicitors for Tourism Eastland which operates the visitor information centre felt that the centre actually met the description in the deed of trust which refers to “buildings for the entertainment convenience or amusement of the public or other buildings of a civic nature”. I have some sympathy with their view that a visitor information centre that disseminates information widely to the public and displays objects from a museum fits the description in the deed. The council outlined in its submission the considerable efforts it had made—quite unsuccessfully—to relocate the flea market and referred to the petition to the council from 72 signatories who supported the continued existence of the flea market. That was followed by another petition from local people in the neighbourhood who were concerned about the undesirable effects of the flea market. However anyone who attends the flea market knows that it is extremely well attended and that many many Gisborne citizens go there on a regular basis to get fruit and vegetables. 
A submission from a Dr Helen Papanui supported the intent of the bill supported the use of the land by the flea market as a tourism attraction that may fit the terms of the deed of trust and as a meeting place for locals and agreed that the information centre was important for tourism in the district. Note that it is not information from the museum that is displayed in the centre but Department of Conservation information perhaps fulfilling the public entertainment criterion. Overall there was support for the two uses of the park and there was definite support for the desire to ensure that the activities continue in the interests of the residents of Gisborne. The council sought then to come within the terms of the law in order to protect the continuation of those two activities in the park. 
The select committee made a couple of changes to the bill on advice from officials. Their reasoning was that in order to validate the use of the park by the visitor information centre as well as the flea market the bill needed to apply to the Reserves Act in general and in whole not just—as the council had suggested—to the specific part that related just to the flea market. In fact the Department of Internal Affairs suggested that it was unclear whether the bill as drafted originally would actually validate the presence of the visitor information centre. In addition the officials suggested a change to clause 5 to allow validated uses to flow through to the provisions dealing with leases and licences in the future so that the council could continue to lease the land out in accordance with the current activities. 
The Gisborne District Council representatives did not agree with those suggestions from the parliamentary officials. They told me that in their opinion the fundamental objective of the amending legislation was to validate use not to provide a designation and they felt that our officials were focusing on the designation of the reserve. They also said the officials had failed to appreciate that the action in 1998 of redesignating a part of the recreation reserve as a local purpose reserve was unlawful. Therefore as an action that is unlawful cannot be deemed to be lawful the designation did not actually take place. It is all very complicated and if one is not a lawyer it is very difficult to find one’s way through all this. However the important thing is that the select committee has followed the advice of its officials and the Gisborne District Council whilst telling me it did not necessarily agree with that felt overall that it wanted the bill to proceed in order to put the validation process in place and to put an end to what has been a rather lengthy process through this House. 
I am delighted as the electorate MP to stand in the House today and speak on the return of this bill to the House for its second reading. I have to express disappointment. I had hoped to progress this bill right through all stages today and had sought and obtained consent for that from almost all parties in this House. However because we have to seek leave we need only one member to disagree. Therefore knowing that someone was going to disagree I have not sought that leave from the House. Instead we will see this bill go through the normal processes and take a little bit longer. I say to the Gisborne District Council that the bill is in safe hands in this House and that we will progress the bill through the normal processes of the Committee stage and third reading as quickly as we are able to do so. I commend this bill to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on behalf of the Government on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill which of course was introduced by my mother. I thank the member Anne Tolley who has just taken her seat for her stewardship of the bill through the House currently. I agree that it is disappointing we cannot get the bill through all stages in the House tonight and I assure the Gisborne District Council that it was not the Labour Party that had any opposition to that. 
The bill has been a very long time coming around and the reasons for that are many and varied. The council worked very hard on getting its bill prepared. When it had finally managed to get it completed it brought it to the House and submitted it to the Clerk but it was told that the rules had changed so it then needed to go back and rewrite the bill. But here we are! 
I thank the select committee for its work on this bill. I know that there was a little bit of consternation within the council that some of the changes made might not be necessary and that the council felt that validating legislation was not needed to correct the area of reclassification but from my reading of the situation I believe the select committee has taken good advice and I am sure the Gisborne District Council and the users of Alfred Cox Park will be well served by this bill. 
Alfred Cox Park is a reserve under the Reserves Act of 1977 and it was classified as a recreation reserve in 1985. When the area where the park is now was gifted to the council by Mr Cox it was stated that only buildings for the entertainment convenience and amusement of the public or other buildings of a civic nature should be erected on the land. I know that when lawyers become involved matters become very complicated but I can assure members that the buildings and the activities carried out on that land are very much of a community nature. 
It is true that we have a visitor information centre and that commercial activities are carried out on that site but those commercial activities are fundamental to the people of Gisborne and to our community. In that respect I urge members to see that even though there may be some financial transactions involved in shopping at flea markets playing mini putt and catching a bus on holidays those are very much part of the lifestyle of “Gisbornites” and I ask members to respect that accordingly. 
It is very amusing—I used to get the bus to university and back and I would be picked up and dropped off at Alfred Cox Park eight to 10 times a year. I never realised that I was aiding and abetting a criminal activity—and doing so repeatedly. I did not know that when my parents took me to play mini golf as a child—with my father hoping I would be the next Tiger Woods and being inevitably disappointed—that again I was aiding and abetting a criminal activity. I am pleased that Ron Mark’s bill in relation to the age of criminal responsibility was not enacted at that time because at the age of 10 I could have been facing some long time in a minimum security penitentiary for recidivist offending by carrying out financial transactions against the law. I am just pleased that Mr Mark was not around at that time. 
In all seriousness though it seems as if this is a trivial bill but it is not. It goes to the heart of many of the things we do in Gisborne that are important to us. As members know flea markets in most areas but especially in provincial areas are an incredibly important part of our community. We all go down to the flea market and buy our veggies and we meet people there whom we only ever see at the market. That is important and no one ever intended that that market would be contrary to the law. 
The visitor information centre is also an important part of our community not just because it brings in tourists and provides economic development in an area that relies very heavily on tourism but also because of many of the other activities that go on there to build up our regional identity in Gisborne and the East Coast. It is impossible to move that information centre and I doubt very much we would be able to find any land now within the Gisborne district that would be appropriate for an information centre even if we did decide to make the monumental decision to shift a huge centre like that. 
This park has been part of our community for a long time and part of my life for a long time. I played mini golf there many many times as a child. I have been to flea markets—the Labour Party has had flea market stalls there for as long as I can remember. I ask members to vote accordingly and to support the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill 2005. Let us hope that we can get the bill through the House in a speedy fashion. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 In noting Moana Mackey’s comments about Gisborne I recall my time living at Te Araroa. At the time Gisborne which was 100 kilometres away was the closest place to get a haircut—I had to go down to Gisborne to get my hair cut. I also note that the bill was initially introduced by Janet Mackey and I take the opportunity if she is listening to ask whether she has managed to hold on to her sunglasses in the absence of the careful attention of her former New Zealand First colleagues. Janet will know the story behind that one! 
New Zealand First’s position is that this bill simply represents a common-sense solution to one of those legal conundrums we get ourselves into from time to time not because of any malice or ill attention—indeed in the absence of such—but simply because of the way the statute is expressed or because of conflicts between different statutes. We find ourselves having to put up statute amendment bills for example for the very same reason. This bill seems to me to be a common-sense solution to one of those conundrums. 
It is to be noted that the committee on which I have to note there was no New Zealand First representation has made some changes to the legislation as Anne Tolley pointed out. The committee believes that those changes are needed to prevent any confusion regarding the bill’s effects and purposes. The promoter of the bill the Gisborne District Council does not consider the changes necessary but having not been there to listen to the arguments from the law drafters New Zealand First has confidence in the very good members of this committee and its officials. I personally have confidence in the deputy chairman—his having been a county clerk for I believe 18 years in Hokianga means that he has some understanding of local government. 
So New Zealand First will be voting for this bill. We note there were only two submissions and one oral presentation that lasted 10 minutes. Consideration took only 43 minutes so we do not believe we should be spending huge amounts of valuable House time on this bill and we wish to express our disappointment that it could not go through all its stages here today. Certainly the fact that it was not able to do so was not due to any opposition from New Zealand First. New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I will take just a very brief call on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. I acknowledge Anne Tolley for her caretaking of the bill as the local member and of course I acknowledge the previous member Janet Mackey for her efforts in bringing the bill before the House. 
This is one of those bills whereby local communities want to make a local decision and this local community has done so. Wide support was presented to us from the Gisborne community as has been outlined by Anne Tolley and my colleague Moana Mackey. On those grounds the committee took the view of being permissive rather than restrictive in what it wanted to achieve for the Gisborne District Council and I believe that the bill as it stands at its second reading certainly achieves that. 
 I have to endorse the disappointment being expressed about the delay in putting this bill through all its stages on this particular members’ day. That is most unfortunate because it is the kind of thing that makes delays costly in some respects to local people in more ways than one and more time-wasting than necessary for something where a local decision has been made. There was a requirement for Parliament also to have a say which can be irksome in itself but which can also expedite things very quickly. I believe this bill has indicated to the local people that we would really like them to proceed in the way they wish to regarding Alfred Cox Park and its uses and some of the amenities the community has become quite attached to. 
In conclusion I wish that this legislation may be speeded further on the next members’ day so that it can be expedited very quickly. I support the bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Briefly on behalf of the Green Party I offer our support also for the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. As always where local people want something to happen we are right behind it. We take a particular interest in this bill in relation to the fact that the park is where Gisborne people have their flea market every weekend. We know that the place is a great source of cheap produce and other goods for anybody but particularly for low-income people. Knowing the socio-economic demographic of much of the Gisborne district I think it is really important that we are supporting those people’s rights to be able to buy goods locally and more cheaply than they might be able to access elsewhere. It would be somewhat ridiculous if we denied local people the ability to do that. 
We are pleased to support this bill. Like others in this House such as the bill’s sponsor Anne Tolley I also wish that we were seeing this bill through its third reading today. It is ridiculous that we are not because it is a very simple matter. But I am sure it will go through very quickly on the next members’ day. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to add our support to the second reading of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill and to commend both the local MPs who have worked to see it pass. 
The legislation is not controversial. It reflects what local people want and also I suspect what Alfred Cox himself would have wanted. I know very little about Alfred Cox but he obviously had a great community spirit and wanted to see land set aside for people to enjoy. I think that even though flea markets include commercial transactions there is a lot more to them than the chance to buy some veggies. Going to a flea market is a social occasion and I think it still very much reflects the intention of the donor Mr Cox. I also think the use of the park for the visitor information centre again provides an opportunity to promote recreation in the area. Again I believe that is very much in keeping with Mr Cox’s intentions. 
I do share the disappointment that the bill cannot proceed through all its remaining stages. There seems to be no reason for it not to so the United Future members share that disappointment. We look forward to another members’ day and we continue to support this bill. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Quite clearly the Maori Party seems to be the problem in terms of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. 
Anyone in the know will tell members what is happening at Alfred Cox Park. At the top of the list is the international half-pipe vertical ramp which will leave any young skateboarder breathless. If one goes down there any day one is likely to run into young Luka Peta who is entered in the  
Guinness Book of Records 
 as the world’s youngest skateboarder and who can reputedly drop in—skate down—off anything in the park. Early Saturday morning the place is abuzz. The flea market is swarming with all types of produce and people. The vibrant diversity is evident in gourmet delicacies cosmopolitan cultures and the very best of organic vegetables. Inside the park is a majestic Canadian totem pole which was gifted to the people of New Zealand in 1969 by the Canadian Government on the occasion of the bicentenary of the landing of Captain James Cook at the Kaiti Beach in 1769. If it is autumn in the park it is—as described in promotional material—likely to be resplendent with bountiful olive trees. It is a great place to sit and remember how it was that Alfred Cox—a member of the mysteriously named 30000 Club—came to donate this land to the Gisborne Borough Council in 1944. The 30000 Club is apparently the same club that commissioned and gifted the iconic bronze statue Pania of the Reef—my ancestor—which hit the news for all the wrong reasons late last year. 
I enjoyed reading the  
Hansard 
 transcripts of this bill’s first reading. The Hon Maurice Williamson summed it all up with the innocent question: “What would Alfred Cox actually think about this park and the fact that we now are validating the illegal activities that go on there?”. That is a question I want to explore further for the illegal activities that are being validated here today extend far beyond the constraints of the Reserves Act 1977 and the deed of trust under which the park was originally gifted. 
How could it be that this Parliament would let this bill go as far as this without consultation with and involvement by the mana whenua Rongowhakaata? How could it be that when Labour MP Janet Mackey spoke at the first reading of this bill she fudged its significance and dared to label it as non-controversial? Is it non-controversial to take tupuna land from the people under the Public Works Act? Is it non-controversial to presume that Rongowhakaata land was idle land and there would be no great shame in using it as a dumping-ground for the town’s rubbish? Is it non-controversial if council records show that the dumping of rubbish began one morning at 8.30 90 minutes before the matter was taken to a council meeting to receive the token rubber stamp? Aue te mamae te pouri. Kei te heke tonu nga roimata. 
[ 
Alas the pain and stress. Tears continue to be shed. 
] 
There are many other histories other stories other tears yet to be shed about what is happening at Alfred Cox Park. There are memories to be shared of the uses of the Waikanae Stream prior to the creation of the Alfred Cox Park evidence about the fish life the bird life the impact of tidal changes. In the debate at the first reading Labour member Georgina Beyer congratulated Janet Mackey saying: “This is the kind of thing whereby politicians should listen to what local people desire aspire and wish to have in their communities”. Those were beautiful words; it is a pity they were not taken seriously. Where are the views of Rongowhakaata and the submissions from the Rongowhakaata Trust? It is Manfeild Park revisited which I also spoke about here. I really have to ask why no other party in this House has been seeking the truth about how mana whenua fare in this new bill. Why has it failed to register with the Maori caucus of Labour? 
Who has the Minister of Maori Affairs consulted in his own electorate in order to hear the views of the electorate? It may well be that Rongowhakaata can accept the designation of their tupuna land being in the name of Mr Alfred Cox. Indeed some korero that we have heard relays the mamae the pain of whanau who do want the pride of their memory to be scarred by association with dumped rubbish while other members of the whanau want their tribal histories acclaimed to assert place names of significance within their whakapapa. It is the birthright of Rongowhakaata to hold these debates to discuss the merits of redesignating place names that hold meaning. As the original landowners Rongowhakaata have a history and an understanding of this area that predates 1944—prior to the 30000 Club and before a minigolf course or a visitor information centre was erected on the site. No doubt it is a history which the borough of Gisborne is not fully familiar with. It is probably also a history which does not feature in the promotional paraphernalia of Tourism Eastland. 
The Maori Party would love to be able to know more about this history and to have our hearts and minds stretched by tales shared with the nation by mana whenua. It is not the concept of visitor information or flea markets that have caused us such consternation. As my colleague Hone Harawira said flea markets are a fabulous site to hold constituency clinics. Indeed one of my favourite weekend visits is to drop into the Manurewa flea market. We in the Maori Party want to be with the people and walk with the people in order to ever represent the people in this place and time. If the local politicians had listened to what the local mana whenua desired aspired and wished to have in their communities then the bills put forward by Janet Mackey and Anne Tolley would have looked vastly different. Until last night the Rongowhakaata Trust—according to our sources—had not received a written briefing a paper a report describing this validation bill. It beggars belief. If I was to trawl further through the  
Hansard  
records no doubt I would be able to locate the Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act of 1893 which Moana Jackson has described as validating the acquisition of all unlawfully acquired Maori land. One hundred and thirteen years later this bill is another attempt to valid the acquisition of land acquired from Rongowhakaata for purposes other than that which the bill describes. 
It is interesting that this week seems to be the week when we are being asked to validate illegal Acts whether it be the breaching of the Broadcasting Act or the validation of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. The bill is controversial it is offensive and it is culturally arrogant. While the totem pole of Canada stands proudly as a feature of Alfred Cox Park we in the Maori Party are looking for the carved pou of Rongowhakaata the taonga that distinguishes the mana whenua the unique treasures that are landmarks of their rohe. 
The Maori Party will not support this bill. We ask the House to return to the question originally posed by Mr Williamson but to consider anew what Rongowhakaata would actually think about this bill and the fact that we now are validating the illegal activities that go on in Alfred Cox Park. We will never know until we ask and having asked can we live with the response? The Maori Party would love to support this bill in its third reading satisfactory discussions having been held and having been seen to be held with Rongowhakaata. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just bring it to the Maori Party’s attention that its local candidate in the last election is actually a member of the Gisborne District Council which is the promoter of this bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time. 
Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill 
First Reading 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
We live in a deluge of waste. About a tonne of waste per person goes to landfill every year in this country and that is about as bad as it gets anywhere in the world. As a nation we are just stupid when it comes to waste. It is not just about the environmental impact the toxic leachate that dribbles out of landfills or the methane gas that escapes or flares into conflagration; it is about the waste of waste—the squandering of resources that landfills represent and the resources wasted during production. It is estimated that about 90 percent of waste is generated pre-consumer in resources wasted by our single-use mentality and in the human resources wasted by ignoring the rich job opportunities in reuse and recycling. 
It is a bit of an evolutionary intelligence test. Have we clicked on yet to the fundamental reality of life on earth—that we live on a finite planet with limited resources and that our very existence depends on how we husband those resources? The very existence of waste indicates a failure of our understanding because there is no waste in nature only by-products that feed another part of the system. Humans must learn from the wisdom of life itself if we want to develop ways of living that are truly sustainable. 
This bill is an attempt to move us in that direction. I do not claim any great wisdom for myself. I inherited the bill from Mike Ward and I thank him for the valuable work he did. I also thank Lu White and Chris Teo-sherrell who probably deserve more credit than any of the politicians do. But I most of all want to thank the pioneers of resource recovery in this country the people who have invested their energy their money and their years to prove the economic social and environmental benefits of waste minimisation the people at the Community Business and Environment Centre of Kaitaia; Waiheke Waste Resource Trust; Xtreme Waste Whaingaroa; the Environmental Education and Resource Sustainability Trust in the Bay of Plenty; Environua Community Trust Levin; Mana Community Enterprises; Innovative Waste Kaikoura; Hurunui Recyclers; TerraNova Christchurch; WasteBusters Trust Canterbury; Waitaki Resource Recovery; Whitehorse Recycling Trust; Ahuriri Resource Trust; Central Otago WasteBusters; Wanaka WasteBusters; the whole community recycling network; the Zero Waste Trust; Envision; the Recycling Operators of New Zealand; and all the others who have given so much. 
Because of them real progress has been made but they continue to work in a difficult economic environment because landfills are unfairly subsidised by ratepayers. But now we are beginning to run out of space for landfills. Barry Carbon when he was chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment said that fewer than 10 potential sites for new landfills had been identified and that positive action to reduce waste reduction had been needed 10 years ago—10 years ago! Well we cannot reverse time but we can take responsibility now. 
This bill is a legislative vehicle to address the problem. Members may not agree with all its provisions; I understand that but if they agree that waste minimisation is desirable if they agree that economic instruments have a place and if they agree that businesses need support to identify where waste reductions might be made then they should vote for this bill. 
The bill would establish a national agency to set and monitor targets for waste reduction approve and monitor extended producer-responsibility programmes and administer the waste minimisation fund. It would coordinate public education and provide advice to the Minister. The bill would give territorial authorities more power in respect of waste minimisation. Operating singly or jointly as waste control authorities territorial authorities would be empowered to enforce the provisions of the bill through by-law making and licensing provisions. 
The bill would allow bans to be placed on the landfilling of materials that can be recovered. Let me be clear that any ban could be applied only where adequate recovery capacity already existed. The bill would create a landfill levy on every tonne of waste. That would disincentivise waste generation and provide funding for waste minimisation initiatives. The money would be split between local waste control authorities and the national waste minimisation authority. 
The bill would require brand owners to take responsibility for the waste generated throughout the lifecycle of their products. How they did so would be up to them subject to the approval of the waste minimisation authority but the idea would be to encourage waste reduction in the design of production and distribution systems. Bearing in mind the waste hierarchy I say that reusing and recycling is great but reducing waste has to be the priority. 
All organisations under the bill would be required to adopt and implement waste minimisation plans. Those would be phased in over time to allow plenty of time to develop those plans and organisations would be assisted with finance and advice by the waste minimisation authority. 
Lastly public organisations would have to consider waste minimisation in their purchasing and they would have to report on their waste generation each year. Essentially the bill would provide an economic engine to drive waste minimisation through the levy. It would provide a body to provide national coordination and leadership and it would give a mechanism to reduce the production of waste in the first place through the extended producer-responsibility provisions. 
 Members probably know that local councils the resource recovery sector and local community groups have been calling for a number of those things over a number of years. Local councils have statutory responsibility to manage waste but they have very little power. The recent High Court decision in  
Carter Holt Harvey Ltd 
 v  
North Shore City Council 
 is a case in point because the court said that councils do not have the right to levy private waste operators except for the recovery of costs. That means that local councils are prevented from using a levy to disincentivise waste generation or to fund waste minimisation initiatives. Interestingly the plaintiffs in that case supported the idea of a levy as long as it was applied consistently on a national basis and as long as its use was hypothecated for waste minimisation. They clearly said they did not want the money simply going into council coffers to be spent on who knows what. They wanted transparency and they wanted the money to be tagged for a specific purpose. Well the bill does that very thing. I understand it will need some amending to align it with any sector agreements that are reached and I know that Local Government New Zealand and waste industry people are working negotiating and talking in order to discuss how such a levy would best work. 
I recognise that the bill might be too prescriptive in places and I am comfortable with the idea of negotiating amendments. I am comfortable with the idea that the bill will go to a select committee and that we will hear from the public local government waste sector people resource recovery people and the community sector and as a result of that we will amend the bill. That is what the select committee process is all about. But in principle let us recognise that this is a sound approach to reducing our waste deluge. I look forward to engaging actively and widely with other political parties across this House with the public and with different sectorial groups and I look forward to cooperating with all of those players to make this bill as effective practicable and achievable as possible. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill is a garbage bill. It is PC rubbish that deserves to be thrown straight in the trash can. It is about wasting money wasting paper wasting energy and—most important—wasting time. 
Let me identify some of the stupid provisions in this bill. Clause 59 requires that every single business and other organisation in New Zealand has a waste management plan. That amounts to 200000 plans that will have to be produced around New Zealand. Let us take a typical small business. People who have one-employee businesses will be required under Nandor’s bill to prepare a waste management plan that determines the methods by which their waste hierarchy will operate within their business. It will require them to identify and separate all their rubbish at source and to determine the fraction that is reusable recoverable or recyclable. 
That measure is a farce and a joke and I cannot believe the Labour Government would be so stupid as to back such garbage. Only last week I heard Lianne Dalziel rabbiting on about reducing compliance costs for business. How could requiring 200000 small businesses not only to write a waste management plan but also to have it approved by their local council do anything other than add to the red tape and bureaucracy we have in New Zealand? 
But it gets worse. Let us look at clause 59. It requires that every single product sold in a store must have—and I will read from the clause—an information sheet that is “41 cm by 29 cm” with “a minimum print font size of 24 points” explaining how the product can be recycled reused or disposed of. I asked staff at my local supermarket how many products it has. It has 16000 products. The length of the poster wall at my local supermarket would need to be 6.6 kilometres long to be able to meet the requirements of this bill. It is truly extraordinary and truly wasteful. A 6.6-kilometre poster would be required for that business to be able to meet the requirements of this bill. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I seek leave and ask for the indulgence of the House for the member who is speaking to have a slight break so he can get his voice back and to then resume his speech without time being deducted. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The member may rest for a short while. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I thank the members of the House for their indulgence. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am happy to help the tonsils of the member opposite. I do not find this a laughing matter as I am sure Nick Smith does not. If Dr Smith had come to the Environment Bay of Plenty Sustainable Business Awards last week he would have realised that businesses themselves are paying great attention to waste minimisation. In 2002 this Government set up the New Zealand waste strategy and it is moving really fast on the targets for improving waste recovery and management. The strategy presented a vision for minimising waste and managing it better—that is what we are all hopeful of as is the member promoting the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill Nandor Tanczos. The strategy also has a practical programme of both large and small actions for the medium and long term for the commitment of all to reaching those targets. The targets also cover five main packaging materials—paper plastic aluminium steel and glass—by weight of consumption. The strategy has been a bit slow to get off the ground but it certainly now has the traction the Government intended in order to get local governments to desire more effective and efficient waste management and minimisation. We now have wider public concern about our growing waste stream and that was part of the movement behind the strategy. 
A lot of progress has been made. One example is the new packaging accord to reduce packaging content and another accord is to improve recycling. There is a very good partnership between the Government and the packaging industry. Action plans have been prepared for those five main packaging materials. Other examples include the development of web-based local waste exchanges to facilitate the exchange or trading of wastes amongst businesses the establishment of a scheme for tracking used tyres and the development of a New Zealand standard for the production of organic compost to support the diversion of organic material from landfills. We all take the challenge ahead very seriously. The Government is working in partnership with the industry to develop schemes to look at things like unwanted agricultural containers silage wrap and electronic waste. Good progress is being made. 
The purpose of this bill as Labour sees it and the principles behind it are broadly compatible with Labour’s waste policy as articulated in the waste strategy though this bill is concerned only with solid waste which we find quite interesting. The provisions of the bill cover a number of existing policy elements such as waste management plans—and I think that is a good thing—and they provide the statutory basis for some new elements that are currently already under consideration by the Government like waste levies and product stewardship. The bill establishes a centralised agency—and I know that that was wanted when the strategy was first set up—dedicated to minimising the use of material resources and avoiding waste production. This agency would have a coordinating educational and facilitation role as well as being tasked with providing advice to the Minister. The agency would be responsible for setting and monitoring targets. Even though lots of local authorities say they are meeting the targets we could go a bit faster as we could in respect of the reduction of waste disposed of in landfills. 
The landfill levy is an interesting component of the bill and I know that it is a little bit contentious. I look forward to the debate at the select committee about how we get an equitable levy. Some councils say they are meeting their targets—are bang on are ahead—and will not cross-subsidise another authority that is way behind the eight ball. The working group that is advising the ministry on the development of the waste strategy floated the same idea of a levy. In New Zealand this is a really important role for district councils and city councils to have and it gives territorial authorities more power which is an interesting aspect that we need to look at. I point out that 82 percent of local authorities already have waste minimisation plans so great leverage is happening out there in the industry. 
One of the things the select committee is certainly interested in looking at is the responses it will get to the bill. The bill is broadly compatible with the plans the Government has in place now and an enormous amount of work has been undertaken by this Government local government—who are really buying into it—industry and lots of voluntary groups in the community. All of those sectors will have views on the bill and I am sure they will wish those views to be considered. I really look forward to chairing this bill through the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I thank the House for its indulgence for giving leave for me to resume my speech given the difficulty I am having with the flu. The point I was making in my speech in response to the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill is that it will do exactly the opposite of what it seeks to achieve in minimising waste. The bill would frankly be far better termed the “Waste Maximisation Bill” and I will refer to some of its specific provisions to explain why I hold that view. 
The most cumbersome of the provisions in the bill is the requirement that every business—every organisation in New Zealand—have a waste management plan that must be approved by its local authority. That will amount to over 200000 waste plans. Even if we were to assume that it would take only a couple of hours to write such a plan—and the bill is very prescriptive about what must be in it—we would be looking at tens of millions of dollars of wasted money and wasted time in terms of that bureaucracy. There is enough concern in the community right now about the processing of 50000 resource consents a year through councils under the Resource Management Act let alone about the processing of the 200000 waste management plans that would be required. This bill states that if a business does not have a waste plan then it will be fined $10000 and banned from operating. I ask the House to reflect on the fact that we are a nation of small businesses and also on the sort of compliance cost requirement that that will impose. 
I also point out the nonsense requirements that are provided for in clause 59 of the bill with regard to consumer information. It requires that at every place of sale an A3-sized poster—41 centimetres by 29 centimetres—be provided on every product sold at that store. The practical effect of that provision for a supermarket with a typical range of goods is a poster sign 6.6 kilometres long. Why would anybody in this House want to vote for a bill that contains such ridiculous provisions? It is a nonsense; it is a waste. 
I listened with interest to the weak politically correct nonsense from the Labour member Steve Chadwick who said Labour would support the bill. That position contrasts so sharply with Labour’s weasel words about reducing compliance costs for business. This bill will do more to add to the compliance costs of businesses in New Zealand than any other issue before Parliament at this time. 
The Labour member also made reference to the Government’s waste plan. The plan is a joke it has not succeeded and many of its recommendations have gone nowhere. For the Government to somehow believe that having a strategy will solve a problem says so much about what is wrong with this Government and its left-wing views on how we approach issues of this sort. 
I could agree with one area only of Nandor Tanczos’ contribution and that was in respect of the stupid way in which councils subsidise waste; that is they use money from rates to subsidise their landfills thereby providing an incentive for us to produce more waste. I would absolutely support this bill if it had a legal requirement that all waste services be fully costed so that the right economic signals go through the system. 
I am also concerned about the bill’s provisions in respect of the waste levy. The bill states that that levy will increase by 50 percent compounded each year if the waste minimisation targets are not met. That levy will snowball into huge costs for families and businesses and I really do wonder where the benefits are. 
Every time I go around New Zealand I hear people saying they have had enough of ridiculous red tape they have had enough of stupid political correctness and they have had enough of increased bureaucratic requirements. The bill has stupid provisions like a 6.5-kilometre poster board at the local supermarket and a waste plan that may consist of someone stating: “I have a round tin in the corner of my office. I throw the paper in it. I take it to the tip.” That could amount to the plan that every single small business in New Zealand may have to write get approved by the council and ensure is consistent with some bureaucratic central government waste minimisation strategy. 
This bill is garbage and this House should reject it. There are far more sensible things we can do to ensure that we properly manage waste in this country. The bill will achieve exactly the opposite of what it sets out to achieve. It will waste money it will waste paper it will waste energy and it will waste time. We should not waste further time on it. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed his seat Dr Nick Smith has made a very valuable contribution. He has certainly highlighted some concerns that New Zealand First shares. Having said that we are prepared conditionally—and I emphasise that—to send the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill to the select committee. We are not prepared even to suggest that we will support the bill going any further than the select committee stage because the member opposite has identified some concerns that we share. 
The penalties for the offences in a range of areas are horrendous. Clause 32(1) states: “Every Waste Control Authority that contravenes section 21(b)”—whatever that states—“is liable … to a fine of $10000 and a further fine of $10000 for each month that the offence continues.” Clause 32(2) states: “Every Waste Control Authority that contravenes section 27(3)(b) or (c)”—whatever that is—is fined $10000 plus $10000 for each day that the offence continues. I do not know where these waste control authorities will get that money if not by levying the consumer or increasing the levy on a regular basis. We think a large portion of the bill indicates that bureaucracy is about to go mad. I do not want to be unkind to the member but we believe that this bill represents to some reasonable degree bureaucracy going off the rails. 
Having said that we recognise there is a problem in this country in dealing with waste and in the creation of waste. Only very recently I personally found out that there is a 15000-tonne stockpile of glass bottles in this country which is likely to grow to 17000 tonnes by the end of this year. That is a problem and for a member just to say that this bill is stupid or ridiculous and to hope to dismiss the problem—as the honourable member did earlier—is not being responsible. One of my colleagues says it is downright irresponsible. 
However New Zealand First members believe that in the first instance this bill should go to a select committee. We believe that the issue is important enough to discuss so we will support the bill going to a select committee. We want to get to the depth of the problem facing New Zealand when it comes to waste and we think this is an opportunity to achieve that. We believe that the levy which is being set at $25 per tonne is far too high. That equates to 2.5c per kilo if my mathematics is correct and that is far too high. I have to say that it seems to New Zealand First to be in large measure just a levy geared around supporting a bureaucracy that is as I said earlier somewhat out of control. 
Having said that I believe that this is the first bill to come before the House that has actually touched on the issue of controlling waste. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Makes more waste. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member said that it makes more waste. This is the first opportunity New Zealanders will have to come before Parliament by way of making submissions to the select committee to outline their concerns on how the problem should be addressed. New Zealand First’s position is that to simply dismiss this bill and throw it in the wastepaper basket right from the onset—which is what the Hon Nick Smith has indicated he thinks should happen with it—would be the wrong approach. We should be prepared to say that there is an issue out there when it comes to the handling and disposal of waste. This bill is a vehicle for identifying the depth of the problem and is a methodology of how to handle it. 
However—and I want to emphasise this—New Zealand First thinks this bill is over the top. It is very complex legislation; it is far more complex than the average member’s bill that comes before the House. We believe that the select committee will have quite a task in slimming it down and making it workable and practical but that is the task that New Zealand First believes that Parliament has to come to grips with. We have to acknowledge that there are concerns about waste in New Zealand and this bill is a vehicle to address the issue in the first instance. 
