Volume 650 Week 85 - Thursday 11 September 2008 
Volume 650 Week 85 - Thursday 11 September 2008 
[Volume:650;Page:18811] 
Thursday 11 September 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
China People’s Republic—Delegation from the National People’s Congress 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China led by Ms Yan Junqui vice-chairwoman of the Standing Committee is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Motions 
New Zealand Police—Death of Sergeant Don Wilkinson 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House mourn the loss of Auckland Police Sergeant Don Wilkinson while on duty on 11 September 2008 place on record its gratitude for the sacrifices New Zealand Police staff make willingly on behalf of New Zealand citizens every day in the course of their work and convey its deep sympathy to Sergeant Don Wilkinson’s family friends and colleagues. 
 Further we extend our hopes for the speedy recovery of his colleague injured in this accident. 
Motion agreed to. 
International Parliamentary Union—International Day of Democracy 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I move  
That this House recognise that 15 September 2008 is the International Day of Democracy; note that New Zealand is an active member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union which promotes democracy by strengthening Parliaments and enabling parliamentary diplomacy; celebrate that Parliament is the central institution of democracy; affirm its commitment to the principle that a democratic Parliament is representative transparent accessible accountable and effective; and note the theme of the day that a Parliament does not guarantee democracy but there can be no democracy without a Parliament. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday 23 September it will consider the report of the Privileges Committee which is expected to have been presented by that date. Following this it is the Government’s intention to take urgency for valedictory statements and a range of Government legislation including the Walking Access Bill major Treaty settlement legislation bills relating to financial market regulation as well as a range of first readings. It is my understanding at this stage that discussions between the whips indicate that valedictory statements for National members will be made on Wednesday afternoon and for Labour members on Thursday afternoon. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can the Minister give us an indication as to whether those bills will be going through all stages. Further can he explain the reason for valedictory statements to be made in urgency. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 On the latter point if valedictory statements are not made in urgency at least one if not two sitting days will be required to accommodate them and other business would therefore flow into the week following that week. It will be the intention to take bills such as the Walking Access Bill the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Bill the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill the bills relating to financial market regulation and perhaps some others through all their stages. The other Treaty-related legislation will be the Port Nicholson Block (Taranaki Whanui ki Upoko o Te Ika) Claims Settlement Bill and the Waikato-Tainui River settlement bill. These of course are first readings only. 
Responses 
Rex Widerstrom—Statement made by Ron Mark 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 160 to 163 on the application of Mr Rex Widerstrom relating to a reference made by Ron Mark on 30 July 2008. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Rt Hon Winston Peters—Ministerial Warrant 
1. 
 Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement today that she has “no basis” to remove the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ ministerial warrant; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: What the Prime Minister actually said earlier today was that the proceedings of Parliament’s Privileges Committee last night provided no basis for her to remove Mr Peters’ ministerial warrant today. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that one of her roles is to supervise the application of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 to her Ministers which says that at all times Ministers are expected to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards; and by refusing to sack Mr Peters is she telling the New Zealand public that she believes that he has at all times over the last 6 months behaved in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One of the very highest ethical standards that any Prime Minister should seek to uphold is the rule of law. That means going through proper process. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that at the heart of this controversy is a donation of $100000 to a senior Cabinet Minister or his party that over a period of 6 months that donation has not been adequately explained and— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. One would expect parliamentarians to understand the importance of words. The claim made in that question is patently and absurdly false. Mr Glenn has now made it very clear—although his emails at the time said otherwise—that he did not pay any money to New Zealand First. So that is the first count. The second one is that he admits that he has never paid any money to me either. That is the second point. The third point is that the issue is about whether he paid it to a lawyer’s account. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. These are matters of debate. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That exchange raises an issue that has been troubling me for some days. It relates to the exchange of information in this House about matters that are material to the deliberations that the Privileges Committee is now embarking upon. I would be grateful for your advice Madam Speaker as to the extent to which the general debate in this House about the broad swell of allegation is limited by or influenced by the proceedings in the Privileges Committee. Members of this House who sit on the Privileges Committee are hearing all of this and at the same time are hearing the evidence and trying to reach a fair and balanced decision. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker I do have great sympathy with what the member says but the reality is that evidence that is given to a select committee in an open meeting is able to be referred to. The House has never in the past constrained its ability to refer to that kind of evidence. What cannot be referred to are the proceedings that are going on within the committee—the deliberations of the committee on matters where the committee has not been in open session. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is my understanding that these matters have actually been raised in open session so therefore it is acceptable for the House to refer to them. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that one constraint on her ability to act to enforce the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which requires Ministers to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards is that her own behaviour has not upheld or been seen to uphold the highest ethical standards? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the Prime Minister in the course of her phone call with Mr Peters in February after the meeting with Mr Glenn mention her conversation with Mr Glenn in which he told her that he had made a donation; and if she did not tell Mr Peters that Mr Glenn had told her he had made a donation why did she not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister certainly recollects raising with Mr Peters the issue of whether a donation had been made; whether that donation was to New Zealand First or for any other purpose was not clear at the time. Mr Glenn would make certain allegations. The Prime Minister certainly does not recollect whether she mentioned to Mr Peters whether Mr Glenn was responsible for raising that matter in that form but she accepts Mr Glenn’s assertion in that respect. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister now telling us that having been advised by Mr Glenn that he had written out a cheque for $100000 she did not mention that particular fact when she spoke to Mr Peters? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I just said the Prime Minister accepts Mr Glenn’s statement in that regard—unlike Dr Nick Smith who apparently has a perfect memory of everything that has happened in his life except during the 2 weeks that he was deputy leader of the National Party. What has been completely forgotten in this debate so far time after time is the context in which this occurred: the story both on television the previous night and in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that morning that Mr Jones had indicated that an anonymous donation of “somewhere close to $110000”—I think that was the phrase—had perhaps been given in relation to the Auditor-General’s requirement for New Zealand First to repay $158000. The context was not in any sense or form any kind of payment made to Mr Peters’ lawyer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister having seen the 21 February public relations firm email confirm that Mr Glenn distinctly refers to the words “New Zealand First” and that that is most likely what he told her—an allegation or claim that was easily rebutted? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That indeed is what that email says although of course Mr Glenn tried to claim to the Privileges Committee that he had no recollection of the context around the Auditor-General’s requirement of a $158000 repayment—a claim about as credible as his statement that he paid Mike Williams large sums of money apparently to buy KFC for hundreds of Pacific Island people in Mangere. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the record of evidence shows that Mr Peters has a clear recollection of the account of their conversation in February— 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Given that we are so focused on being accurate and truthful in everything that we say I tell members that I distinctly recall from listening to the news last night that the KFC story referred to Manurewa not Mangere. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I am sure that is a point of information. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Peters’ account of their conversation in February when he said: “The PM checked with me after the Glenn business school opening and I told her the newspaper claims were not true. She did not mention any conversation with Mr Glenn as I recall.”; and if she does not agree with that account of the conversation why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have discussed that matter with the Prime Minister. She does not agree with that particular part of Mr Peters’ statement but that does not change the general thrust of the discussion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it important whether one actually recalls that given that one’s own party had presented the person who was being phoned in Africa with the statement of the allegations being made so that whether Mr Glenn was referred to is not a matter of great moment—I already knew that from the newspapers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Quite so. Indeed I can say further that if Mr Glenn’s claim that he told the Prime Minister that a $100000 donation had been paid into Mr Henry’s account is correct the Prime Minister I can assure the House follows up on such specificity with very specific questions to Ministers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister now telling us that having heard startling information from Mr Glenn namely that a $100000 donation had been made our supposedly forthright and brave Prime Minister then rang Mr Peters but did not mention to him that the person who wrote out the cheque had just told her he had written it out? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If the member had listened to either of the answers I gave him on that matter he would know that I was not making that claim at all. The member is always reading his prepared questions and does not listen to the answers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister not think that words are important and need to be accurate and that Mr Glenn’s statement in 21 February’s email that the money was being paid to New Zealand First was surely something that could be easily checked as could the statement made today on  
Nine to Noon 
 by Mr Bill English that I am being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and the police—a demonstrable falsehood? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Words are important and also the context. For example Mr Glenn’s claim that the donation to the Labour Party was made because he was concerned about the activities of the Exclusive Brethren clearly is demonstrably false because the donation was made before anybody other than those in the National Party knew about the Exclusive Brethren’s support for the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it not a bit odd that given the Prime Minister’s responsibilities under the  
Cabinet Manuel 
 to make sure that all Ministers are seen to uphold high ethical standards she had a conversation with Mr Peters just after she had been told by a donor that he had written out a $100000 cheque and she did not ask Mr Peters about it; and does that indicate she was more concerned about upsetting Mr Peters than she was about getting anywhere near the truth of the matter? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is very very clear from the facts—Mr Glenn’s facts in fact—that the words were “to New Zealand First”. Mr English an experienced parliamentarian sits there and just keeps on ignoring them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is a matter of debate. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member continues not to listen to answers and then to ask completely misleading questions. The context on 21 February was in terms of the $158000 Auditor-General’s determination against New Zealand First as Mr Glenn himself said in an email on 21 February that very day in terms of a donation to New Zealand First. The fact is therefore that that was the context of the conversation. And the  
Cabinet Manuel 
 does not apply to New Zealand First; it applies to Ministers. 
Hon Bill English 
: On which date did the Prime Minister then first tell Winston Peters that she had been advised that Mr Glenn had told her he had written out a $100000 cheque; or was she so scared of upsetting Mr Peters that she never quite got around to it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member continues not to listen. I have no knowledge of whether Mr Glenn told the Prime Minister that any kind of cheque was for $100000. I very much doubt whether Mr Glenn wrote out a cheque. If he did I do not know why he was asking for the bank account number of Mr Henry; the technology has moved somewhat on from those particular days. That is one particular point we might get right. But more than that I do not know whether Mr Glenn mentioned a specific amount. He did tell the Prime Minister he had made a donation. That donation on that day was clearly in the context of the Auditor-General’s determination and that was according to Mr Glenn in his own words a donation to New Zealand First. 
Rodney Hide 
: I ask the Prime Minister whether her deputy Michael Cullen advised her that Winston Peters’ performance last night was credible and convincing; if not is it her intention to keep Winston Peters on as a Minister until election day? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can tell the member that the advice I gave the Prime Minister was indeed the same advice that Mr Power has given the country and that is that further evidence is being called for and the conflict of evidence remains unresolved. The Prime Minister who believes in due process therefore is not taking any further action until that evidence is heard. The member may believe that he is prosecutor judge jury and executioner but that kind of multitasking is not welcome in a democracy. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that today the Reserve Bank has described the outlook for the economy in terms that include slower trading partner growth further house price falls falling employment the ongoing effects of high interest rates and the reduced availability of credit to household and business sector activity; and can she confirm that her Government which is mired in scandal—. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not know whether the member has picked up the wrong question here but this has nothing to do with the primary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we will allow the member to complete his question please. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that because of her own actions in hiding the facts from the public and her own indecision about whether she has a basis to remove the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ ministerial warrant her Government which is mired in scandal has been paying no attention to the serious economic issues that this country faces and between now and the election it is unable to do so because the Prime Minister is ethically compromised? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No not at all. What I can say is that the Opposition has spent weeks asking questions about this issue and not one of its members has had the guts to stand up and ask the Minister of Finance about the state of the economy at any stage during those weeks. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm the now widespread rumours that the reason she will not sack Winston Peters is that he might go feral on her in the same way that Owen Glenn has done and he knows where the bodies are buried? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I welcome Mr English’s confirmation that Mr Glenn has gone feral; that does not make him a good witness. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wish to table two documents. One is a statement from Donald Hamish McIlraith who is the chairman of New Zealand Bloodstock and who was the host to Owen Glenn at Karaka. It confirms entirely my evidence before the select committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? No objection. 