New Zealand First members debated this bill at some length. We came to the conclusion that it is worth supporting the bill going to a select committee but we have strong reservations in a number of areas which I have endeavoured to illustrate in my contribution this evening. New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee but we cannot guarantee to support it any farther than that. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker tena tatou katoa. From the Maori Party perspective our responsibilities to care for our ukaipo our turangawaewae takiwa and rohe are central in expressing the authority that whanau hapu and iwi have over our ancestral land our resources and well-being. Within this we exercise the responsibility we have towards the environment certainly on behalf of those who will benefit from the legacy of this care but we do so also out of respect to Papatuanuku—Mother Earth. This sort of thinking has been passed down from generation to generation. We inherit the land from those ancestral links. In our world view waste disposal can reduce or destroy the life-supporting capacity of soils. It damages the mauri and tramples over the life essence of the land and we must do what we can to protect the environment and improve our capacity to live sustainably. 
To this end the Maori Party supports this bill and commends Nandor and others whom he mentioned earlier for their initiative in bringing forward strategies to ensure a dramatic reduction in waste disposal by homes businesses and public organisations. We are pleased to endorse the approach of making producers responsible and of encouraging the design of environment-friendly products and we endorse the ultimate aim of a minimal waste society. Tangata whenua have always been concerned about the release of pollutants such as sewage discharges construction and demolition wastes and hazardous wastes into the environment. We have an intense interest in the issue of discharges on to land and in the effects those discharges have on the mauri of water wahi tapu and taonga such as food and weaving resources. 
Indeed so strong is our disgust of the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills clean fills and incinerators that our people often talk about it by asking: “Are you happy to treat your mother in that way?”. We teach our babies not to trample on Papatuanuku—Mother Earth—and to pick up their litter. That is a responsibility we can all take on to ensure the well-being and future health of the environment. 
It makes one wonder why it has taken so long for such a sound and sensible idea to make it to this Chamber. It is all very well to have the New Zealand waste strategy but it is a waste of words if it lacks teeth. More weasel words are found in the packaging accord where people can choose whether they want to reuse repair or recycle materials—or to just keep on going to the landfill. Well we need to get real. This bill will help to put incentives in all the right places so that producers and users—not just the wider community—get real and pay the costs of the waste they produce. Having a landfill levy and other economic instruments such as a refundable container deposit are simple ideas that could help reduce our waste by as much as 85 percent—that would be a good idea for the GDP and even better for the genuine progress index. 
The Maori Party is astounded that good ideas like these and their economic benefits and health and well-being outcomes have been simply considered so trivial to this Government. This House must recall with shame the 30 years of neglect associated with the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant at Paritutu in New Plymouth which is one of the largest historical polluters in New Zealand. The Maori Party repeatedly asked the Government to take seriously the health problems that have resulted from dioxin contamination including birth defects behavioural problems diabetes and the strong association between the exposure to dioxin and cancer risk. Then just a few months ago the UN special rapporteur Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen referred to the situation in my electorate of Waiariki urging: “The Crown must take an active interest in supervising the compliance of the paper company in cleaning up the waste site at Kawerau and the waste disposal build-up at Maketu.” 
Again those are not new issues. The Kaituna claim which was first lodged back in 1978 was another one. The Motunui Waitara report of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1993 dealt with the discharge of effluent on to shellfish-gathering beds that were of significance to the Te Atiawa people. In a lot of the reference to Gisborne earlier we are aware of the ongoing anger of tangata whenua about the offensive discharge of sewage domestic and industrial waste water and solids from an outfall pipe flowing into the Poverty Bay area which is a problem that dates back to 1964. 
Mana whenua have consistently presented their objections about environmental abuse the contamination and the waste disposal build-up. The ideas are not new but it took an expert from overseas to point it out—then he was treated with a barrage of abuse for telling us how it is. We in the Maori Party are extremely pleased to support the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill in order to reduce the production of wastes at source to minimise wastes in production packaging and transport and to encourage all New Zealanders to take responsibility for Aotearoa now—before it is too late. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 When I discovered that Nandor Tanczos’ Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill had been drawn from the ballot I was pleased because I think everyone in this House would like to see waste in this country minimised. Like other nations we have made great efforts as a nation in recent years to get rid of waste to clean up our act and to clean up our rivers lakes and streams. Indeed in this Parliament as part of our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-led Government we are addressing issues specifically around water quality and agrarian runoffs. So United Future as a party is strongly committed to the minimisation of waste. 
 In his usual helpful way Nandor was good enough to send me a memo that set out the provisions of this bill. He made seven points so I read through them one by one. The first one proposed the establishment of an energy efficiency and conservation authority dedicated to facilitating the move to a less wasteful society. I wrote alongside that “No”. New Zealand needs that like it needs a hole in the head. We already have too much bureaucracy in this country and United Future is not interested in creating another bureaucracy to tell people how to run their lives. The other note I made was that that was like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. 
The second point proposed that each of the territorial authorities would establish by law a waste control authority. Again I wrote “No” with much the same thinking—that that was really not a good process. The third point proposed a ban on materials going into landfills. I wrote “No” alongside that. We do not get rid of waste by banning it from landfills. If waste exists it needs to be dealt with in an appropriate way. Banning it will not actually solve anything. 
The fourth point proposed a landfill levy. I wrote alongside that point a sort of conditional “Yes”. I have no problem at all—and this is exactly the same point that Nick Smith made—in saying to local authorities that they should cost their landfill activities separately and accurately and recover that cost from their ratepayers on a levy basis so that there is an economic signal that says to people that they are taking up public resources in terms of waste. I am all for that but this bill does not do just that; it goes a bit further. In any event it is really the Government’s responsibility to look at the landfill levy proposal. I have said to a couple of people who have raised this issue with me to please make submissions to the Minister of Local Government about that. 
The next point proposed extending producer responsibility. Again at best I give that a question mark. I am not sure whether I like that idea either. The next point proposed organisational waste minimisation plans—every organisation was to adopt and implement a waste minimisation plan. Yeah right! Is a family an organisation? Are two people who are flatting together an organisation? Will every business every charity and every household in the country have to by law put together a waste minimisation plan? Alongside that one I put “Get real.” 
The next point proposed public procurement policies. It stated that we should have green procurement policies. I thought that this now was really about politics; it was about the Green brand. Why have green when this bill is in fact bright red? I would describe process in this bill as the Sovietisation of waste management. Really it is right in that category. This bill is bureaucratic and top-heavy and it proceeds—as unfortunately some of these bills do—on the assumption that somebody knows better than the average New Zealander how to control waste. 
I am all for public education around controlling waste. Wellington is a city of recyclers. Everybody does that very very well and it has made a huge difference. I mention incidentally that I was recently at Auckland University in a debate with Nandor and people raised the issue that the Auckland City Council will not give the university recycling bins. Why? The council says that the university does not pay any rates. That is madness and I take this opportunity to say that the Auckland City Council should get real. If we want people to recycle of course we need to provide them with the relevant bins and so on and so forth. 
I would also like to venture this suggestion to the House. To my knowledge commercial organisations are putting forward projects and so forth to utilise waste. Waste has a commercial value and I for one have much more confidence in addressing waste in that manner—recycling it and using it for electricity generation and those kinds of things—than I have in this immense bureaucratic Soviet-style legislation that United Future will oppose. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I congratulate my colleague Nandor and all the other Green members who have worked on the waste bill over the years. It has been passed from hand to hand. One of the things Rod Donald was looking forward to was picking it up after the election when Mike Ward lost his seat. Nandor has done it and we have finally had the bill introduced. I thank colleagues in the House who are supporting this bill going to a select committee. Although they recognise that some things in the bill are debatable and some things will need to be changed they are prepared to have that debate and work constructively on it at the select committee rather than just trash it for political reasons. I thank the Labour Party New Zealand First and the Maori Party for their support for us having that debate in a democratic way which is what Parliament is about. 
This is actually a very overdue bill. It reminds me of when 30 years ago I set up the first local authority recycling scheme to actually make a profit for a council. That was in Devonport in 1976. I thought naively at the time that once it had been demonstrated that a local authority recycling scheme could make a profit for a council and a community one would not have to do anything more—that everyone else would pick it up and run with it. Well nobody ever really did to the same extent but a lot of non-governmental organisations private groups and charities around the country such as Xtreme Waste and the others that Nandor mentioned are now doing a superb job in a difficult regulatory and legislative environment. 
In Devonport we managed to keep two-thirds of waste out of the landfill and re-route it into paper recycling steel recycling aluminium recycling tin can recycling and with the organic waste compost making. It was highly supported by the public partly because it kept the local tip open for years when it otherwise would have been closed and people would have had to drive their waste to Rosedale Road which was a lot further. 
We learnt a lot of things from that project. We learnt that design is the key to minimising waste. Once somebody has made a product that has five different incompatible materials in it there is nothing we can do to reuse or recycle it. Therefore we need extended producer responsibility to make sure that products are designed to be reused and recycled. We learnt that the community—contrary to what everybody told us—was very keen to cooperate with a scheme like this but there needs to be a system to cooperate with. People cannot recycle their waste if nobody is providing a recycling system. We learnt that there are jobs profitability and money in recycling industries but that they need certain economies of scale in order to work. Therefore there need to be incentives for people to use them. We have learnt over the years I believe that volunteerism on its own is not enough and that there need to be incentives and some level of compulsion. 
I am surprised that National which in the past has advocated a waste authority and which advocates market mechanisms is opposed to the market mechanism of a waste levy just as it is opposed to the market mechanism of a carbon charge. Apparently it wants the careful to have to subsidise the waste of the careless. It reminds me of the debate that occurred when I introduced the Energy Efficiency Bill. National said it was Stalinist to set minimum energy performance standards for products. Well we have had huge changes in energy efficiency in New Zealand as a result of those minimum energy performance standards. Consumers are much better off because they are getting quality goods and the number of petajoules saved is very substantial compared with the cost. 
The Business Council for Sustainable Development told me a while back that it strongly supports the levy powers and is keen to see the bill proceed though it does not agree with every part of it. The select committee will undoubtedly get rid of some of the more draconian details and we are open to working with colleagues on that. There is no doubt at all that this bill can take us forward environmentally and economically. I commend it to the House. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to see this bill come before Parliament because it deals with an increasingly important issue—the management and reduction of waste. We need to be talking about this issue because there is no doubt that the increasing amount of waste is threatening the health of our people and the health of our environment. Being wasteful is costly too. By its very nature waste is the result of using resources inefficiently. Individually and as a nation we cannot afford to waste our resources. 
National has no argument with the intention of this bill which is to protect the environment by minimising the amount of material resources used and the amount of solid waste disposed of but we do not support the methods proposed in the bill. In fact we believe they are wasteful in themselves. We do not like the mandatory nature of the bill its heavy-handed over-the-top rules and the complex and expensive bureaucratic framework it proposes to create. We believe there has to be a better and a simpler way. 
This bill proposes two very thick layers of bureaucracy—a central government - controlled waste minimisation authority and then local waste control authorities as part of each local territorial authority. This is really only a supercharged version of the structure that already exists. At the moment the Ministry for the Environment manages the present waste strategy centrally and territorial authorities are responsible for waste management locally. Why do we think that merely by changing their names we will have any better results? 
People working on the ground in waste management currently—in recycling and in resource recovery—are already saying that the present administration is overcooked that there are too many different people and too many different organisations and that the processes are too laborious. They already feel that any possible effectiveness or efficiency has been micro-managed out of the system. They point to other places where simpler structures have been more effective. They talk of the Waste and Resources Action Project in the UK and of the very effective systems employed in British Columbia. They say that complexity and bureaucracy is already stifling progress in waste minimisation in New Zealand and they are convinced that if we can just set the right incentives in place and stand back the market will take care of it. 
At present when we are dealing with waste we reward the wrong behaviours. Dumping is subsidised while recycling and resource recovery have to stand on their own two feet. If people were to feel the real costs of their waste disposal behaviour they would soon change. The true total and transparent costs of managing wastes would be a powerful deterrent for individuals and businesses—and to do that would be fair straightforward and simple. Complex rules hundreds of bureaucrats and layers of administration just cost money and create uncertainty. 
This bill requires businesses and all organisations to produce waste minimisation plans which have to be approved by local government. But plans however laudable are just bits of paper that mean nothing in themselves. Let us get people actively doing the right thing rather than just shuffling papers. The key to getting real change in behaviour is to reward people for reducing their waste streams. If it costs us real money to dispose of waste whether as an individual or a business we will think twice before we accept bulky packaging or unnecessary products and when we are ready to part with something we will be much more likely to recycle reuse or find a way to recover value from the item. 
In summary the bill is good in concept but bad in process. The structure it creates is bureaucratic and expensive dictatorial and heavy-handed and there is no guarantee that it will work. I say to Nandor Tanczos that I am sorry but as much as National supports the principle of protecting the environment by the wise use of resources and the minimisation of waste we cannot support the wasteful methods he is suggesting. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise to support the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill going to a select committee. I think waste minimisation is an incredibly serious issue and I am very grateful that it has come forward in a member’s bill to be discussed. I feel very sad about both of the speeches from the National Party because it is not good enough to say there is an issue then reject the opportunity to discuss it at a select committee. There are some issues inside the bill that I would love to tease out and go through and I will talk about some of them there. 
Waste minimisation is an area where we as a Government have been working. I just heard Nicky Wagner say that it was quite important to use a good example from British Columbia. That is something that should be discussed at a select committee. We can have a look and analyse whether there are simpler ways of doing it. I think this is a serious issue and we have the opportunity to do that. That is why Labour members are supporting the bill going to a select committee. 
Waste is an issue on which the Government has been doing some work. Yes I accept that the strategy was voluntary. For me that is the style in which I used to work—that is we start we gather momentum and we move onwards. I think the momentum is gathering and work was being done. It will be found if the Ministry for the Environment becomes involved that quite a lot of work is being done on product stewardship. We have been teasing out the ideas contained in this particular bill. Progress has been made. There are some simple things about agricultural and farm waste—be they some of the poisons in farm sheds or be they things like plastic silage wrap which is being collected. Work has been done on electronic waste and it is growing. The people from Vodafone and HP New Zealand have done some tremendous work. 
Work is being done on packaging. I want to tell members something about that because people spend a lot of time saying packaging is just stupid and nothing has happened. Let me give an example of something that came out of design. The packaging accord people always have a prize-giving at the end of the year. About 2 or 3 years ago a young man who worked for Cadbury’s designed something to reduce by a third the amount of packaging around chocolate Easter eggs. Three trucks could be filled instead of four or two trucks instead of three—with less petrol being used—to get the goods from Dunedin to the markets in Auckland. It was really excellent work. That is clever design. That is the idea around waste minimisation. The packaging accord was going out of its way to promote that work. 
These are all encouraging moves but we need to move further. We need to offer a few more rewards and incentives. I heard Nandor Tanczos ask whether we accept that waste minimisation is a problem. Yes we do. Do we accept that economic instruments have their place? Yes we do. Do we accept that businesses need support? Yes we do. He also asked whether we have been working on that. I recognise that some industries ride on the coat-tails of others. I got involved in the used oil negotiations—I will never forget it—and then the glass negotiations and they were horrendous. We had business people running those negotiations not bureaucrats not politicians. We had people from industry—such as the man in charge of Griffin’s—running those things and trying to do some work to get through negotiations about how we manage glass. There was a history there of fairness in business procedures that was causing some of the blockages. But let me make the point that we have to have a furnace for glass in the South Island and I draw people’s attention to that issue. If we are taking all our glass from Invercargill to Auckland that is a waste of energy. So again we have to be clever in how we design the process. 
I have a bit of a problem with having a national agency and I need to work my way through that. I really want to listen. I know that it was put up by the working committee in 2001 but there was a feeling of central versus local and it was also about industry collaboration somehow fitting in there. A lot of people wanted to do things and they were almost didactic in their wanting to do that versus bringing others along. I know that my philosophy was playing a part there. 
I want to say also in respect of waste minimisation plans that people should go on the web and have a look at Govt3. I will give a simple example: Cabinet took its recommendations on board and all our Cabinet papers are now printed on both sides. It drives Trevor Mallard mad because he cannot read them as easily while riding his bicycle but it has cut paper usage by half. That is from the Govt3 waste minimisation plans. 
We have a problem. National gives us no way through to solving that problem. It is not enough to say there is a problem and we will do nothing about it. We have a problem and this bill is a chance to put that problem on the agenda and find some solutions. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I want to begin by thanking members for all of their contributions during this debate. I want to echo the words of my co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons when she acknowledged particularly those parties that have indicated their support for this bill to go to select committee because— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave for the member to finish his right of reply so that the bill can be wrapped up. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? 