Hon Member 
: Yes! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You said “No objection.” and then the member shouted “Yes!”. He is too late. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is true actually if we go strictly according to the rules. I called it then the member said “Yes!”. Members know that is why we are meant to have silence during points of order—so that one can clearly hear about the matter to be tabled. That was done on that occasion. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Rt Hon Winston Peters said he was tabling an affidavit or a document that will confirm his entire testimony. I do not believe that to be true. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well then you should have indicated that immediately. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Is that document to be tabled then? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes it is to be tabled 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Thank you because there are others coming as well. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The second document I seek leave to table is an article by Nick Venter on page A2 of the  
Dominion Post  
today where it says Rodney Hide asked a young woman to move from her seat so he could sit behind me—his hero. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to know whether all of the House’s papers are actually being printed and distributed to members for the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee to be questioning the Government over whether any landmark environmental legislation has been passed recently. Where has the chair of the select committee been? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry the member is saying it is addressed to the chair of the committee? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My concern Madam Speaker is that Moana Mackey is the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I now understand what the member is saying. Let us proceed. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to make a personal explanation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: What is it about? 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
:  
It is about Mr Peters’ outrageous claim. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a statement in relation to the matter that was raised by Mr Peters. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Environmental Legislation—Passage 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What landmark environmental legislation has passed recently? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Legislation for an emissions trading scheme and legislation to introduce biofuels have both been passed by Parliament in the last fortnight. The emissions trading scheme being phased in over the next 5 years is a cornerstone of the Government’s climate change action. It will create incentives to invest in cleaner technology improve the efficiency of our production and encourage climate-friendly investment such as forestry. The Biofuel Act will see vehicles start to run on sustainable biofuels marking a transition away from reliance on imported oil 
Moana Mackey 
: How will these two pieces of legislation affect ordinary New Zealanders? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: These initiatives will future-proof our country cushion the impact of rising oil and electricity prices and ensure access for our primary exports into high-value markets. The country already faces a cost under the Kyoto Protocol for increases in emissions. The emissions trading scheme will reduce that cost by reducing emissions and emitters rather than just taxpayers will start to bear the cost of their greenhouse gas pollution. To help New Zealand families we are instigating the biggest push for household energy efficiency ever seen—$1 billion to help make New Zealand homes warmer dryer and cheaper to heat. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will he accept responsibility for errors made in this critical legislation given that he insisted on introducing and passing 785 amendments on one day or will he do as Annette King has on the Electoral Finance Act and blame officials Parliament and everyone else but Labour for mistakes? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The National Party always resorts to process arguments when it has none of substance. Once again we see National this week being caught saying one thing to one audience one thing to another. David Carter was reported in the Gisborne paper this week as saying— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question asked whether he will accept responsibility for mistakes in the legislation. We have heard all sorts of other irrelevancies. I think the Minister should address the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Of course I take responsibility for the legislation; I took it through the House. The National Party has once again been caught telling audiences what it thinks they want to hear. We had David Carter in Gisborne earlier this week saying that it was an economic folly to bring agriculture into an emissions trading scheme. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No he didn’t. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well that is what is reported in the paper—the member should blame it not me. Last night he and Lockwood Smith were both saying that yes agriculture should be in and they then spent 10 minutes explaining why it should not be. 
Moana Mackey 
: What credible reasons has the Minister seen for opposing this important legislation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have seen none. The National Party pretended to oppose the Biofuel Bill on environmental grounds despite the sustainability criteria’s meeting the approval of the Greens who are paragons of environmental integrity. National opposed the emissions trading scheme on the basis of six very weak so-called principles which crumble under any kind of close analysis. There were no issues of substance to support its opposition. Those were just excuses for delay. It was all politics not principle that caused National to flip-flop. National members thought that by pulling their support for the bill they could embarrass the Government by the legislation’s failing to pass—they were wrong. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that although a price on carbon is a much-needed first step there is an enormous amount more work to do to reduce New Zealand’s domestic emissions—such as improved investment in public transport and active transport vehicle fuel efficiency standards better planning of cities and zero-energy buildings—and will he gazette a target date at which New Zealand’s net emissions will flatten off and start to head downwards permanently? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do agree that the emissions trading scheme in itself would not be enough. We are making substantial progress on renewable electricity and we have related targets there. We have dates by which we are aiming to achieve carbon neutrality in the whole of the energy sector and we are making great progress on public transport too. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Has the Minister seen this statement from Te Ohu Kaimoana: “Ngai Tahu and Ngati Awa have concerns that there have not been due care of their settlements in developing the ETS and that should concern us all.” and what assurance can he give to Te Ohu Kaimoana Ngai Tahu and Ngati Awa that their concerns are being addressed? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have seen at least some of those reports. In respect of the Ngai Tahu issues I explained the Government’s position on that in the House recently. Essentially quite generous compensation has already been paid; in fact the value of carbon emission units exceeds the value of the land as at the transfer date. We questioned the claim as to the amount of the loss. But notwithstanding we are checking to see whether there was any withholding of information at the time of the settlement. If there was then the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations has said he will look at the matter further. 
Privileges Committee—Owen Glenn Evidence 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she been advised of the statement made by Mr Owen Glenn to the Privileges Committee in regard to a meeting between her and Mr Glenn in February 2008 “I also told her of my conversation with the Labour Party’s President Mr Williams before I agreed to make that donation back in 2005.”; and does she agree that Mr Glenn told her that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister is aware of the statement and that he mentioned he had had discussions with Mr Williams—a fact that of course has been confirmed by Mr Williams. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is she also aware that in August 2005—just prior to the 2005 election—Mr Glenn asked Mike Williams for his views on his meeting Winston Peters before Mr Glenn’s meeting with Winston Peters and then after the meeting was completed Owen Glenn also contacted Mike Williams and that this exchange occurred before the discussion about the donation itself? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have those specifics but clearly on a number of occasions Mr Williams and Mr Glenn met because Mr Glenn was a donor to the Labour Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Prime Minister believe Mike Williams’ public statements that he had no role in arranging the Glenn donation when he discussed with Mr Glenn his first meeting with Winston Peters before the election in 2005 and was also party to the discussion in December 2005 when the matter of a donation arose; and when Mr Glenn said that he made the donation only because Mike Williams approved it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In relation— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In it donkey deep. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Oh dear me! In relation to the August 2005 conversation clearly—clearly—that conversation could not have been about the donation or the payment of money into Mr Henry’s legal account because that money was to assist with the legal costs of an electoral petition relating to an election that had not yet been held. On the other matter of course Mr Williams states very clearly that the discussion with Mr Glenn on that matter was about whether Mr Peters had a chance of winning his electoral petition. Mr Glenn asserts the opposite. There is a conflict in the same way that Mr Glenn claimed that Mr Williams had turned up unannounced at his French home when Mr Williams was able to produce an email showing that he had been invited by Mr Glenn to come to that home. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact from the evidence—because the evidence is somewhat important—that Mr Glenn was interested in seeing me because he found me to be “a very interesting man” a view widely shared around this country; and that was before the election and therefore nothing to do with party funding was confirmed as being part of the conversation at all? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is my understanding. Indeed Mr Glenn I think made that particular part of what Mr Peters says quite clear. He obviously takes an interest in New Zealand politics and was particularly concerned to ensure that a National Government was not elected. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the facts are that before the election in 2005 Owen Glenn had asked Mike Williams for his views about Mr Glenn meeting Peters that after he had that meeting he let Mike Williams know he had had the meeting and that in December 2005 they were having brunch together in Sydney only minutes before Mr Glenn rang Mr Peters to confirm a donation of $100000; yet we are expected to believe that Mike Williams who had expressed strong views about Winston Peters’ winning the Tauranga electoral petition had no role at all in arranging or helping or assisting the donation that Owen Glenn made? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member may continue to write stories if he wishes. For example to take just one element of that story he claims now that Mr Williams told Mr Glenn that Mr Peters had a very strong chance of winning the Tauranga electoral petition. Mr Williams has never said that. Mr Glenn has never said that. But Mr English chooses to interpret that because it joins the dots up better from his perspective. What we do know is that Mr Glenn made a donation to the Labour Party. That was publicly declared at the time unlike the $2 million for the National Party that was funnelled through the Waitemata Trust. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister not see the incongruity of the last question against the facts for if it is Mr Williams who is raising the question of money why am I being accused by the National Party the ACT party and every clown in the press gallery of being the one to raise money? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think what is fair to say here is that the National Party is simply trying to repeat a kind of St Valentine’s Day Massacre. It is simply trying to ensure it lines up all its enemies against the wall before opening up the machine-gun. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the circumstances may need—well do need—a full explanation when the period from August to December 2005 covered the whole period when the Labour-led Government put together its coalition and the facts are pretty straightforward that the president of the Labour Party was discussing with Labour’s largest donor issues around his meeting Mr Peters and later on making a donation to Mr Peters; and when will the Labour Party give a full account of all exchanges regarding party finances between Mike Williams Winston Peters and Owen Glenn at a time when Labour was making a coalition agreement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is continuing to interpret the facts as he sees them. Those are not the facts demonstrated in the public arena. The only facts that we do know are that Mr Key was acting as a bagman for the National Party Mr Key had links with the Exclusive Brethren the National Party got over $2 million of funding in anonymous donations through a trust and Mr English and Mr Key call for transparency about party political funding. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the light of that last question is it not a fact that Mr Glenn came before the Privileges Committee and that for the period 
between 12 August and 14 December although he had accurate records in some respects he had no records whatsoever of the type that would back up the assertions made by Mr English the ACT party and certain uninformed members of the press gallery? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is a fact that Mr Glenn failed to produce evidence in support of some of the assertions that he was making. It is also a fact that since he left the company of his lawyers his tongue has become looser and looser and his claims more and more outrageous. 
Dairying—Freshwater Management 
4.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Is he concerned that dirty dairying in New Zealand is now “gaining international notoriety” as stated in  
Rural News 
 on 29 August; if so does he agree with comments in  
Rural News 
 on 2 September that “the recently outlined National Policy Statement for freshwater management demonstrates an abject failure in leadership”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 No. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Minister read the Environment Waikato report out yesterday that says that water quality has deteriorated over the last decade—the years of this Government—and now more than 75 percent of waterways tested are unsafe even for stock to drink from and how can a rapidly worsening water quality in the Waikato be anything other than an abject failure in leadership? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Only the summary. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Minister read the tourism industry election manifesto also issued yesterday that lists improving New Zealand’s environmental performance as one of the six Government priorities if we are to protect $8.3 billion of tourist income and does he believe that the 70 percent of Waikato rivers that are unsafe for humans to swim in due to faecal contamination are actually 100 percent pure and tourists are going to flock to swim amongst the cow faeces and urine? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: To the first part of the question only the summary and to the second part of the question if the member had read other media he would have seen that this Government has recently invested over $300 million in that very problem. We would have thought we would have praise for that rather than running down the tourism industry the way that that member has. 
Tim Groser 
: Is the Minister aware of the long-term consequences for the New Zealand economy of undermining the New Zealand dairy industry and is he also aware that the carbon footprint of the New Zealand dairy industry is considerably better than in any other major dairying country? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and yes. But I might also say that some of the people who run the risk of undermining the dairy industry are a very very small group of farmers—especially the CraFarm Group one of our largest corporate dairy farm owners which has four separate convictions for appalling environmental practice. There are maximum penalties under the Resource Management Act of fines up to $200000 or up to 2 years’ imprisonment and it is my view that it is time for the Crafar family who owns now more than $35 million worth of farms to be prosecuted as individuals rather than hiding behind their company fronts. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister concerned that the perception in the rural media is that “Fonterra must be sitting smugly on the back of its lobbying against the Government’s threatened hard line for the dairy sector” as reported in  
Rural News 
; and is the paper not correct when it says that he is scared of Fonterra’s clout and his promise that rivers will be clean enough within a generation has now been sacrificed after the lobbying of big polluters? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No and yes it is not correct. 
Crown-connected Organisations—Board Appointments 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What qualities does he think are desirable in appointees to the boards of Crown-connected organisations? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 As section 29 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 records appointees should have “the appropriate knowledge skills and experience to assist the statutory entity to achieve its objectives and performance functions;”. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister think that a man who has been described as “an unmitigated falsifier of veracity” and who is “wrestling with the truth” would be a good person to have on the boards of important Crown entities like the New Zealand Transport Agency the Auckland Regional Transport Authority Genesis Power GNS Science and ONTRACK; if so can he explain why the President of the Labour Party Mr Mike Williams who has indeed been described as “an unmitigated falsifier of veracity” has been appointed to all those boards listed? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Although I do not accept for 1 second the assertions in the member’s comments the appointment of Mr Williams to those boards was not my direct responsibility. It is something I am aware of. I make the point that we do not appoint duffers to the position of president of the Labour Party and Mike Williams is a very able man. He has extensive business and management experience and he brings those skills to bear in his roles. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that those claims about Mr Williams were made by a man who claimed he was offered a place in Cabinet and subsequently withdrew that claim; who claimed that he gave money to the Labour Party to head off the Exclusive Brethren when he gave the money before anybody other than the National Party knew about the Exclusive Brethren’s involvement; who claimed to have supplied a bribe to have large numbers of people eat at a KFC outlet; who claimed that Mike Williams had asked for a job when in fact he had offered Mike Williams a job 2 years earlier; and who claimed that Mr Williams had turned up at his house uninvited when Mr Williams was able to present an email showing that in fact he had been invited? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not have the Deputy Prime Minister’s grasp of the detail but I certainly accept his word. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Maybe the poor old chap made a mistake when he wrote the cheque to the Labour Party. To the Minister— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take it from that that someone who pays a cheque to the National Party is expected to support the party from thereon. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That would be two questions in a row from the Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You know that is not a point of order Mr Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but I am keeping order here. National had the last question. If I give it to National National would have two questions. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Dr Michael Cullen had the last question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My apologies. I was interrupted by the point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister think that an important quality of Crown entity directors is that they should be honest and upfront; if so does he think that Mike Williams was somewhat unmitigating in falsifying veracity when he earlier this year on the  
Agenda 
 programme denied he had told delegates at the Labour Party conference that it would be “a damn good idea to use taxpayer-funded material to get around the Electoral Finance Act” only to be found out later on Television One via an audio of his saying exactly that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I repeat that the Government appoints on the basis of capability to do the job. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister think there is some reliance on the word of someone who claimed to give money to the Maori Party in that email as well which was demonstrably false I understand; second has a Karaka sales memory that four people are prepared by affidavit now to swear did not happen and that he was not even at the same table; and claimed that he had offered $1 million to Howard Morrison to stand as an Independent which would mean there would be $980000 left over? How many times does someone have to say things like that before one starts to come to the conclusion that maybe his memory is not so good? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The  
Cabinet Manual 
 makes it very clear that the Minister of State Services is responsible for Crown entities and has a portfolio responsibility that includes the appointment process and guidelines for appointments to State entities. That question does not go anywhere near those responsibilities whereas my questions do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With the greatest respect there was an effort to malign Mr Williams by the use of those words which I think are demonstrably unfair and not true. Simply if Mr Brownlee wants to throw that into the arena it becomes a questionable matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members. Certainly the supplementary questions were going rather wide of the primary question and the ministerial responsibilities. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Were the self-proclaimed qualities of being “a good administrator” and “articulate” the main considerations when Mr Williams was appointed to the New Zealand Transport Agency the Auckland Regional Transport Authority Genesis Power GNS Science and ONTRACK or was it that he “doesn’t take a breath without Helen’s say-so” or that “he’s a little too subservient”? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I think Mr Williams is a capable man and I think he has acquitted himself well on those boards. I would note that we also appoint people to senior roles on boards who are clearly aligned to the National Party. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that no taxpayer money was spent on or by Mike Williams when he went cap in hand to Monaco to ask Mr Glenn for more money? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no ministerial responsibility for that matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have ruled out my supplementary question. Without our losing one of our supplementary questions can I reword that question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes you may reword it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he recall the repeated calls from Mike Williams on election night 2005 for commentators to wait until the South Auckland booths came in before calling a result and does he think that that may have been because Mr Williams was confident that sooner or later the “Kentucky Fried Chickens” would all come home to roost? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but that is right outside. 
Gangs—Government Measures 
6.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she agree with the reported comments of former police officer Cam Stokes that gangs are here to stay; if so what is being done by her Government to combat gangs? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Police 
: Can I first express the Minister’s and my condolences to the family of Sergeant Don Wilkinson killed on duty in Mangere this morning. In reply to the question in New Zealand and other societies the existence of gangs and of organised crime is longstanding but that is not an argument for complacency about them or their activities. There are two very important pieces of Government legislation currently before Parliament that target gangs and organised crime and are designed to make life harder for them and new search and surveillance legislation will soon be introduced into Parliament that will also help police efforts to target organised crime. Drug laws have been made tougher resourcing of police to curb gang activities has been strengthened and the Organised and Financial Crime Agency set up. Those are just a few of the actions that have been taken by the Government to combat gangs. 
Ron Mark 
: Would she agree if gangs are here to stay that we should be making life as difficult as possible for them firstly by refusing to accept their existence by outlawing them such as has happened in South Australia and by establishing a high-level forensic accounting and investigative capability that is able to not only investigate the personal trading activities of individuals trusts and accountants but also of trading banks and their corporate level customers? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In response to the two questions there I say firstly that I have looked at the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act of 2008 which has just come into effect in Australia. It has been operational for about a month. We will be following that closely to see how effective it is in controlling the activities of outlaw motorcycle gangs. Secondly in relation to the financial matters that the member has mentioned I say probably the greatest concern we should have—and I know this is how the police feel about it—is not the gangs who are wearing patches on the streets and who are very visible in committing street crime but rather the gangs who we do not see and who are heavily involved in drug trafficking and money-laundering etc. That is why our money-laundering legislation has been considerably strengthened in recent reforms and that is why the Organised and Financial Crime Agency has been set up with enhanced powers and greater resources. I agree with the member that it is incumbent on all sections of society not just the Government to show zero tolerance towards those organised criminal activities. 
Jill Pettis 
: How effective have the police been in bringing charges against offenders with gang connections? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Because we know that gangs are closely associated with an enormous amount of crime police operations have targeted gang members. Last year for example the police made 6134 arrests of persons with identified gang connections and brought over 26000 charges against them. The growing number of inmates with gang connections in our prisons is also testament to the effective action taken by the police in prosecuting and convicting gang members and leaders. 
Ron Mark 
: Would the Minister care to give the Government’s view on the contents of the following email part of which I shall quote: “I used to be a corporate banker. It is not common knowledge but most of the major gangs are corporate customers—the biggest and best—of the trading banks with their own managers exchange and money market dealers enjoying risk grade A (the best) interest rates and their key staff enjoy preferential services and interest rates too. Even in the late 1980s and early 1990s when only a few major companies like the Dairy Board could afford their own Reuters and Telerate screens for foreign exchange shares etc. the Mongrel Mob was so equipped.”; and what would the Government’s response be to such advice? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I would be very concerned if the information contained in that email were correct and corporate people were facilitating the laundering and banking of money by gang members. That is the sort of issue that the member might like to take up directly with the Banking Ombudsman—or for that matter with me—for further investigation. What I can say is that the new anti - money-laundering legislation makes it much more difficult for criminal gangs to launder the proceeds of crime and it imposes stricter requirements about customer identification record-keeping reporting and transaction-monitoring on financial institutions. If that email comes from a reputable source it is the sort of thing I would be interested in following up. 
Health System—Pressures 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he seen today’s media reports of further serious failures in the health system including Auckland cancer patients waiting 12 weeks for radiation therapy rising deficits at another district health board and a man’s tragic death after being left alone by staff at Christchurch Hospital’s emergency department; and what action has he taken to deal with the crisis in the country’s hospitals? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: Yes and like all New Zealanders our thoughts are with the family of the man who died in Christchurch. It is important that hospitals undertake thorough clinical case reviews following any such tragic event and I will be making sure that that happens. I would not use one tragic case to suggest there is crisis in our entire health service. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not yet another sign of crisis in the public health system that an Auckland woman has been told by her specialist she will now have to wait 15 weeks—15 weeks I say to the Minister—to begin her radiation treatment when the Ministry of Health says the best practice is that such treatments should begin within 4 weeks? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I do not believe it is appropriate to raise individual cases in the House when all the facts of this case are not clear. I understand that the husband of that patient contacted the Minister’s office several times yesterday and the situation has been resolved. However if the member has more information on the case and he wants to pass it on I am very happy to ensure that it will be followed up. 