Gordon Copeland 
: I am sorry but I could not quite hear what the member said. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I am seeking leave for Nandor Tanczos to be able to finish his right of reply and for the vote to be held prior to the rising of the House for the dinner break. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is not. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Waste is an issue that needs to be taken seriously and I appreciate the comments made by all the members who said that this bill should go to a select committee. The bill has things in it that perhaps need to be addressed but let us get it to a select committee discuss it and give the public an opportunity to have their say on it. I think that that is an important consideration. 
I thank Steve Chadwick for her comments. Her contribution was a very useful one. She said the Government is making progress and that the bill is a convenient legislative vehicle by which these matters can be taken to a select committee so a start can be made on working them through. She said the bill is broadly compatible with where the Government wants to go and that a significant amount of work has been done. I appreciated those comments. 
I also appreciated the comments made by Marian Hobbs who I think hit the nail on the head when she said that these are the big issues that need to be discussed. So let us get them to the select committee where they can be discussed and worked through because I do agree that there are issues that need to be teased out and worked through. 
I want to thank Te Ururoa Flavell for the comments he made and the Maori Party for its support. Again Mr Flavell pointed out the importance of the issues for tangata whenua all over the country. I have had discussions with people from Ngati Wai who are having real trouble getting some recycling happening around Whangarei and are facing resistance from the council there. Hopefully this bill will help work some of those issues through. He pointed out the inadequacy of the voluntary measures and the need to have some teeth—which of course is what this bill intends—and the contribution this will make towards the genuine progress indicators. 
Peter Brown pointed out in his comments that he had some serious reservations about part of the bill and I acknowledge that. But I thank New Zealand First for supporting the bill going to the select committee to allow us to work some of these things through. 
I was disappointed to hear that United Future will not be supporting the bill. Although I did provide a summary of the bill I am not sure Gordon Copeland fully understood all of its provisions. For example he was concerned about the things that were banned to landfill. His opposition was that he wanted waste to be dealt with appropriately and did not think that bans were the way to do that. The point is—and I tried to emphasise this in my first speech—that this would happen only where there was capacity to deal with materials in another way. For example it is totally inappropriate that organic waste should go to landfill. In most cases that waste is the main source of toxic leachate and methane gas out of landfills. So if there is a capacity to deal with organic waste outside of landfill let us make sure that that waste does not go to landfill. To me that seems pretty obvious. 
I refer to the issues around extended producer responsibility. Jeanette Fitzsimons made the point about why it is so important that we actually provide a basis to design waste out of the system and that producers when they are designing their products actually take account of the effect of their products when it comes to recycling disassembly and the like. So it seems to me unfortunate that United Future took the position it did. 
I want to refer to the UMR Insight Ltd poll published by the Business Council for Sustainable Development which pointed out that 49 percent of voters with a current voting preference say they would be more likely to be attracted to a party that places an emphasis on preserving New Zealand’s quality of life. Peter Nielson has said that the message to smart policymakers is that voter support can be driven to parties that propose to do more about waste reduction. Fourteen percent of voters say that this would make them much more likely to switch their vote. 
In that light it is interesting to consider the words of Nick Smith to the National Party lower North Island regional conference where he talked about National’s need to communicate to New Zealanders a commitment to protecting the environment. He criticised the Government in a number of ways including its position on waste but then decided to oppose this bill without demonstrating any solutions on how we are to address this problem. It just demonstrates that for all Nick Smith’s fine environmental words the reality is that National is determined to do absolutely nothing about it. 
If National wants to be taken seriously on the issue of environment then it has to put up some solutions and understand that MMP changes the way things work. One can support legislation going to a select committee and move amendments both there and in the Committee of the whole House to change the way a bill works. I thank all members and you Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to see that this bill will be going to the select committee. Let us work it out there. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; United Future 3. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee 
Resource Management (Security for Costs)  Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 In seeking support for this bill to be referred for consideration by a select committee—and I will move at the appropriate time that it be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee—can I emphasise that the bill is not about protecting developers and business magnates but about reducing frivolous and vexatious claims that have absolutely no place whatsoever in our judicial system let alone in the Environment Court. The bill merely reinstates the provision that was removed in 2003 that allowed the Environment Court to make an order requiring a party to give security for costs. Such an order is available under other jurisdictions and I suggest that the Environment Court should be no different. 
The Resource Management Act Amendment Bill 2003 which removed this provision was intended to “directly improve the efficiency of the Environment Court”. My question is how does allowing frivolous and vexatious claims actually improve the efficiency of the Environment Court? It does not. Allowing courts to order security for costs would discourage frivolous and vexatious claims thereby actually encouraging that elusive efficiency so often touted as an important requisite of resource management proceedings. 
The honourable member Sue Bradford yesterday referred to a bill that had not had the public scrutiny it deserves. Well to be consistent neither did the 2003 amendment bill that removed the power of the Environment Court to order security for costs. At that time there was much criticism of the process and the power to scrutinise the bill was denied—we should not let that happen again. All I am asking for now is that members be given the opportunity to scrutinise the bill. To coin a phrase I could ask that there be one law for all bills. If the select committee decides it is not an issue then so be it. But if it decides that the bill is in the interests of justice for all then no one is the loser by supporting it going to the select committee. 
History can be a great teacher. Three years ago the then Minister for the Environment who was obviously concerned about the problems with the Resource Management Act actually said: “I intend to work … to achieve positive outcomes such as reducing even further the backlog at the Environment Court and removing unnecessary impediments to major roading and energy proposals.” What has happened since then? For 3 long years nothing has happened. Auckland is still in the dark and we still have major roading problems and major energy problems. Three years ago there were energy stations that needed to be built. Three years ago there were roads that needed to be built. Three years later those same roads and those same energy stations still need to be built. And the Resource Management Act still needs fixing. 
This bill is not the panacea of all Resource Management Act ills by any means but it is a start. How often do we hear that the Resource Management Act needs reforming and that it is the handbrake to progress? Only yesterday Transpower referred to Resource Management Act delays being the cause of transmission lines to Auckland not being upgraded. This bill is simply one measure to reduce vexatious and frivolous claims that can delay proceedings and progress unnecessarily. More important it imposes a discipline on appeal proceedings and makes groups whether they be residents’ associations incorporated societies or otherwise focus on the merits of the case. If a claim is spurious then claimants may be ordered to put their money where their mouth is. If their claim is reasonable then they will have nothing to fear from this amendment. 
A person may have a personal vendetta against a neighbour who wants to erect a double garage. The garage deviates slightly from the rules and resource consent is required. For no good reason whatsoever except to be a nuisance the neighbour objects to the application. The neighbour delays the process and increases the costs for what should have been a simple matter. Is it fair that one aggrieved person can totally stymie a process without any come-back whatsoever on that person? It is only fair that such people—if the court so decides—are required to put their money where their mouth is. That is fair that is justice and that is common sense. 
It is interesting to note that when the original provision allowing security for costs was removed from the Resource Management Act there were concerns. Three years ago United Future stated: “One part of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) that United Future is particularly unhappy with is the removal of the power of the Environment Court to require security for costs from individuals or groups it considers vexatious. This is not a power the Environment Court has used often. In fact in its entire history it has only required security for costs from objectors approximately seven times.” I understand that that figure now 3 years later is still only eight times—although one of those parties against which security for costs was ordered was the Hawke’s Bay branch of the Green Party. 
I also note that when the amendment legislation removing the provision for ordering security for costs was passed 3 years ago New Zealand First voted against that amendment. It is pleasing to note that that is still New Zealand First’s policy I understand—because it is posted on its current website—that “… vexatious litigants will be able to be identified and treated as such.” I therefore seek New Zealand First’s support for this bill. In fact throughout the various readings of the 2003 bill that removed the ability of the Environment Court to order security for costs there was not one mention—not one—from any speaker on either side of the House extolling the virtues of that amendment. National and other parties objected to it at the time but the Government did not mention it once. Not even the Minister made any mention of it at all. No one overtly supported that amendment. 
An order for security for costs is not made lightly in any jurisdiction and as I have stated it has been made in the Environment Court eight times in total and only once in the last 3 years. Case law provides the precedents. The rules which are well established illustrate a very rigorous and robust test is needed before such an order is made. Those rules will not change nor will they be diminished by this bill. 
The majority of applications for security for costs have in fact been declined but there are some instances where such an order is justified. Factors taken into account before making such an order include the merits of the case the means of others who may be able to assist the conduct of the parties whether the application is oppressive the public interest—“regard is to be had for the public interest aspect of the litigation brought by a plaintiff”—and whether there are grounds for thinking the defendant is using the application oppressively to prevent the applicant’s case coming before the court. Those factors will not be affected by this amendment. It is important to note that an order for security for costs is not designed to deprive a party from its right to bring or defend a claim and that overall balance is to be maintained in the interests of justice. 
This bill is not about depriving anyone of a say in court whatever that person’s circumstances may be. It is not about who has money and who does not; it is about justice and justice only. But it is injustice to remove proper safeguards without any recourse and that is exactly what has happened here. By reinstating the court’s ability to order security for costs this bill is merely restoring the safeguard against frivolous and irresponsible appeals whether by residents’ associations concerned citizens or even trade competitors. It is a backstop. 
Supporting this bill through its first reading would allow the select committee to scrutinise it properly—to hear submissions and examples of where progress has been stymied unreasonably and with no recourse where innocent property owners have been lumbered with a costly and lengthy procedure and where indeed orders for security for costs have been declined. I repeat that this bill is not about developers. It is not about building magnates. It is not about denying or reducing the rights of the public to bring evidence to hearings as has been suggested. Some arguers even start from the premise that the community is right and the developer is wrong. That may sometimes be the case but reinstating the Environment Court’s ability to order security for costs will not detract from that. 
This bill will not protect developers and builders any more than it will protect ordinary individuals. This bill is not about denying families the right to object. It does not take away the right to object—to have a say. It does not allow applicants to ride roughshod over communities or individuals. This is a natural justice issue. It is about preventing the unjustified stymying of our legal process with no possibility of recourse. I seek the support of the House in allowing this bill to be properly scrutinised at select committee level. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 Labour will not support this bill for very good reasons. The bill sets out basically to turn on its head the fundamental tenet of the Resource Management Act—which Parliament considered very recently in 2003—to not curb the right to challenge legitimately a resource management decision made by a local authority. The member asserts that this bill aims to prevent frivolous and vexatious claims from holding up the resource consent process by empowering the Environment Court to require any party to provide security for costs. While I do not condone behaviour that sets out simply to hold up the process allowing frivolous and vexatious objections to be weeded out by the threat of costs made against an objector is simply in our view choosing the wrong time place and incentive. 
For clear and deliberate reasons the Resource Management Act explicitly does not allow the Environment Court to have the power to order a party to give security of costs. When the Act was enacted in 1991 it contained nothing that expressly indicated either way whether security of costs could be sought by appeal authorities. That was back in 1991. Because the Act was silent on this issue after due consideration a member’s bill sponsored by Sandra Lee was incorporated into the amendments in 2003. The matter was then clarified just 3 years ago once and for all. The act was amended to state simply that the Environment Court did not have that power. 
Why was this? The notion behind that 2003 amendment was simple and it was the very same issue facing us today. To allow an order for security of costs runs a serious risk that legitimate claimants will be bullied out of the courtroom by those with deeper pockets. We all know of small community groups that are appealing decisions and that if costs were awarded against them could never afford to take on such appeals. 
I want to draw members’ attention to what the Resource Management Act really enables in respect of preventing vexatious objectors from stifling progress—and we do worry about that. This topic was canvassed in 2004 during the debate on the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005—and it may be that the member did not hear the debate. In relation to frivolous and vexatious objectors changes were made to give strike-out powers to decision-making authorities when considering and hearing submissions based on plans policy statements and resource consents. This measure takes effect in August 2007. The date was set to align very neatly with the current accreditation requirements for hearing panels and the training of hearings commissioners is under way right now and will continue until August. This provision will enable frivolous and vexatious submissions or parts thereof to be struck out where the submitter discloses no reasonable or relevant case and where a submission would be an abuse of the hearing process. That measure will be in place from August. 
I acknowledge that come August a council may be reluctant to use the new 2005 amendment Act strike-out powers irrespective of how frivolous vexatious irrelevant or abusive of the hearing process submitters may be if it is wary of costs emerging on the matter of appellant jurisdiction. A council may avoid exercising such a power when the Environment Court has the power to strike out in any case as that would save it from being involved in one extra case concerning appellant jurisdiction. However it is difficult to see how the member’s bill if it were enacted would ever prevent parties from stalling the decision-making process further than what is possible now and what will be possible under the 2005 amendments if the motivation is simply to stall a court hearing. Delays can be created by an objector pulling out the case when it actually begins—that is it is the lodging of the appeal in the first place that potentially causes the delay. That is one tactic. 
Even that tactic has considerably less success now that we have provided additional funding to the Environment Court to significantly reduce the time taken to hear appeals. Delays in appeals to the Environment Court have more than halved since 2001. Cases that are not complex are likely to get a hearing date within 6 months as part of a case-track system now implemented by the court. Equally the bill will not prevent the possibility of getting round the problem by say forming an incorporated society simply for the sake of taking an appeal and dissolving it when costs are awarded. 
The question comes down to an issue of access to justice—and we are proud of that principle—and whether having the barrier of security for costs would really deter genuine interests from appealing. The bill will potentially save the time of the court only in instances where spurious claims are made. However the court already has the power to strike out submissions once proceedings begin. I firmly believe that councils like the Environment Court now will have all the necessary tools to deal with frivolous and vexatious appellants. I believe that the bill will not serve natural justice particularly for those who already face significant financial barriers compared with appeal respondents. I therefore do not support this bill. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will not support the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill either. My memory goes back to an intellectual young man in the National Party called Simon Upton for whom I did heaps of work in the Raglan electorate years ago. I remember him talking about this issue a lot in those days and so it came to pass. The idea behind the Resource Management Act was to allow local people to make decisions for other local people and that has proved to be the case. 
It is true that at times the legislation is a problem for people with large developments in mind who propose changes of land use and that sort of thing. That is true. Just east of Hamilton East where I reside is the site of a proposed power line which has been updated to 400 kilowatts or some such measurement—I do not know what it is called—to feed Auckland. People are protesting about that. We do not believe that people should be constrained in any way because they do not have the money to come up against not only private people with money but in many cases Government corporations State-owned enterprises or other bodies of that nature. Fonterra which operates in the rural environment comes to mind also. It is important as the previous speaker said not only that justice is done but that justice is affordable for everyone. We cannot have justice just for those who can afford it. 
We have in this day and age many many more corporates of a size that could not even be contemplated back when the Resource Management Act was brought into being. Therefore it is important that local people—individuals—have the ability to speak out against these big institutions. Also something that would be sad and that we do not want to see is a return to the days when people took other actions outside of a court—like laying down on railway tracks or in front of bulldozers or chaining themselves to trees. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s pathetic. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Well that is what people did and the National Party wants to go back to those days. We in New Zealand First would sooner retain a situation whereby people can go about legitimate protest in a proper way and have it resolved lawfully in a court rather than have to resort to acts of physical intervention. So New Zealand First will not support this bill even going to a select committee. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s a disgrace. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: No it is not. It is very good; it is responsible. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 First I offer my congratulations to Kate Wilkinson on having a bill drawn from the ballot. I was fortunate enough in the last Parliament to have two of my bills drawn and I know what a thrill it is. 
In rising to speak on this bill I need to go back and look at a little bit of history in relation to the Resource Management Act. When United Future arrived in this Parliament in 2002 we gave a clear commitment to this House that we would support all initiatives to remove any obstacles to reasonable development in the important provision of vital infrastructure caused by the Resource Management Act. We said we would not hold the Government to ransom as the Greens ACT and the National Party had done by not being willing to support the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which had been sitting on the Order Paper for years simply because it did not contain everything we wanted or because it contained some things we did not like. We considered that the urgent need was to speed the provision of new roads power generation and other basic infrastructure projects. That was so important that even though we had some reservations about the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) we would support it so we could move the process forward. 
History shows of course that we then went on to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3). One of things we did criticise when dealing with the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) was that it would remove the power of the court to require security for costs. However by the time we got to the No. 3 bill the situation had changed dramatically. There was a backlog of 2 to 3 years of appeals to the Environment Court. Therefore the security of costs thing was quite important because vexatious people could delay and hold up a project for literally 3 years. Through the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3) which was introduced in 2004 and passed in 2005 that situation was changed dramatically. We were delighted during the select committee stage of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3) to hear submitters from both the business sector and environmental groups commenting on how much better the Resource Management Act process had become compared with the process that applied when we came into Parliament in 2002. In those 2 short years because of our initiative to support the Government in making a meaningful common-sense advance in the Resource Management Act we had improved the situation dramatically. 