Louisa Wall 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that New Zealand’s access to world-class health facilities has improved under the current Labour-led Government? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes. This Government has built seven new hospitals completed eight major upgrades and built 10 new specialist facilities. We have three new hospital redevelopments almost complete and five more under way. This Labour-led Government is committed to public investment in health care not to creating profit-making opportunities for the National Party’s big-business backers. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Tena tatou katoa. Has the Minister seen the comments of Dr Juliet Rumball-Smith that suggest Maori may not be receiving the same quality of hospital care as non-Maori and what will the Minister be doing to address this crisis apart from building new hospitals? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: No I have not seen those comments but I will analyse those comments and I will be quite happy to report back accordingly. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Has the Minister seen the study that shows that even though there is a great prevalence of cardiac disease in Maori paradoxically they do not receive the same level of cardiac interventions as European patients and that similarly Maori with chronic diseases may not receive the same medical management as non-Maori and what could be the reason for such discrepancy in health status between Maori and non-Maori? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I am aware of those inequalities. I believe it is about access to primary health services and we have invested heavily in making sure it is much cheaper to go to the general practitioner and to then get on a clinical pathway. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why are women in Auckland being told that radiation treatment delays are now between 12 and 15 weeks when the Government says they should be 4 weeks? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I am aware that there is pressure on radiotherapy treatment but it is caused by a number of factors including higher than normal demand unexpected breakdowns in linear accelerators and the resignation of some staff to go and work in the private sector. However it is very important to note that Auckland District Health Board has achieved 97 percent of its cancer treatment target in the year to June. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the state of the health system in New Zealand come to this—when a woman is told by her specialist that her treatment will take 15 weeks to arrive the husband has to ring the office of the Minister of Health to plead for care? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: I have already answered that question. That case has been resolved. I am also advised by the Auckland District Health Board that it is looking at a variety of options to ensure that patients do get the treatment they need including transfers to other treatment centres— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: And? And? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: —I say to Mr Ryall that I am getting there—and the urgent recruitment of additional radiologists. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister saying that this Government has spent millions and millions of dollars building new hospitals doubled the health budget and apparently invested in the health workforce yet the husbands of women facing 15-week delays for radiation treatment have to ring the office of the Minister of Health to plead for treatment and is that the shameful shameful state of affairs in health in New Zealand today? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Unduly dramatic really is it not. I have already answered the question that the Auckland District Health Board is actively pursuing alternative treatment options to ensure that waiting times are down for access to radiotherapy and has reached its target of 97 percent. 
Children—Policy Priorities 
8.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received regarding policy priorities for children? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am slightly perplexed. I would like an assurance from the Government that that is the real Russell Fairbrother. He does not normally sit there and that voice was not the voice of Russell Fairbrother. It may have been— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen the call from Every Child Counts to make children’s issues central to political considerations. Our Government agrees that children must be at the heart of good policy. That is why we have implemented policies such as 20 free hours’ early childhood education and the introduction of paid parental leave provisions and policies to reduce child poverty—all policies that National voted against. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: To the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know it is Thursday. Holidays are next week. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has the Minister received on the outcomes of the Labour-led Government’s policies for children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Earlier in the year I welcomed research that indicated that 130000 children have been lifted out of poverty since 2001. A further report will be released shortly confirming that the position of New Zealand children has improved across a wide range of indicators: infant mortality has halved immunisation levels have significantly improved and early childhood education participation has increased. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that any children’s policy that does not prioritise improved support for the 10 percent of children with disabilities who currently attract only 1 percent of the funding for compulsory education towards their support lacks credibility; and can she advise us of the priorities of her Government in regard to those children? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would not leap to the assumption that the member has: that disabled children are not able to access the curriculum without support. 
Work and Income—Individual Case Management 
9.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is she satisfied with Work and Income’s approach to individual case management; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I believe that more can be done to ensure that every person receives the support and services that meet their individual circumstances. That is why I have announced even further steps towards the core benefit to modernise the benefit system. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister satisfied with how Work and Income behaved towards cancer sufferer Richard Burr as detailed by her ministry in evidence before the Social Services Committee? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is my understanding that the areas where there were shortcomings in addressing Mr Burr’s needs were made clear to the select committee and that the ministry took responsibility for those shortcomings. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has she received regarding alternative approaches to case management? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen an extraordinary report advocating the return to the failed policies of the 1990s—punitive work testing of sole parents and of sickness and invalid beneficiaries—and I have seen a response that says “This policy does more to stroke the shibboleths of party supporters than meet any pressing social need.” 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister accept the evidence of Mr Burr’s widow that Work and Income staff “were insensitive to their situation displayed a lack of empathy were poor communicators and gave inconsistent advice.”; and why did Work and Income not send a case manager to Mr Burr in hospital rather than summoning him out of his hospital bed to attend a Work and Income office? This was a terminally ill cancer patient. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I certainly accept Mrs Burr’s perception of how she was treated by Work and Income and my understanding is that the shortcomings in the service delivery have been acknowledged by Work and Income to the select committee the member sits on. My understanding is that Work and Income has made efforts to ensure that that does not happen again. I dispute the assertion that the member makes that knowing that Mr Burr was terminally ill and in hospital Work and Income staff required him to attend a Work and Income office. I dispute that assertion. 
Judith Collins 
: Since the Minister now wants to talk about Mrs Burr’s perception does she now accept the findings of the Social Services Committee tabled today in this Parliament that Mr Burr’s treatment is not an isolated case and that the issues raised by Mr Burr’s widow and by others are serious and need addressing; if so what after 9 long years is she going to do about it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am certainly happy to accept any recommendations that the Social Services Committee has to make. 
Education Amendment Bill (No 3)—Passage 
10.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When does he expect that the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) will be passed? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Acting Minister of Education) 
: It is the Government’s intention that the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) will go through a normal parliamentary process including full consideration by a select committee. The Government would like to see the bill enacted in 2009. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why has the Minister brought important legislation to the House just 2 weeks before it is about to dissolve that is intended to make sure that our schoolchildren are taught by registered teachers by allowing information matching between the Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education; and is he not embarrassed that this legislation was promised well over a year ago and now cannot be delivered? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Education Amendment Bill (No 3) moves to improve safety and accountability. It is something that this Government takes very very seriously it has taken a period of time over it and it has the support of communities outside of this building. 
Sue Moroney 
: What are the main elements of the Education Amendment Bill (No 3)? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The bill contains a number of provisions to improve school administration student safety and achievement including simplifying board of trustee processes abolishing early school leaving exemptions for 15-year-olds and reducing the compliance costs of the police vetting requirements imposed by the Education Standards Act. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is Labour completely abolishing early school leaving exemptions saying that all students should be locked into schooling when it is clear that for some students alternative non-school options are better both for the individuals concerned and for the students and teachers they share classrooms with; and what response does he have to the principals and teacher associations which are appalled at becoming political pawns in a desperate campaign by the Minister of Education to look as though he is finally doing something? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The bill has two broad areas of policy focus: to improve accountability for student attendance and engagement in the compulsory sector; and to enhance student safety in both the early childhood and compulsory sectors. The issues relevant to Schools Plus are an addition to and an improvement on all of those great things that this Labour-led Government has done to make sure that our people get an education at all stages of their lives. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why have he and his predecessor presided over a 41 percent increase in truancy rates talked about getting tough and openly mused about increasing the fines for truancy over the last 2 years yet the Education Amendment Bill (No 3) that he has brought to the House as a last gasp says absolutely nothing about increasing truancy fines? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Truancy has been around for a long time. This Government has been committed to ensuring that the social service support is there. The progress the attainment and the achievement of those students is nearly 10 times better than it was when National was in Government. 
Immigration—Categories 
11.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Has he received any reports proposing new immigration categories? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Immigration)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Yes I have seen a report from the National Party that shows it would like to make Kiwi citizens returning home a new category of immigrant. National’s immigration policy one of the few that Labour has not been burdened with having to release proposes setting up a new layer of bureaucracy under Immigration New Zealand. While the mokopuna leader says no bureaucracy the rearguard kaumatua say more bureaucracy. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister received reports about any other proposed new immigration categories? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Yes indeed I have. I have seen a report that proposes to establish a new retirement visa for high-net-worth people possibly some in Kaipara. I have also seen a report entitled  
The Feasibility of Introducing Retirement Visas 
 recommending that retirement visas not be introduced because the potential risks will clearly outweigh the potential benefits. The first of these reports is the National Party’s immigration policy released by Dr Lockwood Smith. The other report is a briefing dated 20 August 1999 for Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Associate Minister of Immigration. Dr Smith rejected the idea back then but is promoting it as a new idea now. That member is not only swallowing after masticating but regurgitating dead fish. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table a document entitled “Draft Cabinet Paper Immigration Investment Policy” that states the Ministers of Immigration and Finance have been recommending not bothering with investment criteria and simply selling residency at a high price. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Maori Dictionary—Cost of Launch 
12.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Can he confirm that the “breakfast bash” where he launched the new Maori dictionary cost taxpayers up to $75000? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 The final cost for the 2-day symposium has still to be calculated. I am advised that it is well below $75000. Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori the Maori Language Commission is contributing $50000 and Te Puni Kokiri will contribute the balance. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How does he explain to Maori who are struggling to make ends meet under his watch when the number of Maori on the sickness benefit has almost doubled and the number of Maori on the invalids benefit has more than doubled that the best use he can find for their tax dollars is to pay for large quantities of muttonbirds oysters and champagne? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I remind the member that with our growing young demographic and at the other end our growing ageing demographic those things have happened to increase benefits in the sickness area. But I also remind him that the unemployment rate has gone down by nearly 82 percent that Maori are coming off the benefit four times faster than Pakeha and that Maori are going into work four times faster than any other ethnic group in this country. That is what he should jump on every breakfast time and think about. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that the member who has asked these questions is only too happy to turn up to free Maori “bashes” in Parliament with free food and drink but that what upset him about this one was that it was a dictionary launch and that is beyond his understanding? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am sure that it is certainly beyond his comprehension. The comprehension in this book of 24000 words is a real feat achieved in this country. The  
Oxford Dictionary 
 took 80 years to make; this has taken 8 years. It has all the words in this country. It will be relished by students in this country. Our language will be preserved and it is certainly worthwhile having a “breakfast bash” over that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Given that the Minister has just confirmed that he went to the “breakfast bash” and that the $75000 came out of his budget can the Minister confirm that the number of unemployed has gone down but they have just transferred over to the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit—that the same number of people have transferred over and that this is all we have got after 9 long years? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is outrageous! That is absolutely wrong. The problem with the National Party is that it has no Maori policy and it does not understand what has happened under this great Labour-led Government over these last 9 years. Maori are better off than they have ever been. The member knows that what he said is a fib and he ought to zip up his lips. 
Dave Hereora 
: Can the Minister explain what was involved in the launch of  
He Pataka Kupu 
? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Several hundred people participated in the activities associated with the launch over 2 days. That member should buy one of the dictionaries for $40. It is worthwhile. Those activities included a series of pre-briefings and meetings on the evening before the breakfast the powhiri the official launch the breakfast expert panel discussions and planning sessions for the next component. It is also on the Internet; it is a great document. The other issue is something I will wait to see whether the member asks about. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That has to be the best answer that the Minister has ever given in his life but can the Minister confirm that $30000 was spent not only on the breakfast but also on flying people in from around the country putting them up in hotels and also having a big feed of muttonbirds oysters and champagne; and notwithstanding the great dictionary launch how does the Minister explain that to all those poor people in fact up on the East Coast and up in the north where their basic wage is a measly $16000 a year? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I could talk to that member about Working for Families and whatever. I can also remind that member that in the reign of the National Government it took the minimum wage up once—by 68c an hour—but this Government has taken it up eight or nine times and ensured that for those families their work will continue. What I can tell that member about the cost and the accommodation is that the organisers did fly in people like Professor Patu Hohepa Professor Pou Temara Professor Wharehuia Milroy Professor Tamati Reedy Dr Katerina Mataira and Mr Te Ripowai Higgins and heaps of others and that this organisation Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori is chaired and managed well by another Henare from up north who does know his business. I am thankful that Erima Henare has done a good job with this dictionary. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave of the House to table the numbers from 1996 to 2008 of those on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Minister confirm that the member who has been asking the questions has been auditioning not only for his job but also for his suit and that the reason for his change in shape is that he ate half the food at the breakfast? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There is no ministerial responsibility for that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that for the cost of the breakfast the Government could have given away 1845 of the dictionaries. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave of the House to make a personal statement with regard to that last comment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I just inform the House and Mr Mallard that I did not even go to the slap-up “bash” that cost them $75000 and I did not have a good feed of muttonbirds oysters and champagne. 