Today there is not a 2 or 3 year delay in going to the Environment Court. The whole process has been sped up the backlog has been removed and therefore today there is no need to have such a draconian power as requiring the court to have security of costs before people could object on legitimate grounds to a project that they may as Doug Woolerton pointed out have very very deep convictions about—the sort of convictions that saw Sonja Davies for example chain herself to the railway lines. 
Therefore because of the positive achievements that were accomplished by United Future working with the previous Government we no longer consider it necessary to award the courts the power they had prior to 2003. This bill in reality is more of a political stunt than any real useful amendment. We are saddened to see the National Party continuing to live in the past as far as the Resource Management Act is concerned continually regurgitating its tired old stories about delays and road blocks caused by the Resource Management Act. The fact of the matter is that the resource management law was introduced by a National Government and if in the 1990s it had bothered to use its energy in a responsible way it could have fixed these things long since. I repeat that it actually took the arrival of United Future in this House in 2002 to break the logjam to break the deadlock and to enable this process to move forward. 
We are now in 2006. We have moved on from 2002 and from 2004. Our party has a policy of continuing to cooperate with the Government in making incremental improvements to the Resource Management Act process and that needs to go on. We are not saying that it is perfect and we are not saying that we have got to the end of the journey but we are well down the road from where we were in 2002 and this bill adds nothing to that process. 
I want to say in the House tonight that the progress we have made during the last 3 years is in no small measure thanks to the tireless work of my former colleague Larry Baldock who worked with both Marian Hobbs and then with David Benson-Pope to really crack the long delays the Resource Management Act process had been bedevilled with right through the 1990s all the way through until 2004 when we began to seriously address and fix the problems. This bill is a good bill but it is about 3 years out of date and we will not be supporting its going to a select committee. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The reform of the Resource Management Act is one of the most significant and important legislative issues facing this nation of ours. The Act is holding back and delaying the building of new roads; it is preventing the timely construction of new electricity infrastructure; and it is also driving up the cost of subdivisions which reflects directly on the price of homes and therefore affects New Zealanders who long to own their own homes. I find it extraordinary that in this House when a good new member like Kate Wilkinson who has a great legal background comes with a very simple proposition that will make a material difference to that Act the tired parties in Government will not even support that bill going to a select committee. 
I want to rebut a number of points that have been made. I cannot believe the claims made by United Future that suddenly the Resource Management Act has all been fixed—that there is no problem. I say to Mr Copeland that I have heard some fantasies in this House but that one would have to be in the fairytale class. Keith Turner of Meridian Energy said only in the last few days that New Zealand would not be able to address its electricity problems unless there was reform of the Resource Management Act. Just today I was at a seminar about the Act in relation to roads. I spoke with the members of a frustrated community that applied for resource consent for a roading project on the Kapiti coast in 1997—and it is still not resolved. 
Every single day we see bad examples. Can I tell members how bad it has got? Tonight’s news featured a gentleman in Queenstown who was so frustrated at trying to get a resource consent for a sign he decided to mow his sign message into his paddock. He has received a notice today stating that he will be prosecuted for not getting a resource consent for mowing his own lawn. That is exactly what has happened today yet Government members say that the Resource Management Act does not need reform; we on this side of the House say that it does. 
I have been fascinated by the arguments effectively from Government members that they do not trust our judges to apply common sense. All Kate Wilkinson’s bill will do is allow a judge to provide for security of costs if he or she thinks that is warranted. Why is it that we allow security of costs in the High Court? We allow it in the High Court we allow it in the District Court and we allow it in the Employment Court. What is it about our Environment Court judges that members of Labour United Future and New Zealand First do not trust? If there were any environment in which one might be concerned one might expect it in the Employment Court but even there there is the provision that security of costs can be allowed. 
The naivety of parties in the Government amazes me. To get around the Resource Management Act all one needs to do is to form oneself into an incorporated society and to object all the way through the resource consent process imposing huge costs on the community and on others and knowing that that limited liability incorporated society will never be held to account for the costs imposed on those others. I reflect on the tragedy for the Whangamata Marina Society which went through a resource consent process lasting 13 years. There are vexatious and frivolous objectors under the Resource Management Act every day of the week and this bill from Kate Wilkinson will provide a small but effective measure that says to the courts that if they believe somebody is acting frivolously or vexatiously they have to provide a security for costs. That is all it means—a person has to put up 10 grand so that at the end of the hearing if there is a costs award there is some means to reinforce it. 
I am bitterly disappointed that this Parliament does not see fit to improve that situation for those who want to transform the New Zealand economy by allowing that sort of minor but important amendment to the Resource Management Act. I know indeed that this country will not have roads where people can drive without being congested will not have security for people about their electricity supply and will not have subdivision costs that make it affordable for the average family to own their home while this Parliament refuses to reform that Resource Management Act. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker tena tatou katoa. The Maori Party is speaking to the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill as informed by our understanding of “CIR”. That is not “citizens initiated referendum” although that certainly would not be such a bad idea; the initials stand for “cultural impact reporting” as defined under schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991. In that provision the requirements for assessing environmental effects are set out. Cultural impact reporting looks at the spiritual cultural or other special values for present and future generations. This bill in effect adds a new layer of costs to an already expensive process—the process of taking a case against a company. The bill will require claimants to sign that they can put up the money before the case can go to court. The money is not small change. If we are seriously committed to due process in order to ensure that all people receive a fair hearing in front of the law then the cultural impact assessment provision in this bill does nothing to enhance that right. 
Section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991 states that: “The relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands water sites waahi tapu and other taonga.” is a matter of national importance that councils must recognise and provide for. It is a matter of national importance that with this amendment bill would never see the light of day through prohibitive costs. It is these matters of national importance natural justice and environmental equity that demand we oppose this bill. 
Two other factors have emerged relating to the cultural impact assessment provision. The first is the issue of relevance. The purpose of the bill is to limit vexatious and frivolous objections to applications for development. Yet in a search of the environmental rulings between 1998 and 2003 we have unearthed only two instances that could be defined as vexatious and frivolous. We did not think that could be right so we approached the Ministry for the Environment. We were told quite clearly that the ministry has not undertaken any assessment let alone a cultural impact assessment of how many cases could fall into the vexatious and frivolous category. The response was that at best estimates could be only anecdotal. 
The issue of relevance being discounted we then turned to the issue of necessity. We found that the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 actually makes this new bill redundant. There is a section in that Act that will prevent such cases getting to court by the direct intervention of local bodies. This will come into force in August 2007. Section 41C of the principal Act is amended by the addition of specific subsections including section 41C(7)(a) which directs that a submission can be struck out if the submission or part of it is frivolous or vexatious. 
The costs of litigation are already impacting adversely upon a group of people who are already overrepresented amongst communities where poverty is endemic. Security for costs can be understood as yet another clever construct of the Crown to constrain tangata whenua from their right to challenge developments. For this bill to be sitting alongside other local government situations in which Maori have been prevented from doing their own developments is at the very least a case of déjà vu or worse yet another instance of racism. Putting it another way we wonder whether the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill is actually the real frivolous and vexatious legislation. The Maori Party will not support this bill. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I think it might be helpful to the House and in fact to the proposer of the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill—who is a new member—if I gave a little of the history behind this provision in the Resource Management Act. When the Resource Management Act was passed in 1991 there was no provision in it for a judge of the Environment Court to award security for costs. That provision came in quite some years later—I think it was 1996—when another amendment gave the judges the powers of a district court. It was actually not foreseen at the time that this would involve the power to award security of costs but that is in fact what happened. 
Then later in that term of Parliament—before 1999—Sandra Lee introduced a bill to remove the power of the Environment Court to award costs against public interest groups who were representing some aspect of the public interest. That came to the Local Government and Environment Committee—which I chaired in the following term—and we considered it quite carefully and heard submissions on it. What we heard from various people who had experience of submitting on the Resource Management Act was that they did not oppose the power of the court to award costs against those who had abused court process or who had been vexatious. The difficulty they were finding was that with the new power of the court to award security for costs developers and large applicants with deep pockets were threatening objectors that if they proceeded to court they would hit them with security for costs. The fact that the judges would award security of costs only rarely and in cases where there was a real risk to the applicant did not prevent applicants from deterring genuine and worthwhile objectors from pursuing their cases out of fear because they knew the objectors simply could not find the $30000 to put up for security. So people who were legitimate parts of the process were prevented from taking part. 
When we got that evidence in the select committee we said we would not proceed with the bill that Sandra Lee originally introduced because we did not think that representing some aspect of the national interest should automatically bar people or groups from having costs awarded against them if they abused the process and ran a bad case but we also did not think it was a good thing that people be deterred from participating at all by stand-over tactics from people saying that if other people or groups participated they would seek an order for security costs. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: From judges. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I tell the member to hang on. It was not the judges who were doing it but most people do not understand that if the power is there it does not mean that the judge will not use it against them. So they were pulling out before even testing whether or not the applicants could get their way. So the select committee went back to the previous status quo which had worked perfectly well for 6 years where the court did not have the power to award security for costs. That was what we did in preference to taking out the power to award costs in the event of bad behaviour. That was the trade-off that we did. It was not accepted by everyone on the committee but it was pretty widely accepted. 
So this bill is now attempting to restore a power to the court that was given to it inadvertently in the first place quite some years after the Act had been running perfectly fine without it. We reintroduced the risk that small local groups who had come together to try to protect some aspect of their environment against a developer or an applicant that generally had much deeper pockets than they had and who were frantically running cake stalls to raise the money to run a good case were frightened off participating in the process at all because of stand-over tactics saying that if they took part at all the developer would seek security for costs and the group would have to put up $30000 at the beginning which they would not have. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Only if the judge says so. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Of course it would only happen if the judge said so but local groups who have not participated in the process before do not understand that and they are genuinely deterred from participating. 
The Resource Management Act is about two things. It is about protection of the environment and it is about democracy. It is about the right of people in communities to have a say and this legislation would be a serious impact on the right of people communities local groups hapu and the rest from getting involved in the process. The Greens will be opposing it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call to speak on very important legislation—an important bill that my colleague Kate Wilkinson has introduced. National is concerned about the impacts of the Resource Management Act. My colleague Dr Nick Smith today sought to table recommendations on the Resource Management Act during question time on the seriousness and the importance of this legislation in relation to the development and progress we try to achieve for our economic growth in the country. 
Kate Wilkinson as a lawyer experienced in these matters has determined that security of costs are available through the District Courts the High Court and the Employment Court but not the Environment Court. So one needs to ask why we have an exemption for the Environment Court when other courts allow for security of costs. Kate Wilkinson has come forward with a solution which actually is fair. It is fair and equitable for developers for those people who seek a resource consent through the Resource Management Act and it stops those people who for frivolous and vexatious reasons will try to deny progress and will use any tactics necessary because the situation is not to their liking. 
There are numerous examples where vexatious and frivolous objections have taken place. It is well-known and has been mentioned many times in this House that it takes longer sometimes to get a resource consent to build a road than it does to construct a road. Why would that be? It is because so many people at the eleventh hour decide they want to object to a process taking place. 
My colleague Dr Smith and I were involved with the Whitianga waterways project where special legislation was passed. It is a huge development—a multimillion-dollar development over 20 years—where the developers had spent in excess of $5 million on resource consents and where everybody had agreed and it had gone through the court. Local iwi were supportive of it yet at the eleventh hour someone objected—in fact two iwi who did not even live in the area objected. Special legislation was passed. The hold-up of a multi-million dollar development which that community actually wanted at the time—and which local iwi in particular certainly wanted—was an exercise in futility. It took people like Dr Smith and the National Party to put pressure on the Government at that time to pass legislation that affected that huge development in that region. 
In a newsletter that went out to its clients on 23 May 2001 Chapman Tripp stated under “Security for Costs”: “The Select Committee Report recommends that the Environment Court’s power to award security for costs be taken away.” That is where it all started. “Currently the resource consent applicants can ask the Court to require appellants to provide security so that if the appeal is not successful and is found to be of sufficiently low merit as to warrant an award of costs against the appellant the court is sure that the appellant is able to pay those costs.” 
This is important legislation that my colleague Kate Wilkinson is promoting. It is worthy and has the merit to go to the select committee so the committee can determine the merits of it and we can call for submissions on this very important bill. We know that the infrastructural challenges facing New Zealand—be they in energy or be they in roading—are held up in many cases by the Resource Management Act. We support the Resource Management Act but we want legislation that is fair and equitable to maintain those high environmental standards and at the same time make sure people cannot come in and stop something just for the sake of stopping it when there is no due reason or cause for them to do so. National supports this legislation and we trust that other parties in this Parliament will allow it to go through to the select committee. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Firstly congratulations to Kate Wilkinson on having had the opportunity to introduce this bill coming out of the ballot system given that we both arrived in Parliament at the same time. But I stand based on a long body of experience on both sides of this debate in resource management to assure her that I do not support this bill having said that I congratulate her on having seized the opportunity. No. 1 the bill as proposed will do a great deal of damage to the Maori constituency. It will disempower prevent and further marginalise. Their opportunities will be reduced to speak about those values and interests in the environment that are so easily or very often overlooked and forgotten by rapacious developers as they pursue profit at the expense of the environment—in particular mahinga kai urupa and other features of significance to the tangata whenua. We may well see come to pass a cheque-book type of environmentalism corporatising the environment so that it becomes the plaything only of those who have deep pockets of those who have the opportunity to hire the flashest lawyers I fear that this could mean that opportunities are denied to Maori communities. This is not good either for the environment or for the involvement of hapu iwi and tangata whenua in the future. 
Now of course Nick Smith and others are very supportive of this. Purposely they exaggerate the nature of the problem. The problem is actually being addressed come August 2007 when new statutory powers will be available to strike out frivolous mischievous and vexatious issues—and I am not entirely sure why Nick Smith complains about such issues because we put up with that sort of thing every day from him during question time. However I agree that the opportunity that exists for people to raise such issues is very very frustrating and can be cumbersome. It should come to an end as a consequence of the amendments that have already been dealt with. 
There is a great deal of rhetoric behind this issue—not necessarily from Kate Wilkinson; I found her delivery to be very lawyer-like stripped of rhetoric and dealing with the problem but unfortunately coming up with the wrong remedy. I get the sense that Nick Smith and others are harking back to the National Development Act. They actually would prefer the Resource Management Act to be put to the side and for developments to be approved from a national agency with minimal or no opportunity for public or community participation. That would lead to a simple reversion back to the days of Muldoon. The Resource Management Act is an evolving piece of legislation and as one of the four members of the core group who worked with Sir Geoffrey Palmer in 1989-90 actually developing the Resource Management Act which was then taken forward by Simon Upton I say that it has to be amended as it goes. 
But there should be balance and opportunity for participation. Most important communities should not be dislocated or locked out from an opportunity to influence the final shape and form of their community when a life-changing development comes to town. Members may very well ask why security of costs options are not being enjoyed by the Environment Court. The Environment Court as an institution is in a class of its own. It cannot be compared with the activities of the District Court or various other fora of the legal system. That is why I cannot support this bill because it is disempowering and leaves far too much influence and potential for marginalisation on the basis of the depth of the pocket and the cheque-book flourishing of developers. There is nothing wrong with development provided that it does not undermine the sustainability of the resources surrounding the development. However for those reasons I say to Kate Wilkinson that it was a nice try but I do not support this bill. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I came to Parliament believing in justice—justice for everybody—and not in denying justice to anyone as the opponents to this bill are suggesting. Justice in any court requires the reduction of vexatious and frivolous claims. That is not just in relation to the Environment Court; it also applies to the District Court and High Court. The other courts have provision for security for costs to reduce vexatious and frivolous claims as has already been mentioned. Why does the Environment Court not have that provision? 
Vexatious and frivolous claims must be discouraged. The test of course is rigorous and robust—we have said that—to discourage frivolous objectors from stymying the due process of law without any comeback or form of redress. That is justice and that is what this bill is about. 
Opponents of this bill have been trumpeting some alternatives—for example that the courts will have the power in 2007 to strike out an objector’s claim. But that might not necessarily be what the objector wants. The objector might just want to provide some security for costs in order to buy time to put forward a lucid argument and striking out the claim would deny them that right to justice. 