Waste Minimisation Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Waste Minimisation Bill be now read a third time 
. I speak in support of the Waste Minimisation Bill. It is time to substantially change the way we deal with waste in New Zealand. Our population and consumption are predicted to grow which makes it imperative that we tackle the volumes of waste that are now being produced. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Waste Minimisation Bill. It has been a long long journey but we have finally made it. National voted against the legislation at its first reading. We voted against it because it was excessively detailed and overly prescriptive. We voted against it because it tended to focus on how things should be done rather than on the outcomes we need to achieve. We were also concerned about excessive costs in terms of compliance and enforcement and layer after layer of new bureaucracy. 
However during the select committee process which included a series of visits to recycling and resource-recovery businesses throughout the country and two submission processes the bill was completely and comprehensively reworked. The Local Government and Environment Committee worked hard on the definitions required for the bill and we got them right in most instances. There was a large amount of debate about the definition of waste. It seemed to be very difficult to find a definition that was neither too wide nor too narrow. We finally decided on a wider definition which includes any thing that “is no longer required for its original purpose and but for commercial or other waste minimisation activities would be disposed of or discarded;”. Once the bill was reported back we had representations from several organisations that highlighted unintended consequences of the original wider definition. They believed that the wider definition would create disincentives for recycling and could jeopardise New Zealand’s significant export of waste resources. 
When we designed the bill we aimed to encourage the extraction of valuable commodities from the waste stream but this wider definition could have had a perverse effect as it included materials that were never intended for the waste stream. The recyclers were also concerned that the wider definition could unnecessarily increase administrative and compliance costs for recycling businesses and that would have hindered the bill’s objective of encouraging waste minimisation activities. Furthermore any suggestion that recyclables such as scrap metal were considered to be waste by the New Zealand Government had the potential to influence importers from other countries and New Zealand exports could have become subject to more rigorous import controls. 
I came to the conclusion that unless we reworked the definition of “waste” we could cause problems for the people and organisations that had been the most proactive in the minimisation of waste and had spearheaded the recovery of valuable resources from the waste stream. We want to attract businesses and operators to work in this area not kick them in the shins when they have been proactive. I therefore proposed an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 219 that narrows the definition of “waste” by excluding recyclables and recoverable resources. It would have solved the recyclers’ problem and ensured that pioneer recyclers and resource-recovery businesses—such as scrap-metal merchants paper recyclers and organic and green-waste collectors—were not disadvantaged by the bill. 
However the Ministry for the Environment and representatives from local government were concerned that this narrower definition would impact on the ability of local councils to fulfil their responsibilities under the Local Government Act. That did not seem ideal either. So over the adjournment I worked with Russel Norman and with the help of the ministry and local government representatives we came up with a compromise that everyone can live with. I am very pleased that we have been able to come up with this compromise because we are actually all on the same side in this issue. It is important that both businesses and communities that drive waste minimisation are on board and that councils can fulfil their responsibilities. 
I have to say that the process of working through the bill with the select committee and even the process of managing the Supplementary Order Papers which is a difficult one has worked well. My only disappointment is that Russel Norman of the Greens who gave his word to support my last Supplementary Order Paper but reneged after they had got everything they wanted—[ 
Interruption 
] Throughout the process I worked closely and well with Nandor Tanczos even after he had left Parliament and it is a pity that Russel Norman does not appear to understand that a member is expected to be honourable and to keep his word. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes that comment was unnecessary. Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: I withdraw and apologise Madam Speaker. 
New Zealanders are conscious that the disposal of waste however carefully managed does harm to our environment. Although modern landfills utilise new technologies to protect the receding environment we still need to minimise the volume of waste we dispose of. Even transporting waste is destructive and increases our carbon footprint. So the bill introduces some new tools. 
I believe that the establishment of product stewardship schemes is perhaps one of the most important parts of the bill. Although some very successful voluntary product stewardship schemes are in existence already their inclusion in the bill will highlight the need for these schemes and encourage their development. The big advantage of a product stewardship scheme is that manufacturers and distributors of a product are incentivised to think about the product’s whole life cycle. They are in a position to redesign the product in light of its future use and its final disposal. Too often when products are created no thought is given to their final disposal. We need manufacturers to make smart decisions at the beginning of the design process. 
It is easy to make good decisions—such as the use of recyclable material rather than non-recyclable material—at the beginning of a product’s life cycle. The worst products are those that are a mixture of different materials as they are almost impossible to recycle. Some very successful voluntary schemes are in place such as those of Resene Paints and Fisher and Paykel—and we have made sure that they are eligible for accreditation under this bill. The Minister can also declare certain products to be priority products and they must become part of a product stewardship scheme. For that to happen the waste from the product must cause significant environmental harm there must be benefits from reusing reducing recycling or recovering the product and the waste must be able to be managed effectively under a product stewardship scheme. 
We heard at the Local Government and Environment Committee that many companies and industry sectors were being very proactive in managing their wastes but some industries were struggling to get all of their members involved. It is the same old story. The majority of people in organisations are prepared to do the right thing but there is a minority of free-riders who are not prepared to contribute. In these cases a mandated scheme will ensure that everyone is included and it will be beneficial for those who are already carrying the costs of managing their waste responsibly. 
The imposition of a waste disposal levy was a hot topic for debate in our caucus but we finally decided that as a user-pays fee and an economic instrument designed to encourage waste minimisation it would be useful. We wanted to reward people and companies for minimising their waste and penalise those who do not and as everyone is already looking for a cheaper way those who make the effort to minimise their waste can save money. 
We were also keen to find a way to finance capital expenditure for waste minimisation projects. At present most projects are paid for by the ratepayer via local government and again everyone regardless of his or her waste behaviour pays the same. Proceeds from the waste levy will be split fifty-fifty between territorial authorities on a population basis and a centralised contestable fund for waste minimisation projects. The contestable fund will be available to any business or organisation with a waste minimisation project. 
Territorial authorities can spend levy money only to promote or achieve waste minimisation in accordance with their waste management and minimisation plan. My Supplementary Order Paper—No 221—includes a third criterion that requires territorial authorities when funding waste services through the levy to treat private enterprise council-controlled organisations and their own in-house operations on an equal basis. This is to deal with an issue raised by waste service operators. They were concerned that councils could use the levy to subsidise council services that may unfairly undercut private enterprise schemes. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Waste Minimisation Bill is perhaps the most comprehensive and significant piece of waste legislation to come before Parliament and it is about time. 
About 3.2 million tonnes of waste goes to landfills each year in New Zealand and according to the Ministry for the Environment each year we throw away about $250 million worth of potentially reusable resources. Not only is this a huge waste of resources but also landfills contribute to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and are a significant source of toxic leachate—particularly as we have seen in places like Horowhenua. 
This bill is not a silver bullet. It is more an enabling bill than anything else as it provides a framework through which these problems can be addressed. The bill creates a framework for the Government to respond to the growing waste problem but that work has already begun. It is worth acknowledging that individuals councils communities and businesses have already begun this process as best they can. The Ministry for the Environment has also contributed to the response despite the absence of this legislation. But with this bill Parliament and the Government are playing catch-up. 
The bill has three key elements. The first is the levy. The levy disincentivises waste generation. Effectively it internalises some of the costs that waste generates. The Greens believe that using price signals is an important part—but it is only one part—of dealing to the waste problem. The second part is product stewardship which requires producers and importers to take more responsibility for end-of-life collection diversion and disposal. More important it will motivate manufacturers to redesign their products and packaging to reduce the amount of waste created in the first place—at the beginning of the pipe. We need to redesign production and packaging so that fewer materials are used and we need to ensure that products can actually be recycled. The bill allows the Minister for the Environment to regulate to create mandatory product stewardship schemes where needed and to provide stricter targets for existing industry-sponsored schemes. We are behind the ball in this area and this provides an opportunity for us to speed up. 
The bill establishes the Waste Advisory Board. Some people asked why we need a new organisation when we have the Ministry for the Environment. The ministry is currently giving a lot of attention to waste but that has not always been the case and it will not necessarily continue to be the case so it is good to have a board that drives it along. The ministry’s work programme depends to some degree on the tastes of the Minister and the chief executive officer so it is subject to variation. In addition like all Government departments the ministry has a significant turnover and has some difficulty holding on to institutional knowledge. Although I share the fear of establishing a self-perpetuating bureaucracy I am still convinced that a small independent organisation with representation from different sectors involved in waste minimisation and able to play a leadership and advocacy role will be enormously useful. 
This bill is now a Government bill but it did not start that way. It was drafted by my colleague Mike Ward and it was guided by Nandor Tanczos from the ballot to its second reading. I took the bill through its Committee of the whole House stage and now the Government has adopted the bill to ensure that it is passed before the election. 
A number of amendments were made at the Committee stage and it is worth talking about them briefly. The Minister and the Greens made some minor drafting changes to Part 1 including the heading and to clause 62. We clarified clause 54 and added a new clause 97 to allow the Waste Advisory Board nomination process to begin prior to the Act’s commencement and that has been handy. National MP Nicky Wagner also tabled a number of amendments. Two minor amendments were made one of which extended the stockpile time frame to 6 months and one of which amends clause 30 to protect private enterprise schemes from competitive disadvantage. The Committee unanimously accepted these amendments once they were redrafted by officials. 
A more significant National Party amendment put forward on Supplementary Order Paper 218 would have delayed the commencement of the whole Act until July 2009. Waste is an urgent problem that needs urgent action so we were very glad that Nicky Wagner withdrew that amendment after discussion. There was a more contentious amendment around the title of the bill but on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and because we did not see any particular need for the amendment we did not support it. 
Nicky Wagner put forward a major amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 219 to the definition of “waste” that would have had a very significant effect; we were concerned that it would scuttle the whole bill. The bill was designed to provide tools to address the whole waste sphere including the waste industry because the whole purpose is to reduce the generation of waste reduce the waste that goes to landfills and maximise recovered waste. Our officials’ advice was that the National Party amendment would have had severe ramifications including preventing the spending of levy money on recycling because waste minimisation would no longer include recovered materials. We were disappointed that such a far-reaching amendment was put forward at very short notice during the Committee stage and we wished that more advice had been sought from officials and local government earlier on. 
To save the bill we negotiated during the adjournment with Nicky Wagner Ministry for the Environment officials and the scrap metal industry. We negotiated a compromise amendment that would address the specific concerns of some industries while keeping the bill intact. Diverted materials were split off from waste and the definition of “waste minimisation” was altered to include both. Industries that trade in waste material can therefore consider their material to be diverted material rather than waste. However as a consequence local government has reduced powers to license and to collect information. It can do this only for waste and not for diverted materials. Fortunately the Ministry for the Environment can collect information on all materials whether discarded or diverted and we hope it actually does this and shares it with local government as appropriate so that local government can get the information it needs. 
I acknowledge the people who played a key role in this bill. One of the early minds behind this kind of legislation of course was Rod Donald who was a very keen recycler and ran many campaigns to reduce waste. I thank Mike Ward and Nandor Tanczos. I also acknowledge Chris Teo-Sherrell who was important in the writing of the bill and Quentin Duthie who also played a very important role. I thank the 316 people who submitted on the original bill and the 125 who submitted on Supplementary Order Paper 150. The vast majority of submitters were very supportive of the intent of the bill if not of the detail. I thank the three successive Ministers for the Environment David Benson-Pope David Parker and Trevor Mallard as well as their staff and in particular Steve Hurring who played a key role. I thank the Community Recycling Network the Packaging Council the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development local government and of course the scrap metal industry for their input and I would very much like to thank the officials from the Ministry for the Environment. 
The Green Party has a goal of achieving a waste-free Aotearoa New Zealand by 2020 with clear and significant progress by 2010. A waste-free society is essential to the well-being of people and the sustainability of the planet. Waste is not an inevitable part of production and consumption. Materials must be part of cycles rather than linear processes in which they are used once then discarded. Full social and environmental costs should be taken into account when making decisions about the creation management and disposal of wastes. We think this bill is a step along the path towards a waste-free Aotearoa New Zealand and we commend it to the House. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to have an opportunity to speak in the third reading debate on the Waste Minimisation Bill. I want to compliment one or two people. Firstly I say that of all the select committees I have been involved in the Local Government and Environment Committee members worked the most productively together. Our politics were put aside and we grappled with the issue. For the likes of me coming from the back of the Hokianga where we chop down trees and dig things my whole attitude to this issue has changed significantly. It has been a steep learning curve for me. I thank the select committee generally but I compliment Nicky Wagner who has done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation. She deserves to be recognised for the work she has done. I also say to the chairperson of the committee Moana Mackey that she did a good job. 
Other members of the committee who need to be recognised as we go through this third reading debate include Mike Ward who introduced the bill although I have to say he did not do a lot of work on it because of course he left Parliament if that is the polite way to put it. But the one who did do a lot of work on it was Nandor Tanczos and we need to recognise the work he did. Having him on the select committee with me was also a steep learning curve because he is not the sort of person I would normally have a close association with. But I found that the more one gets to know Nandor the more one gets to like him. We established quite a good friendship during that time and when we were at a couple of conferences together and I suspect that that friendship will be enduring. For all the people who may think that Parliament is a strange place—and it is—I tell them that lots of good work actually gets done in Parliament particularly in the select committees and that we can have friendships across parties. So I just make those points in speaking to the third reading. 
The other thing I would like to have recorded in my address is my belief that on these sorts of issues New Zealand has come a long way but still has a long way to go. This bill is but a first step towards our actually addressing an issue that needs more public focus. One of the unfortunate things that happens in our society mainly through ignorance is that we waste a lot of resource and I must say that it was a shame that Nicky’s amendment was not accepted and the title was not changed to the “Waste Minimisation and Resource Recovery Bill”. All the committee recognised that we are talking about the use of our resources—the better use of our resources. One of the things that struck me—and it changed my mind on this whole issue—was that there is so much more that can be done and should be done. 
The unfortunate thing in the way in which we implement our waste management at the moment is that the ratepayers and the public—but the ratepayers specifically—pay for the cost of our disposal of waste and that is quite a huge burden on the ratepayers of this country. One of the things that fascinated me when I went to South Australia to study its system of waste disposal where it uses container deposit legislation as the base of its resource recovery was that that state has the lowest “per ratepayer cost” of all states right across Australia. I think from memory that the cost is less than half of that for every other state. That is because South Australia has a system whereby more emphasis is put on the upfront responsibility than on the end-user. That makes manufacturers and producers of items far more responsible and it also gives small businesses an opportunity to have a cash flow. Most of us will remember the days when we used to get 2c for returning a lemonade bottle the Boy Scout and Girl Guide bottle drives and those other things we used to do. That is the sort of system that is run in South Australia. 
I mentioned yesterday in the Committee debate that car manufacturers came to the select committee and said they would like to see us put a $500 extra cost on to every new car which could be deposited so that at the end use of the car rather than have it disposed of by being chucked over a bank burnt out in a bush somewhere or left on the side of the road the car would have a value of at least $500 which would be meaningful to some people. Most people would want to redeem that and this is the sort of system that can happen when we have container deposit legislation. I think that in time we will move more and more towards that sort of system. The framework is here for that to happen. At the moment it works only on priority products but I see a time when we will move to that whole system right across the country and quite honestly I for one will be supportive of it. I would encourage it to happen as rapidly as it can. 
One controversial issue was the levy. A whole lot of people wanted the levy such as local government the producers—the whole system. Everybody thought they should have it because they had the best reason for it. But the levy actually is just a step. Its whole purpose is to impose a cost on people who want to dispose of their waste rather than reuse it. So it is a punitive measure in that regard. It is designed to try to encourage people to understand that if we do not treat our waste as a resource there is a cost for having that attitude. Its whole purpose is to change the attitudes of the nation and in time it will. I do see a time when the levy will continue to increase to a level where it will be very costly to dispose of our rubbish in a landfill as opposed to having the opportunity to redeem that rubbish and probably get a return on it. When we get to that stage this country will seriously be starting to make some progress on the proper system of resource recovery rather than waste. 
I for one look forward to the day when we get rid of the word “waste” in this context and when we all look at the issue of waste as a resource and not as waste at all. Quite honestly when that happens this nation will be able to proudly stand up and say that we are one of the leaders in the world in this regard. We are a way from that yet but I do see the time coming when that will happen. South Australia for example and a number of countries have already moved a lot further ahead than we have but this framework gives us the opportunity to make great strides ahead. 
Quite honestly I am proud to have been one of the people who has been involved in this waste minimisation legislation. As I said for me personally it has been a steep learning curve. I have enjoyed being involved in the whole issue of this legislation and I conclude by thanking all the members on the select committee. Funnily enough we did manage to put our politics aside and work constructively together to end up with legislation that is workable and will be good for this nation. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. In the world of discarded lifestyles plastic wraparounds high-impact packaging and personal attacks in Parliament the Waste Minimisation Bill is a breath of fresh air. On this day when we mourn the loss of life from 9/11 and the loss of liberty suffered in the police terrorism raids by those who are before the courts in Auckland we recognise also the way in which the rampant exploitation of Papatuanuku and all her resources forces us to acknowledge our own fragile place on this earth and the urgent need for us all to take a reality check on how we respect our world. 
Let me extend my congratulations to my brother Nandor Tanczos on the effort he put into this bill to encourage us to reduce waste. Given how much waste is generated by this place I can understand why he got out before he was suffocated by the garbage that often masquerades as parliamentary debate. I know that he had to put up with a lot of nit-picking from businesses that over-package products in order to enhance sales from corporate entities that generate even more trash than product and from politicians who must be getting a kickback for nodding when multinationals say they are already doing a lot to reduce waste and to do even more would impact on the viability of their businesses. Yeah right! I know too that because of some of those compromises this bill is not exactly what he would have wanted but I offer my congratulations to him anyway on pushing it and pushing it to the point where this legislation is to become a reality. 
We particularly like the product stewardship scheme to make producers responsible for their products right throughout a product’s life cycle. That will encourage producers to use more environmentally friendly products and discourage the huge waste that is part of our society today. Unlike the emissions trading scheme where the big polluters will not have to pay for years this bill will encourage everyone to reduce waste or pay for it from day one—be they big producers or small producers. That is future thinking and we like it. 
We like the waste streams idea of charging importers an extra $5 for every tyre that is brought into Aotearoa to put the brakes on importers bringing in container-loads of second-hand tyres. That charge has to be a good idea given that 5 million tyres are dumped in Aotearoa every year. Five million car truck and industrial tyres are dumped in landfills or chucked into our rivers and on to our paddocks. They are not just the nice little tyres that people use for flower gardens worm farms to hang over the swimming hole to make into little rubber swan sculptures or to use in the sandpit. I refer also to the big ugly thick rubber tyres that leach toxic waste into our rivers and landfills. 
We know that the bill was changed a lot at the Local Government and Environment Committee and with a whole trash pile of Supplementary Order Papers. Although the extra amendments and changes may have reduced the bureaucracy and simplified the bill unfortunately—and this is a bit like what occurred with regard to the emissions trading scheme—they have also held back some of the good bits as well. For instance our councils actually wanted to have stronger legislation but felt their proposals had been watered down by extensive lobbying from commercial groups opposed to the idea that they should accept responsibility for the waste they create. 
The Maori Party is happy to support this bill because it is consistent with our long-term call for the Government to take responsibility for the dumping of toxic waste which has caused dioxin poisoning in Taranaki and widespread health problems for the people of Paritutu including birth defects behavioural problems diabetes and cancer. It will help to address some of the concerns we have raised about the contaminated former sawmill site at Minginui and the likelihood of chemicals leaching from the landfill site into local waterways and streams and give weight to the advocacy of Sawmill Workers Against Poison—people like Joe Harawira and Gwenda Paul who have been fighting to repair the damage created at more than 600 former sawmills by chemicals that been proven to have adverse effects on our lands our rivers and our people. The bill fits in with our call for Kiwis to take responsibility for Aotearoa. It is a refreshing change and a step in the right direction. To that end the Maori Party is pleased to support it at this third and final reading. Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the third reading of the Waste Minimisation Bill. I think it has all been said before here this afternoon and in the previous readings as well. But I do want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. Most of the processes we go through in that committee are just fine and we work together quite well but it was particularly nice to be working on a bill towards a common purpose. We all agreed on the intent and we all wanted to get the best outcome possible from the bill before us. The bill went through a rather dramatic transformation at the select committee. It was there for so long because given the extent of the changes we wanted to give submitters the opportunity to come back and submit on the extensive Supplementary Order Paper that ended up becoming part of the bill. 
I pay tribute to all the former members of the Green Party under whose names this bill was registered. Mike Ward was one and also Nandor Tanczos who took the bill through the majority of the select committee hearings. I really do want to thank the select committee for the numerous meetings we had during adjournments so that we could get the bill passed before the election. I congratulate Russel Norman whose name now heads this bill. Even though it is here as a Government bill it is still a Green Party bill. We just want to make sure that the Government acknowledges that and that the bill is passed. 