I refer now to flip-flop No. 1. In the  
Hansard 
 reporting of this matter in 2002 New Zealand First’s Dail Jones I thought summed up the situation rather well. He said: “One of the major areas of complaint I have with this bill which I am sure will lead to its downfall as a whole is the removal of security for costs.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Who said that? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Mr Jones from New Zealand First said that. That was flip-flop No. 1. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The baubles of office. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Exactly! And he continued: “As a lawyer I would think that surely this would still have been a matter to be left to the discretion of the judge involved.” He went on: “The main criticism we make of judges in this House … is that they tend to be too soft. That tends to be the attitude judges take because as lawyers we are trained to give the individual all the protection we possibly can under our system.” He continued: “I have never known anyone to complain that security for costs has ever been too high. But we remove security for costs whether it is $500 $1000 or $1500 we put nothing in its place and now the same old people who delayed things prior to 1996 are really going to have a field day.” He concluded: “New Zealand First cannot support this legislation.” How right he was. New Zealand First was then in favour of security for costs; now it is not. 
Flip-flop No. 2 came from United Future. United Future was then “particularly unhappy with the removal of the power of the Environment Court to require security for costs from individuals or groups it considers vexatious.” United Future was right also. Then that party was in favour of security for costs; now it is not. That is flip-flop No. 2. 
A National member said at the time: “We have provisions in this bill that this Parliament will live to regret. There are provisions that ban the court from providing security for costs. That was an Alliance policy … I do not know why United Future—let alone Labour—now sees an obligation to follow through on a policy that effectively allows people to object without any responsibility for those actions.” That member was my colleague Nick Smith and how right he was. What is wrong with asking people to put their money where their mouth is? What is wrong with trying to remove one of the handbrakes to progress? What is wrong with trying to reduce personal vendettas and frivolous and vexatious costs? 
We have heard that the courts still have the power to award costs but incorporated societies have limited liability. There is no person who would be personally liable for those costs. There is no discipline and so that is absolutely meaningless. The security for costs order has been used infrequently and with extreme caution—only on eight occasions. The courts are reluctant to make the order because they want to ensure that natural justice is done and that due and proper regard is had for individuals. But we need the safeguard against vexatious and frivolous proceedings in our judicial process. We also need adequate protection from those objectors. 
Supporting this bill would allow the select committee to scrutinise the legislation properly. There are stand-over tactics and we need to avoid the ability of such tactics by frivolous and vexatious objectors to pervert the course of justice when those objectors know they cannot be touched. I urge support for this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading)  Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This is indeed a red-letter day for Rotorua whose people are all listening at home. We hit the double when the Rotorua bill in my name was drawn from the ballot only 2 weeks after Jacqui Dean’s bill. I supported that bill—even though it is more parochial being in respect of only Wanaka and Tauranga—as it was the only mechanism that I could work with to get Rotorua the right to trade at Easter and we are now in an MMP environment. At a future point I will move that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. 
I note that chambers of commerce around the country in areas like Cambridge are also asking to be counted in with other districts such as Napier and things then start to get messy on the mechanism of Jacqui Dean’s bill. That bill was voted through to the select committee by 73 votes to 41. I hope the same support will be given to this member’s bill. It is only democratic that bills reflecting local community interests are supported through to a select committee so that submissions are heard. 
The history of Easter trading though is unbelievable. It goes back to 1977 so it is now almost 30 years old. The anomalous schedule of exemptions that makes us shudder in Rotorua was established by the Shop Trading Hours Commission back then. In 1990 the Act revoked individual business exemptions but retained these absurd geographic area exemptions. Rotorua was simply left off the list—an act of omission not commission—overlooked and then the mechanism to get it back on to the schedule of exemptions was no longer there. We had no other choice. 
This is the Rotorua District Council’s second attempt in 6 years at a bill. In 2001 as a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed electorate MP I introduced the first bill which lost in 2002—and I understand losing a bill—by eight votes. It was unbelievable—63 votes to 55. Timing is the art of the possible and everything in politics can find the right sense of timing and place. In 2003 the then Minister of Labour Margaret Wilson—during another frustrated attempt of mine—established the Shop Trading Hours Working Group with the New Zealand Retailers Association the Consumers Institute Local Government New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. Those organisations recommended two options: to remove Easter Sunday trading as a restricted day—that was the majority view of the committee—or to empower local authorities to exempt shops from trading exemptions. The last movement on Easter trading occurred with Rodney Hide’s bill which was a carry-over of Patricia Schnauer’s bill in 2001. This movement permitted garden centres to open on Easter Sunday. That Act contained protections for workers that ensured that they could not be compelled to work unless both employer and employee agreed—that was a Green amendment. That was the last bit of movement. 
Rotorua conducted an Easter Sunday electorate survey in July of 2005. Fifty-eight businesses responded and 83 percent of those businesses wanted a law change. Seventy-six percent supported a law change for Easter Sunday only. Seventy-one percent told me to resubmit another bill post-election so here we go again. There was only a 20 percent increase from a previous chamber of commerce survey in 2001 when only 56 percent of people wanted Easter Sunday trading and only 20 percent were in favour of trading on Good Friday. 
The value and economic benefits to Rotorua as an iconic tourism town are known. We actually earn $463 million every year in direct value from tourism. One in six of our locals is directly employed by tourism. It is a great opportunity for us. Retailers are proactive supporters of tourism. We have been only too aware of the risks to retailers who open on Easter Sunday and this was graphically evident in 2005 when 87 retailers were visited by the Department of Labour and 10 of the 54 retailers who had opened their shops in support of the Jambalaya Festival were summonsed to court. They were dismissed without charge. What a ridiculous waste of court time! That incident increased the anger and frustration of those who experienced the reality of this ongoing nonsense. 
One can gamble on Easter Sunday. There is no restriction on selling alcohol in cafes on Easter Sunday. Petrol stations with shops can trade. Airport cafes with shops can stay open. Taupo right next door to us can trade but Rotorua cannot—it just gets sillier. 
So what does the bill do? It allows the district councils to adopt the special consultative procedure in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 in order to ask their communities anywhere in New Zealand whether they want to trade. The bill does not compel any shop to open on Easter Sunday and it does not compel any worker to work on Easter Sunday unless both the employer and the employee agree. The bill passes the New Zealand Bill of Rights vetting. The National Distribution Union the Retailers Association chambers of commerce and Local Government New Zealand support the bill being jointly considered by the Commerce Committee along with Jacqui Dean’s bill. 
At the moment we are running a petition in our region. It is supported by the local newspaper—the  
Daily Post 
—the district council Retail Rotorua my electorate office and the chamber of commerce. Such unlikely partners have never worked together on any other issue in our city. The petition closes at the end of this week so it will be beautiful timing to refer it to the Commerce Committee. Responses are incredibly positive from the West End supermarket to McDonald’s. They are saying: “Give us the petition. We are glad to fill it in.” I do hope tonight that this will be the end of Rotorua’s crusade to correct the anomaly that beset us in 1990. I appeal to sensible members of the House to support the bill going to the Commerce Committee. Then that committee can consider both bills together and it may come up with something better. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 The good news is that Rotorua’s crusade was won a couple of weeks ago when my Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill was read a first time and sent to the Commerce Committee. 
I rise to support Steve Chadwick’s bill which is called—it has a long name—the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill 2006. Anomalies do exist in the current Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act. Queenstown can trade happily over Easter whereas Wanaka cannot. Taupo can trade happily over Easter whereas Rotorua cannot. In fact a number of towns and cities throughout New Zealand do trade against the law over Easter and it is that anomaly that Steve Chadwick’s bill—and indeed my bill—seeks to overcome. 
I have to say that the anomaly has stuck in the craw of many many busy tourist towns in New Zealand with the current law as it stands being patently unfair to some towns and to the advantage of others. Wanaka like Queenstown is a busy tourist town particularly over Easter. Every second year the Warbirds over Wanaka International Air Show and the Race to the Sky bring up to 100000 visitors to the district all of whom want to holiday and many of whom want to shop. Every year the Department of Labour brings prosecutions against many of those retailers—in fact some schedule it in their calendar. It has become a  
Groundhog Day 
 situation for many retailers throughout New Zealand where it appears that nothing seems to change. 
Both Easter shop trading bills—both Steve Chadwick’s which is under discussion today and mine—seek to provide a level playing field for retailers all over New Zealand. I want to talk about the features of my bill just as a reminder. My bill would allow retailers to have the choice as to whether they open. The bill that I have proposed which has been sent to the Commerce Committee applies to Good Friday and Easter Sunday. I note here that a spokesman from the Catholic Church has indicated that it has no problem with shops remaining open over Easter. In fact I note that most shops in Rome trade happily over the Easter festival. 
 My bill does not in any way cut across or diminish provisions in the Holidays Act or indeed the Employment Relations Act and I note that those are the worker protections that are included in the bill that I proposed. I refer to the advice I received from Ministry of Justice officials regarding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They advised that section 47 of the Holidays Act 2003 states that employees may be required to work on public holidays when they have agreed in their employment agreement to work on public holidays and the public holiday falls on a day on which those employees would normally work. If employees do not wish to work on Good Friday and/or Easter Sunday they cannot be required to work unless they have agreed in their employment agreement to do so—and I would imagine that Steve Chadwick has been provided with the same advice on her bill. 
My bill does not cut across any lease provisions that may be in existence. Most important the bill I have proposed provides for an opt-in mechanism whereby towns and cities—if they want to be—can be added to the schedule of the bill by way of an amendment which some would say is an elegantly simple process. I am pleased that that bill has passed its first reading and now sits with the Commerce Committee and I hope that Steve Chadwick’s bill will join mine for consideration by that committee. 
When my bill was sent to the select committee I wrote to the chambers of commerce around New Zealand retailer associations Business New Zealand various retailers and individual business owners. I have also written to every local authority in New Zealand. I believe that if this bill is to finally succeed it must be driven by the retail sector. I believe we have a changing environment here in Parliament and I anticipate good support for this bill but if we really want change then it must be driven by people in the retail sector. So I am lobbying those people hard in order to get their indications of support. 
I am receiving a huge amount of mail in support of the bill and also a number of suggested amendments. Many of those amendments are from people in areas with high visitor numbers who would like their towns and cities to be added to the schedule of my bill. They want to be part of the opt-in process. I am also very happy for any of those amendments to be discussed by the Commerce Committee. I am aware that some chambers of commerce are suggesting that picking towns opting in and devolving to local government is not the way to go and they would like to see the law changed for all New Zealand. I am very happy for that option to be discussed by the select committee. So members can imagine my joy when Steve Chadwick’s bill was drawn from the ballot several weeks after mine. Steve Chadwick’s bill has a similar aim to mine. As I have said we have agreed to support each other’s bill should it be drawn so I do support this bill. We want to achieve the same aim but we want to achieve it in different ways. 
Steve Chadwick’s bill seeks to allow shops to open on Easter Sunday only. The responsibility for giving effect to this bill is devolved to local authorities and that is where I have a problem with the way this bill proposes to proceed. I believe that by devolving responsibility to local government the bill will arguably trigger a special consultative process under the Local Government Act 2002. That process would add 6 months 7 months 8 months or more on to the time local authorities take to deal with this process. I have sought advice from one small local authority which advised me that it would add more than $20000 in costs to its ratepayers. That local authority may have no desire to have the ability to trade over Easter. I imagine and I am pretty sure that this would be a compulsory process for local authorities. So for example in the Waitaki district and maybe in the Grey district there may be no call for shops to trade over Easter yet the local authorities would incur the cost time and angst of that consultation process. I have huge reservations about that process. I believe that that is an unnecessarily cumbersome process and my biggest fear is that it will not be settled before next Easter. 
I would be open to the select committee establishing an appeal authority where for example cities or towns could apply in the future for an exemption to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act as was the case pre-1999. I think that I am in favour of this bill and I am open to the select committee having a good discussion on it because I believe that we must put this matter to bed once and for all. 
For most towns in New Zealand with a significant visitor industry like Wanaka and Rotorua Easter trading provides a boost to the town’s income and a service to the thousands upon thousands of visitors who are there for the full range of visitor experiences. I believe that the time has come for us to put right the anomalies in the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act and to recognise that tourism is in fact a 365-day-a-year industry and that it is one of New Zealand’s largest contributors to gross domestic product and to goods and services tax. Now is the time finally to let tourist towns with a significant visitor industry go about their business without unfair archaic and unnecessary regulation. I urge members to send this Easter Sunday shop trading bill—however imperfect—to the select committee. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It was good to hear the member who has just resumed her seat spend at least some of her time talking about this bill rather than her own bill which came before the House a few weeks back and which New Zealand First was pleased to support. We are much more comfortable with this bill than with hers for a number of reasons. 
First and foremost this bill can apply to the whole of the country. The previous speaker’s bill applied basically to Tauranga and Wanaka— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why didn’t you listen to what I was saying? 
PETER BROWN 
: —and she could add other towns and cities on to the list. I know the member could add to that list. Second—and this is important—New Zealanders are warmly disposed towards Easter Sunday trading but they are not as warmly disposed towards Good Friday trading. If the member does not believe that she should go out and ask members of the public but I know people are quite warmly disposed towards Easter Sunday trading. I do not agree with the member that it will take 6 months or be very complicated to implement this bill. I think it could be done very very rapidly. Another area of difference that I think should be highlighted is that this bill refers to the areas of territorial authorities that actually exist whereas that honourable member’s bill revolved around where post offices were sited. A post office can be moved relatively easily overnight which would mean that the trading areas would keep shifting. 
I come from Tauranga and I know that Tauranga will accept this bill warmly and very quickly. Tauranga has been absolutely brassed off—and that is putting it as politely as I can—to see cruise ships come in and taxis and minibuses pick up all the passengers and take them out of Tauranga through Rotorua to trade in Taupo. That is absolutely daft. This bill allows that situation to be corrected very very quickly to my mind. 
New Zealand First has carried out a number of surveys on the proposal that shops trade on Easter Sunday; some were informal and some were more formal. Every survey we have taken has shown huge support for trading on Easter Sunday. We have involved ourselves in discussions with church people and with people from all walks of life in fact but we were very pleased with the response we received from church people. That was principally in Tauranga but also in other areas of New Zealand. People are very keen to see Easter Sunday trading introduced. 
 New Zealand First will without a doubt support this bill. We support the earlier bill. We hope that the two bills can be combined together and an appropriate degree of common sense will be applied so that this House is not ultimately faced with deciding between Bill A Bill B and what have you at the end of the day. 
This is an issue that has gone on for far too long in this House. The honourable member who just resumed her seat made reference to the retailers who are driving this proposal. I do not think there are any problems with regard to retailers. They will accept this type of legislation very very quickly—overnight. I do not think there is any problem with regard to the public. The problem for this sort of legislation is the members of this House. Some of the members of this House have adopted a totally head in the sand attitude toward this sort of legislation and it pleases me no end to know that many many members will now support this bill going to the select committee. New Zealand First has tried for many years to get this sort of legislation before the House. I forget the number of attempts we have made only to fail at the last minute or right in a last-ditch effort. 
We are absolutely delighted that this bill is here. The decision will be made by local authorities after consultation with their local communities. We wish the bill every success and we will most certainly support it. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 For the second time this year we find ourselves debating yet another attempt to reform the ramshackle laws relating to Easter trading. I have to acknowledge that Steve Chadwick’s bill which we are dealing with tonight is the best attempt yet to remove some of the inconsistencies in this area but the Green Party will still oppose this bill and the value system it privileges. 
Steve Chadwick’s bill is fairer than Jacqui Dean’s is. We appreciate the fact that it does not include Good Friday as a shopping day and that there will be some protections for workers so that they cannot be compelled to work on Easter Sunday unless both employer and employee agree. However those are still not good enough reasons to endorse the bill. 
There is a lot of rhetoric in the debating chamber about freedom of choice but in fact when we start to think about the wide-reaching effects of this legislation it pays to ask whose freedom of choice we are really serving. For example exactly how many business owners want this freedom of choice to open for business on one of the 3½ remaining days of the year when they do not have to open? How many of their staff really want the freedom to be able to work on Easter Sunday? Low-wage workers desperate for money to pay the bills will find themselves behind the counter through the economic imperative without the protection—in those localities that mandate this legislation—of a day off which they may badly need. 
At the moment most workers—and business owners and managers for that matter—can relax in the knowledge that on Christmas Day Good Friday Easter Sunday and the morning of Anzac Day they do not have to go to work. Perhaps they would just like a chance to rest and recuperate. Perhaps they would like time to do things with the family. If they are Christian and it is one of the holy days they might even like to go to church. Those are 3½ precious days that are not defined by the everyday buying and selling that seem to characterise every other moment of our lives. I commend the recent statement from the Anglican archbishops on this matter. Headed “Hamsters or Humans?” it states among other things: “Are we simply consumers running like hamsters on a wheel in the marketplace or is there more to us than this? What we require is legislation which represents the interests of all people not simply the economically and commercially powerful.” Good on the archbishops! 
Is this legislation before us tonight truly representative of the popular will of the majority of ordinary New Zealanders? I doubt it. It is time this House was reminded that economic decisions have human consequences and moral content and that they do actually hurt or help people. They strengthen or weaken our family life and advance or diminish the quality of justice in this country. Every economic decision we collectively make must be judged in this light: does it protect or undermine the dignity of being fully human? As politicians we tend to trade in the positive generalities of concepts like families and children. We all jockey to position ourselves as the political party that best represents the interests of families. This is the obviously rhetorical stuff of politics. Today this House is being asked to look beyond the rhetoric in order to make a specific judgment on an economic issue that will directly affect the quality of life of families. 
Some have argued that the bill will make some families materially richer. For a few it no doubt will and I certainly do not want to downplay the necessity and benefit of a vibrant economy. However we have already set aside 361½ days of the year to do this. Only 3½ days remain when this is not necessarily the case. We have only 3½ days to re-imagine ourselves differently without the all-pervasive presence of market forces. If we allow trading on Easter Sunday as this bill before the House ultimately proposes why stop there? Good Friday is no more holy in a Christian sense than Easter Sunday. Why close shops for only half of Anzac Day? What is the logic of sanctifying one part of the day but not the other? As for Christmas Day why let the shopping suddenly stop? Why close on Christmas Day when the music of commerce is reaching its crescendo? 
We say that other values in life are more important than buying selling and making money; values that the Green Party believes are of more consequence to the quality of our lives than promoting the freedom to shop. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Speaker; kia ora tatou te Whare. The rising of the Matariki in the north-eastern sky in June is significant to many people in the South Pacific. For Maori the Matariki marks the turning point of the seasons—a time to reflect on the year gone by and to plan for the days ahead. Matariki is a time to celebrate a new dawn to embrace new growth to practise and express our spiritual beliefs and values and for Maori people from throughout this great nation of ours to switch to the Maori roll. 
The Maori Party knows the importance of Matariki to Maori throughout Aotearoa and it is with that knowledge that we come to the second saga of the Easter trading series—indeed to a second and separate bill on Easter trading itself. That appreciation helps us to understand the importance of honouring Easter’s Christian traditions for Maori and other New Zealanders. I raise here the objections from the Anglican archbishops of Aotearoa who say that the Easter trading bills are ill-conceived and will strip away family freedoms and workers’ rights. Maori regardless of iwi regardless of birthplace and regardless of occupation still cling to many traditional spiritual practices and after many years of dawn karakia openings blessings and tangihanga I know that our desire to worship and share spiritual practices with one another remains one of the features that still binds us as a people today. 
The Maori Party is aware of the historical spiritual and religious significance of Easter but we are not unaware of the economic realities facing our people either. We stand by our responsibility to raise the status of those most in need in Aotearoa. I raise again the ugly reality of poverty in Aotearoa and I point also to the cold hard fact of 230000 children living in poverty at a time of conspicuous wealth and at a time when political parties can blithely break the law then seek absolution for their crimes not through the payment of penance but by the passing of dodgy legislation. People in Taupo and Queenstown have the opportunity to bring more money into their household by being able to work through Easter but others in Rotorua and Wanaka are denied that opportunity. It is because of those anomalies that the Maori Party is happy to support this bill at its first reading. 
Speaking of anomalies and looking at some of the geographical exemptions carried over in the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act of 1990 I must say it is apparent how silly the application of the law has been. For example in Richmond Court in Thames a shop can trade on Easter Sunday as long as Easter Sunday falls in March. In Mariners Mall in Picton a shop can open only if a cruise ship is in port. In one of the more bizarre twists in the Carnegie Centre in Dunedin a shop can sell toys and books on an Easter Sunday only while performances are happening on the mezzanine floor. The law is crazy it benefits some and denies others and it simply does not make sense. Too much legislation being passed through this House fits those criteria. The Maori Party wants to see laws made simple clear and equitable. 
To be honest I am not overly fussed about new laws that jeopardise quality family time. Sundays for me are precious moments at home soaking up the sun—even in the winter the weather is always fine in the far north—resting the soul talking to the kids catching up with the whanau and stacking up the “zzzs”. So I am not happy at the thought that sometime down the track my moko will say to me on a Sunday: “Sorry papa but I’ve got to go to work.” It would be nice though if he had the choice—if he could say: “Hey paps they wanted me to work but I said no and they were sweet about it.” 
Stevie Chadwick has promised to protect workers’ rights in her bill. Although I am naturally suspicious about people who are promising to look after the workers I will take her at her word and will watch this bill as it goes through the select committee to ensure that those rights are indeed protected in legislation. So as we look forward to the Matariki the Maori Party will support the first reading of this bill and will listen carefully to the submissions made by those who also have the interests of the family at heart to ensure that in advancing our economic situation we do not take our society backwards. Kia ora koutou katoa. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. Let me begin by saying that the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill in the name of Steve Chadwick will be a conscience vote for United Future so the remarks that I will be sharing with the House tonight are according to my conscience and they are mine alone. 
This bill once again has led me to search my conscience as to my convictions about what it really means to be a human being. Humanity I believe is born to be free. Women and men are not slaves and work is not the sole or indeed necessarily the most important end of our lives. We are not designed to be slaves in the sense of slavery nor are we built to be slaves to the economy. Indeed the Greek root of the word “economy” or “economics” relates to the management of the household and therefore of the family. If we go from that Greek root of the word we realise economics and the economy therefore exist to serve families—exist to serve the needs of human beings—and not the other way around. 
My second conviction coalesces strongly with the first—namely the ability of families to spend time together. We know the purpose of having holidays when we think of it is to set time aside to be together and to be families. What do I mean by that? I mean mums and dads with their children I mean grandparents with their children and grandchildren and I mean the ability to have uncles and aunts and other family members together on important holiday occasions. It is the opportunity for example to bring an elderly member of the family—a parent or grandparent—home from a retirement home to spend an afternoon or a day with his or her family. Those are the moments that give us joy in living and New Zealand now has only 3½ days on which that remains possible for many many families. 
New Zealanders now rank in the OECD as second only to the Japanese in working the longest hours. We are already a work-saturated society and I for one believe that we already have the work-life balance wrong. I believe that this bill will simply make that situation worse. I am not prepared to see those precious 3½ days further eroded. It is bad enough when we get together as a family and someone is not there. Every one of us in this House has had the experience of asking: “Where’s Jim today?” or “Where’s Mary today?” and being told they are working. That is acceptable when they happen to be working in a hospital in a restaurant in a pharmacy or even in a service station—because people need gasoline—or working for any of the essential services: the police force or the fire service. Those essential services are necessary 365 days a year. There is no argument with that. But I want to ask people to examine their own consciences as to whether it is necessary for them to shop 365 days a year. It is not for me. I like to have a day when we can get as many members of the family together as possible. I simply see this proposal as the thin edge of the wedge. 
One of the logics advanced in this House is that we already allow trading in some towns on those days so we should give everybody that opportunity. I bring it to the attention of the House that it is possible to look at it the other way around. The fact is that we have only 3½ trading-free days. By the way one of those is Anzac Day and that is not a day on which families can get together because all the shops are open at lunchtime. Last year in Lower Hutt for example all the big shops had sales starting the moment the half-day observed for Anzac Day ended. Anzac Day instead of being a day to commemorate our war heroes and those who have gone before us in that cause and a day for time with our families has actually become a great selling day for the shops. I regret that. I think that is negative for family life and negative for who we are as human beings. 
Quite frankly I can get by with shopping on 361½ days a year. That is more than enough. I have no desire to buy a car on Easter Sunday; I have no desire to do many things on Easter Sunday. I have a strong desire to see our nation preserve some time when we can get together with our families when we can relax together and when we can be together with as many family members as possible. Everything that reduces that opportunity I strongly oppose and therefore I will be voting against this bill. Thank you. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the first reading of Steve Chadwick’s Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. The bill enables territorial authorities to decide whether retail shops in their districts may open on Easter Sunday and requires those authorities before making any such decision to consult their communities by adopting a special consultative process provided for in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. I support this bill going to the Commerce Committee and in doing so I thank Steve and Jacqui for putting two bills of this nature before the committee. I am sure Maryan Street as part of that committee will join me in thanking both members for giving us this particular workload. I am sure they can trust us to make sure we get a good result from the two bills. 
Tonight I want to support this bill but also to discuss the differences between the two bills which I think is important. Some differences have been highlighted and also some confusion. Firstly Steve Chadwick’s bill relates only to Easter Sunday whereas Jacqui’s bill relates to Good Friday and Easter Sunday. So my initial thinking is that this bill goes only halfway. The second point is that Steve’s bill puts the responsibility on to local councils whereas Jacqui’s bill allows legislation in Parliament to take account of the whole issue. My concern with responsibility going to local body level is that as Jacqui pointed out it once again puts costs back on to local councils. Jacqui used the example of a $20000 cost for a council in the South Island. I think that is a concern. We are always hearing in Parliament that we are continuing to put costs back on to local body councils. So I say once again that it is a concern. 
I say to Peter Brown that Jacqui’s bill allows for multiple local territorial authorities to come on board. 
Peter Brown 
: Why didn’t you say that at the beginning? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Well it is pretty clear in the bill that there is that opportunity. 
In terms of similarities both bills seek to allow trading on an Easter weekend. There was some confusion in a  
New Zealand Herald  
article today but both bills do protect employees’ rights as to whether they wish to work on those days. I say to Gordon Copeland that that is something I want talk about. The bills do provide the choice for people to work or not to work which is the point Gordon raised. Both bills do not specifically compel shops to open. It is that choice that I want to talk about. In terms of my own businesses being given the choice to open on Good Friday or Easter Sunday I would have no compulsion to open my businesses on those days and I would certainly allow people who work within my businesses the opportunity to continue to have a holiday. I believe that it is a matter of choice. Gordon talked about mankind being born to be free; I guess by being free there is that choice to allow people to have holidays which I think is important. 
I believe there are anomalies in the current law as Steve pointed out—specifically that shops in Taupo can open yet shops in Rotorua 1 hour up the road cannot. It is a crazy situation. Garden centres around the country can open regardless but many other retail shops cannot. That is just silly. New Zealand has a 24-hour 7-day-a-week trading environment; there is nothing more sure. The tourism industry currently provides approximately $12 billion of New Zealand’s gross domestic product so I believe that it is important for in particular cities like Napier and Rotorua to be able to continue to provide services throughout the Easter period. That will be good. Comments made recently not by the Anglican Church but certainly by the Catholic Church show that the church has no particular issues with this bill because it is believed that choice will reign. 
Both bills will now come before the select committee. Once again I thank both the ladies who are putting that additional work before us. I am confident we will get to a resolution on this issue but in closing I say that I certainly believe there should be no half measures and that we should not be imposing additional costs on our regional councils because they have enough costs as it is. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak to this bill tonight but I am very sad to have to speak against the bill proposed by my good friend Steve Chadwick. I oppose this bill. 
I listened with some interest to the last speaker who comes from Napier. In 5 minutes he again gave one of his profound speeches for Napier by firstly noting simply that the territorial authorities would not approve of this bill—and of course they would not—and secondly making some inane comment about travel agents in Napier not choosing to open on certain days. Napier has bigger issues to address than trying to stretch the dollar of a few over a few extra days. Napier has large areas of social deprivation and it is the people there—the young kids—who will be called in to work on the extra day. Of course there is choice but it is not a real choice. 
I speak in this debate as someone who has continually parented for the last 37 years. I started parenting when man first walked on the moon—in fact in the same month—and my youngest child is now 14. So for the last 37 years or however long it has been I have been raising children. In that time I have seen shops close fully on the weekend whereas today some are trading for 6 or 7 days a week. In that time we have also seen the breakdown of family life. The dollar does not buy more; people just work longer hours to have the same buying power for their family. And we now have two parents working. The effect on the family is that children no longer grow up coming home to one parent who is there and dedicated to their needs. We can beat our chests all day and all night about what causes family breakdown but if there is not one parent in the house whom children can relate to in downtime when that parent is not harried by work pressure then that family will have all the symptoms and signs of family breakdown. There are suburbs in Napier where parents have no choice but to work every hour available to them in low-paying jobs in shops or in cleaning jobs. There are suburbs in Napier where the children do not lack the love of their parents but their parents lack the time to give them their support because of the competing demand of earning an income. 
I also speak as a member for 6 or 7 years of a board of trustees of a decile 2 secondary school. I know only too well the difficulties a decile 2 school has in engaging with its parent community. Again it is not because the parents do not want to be engaged; it is because their time is so committed. Many of the parents work for a wage that does not give them the choice that property developers property speculators and the like have to govern their lifestyle accordingly. In Napier we see the clashes of the two styles. We see those who are privileged with choice and who want shops to open 7 days a week so that they can go and buy from those who have to work for a menial wage at the expense of their family life; and we see those who do not have a choice whether to work those hours—even though it may be written into the bill that they do—because shops opening for longer hours will put pressure on the 16 and 17-year-olds to work at the expense of their school work and put pressure on the mums and dads to work the few extra hours so that their children can have the glittering toys that the well-off have. 
This is a real debate in the suburbs of our community. It is the pressure of time that is the biggest cost to family life. This bill does nothing to ease the pressure of time. It is absolutely fallacious to say that businesses in Napier will improve because the shops open on a few extra days. There is not an unlimited amount of money going around and waiting to be spent. Every dollar in the suburbs in Napier that matter is well committed before parents look to see how many days a week the shops open. Many parents could not spend enough money to feed the kids even if the supermarket was open on only 3 days a week. An extra day will not help the young kids in Napier who have time on their hands and are on the streets because their parents are working hard to meet the cost of buying a house in Napier or the cost of paying the exorbitant rent that some landlords charge because the National Government sold State houses and there was no income-related rent legislation. We do not have the stock. People cannot get a State house. 
These are the issues we have to address rather than increasing our shopping days by a few measly hours. I stand here as someone who asks people to look over the other side of the fence. What this bill proposes may be unimportant in the scale of things but it is part of the principle of whittling away for the mighty dollar what is really our greatest value in this country—our people. What is most important? It is people; it is people; it is people. And we cannot have people without relationships and relationships are families. Families need to have downtime to spend together—time when they do not need to do anything so that real relationships can be formed. That is why I speak against this bill despite the good intentions of my good friend Steve Chadwick. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take a short call on this bill and I do so because although I did not vote for Jacqui Dean’s bill when it came before the House a few weeks ago I will be voting for Steve Chadwick’s bill to go to the select committee. I want to explain why I am doing that. 
I oppose Easter trading and I always have. Many small-business people came to talk with me when they heard this bill was coming up and asked me not to vote for it. They felt that when the Warehouse opens they also have to open otherwise they might lose customers because they would think they had not bothered to open that day. Those people were the only people who came to me about this bill. I support many of the comments made by my colleague Russell Fairbrother but I feel that in this House there is a will for this bill to proceed and I am facing the reality that it will probably pass. If this bill is to pass then I want it to be the best bill it can be for all the people who will be affected by it. 
With all due respect to Jacqui Dean she was quite prescriptive in terms of the areas that would or would not be affected and I thought that could be problematic. It is good that the two bills are going forward side by side because it will mean we can decide whether the legislation should be district-wide or prescriptive. It may well be that councils will come along and say there is no way they have the political will to say they will open up everything on Easter Sunday. That is very true but it is a discussion the select committee should have. 
Most important Steve Chadwick’s bill addresses the issue of workers’ rights. When I was at high school and working in a dairy I was forced to work on Christmas Day. I was told I had to work on Christmas Day or I would be fired. That was fine for me. My mother was really angry with me that I went along to work but I needed the job. On Christmas morning I worked alongside a single mother who had three kids. She was working on Christmas Day because she had been told the same thing I had been told. I do not know whether that is an isolated case or whether it is widespread practice but it is a real concern to me—because it does happen. 
Clauses in Steve Chadwick’s bill address the issue of workers being made to work on Easter Sunday. Easter Sunday is a very special day for many people and it might be for those workers. But if they are forced to choose between their religion—their beliefs—and their job then that is a very difficult decision for people. I think the select committee needs to consider that very very seriously. If businesses want to open on Easter Sunday well more power to them but they should not have the ability to coerce their workers to work on that day as well. It may well be that this is more of an issue with bigger employers than it is with smaller ones. 