This is a very important bill. I doubt whether this is the last Waste Minimisation Bill we will ever see before the House. This really is the first step. There will be further iterations I am sure as different needs arise and issues change. But it certainly is one of the most important bills we have seen go through this House. It marks a sea change in the way we deal with waste and the way we look at recycling. This is more than something that is feel-good; it is something that is good for the economy and good for the environment and it needed to be taken a step further. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. It is very pleasing to see it finally being passed. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 This is probably the last time I will officially stand and speak outside my valedictory speech and I feel very good about the fact that I am speaking in a very positive way about the Waste Minimisation Bill; it has been a very positive process. I acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—[ 
Interruption 
]—and I agree with Moana Mackey that it was good. We “did good” I feel. We were an example to Parliament and it is a pity that many of the others do not follow it—if I can be so bold. But this is not my valedictory speech so I will not go there. The process was good and as a committee we worked very well. Also the officials were brilliant. The advice we had from them through the transition was sharp and smart. All of them “did good”. They did us proud. So from that point of view I was impressed as well. 
It was nice to meet so many of the community through the whole submission process. I acknowledge the fact that the member John Carter was also on the committee—not that Mr Carter mentioned either me or you in his speech Madam Assistant Speaker but that is fine; we will pay him back later. Was it not wonderful though to meet the community as we did? We met wonderful people who were passionate about the environment about waste and the right way to handle it and about the fact that we would be stuffing up the environment if we were not careful. I was in awe of that community. It made me feel very humble actually to see how people in the community out there really do care get involved do the hard yards and get their hands really dirty in trying to right the wrongs. I also acknowledge that there are some businesses out there doing the same thing. We met quite a few in the business community who were also caring and working very hard to make a difference and to have an impact on the global issue of waste. 
This bill had its first reading on 14 June 2006 so it has taken its time to get here. It has not been a quick process. As those who have been listening have heard the bill is very different from what it was in 2006. It is good that we have stayed with it. Most people at the end of the day agreed with the objectives of the bill. People cared. And who would not? Waste is a problem. But waste is also an opportunity. I go back to quote Professor Storey at Victoria University who said that waste is an opportunity; it is just a “resource in the wrong place”. That is one of those quotes that will stay with me. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Like you. 
MARK BLUMSKY 
: I will acknowledge that too! There were a lot of parts in the bill that were not so well liked and we heard that through the 316 submissions. So off it went back into the kitchen where there was a lot of cooking before it came out the other end in September last year and 125 submitters then had the chance to comment. I was reading Nandor’s second reading speech and he made a comment that I actually liked and noted. The new bill that came through to quote his words “keeps the bones of the original bill and alters the flesh.” It certainly did that. It was great to see that the community was very supportive and even business in its commentary through the submission process admitted that the time has come for something to be done. 
From my point of view on the things that were not changed I am a fan of the financial driver the levy; I think the levy is a good tool. The levy as members would have heard starts at $10 a tonne and will be reviewed in 2 years—that was a change we made in the select committee process—and then every 3 years. I personally agree with the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development which says that $30 is the fee that the levy should be hit at not $10. I think $30 will have an impact and it is an impact that we need. So from my point of view I am glad the review is there in 2 years and it is nice to see the review come along every 3 years. 
It was wonderful talking about the levy because all sides told us that they could spend it. My colleague John Carter covered that beautifully. We set it on a 50:50 split which I think was a fair way. Local government gets 50 percent of the levy and a contestable fund gets 50 percent of the levy. We saw through the select committee process that some territorial local authorities are doing wonderful work in this area. But there are some that should be ashamed of themselves and need to revisit their whole attitude towards waste and look to the better ones—and I will not mention them—for best practice and for an example of the way forward. 
I as I said was very pleased that the levy ended up being split and even more important that it can be spent only on waste minimisation initiatives and is not to be used for councils to put in the big pot and then diverted into other ways of spending. We need to be very careful in monitoring the review process so that the money allocated is spent for the right reasons by local bodies and is not used if you like to subsidise rates because that actually is not the purpose. It is to minimise waste. The levy will be used for research through the contestable fund. Those who want to do research can apply. Those who want to do capital projects can apply. We had through the submission process a number of rather significant businesses wanting to do big projects that felt that a start-up ability—a funding ability—would generate a lot more enthusiasm from their shareholders. There is also seed funding. At the select committee we saw some wonderful community initiatives that if they had some seed funding would grow; we must applaud those. 
One of the things we have to be careful of and I think Nicky Wagner mentioned it is that we cannot let local authorities use the levy to bump out the providers who are doing a good job. We talked about that a number of times. The levy is not there to bump out companies like Green Fingers that are doing a fantastic job. They are not to be bumped out by a local authority using a levy to subsidise competition in that area. 
I am a huge fan of the product stewardship that came through the bill. I think it makes the producers the importers the retailers the consumers and others take responsibility for the environmental effects of products. Hearing John Carter talk again about the container deposit I tell members that we came close very close to putting container deposit through the bill by name. There was certainly a lot of commentary from the business community about that for sure. I personally am a fan; I think it does make a difference and will make a difference. I hope the framework allows container deposit legislation to be brought in so that community groups will have a funding stream that is not often available. Kiwis want to see recycling and want to see practical measures to tackle the issue of waste. The recovery side of the process will enable that. There is an issue about recovery; we are not good at it. We will be better at it. This bill has enabled a focus on it. 
As I say to finish on it is nice to stand here having worked through something with a group of people I enjoyed working with to make a positive impact and I look forward over time to seeing waste being minimised. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I will possibly take 10 minutes but may take less time. The Waste Minimisation Bill will significantly alter the way we deal with waste and will encourage the sustainable use of resources. 
I acknowledge the huge quantum leap in this area over the past few years. Indeed I congratulate the awardees at last night’s Waikato Sustainable Business Network Awards—a major gala occasion in my city of Hamilton. Sadly I was not able to be there for which I apologise. I think those awards are indicative that businesses around the country are doing cutting-edge work in this area and that is excellent. 
It was a great pleasure to be a substitute member of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the original bill. What an incredible eye-opener it was for me personally to see the amazing waste minimisation enterprises that are now out there. I believe that as a country we are taking a quantum leap through this bill and other measures to realise the truth hopefully of New Zealand’s clean green image. I think to a degree there has been an element of myth to it. Hopefully this bill will give our self-image—the image we as a country want—a degree of truth. 
Finally as a Waikato member of Parliament I reiterate my appreciation of the huge contribution in terms of leadership that Nandor Tanczos showed in this area. I believe that it will be one of the lasting legacies of his time in this Parliament. Frankly we in the Waikato are very very proud of Nandor and his wonderful contribution. I am equally proud of this Government which took a member’s bill and turned it into a Government bill and I am equally proud of the very good work of the Local Government and Environment Committee which was led by my good colleague and friend Moana Mackey. I commend the bill to the House. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House—and I have just checked this with the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee and with the Minister in charge of the Waste Minimisation Bill—to table a paper that I forgot to table in my third reading speech. It is to do with the solids produced from waste-water treatment; it is a short statement about how the bill affects that. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Standing Orders 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I move  
That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in the First Appendix of the report of the Standing Orders Committee entitled  
Review of Standing Orders 
 presented on 27 August 2008 be adopted and take effect from the day after the dissolution or expiration of the present Parliament. 
 This process today completes the standard triennial review of the Standing Orders. The amendments in this year’s recommendations are largely a collection of technical amendments tidying up clarifying and ensuring consistency in the existing Standing Orders. In that context they are a tribute to the work done in the 1996 review which was probably the most massive and far-reaching set of changes to the Standing Orders ever made in the history of this Parliament. Those changes were made to prepare the House for an MMP environment. They have stood the test of time remarkably well and nearly all changes since then have been relatively minor in nature. 
I will dwell briefly on two or three issues. The first issue is that my good colleague Mr Ross Robertson has of course been a strong proponent of a code of ethics for parliamentarians. A number of members of Parliament particularly those in the National Party but also I must say myself and some others are somewhat less enthusiastic about that proposal basically on the ground that the Standing Orders themselves should be providing the fundamental rules of behaviour in the House and behaviour by members of Parliament in that context. If the Standing Orders are defective then they should be changed and if members are looking for stricter interpretation and enforcement then that is a matter to take up with the presiding officers. It is not a matter for some other code of conduct. Indeed I have some reservations about having two separate sets of documents in that particular case. 
The second issue is that the Standing Orders Committee has recommended the introduction of a simultaneous interpretation service and we looked in some depth at how that would be translated into the broadcasting of the House recognising that there will actually be difficulties. Simultaneous interpretation within the House is relatively simple but broadcasting in terms of simultaneous interpretation is technically almost impossible particularly in relation to television broadcasting. One of the issues which is very simple and practical concerns where a simultaneous translation booth would be placed in the House because to cope with the number of MPs under MMP the House is already dreadfully stretched in terms of capacity and people have difficulty moving around within the House. 
The third and I think most important change suggested—a very good change and one the Prime Minister has urged upon me on a number of occasions—concerns the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement which is a rather sterile debate at least from the perspective of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has to read out a speech that has been prepared and circulated and it has to be read word for word. That makes for a very strange start to the year as opposed to the new procedure that is suggested which I think will be much better whereby the Prime Minister’s statement—a statement if one likes of the Government’s priorities—is circulated well in advance a motion is moved and the Prime Minister speaks to the motion followed by the Leader of the Opposition the other leaders and so on in turn around the House. I think that will give a much more characteristic flavour of the nature of debate. 
We looked at the same concept in relation to the Budget. Budgets are much more difficult. The very nature of the Budget is that the documentation is complex and highly detailed and the speech probably will have to continue to be read by the Minister of Finance. I can assure the House that it is a quite difficult and somewhat tedious business to read a 45-minute speech absolutely word for word particularly for somebody who is as exceptionally prone to ad libbing as I am. To actually be constrained to read all one’s own words which one has read many many times before begins to pall on the reader if not on anybody else at the moment of delivery. Inevitably that traditional format has to be followed in the Budget debate but it does not need to be followed in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. 
One final point I would like to raise is that the committee has made some recommendations that are not in relation to actual changes to the Standing Orders but are recommendations to members—and I hope members will take these seriously—and one of those is about the tabling of documents. It is an absurdity that members in this House rise to table questions answers to written questions parliamentary papers  
Hansard 
 bills newspaper articles that are published in New Zealand and other documents many of which have already been tabled in any case or are in the lobbies and most of the others are relatively reasonably well available. 
The Standing Orders Committee is keen to discourage that practice. I think it wastes time and over the last 20 years the changes to the Standing Orders have been very good at removing time-wasting in Parliament. This practice wastes time and brings us into disrepute. Occasionally I have had to deny leave even to some of my own colleagues who insist on trying to table a newspaper report because I take the view that those things should not be sought to be tabled. 
The tabling mechanism was designed to be used for somewhat more serious purposes than that in practice. I do not know why people think there is some magnificent achievement in having tabled an answer to a written question. I can assure members after 27 years in this place that history has never been changed by somebody tabling an answer to a written question or—and I say this with some trepidation given the media’s ability to get their own back—tabling an article from the  
Dominion Post  
or the  
New Zealand Herald  
that has already been published. 
With those few comments I commend the report to the House. I thank all the members of the Standing Orders Committee—I think I have been on every Standing Orders Committee except one since I have been in this Parliament—for as always the assiduous and very very largely non-partisan way in which they approach their work. 