The reason I will vote for this bill to go to the select committee is that I think it will pass through the House and therefore I want it to be as good as it can be. The two bills going through together will mean that more of the issues that are important to the people in my area will be addressed than would be the case if this bill were to be defeated tonight. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I have been pleased to hear the range of issues before the House tonight and I believe that it is reflective of the debate we have had in the House at previous times. I think that getting the two bills before the Commerce Committee will be of great interest and will give us a more robust bill. As a result of the submission process we may even think of other ideas that we have not had a chance to consider before. I entirely trust the Commerce Committee to come up with something to report back to the House for the Committee stage that will be even better than both our local bill—which I must say was drafted by the Rotorua District Council legal division after great consideration of the debate that had gone on at the Rotorua District Council—and Jacqui Dean’s bill. 
This has been a very interesting process with both bills being pulled out because it has shown that we are learning about the MMP environment. We are learning issue by issue to work on issues that bring people together instead of taking traditional party lines. It is even interesting to note that my colleagues are not all in agreement with this bill—and I respect their right to hold their individual views. I just think that the issue is the absurdity of the way Easter trading has been crafted since 1977. That issue—and the principle—has caused great frustration and grief in places like Wanaka Rotorua and Tauranga and for the sake of that very principle we want to see it sorted out. 
The petition we are running talks about the anomalous schedule of exemptions and the geographic variances. We asked only for Parliament to consider a mechanism to get that sorted. I believe that with these two bills that mechanism can now be sorted. 
To Hone Harawira of the Maori Party I say I do believe that Matariki probably will be a public holiday in this country one day and perhaps that will happen on the demise of the Queen’s Birthday holiday. We need to consider these things and be flexible over time. That is the opportunity we have in bringing these issues to the House. 
I do not see the necessary support for restrictions on both Good Friday and Easter Sunday. We were very careful about following research and following the surveys that we conducted which were not hugely subscribed to. It tended to be the business community that responded because they are the most affected. I always feel that one has the personal right to not go shopping. I do not actually go shopping on Easter Sunday. If anyone wants to ke te pai—they can go shopping—but I choose to spend the day with my family just like Gordon Copeland. I do not see that as an erosion of anything but that is just my personal view. 
I was very cognisant of a Green Party amendment that I want to acknowledge came from Rod Donald. It was interesting to hear Sue Bradford say tonight that she was concerned about worker protections. It was Rod Donald’s amendment on garden centres in relation to Rodney Hide’s bill that I saw as quite inspirational. So it is interesting to hear the Greens saying that the workers are not protected adequately by this Rotorua District Council bill. 
Everybody at Rotorua is dying to know the result of the count tonight and I hope we have some good news for them. I trust the Commerce Committee to come back with something even more robust and what is more enduring so that we do not have to visit this issue again. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. 
Ayes 80 
Ardern(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
King A(P) 
Smith N(P) 
Auchinvole(P) 
Dean  
King C(P) 
Stewart  
Bennett D (P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Mackey  
Street  
Bennett P(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton  
Benson-Pope(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Flavell  
Mapp  
te Heuheu(P) 
Blue  
Foss  
Mark  
Tisch  
Blumsky  
Goff(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard  
Borrows(P) 
Goodhew  
Paraone(P) 
Tolley  
Brash(P) 
Goudie  
Parker(P) 
Tremain(P) 
Brown  
Guy(P) 
Peachey  
Wagner  
Burton  
Harawira   
Peters(P) 
Wilkinson   
Carter D(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter J(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Power(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hayes  
Rich(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Henare  
Ririnui(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Clarkson  
Hide(P) 
Roy H(P) 
Coleman(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Collins(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Connell(P) 
Hutchison   
Simich  
Teller: 
Cullen(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L(P) 
Chadwick   
Noes 38 
Anderton(P) 
Fairbrother   
Kedgley(P) 
Turei(P) 
Barker(P) 
Fenton  
Laban(P) 
Turner(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Field(P) 
Locke  
Worth(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Finlayson   
Mallard(P) 
Yates(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Moroney  
Carter C(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
O'Connor   
Copeland  
Gosche(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Roy E(P) 
Teller: 
English(P) 
Jones(P) 
Tanczos  
Hughes  
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.referred to Commerce Committee 
Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill 
First Reading 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be considered by the Commerce Committee. This bill should be supported by every party in this House because it is about the basic democratic right of every New Zealander to know what is in the food he or she eats and where it comes from. It is a simple bill based on the simple proposition that consumers have a right to have enough information on a label so that they can make informed choices about the food they buy. Surely all political parties would support that. It is a simple bill that recognises that people are becoming more and more concerned about what is in their food and where it comes from and that they want better and more informative food labels. Surely all political parties would support that. This bill requires mandatory country-of-origin labelling all GE ingredients in food to be declared on a label egg cartons to identify whether eggs have been produced from free-range barn raised or caged hens and fish packaging to identify whether fish is wild-caught or farmed. It also establishes a traceability system for foods containing GE ingredients so that they can be traced throughout the food production and distribution system and it guarantees full public access to Government information on residues of pesticides and other chemicals in our food. 
At present consumers do not have this very basic information. The Greens did a survey a little time ago of 450 items in the supermarket. None of them had GE ingredients declared on the label there was no indication of where most fresh food items such as meat came from and many of the labels were misleading and confusing. This means for example that consumers simply cannot figure out whether a tomato like the one I have here has been grown in New Zealand or imported from Australia in which case it has been dipped in a highly toxic insecticide called dimethoate. Nor can they figure out whether most garlic such as that which I have here—on sale in our supermarkets—comes from New Zealand or whether it has been transported 10000 miles from China a country where 80 percent of the waterways are polluted and garlic can be contaminated with a virus that could decimate our onion industry. Surely consumers have a right to know that. 
In a world awash with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and avian influenza surely consumers have a right to know where their meat comes from. Unbeknown to most New Zealanders thousands of tonnes of pork beef lamb and other meats are imported into New Zealand. Last year 27000 tonnes of pork alone was imported into New Zealand but there is no way that consumers—even detectives—can find out where all that meat has ended up because there is no label on any meat in the supermarket to indicate which country the meat has been imported from. Surely consumers have a right to know that. 
Consumer research has demonstrated that consumers want to know where their food comes from and for a variety of reasons. Some just want to support local producers. Others are concerned about food miles—the huge environmental cost of transporting food from the other side of the world. Others are concerned about the lack of quality control standards in some countries that we import food from. 
GE-derived ingredients in our food supply have not undergone safety testing—they go through only a phoney assessment process. Surely if we do not even require that GE ingredients are safety tested we should at least require producers to declare on a label whether there are GE-derived ingredients in their food so that consumers can avoid buying that food if they wish. Under our woefully inadequate labelling laws the vast majority of GE ingredients in food do not have to be declared on a label so it is actually impossible for consumers to work out which foods do or do not contain GE ingredients. There are about 15 ingredients in the package of rich tomato soup I have here—many of them are likely to be GE derived but there is nothing on the label to declare that. Proper labelling of GE ingredients would give credit to the majority of food companies in New Zealand that have already eliminated GE-derived ingredients in their food. It would also require the GE industry to stand by its products instead of sneaking GE ingredients into our food without a label. 
If we are going to allow hens to be kept in cruel battery cages that violate the basic principles of the Animal Welfare Act surely we should at least require producers to declare on a label that eggs come from hens that have been kept in cages. Surely all parties in this House would support the traceability provisions in this bill that would ensure the Government could trace any direct or indirect unforeseen effects on human health or the environment of GE food and help protect our reputation as a quality producer of clean safe food. 
There is overwhelming support amongst consumers for the labelling provisions in this bill. In an independent poll carried out by Consumer Link 84 percent of respondents said they wanted all GE ingredients in food declared on a label 81 percent wanted food labels to tell them whether a product is imported and 71 percent wanted egg cartons to declare whether hens have been kept in battery cages. Only yesterday SAFE presented to this Parliament a 51000-signature petition calling for the mandatory labelling of egg cartons. So these are issues that consumers care passionately about. 
As well 21 organisations including Parents Centres the SPCA the Breast Cancer Network GE-Free New Zealand Greenpeace and so forth have written to me to support this bill. So too have major producer boards such as Horticulture New Zealand—representing all fruit and vegetable growers—and the Pork Industry Board both of which support the country-of-origin labelling provisions of this bill. There is nothing radical or controversial in this bill. Countries in Europe and many other countries already have such provisions. They already have a requirement that all GE ingredients in food be declared on a label. Most of our trading partners already have country-of-origin labelling. 
Nor does this bill impose onerous compliance costs on industry. There are no additional compliance costs in providing in-store labelling of fruit vegetables meat and fish. The country-of-origin provisions for processed food are based on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand standard that is already in effect in Australia and that is not onerous either. Nor is there any cost in putting a label on an egg carton to state that eggs have come from caged hens. The new requirement to label GE ingredients would apply only to the dozen or so companies in New Zealand that have not removed GE ingredients from their products and there would be a 2-year phase-in period for those businesses to comply. So nobody can wring their hands and talk about compliance costs because there are no significant ones. Furthermore the need for accurate truthful and meaningful food labelling is recognised by all major national and international food standard - setting agencies including the World Health Organization Food Standards Australia New Zealand and our own Food Safety Authority and by our own food laws. 
This bill is simply about freedom of choice and personal responsibility. These are things that parties like National and ACT say are their core values so we assume those parties will support this bill otherwise they will be seen by the majority of New Zealanders to be utterly hypocritical. If there are segments of this bill that political parties have difficulty with then let us thrash out those issues in the select committee. I know that some people have expressed concerns about the percentage of labelling of inadvertent contamination of food by GE. Let us discuss those sorts of issues in a select committee. Let us not seize on a couple of little issues to try to justify opposition to a bill like this that should be supported by every party in this House. 
 We should already have mandatory country-of-origin labelling. We would have it if the Government had not unilaterally pulled out of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand standard on country-of-origin labelling without consulting a single member of this House. It pulled out unilaterally. The Cabinet Minister in question made the decision—a decision that concerned the 80 percent of New Zealand consumers who wanted it. The Government unilaterally rejected our standard without consulting this House. It is profoundly ironic that a Government that supports a Buy New Zealand Made campaign has refused to implement a country-of-origin labelling campaign. Consumers are watching closely to see how political parties vote on this bill. I urge members to support it. 
I seek leave to table a letter from Horticulture New Zealand which supports the country-of-origin labelling provisions of this bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Pork Industry Board supporting the country-of-origin labelling provisions of this bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the SPCA strongly supporting my Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Breast Cancer Network supporting this bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table an email from Parents Centres supporting this bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics confirming their support for this member’s bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is this the last one? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: No it is not. I said there were 21. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please just list all the documents. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table a press release by Greenpeace supporting the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. I seek leave to table the Pesticide Action Network letter supporting the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. I seek leave to table a letter from Bio-Gro New Zealand strongly supporting the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. I seek leave to table a letter from the president of the New Zealand Natural Medicine Association supporting the provisions of this bill. I seek leave to table a letter from the New Zealand Vegetarian Society strongly supporting the contents of this bill. I seek leave to table a letter from the Herb Federation of New Zealand supporting the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. I seek leave to table a letter from Agrissentials New Zealand Limited supporting the provisions of this bill. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table a media release by Save Animals From Exploitation supporting this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Soil and Health Association of New Zealand publisher of  
Organic NZ 
 supporting the contents of this bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table a press release from GE-Free New Zealand supporting this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Rural Women New Zealand supporting two of the provisions of my bill. I seek leave to table a letter from the Bio Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association supporting this bill. Finally I seek leave to table the survey that the Green Party undertook of 453 products in our supermarkets. It showed that none of the GE ingredients in food were declared on labels that there was no indication of where most fresh items such as meat came from and that many of the labels were misleading or confusing. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on Sue Kedgley’s Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. The National Party certainly does promote choice and freedom and we certainly encourage the right of consumers to know what is in their food. What we do not agree with however is the purpose of this bill which is to require the Government to introduce a comprehensive labelling system in New Zealand. We know that in-depth research around the world clearly shows that consumers want to know whether food is safe nutritious and of high quality and what its cost is. 
In actual fact the origin of where food comes from is possibly quite misleading. Just looking at the number of campylobacter-notified cases for New Zealand between 1996 and 2005 we can see that it went up from 7600 in 1996 to 13835 last year. The quality of our food clearly varies tremendously and really it is the quality we want to know about. I think it is also important to realise that New Zealand has very comprehensive food labelling legislation in action as we speak. I thought it was appropriate and worthwhile to bring the packets from my breakfast this morning because they do indeed illustrate the fact that since 2002 when we put in— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: You can’t have your breakfast in here. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
:—no not the breakfast; just the packages—comprehensive labelling in New Zealand at the cost of about $1 billion to Australia and New Zealand the requirements for that were very extensive. Just looking at the packaging of the honey I had the other morning I can see what is required these days. It is mandatory for the manufacturer to state its name and where it comes from and the manufacturer can also voluntarily display a freephone number—as is done by most manufacturers in New Zealand—so that it can be traced. 
Secondly I can see that extensive ingredient labelling is required in New Zealand. Members should look at the honey carton’s nutrition information—its content in terms of energy protein total and saturated fat carbohydrates sugars and minerals. Over and above that there is very extensive barcoding information. That is not just in relation to the honey; it is also there for the Vogel’s bread. Mr Klisser whom I used to know very well brought that excellent brand in. Again I say that labelling requirements in New Zealand are extensive. I also have here the excellent muesli with fruit from the Mayor of Auckland Mr Hubbard. 
One of the things that I think is often overlooked by the Greens is the fact that any manufacturer in New Zealand does have the choice to label if that manufacturer wants to. I absolutely commend New Zealand’s National Heart Foundation for its tick. One can go easily into supermarkets see the tick and be reassured that the evidence base behind the nutritious value of the food and its quality is substantial. I think that it is indeed one of the great qualities of New Zealand that we have choice and it is really fortunate that the very onerous requirements of compulsory labelling are not as total as Sue Kedgley would require. 
Much to my surprise Sue sent me a letter from Foodstuffs which she told me was supportive of her bill. Well I would like to read a little bit of the letter. It states: “We generally support measures to provide consumers with product information with the proviso that the information is actually useful to consumers feasible for food suppliers to provide and the costs imposed on business are not disproportionate to the usefulness of the information.” The letter goes on to state: “In relation to country of origin while Pam’s”—one of their labels—“already comply with the Australian country-of-origin labelling we have never supported a mandatory approach to labelling for processed foods because we believe statements like ‘Made from local and imported ingredients’ which is required in Australia are virtually meaningless. On the other hand we accept that origin labelling for individual ingredients would be hugely complex and expensive to implement. This is compounded by the fact that suppliers frequently change the source of ingredients for many reasons—for example seasonal supply—but tend to change product labels only once every 3 to 4 years. The cost of frequent label changes would be prohibitively expensive.” 
This bill that Sue Kedgley has brought to the House has some very perplexing parts to it. For instance in the part relating to GM food and feed she promotes the thought that packaged food derived from GM food or containing an ingredient derived from GM food must be labelled as such—lowering the threshold from 1 percent to 0.5 percent. GM content will either be safe or unsafe. Lowering the threshold from 1 percent to 0.5 percent carries absolutely no virtue whatsoever in terms of whether the food is safe which is one of the basic requirements that most consumers are concerned about. 
I go back to the topic of country-of origin-labelling. I concede that Sue Kedgley also sent me a letter from the Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand which was signed by Peter Silcock the chief executive. I do have a degree of sympathy for the thought that fresh food and vegetables and fresh fish as in Australia could easily be labelled with the country of origin. I think that Peter Silcock says that in-store point of sale tags are already used throughout the industry to indicate the name of the product and price. His letter states: “Simply adding the country of origin of the product to the tag would be a very simple task and would add no or very minimal cost.” It may be that that part could be explored by this Parliament at a later date. 
But I go back once again to the fundamental consumer concern about food. Consumers are interested in whether food is safe whether it is nutritious and whether it has quality. I remind Ms Kedgley that if she is buying mussels down in Nelson again she should remember that those mussels if they are left for a few days could easily have something like listeriosis or campylobacter in them—whether they are from Nelson New Zealand Tasmania or China. When Ms Kedgley shows us some garlic from China and says that 80 percent of China’s water is not safe I believe she is making a very incautious statement. Again if the garlic arrived in New Zealand we would be concerned that it was safe and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry controls and biosecurity measures required to ensure that those viruses were knocked off were indeed in place. 
Coming from Port Waikato an area famous throughout New Zealand and the world for its fresh produce I know that the traceability requirements of our magnificent fresh onions are absolutely extensive if they are to be sold successfully in Sainsbury’s over there in London. But that chain is not so concerned about country-of origin-labelling. It absolutely concedes that country-of-origin labelling should not be made mandatory and that New Zealand manufacturers should have the choice about whether they adopt it and how they do so. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.