Hon CLEM SIMICH (National) 
: 
 I rise to make just a few brief comments on the motion. Firstly I thank the Leader of the House the Minister of Finance for his work on the Standing Orders Committee and say what a pleasure it is to work with him because he has a vast knowledge of the issues surrounding the Standing Orders. 
I think the decision in regard to the Prime Minister’s statement was the right one and will be helpful to all members of the House and indeed to the Prime Minister. Members seem to like the way the Minister of Finance has presented his Budgets. His Budgets are both entertaining and informative and the wish was that he continue to do it that way. So we cut it in half! These reviews of the Standing Orders are conducted once in each term of Parliament generally and this one has been quite extensive. 
I mention the matter in regard to the Business Committee. The Business Committee has had restrictions on its membership before in that not all small parties could be represented there. The change made now is that all parties can be represented. It is not really a change in procedure because it has been the practice of that committee to allow all small parties to be there anyway but that is now set out in the Standing Orders. 
On the matter of television broadcasting from the House the media raised considerable issues in regard to some matters therein including in regard to satirical presentations of the Chamber and the proceedings here. That matter has been clarified. Those presentations went way beyond the intent of the original guidelines and directions but the matter has been clarified so that the provisions apply only to the media organisations themselves not to the broadcasting that Parliament has in place at the moment. 
I commend the motion to the House. These are all sensible changes and they were all agreed to unanimously. The committee deliberated on them over quite a lengthy period and it has come up with these amendments. I commend the motion to the House. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e te Whare. The Maori Party was proud to stand alongside our MMP colleagues in the Greens United Future and ACT to support a code of conduct for members of the House and to reduce the disorderly conduct that diminishes Parliament and all of its members as well. I note that such a call was once made in the 1880s by MP Vincent Pyke who described members of Parliament like this: “there were the speechless members who were never heard of except by their votes. Then there were the silly members who talked nonsense by the yard. And thirdly there were the sensible members who said very little and said that little to the purpose.” Nearly 130 years later Parliament still seems to be struggling with the challenges of the speechless the silly and the sensible although the public could be forgiven for thinking that only the silly ones are to be heard. 
That is why we called for and supported a code of conduct being instituted in the Standing Orders. The slanging matches the petty attacks the snide remarks and the often mindless attempts at humour that characterise question time in the Chamber create a very poor environment for political debate and it is no wonder the general public has such little confidence in us as politicians. 
The Maori Party looks to kaupapa and tikanga Maori to guide us in our behaviour and although I personally struggle with them sometimes I recognise that such principles require us to treat one another with respect and with integrity. I have no doubt that the people of Aotearoa want to see standards of behaviour in this House that acknowledge those values. Indeed my good friend the Most Rev. Desmond Tutu said it well when he said: “If I diminish you I diminish myself.” Certainly none of us is perfect but it is worthwhile that we strive to address the issues at hand rather than the person so it is disappointing to note that the review made no further commitment about standards of conduct that MPs could follow. 
A big part of the report was about the proposal that the Maori Party’s Te Ururoa Flavell raised at the very first Standing Orders Committee of the 48th Parliament for simultaneous Maori-English interpretation in the House so it is with considerable satisfaction that as the current Parliament draws to a close we see that the Standing Orders Committee has agreed that the establishment of such a service is desirable and that we are finally able to progress the introduction of a simultaneous interpretation service in the Parliament of Aotearoa. We believe that the successful regeneration and revitalisation of te reo Maori relies on promoting its usage as an ordinary everyday language. In the same way as we want to hear te reo Maori in the shopping malls the marketplace and our homes so too should we aspire to having te reo Maori heard regularly in this House. The Maori Party looks forward to the day when simultaneous interpretations in the House set the scene for what can be done throughout the country. 
I also note the proposal for the display of the New Zealand flag in the Chamber and select committee rooms. I wish the House to note a complaint that the Maori Party has laid which is still in progress in regard to the double standards of flying the European Union flag from the Auckland Harbour Bridge while denying the flying of the Maori flag. I note too that the select committee did not agree to the New Zealand flag being flown in the Chamber and in select committee rooms at this time. I sincerely hope that when the time arises that we can make that decision we also have the courage to fly the Maori flag as recognition of this country’s Treaty partnership. 
Finally we come to the issue of proxy voting for smaller parties. I note that in  
Parliamentary Practice 
 David McGee describes the Standing Orders as representing the political accommodations and allocations amongst the various parties. A specific example of this is the proxy voting provisions that were written into the Standing Orders in 2003 for the Progressive Party. The crux of that change impacts against four-member parties and works to support three-member parties. In effect the proxy voting provision means that the only time that the Maori Party can cast four votes in the House is if we have an MP in the House itself and a total of three MPs within the parliamentary complex. To cast our party votes we can have only one MP away at any time whereas United Future can cast three votes in the House if it has one MP in the complex—the member need not even be in the Chamber. It can have two MPs away at any time. This issue is a constraint upon our MPs. Although it will not be an issue for us in the next Parliament when we will have seven members in the House we are thinking of the natural justice issue in general in relation to such a glaring difference in the voting provisions for parties of three or four members. 
Hoi nano ka nui tera maku mo tenei wa. Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker tena hoki tatou e te Whare. Kia ora tatou. 
[ 
So that is enough from me for now. Greetings Madam Assistant Speaker and to all of us as well the House. Thank you all 
.] 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on the review of the Standing Orders which is Government motion No 4. In particular I will talk about some of the significant changes that have been made. 
The review was very well outlined by Dr Michael Cullen when he spoke earlier. In essence this review occurs during each parliamentary term. We are in the 48th Parliament now. This process enables the public to have their say as well as enabling the whole of Parliament to have its say. It is very much a fine-tuning process. There are significant changes but they are being made to try to make this place operate in a smoother fashion than it currently does. 
One of the important points I wish to raise and that Dr Cullen has outlined is the code of conduct being promoted by one of the Labour MPs and supported by some of the minor parties. National has some real concerns around the code of conduct. In essence we have the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and since 1867 a contribution has been made by Speakers through that document. We also have the Standing Orders—we have 402 of those. We also have the court of public opinion where ultimately people decide whether MPs get back into Parliament. We in National believe that those two documents are paramount in keeping order in the House as ultimately is the Speaker. 
The other significant issue I wish to raise is the provision for emergency situations in relation to the suspension or adjournment of Parliament which I believe the Speaker now has the right to do. It is quite appropriate today is it not? It is 11 September. We all need to acknowledge what happened with the twin towers. I am thinking about the flag that I just went past in Parliament House that managed to survive in the wreckage over there. Of course if we had something happen to us here then it might be necessary for the Speaker to say that we need to suspend the House and meet somewhere else. So that is an important aspect. We could also have something like the bird flu—although of course we hope we never have terrorism and we hope we never have something like the bird flu. This provision for emergency situations is also a significant change. 
The other change Dr Cullen mentioned is around the tabling of documents. We have seen many examples of MPs standing up and seeking leave to table documents yet I know from experience that sometimes when one goes to look for those documents they are not actually there. A change is being made with amendment 40 which states the tabling must be “within a reasonable period as determined by the Speaker.” There are also some rules in amendment 3 on TV coverage which is also very important. 
I conclude by saying thanks very much for the process that the Standing Orders Committee went through. I thought it was extremely thorough. I also thank the officials who provided us with very very good advice. National is supporting this motion today. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I was not a member of the Standing Orders Committee that produced the report but I have been on it over the years. Some points have not been raised by previous speakers and I wish to highlight them. 
The first concerns the legislative procedures which are in chapter 5. Some time ago the Legislation Advisory Committee brought forward a submission about “the current scarcity of available legislative time in the House of Representatives and the impacts that this scarcity is having on the governments’ ability and inclination to progress technical administrative or uncontroversial Bills through the legislative process.” The proposal submitted by the Legislation Advisory Committee was to amend the Standing Orders to facilitate more use of omnibus bills. The committee decided that that was not a good idea so we find that in these Standing Order amendments no progress has been made in that respect. 
Since that time the Law Commission in conjunction with the Parliamentary Counsel Office has commenced an extensive review of the presentation of New Zealand statute law and in particular has investigated ways of making New Zealand statute law more accessible. I have that document here; it is a very comprehensive document that sets out the sorts of things that a future Parliament will need to consider. In fact the recommendation from the Standing Orders Committee was that in the next parliamentary term the Standing Orders Committee should consider proposals for the legislative process in the light of the Law Commission’s work. Although that is an ongoing process the issue has been highlighted and we look forward to some further discussions on it in that respect. 
The second point I wish to bring to the House’s attention relates to delegated legislation and the affirmative resolution procedure. This is found on page 29. I have some interest in this matter because I was on the Regulations Review Committee that tabled a report in February 2008 that looked specifically at the affirmative resolution procedure. That report came about in response to concerns about the potential proliferation of the use of the affirmative resolution procedure. The committee undertook an inquiry into the procedure and made an interim report. The first report was done back in 2004 when I was not on the committee. The committee that I was on—the one referred to in this report—resolved in October 2006 to resume the inquiry in the light of subsequent experience. 
At that time we made two recommendations. The first was that Standing Order 317 be amended by substituting a 3-month referral period for the current 28 days. The reason is that for many bills the time for select committees to hear submissions is very much truncated. We wanted the time to be extended. The second recommendation was to insert a provision permitting amendments recommended by the select committee to be incorporated in the resolution to be put to the House without the select committee process being repeated. Once again if we have agreed to the amendments there is no need for them to go back to the select committee. 
The first point substituting a 3-month referral period for the current 28 days was not agreed to by the Standing Orders Committee but the second point was. No agreement was reached on the first point but I am sure that when a future Parliament looks at this matter in 3 years’ time it will become part of the amendments made to the Standing Orders. The Regulations Review Committee looked at it in 2004 we looked at it again in October 2006 and it appears in the report of February of this year. 
The final point I wish to bring to members’ attention is on Officers of Parliament. I refer to page 40 of the report. I have been on the Officers of Parliament Committee when it has looked at the role of the Controller and Auditor-General the Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. What is being suggested here and what has been approved—it is amendment 41—is that after the Officers of Parliament Committee has deliberated has looked at the budgets and has made recommendations those reports can go forward to the committees that handle those particular Officers of Parliament. We are recommending here that a new Standing Order 386A be inserted providing that reports from Officers of Parliament stand referred as applicable to the Finance and Expenditure Committee the Government Administration Committee or the Local Government and Environment Committee so that those committees can at least have an opportunity to have input. At the moment there is no referral to those committees. The Officers of Parliament Committee is a very powerful committee and it is able to deliberate set budgets and handle all the affairs of those three Officers of Parliament. 
The National team that was on the Standing Orders Committee—as I said I was not part of it but I have an interest in what happened there—is happy to see these amendments progress through the House and come into effect in the next Parliament. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this motion. We are a bit upset that the code of conduct that the four smaller parties—ACT the Greens the Maori Party and United Future—developed has not been adopted. We had a signing ceremony a couple of years ago now and we have been trying to get the rest of the House to adopt it in order for its members to have higher standards in terms of the way they treat each other. It is a bit unfortunate that the Standing Orders Committee did not adopt it. I think the public is still rather alienated from the political process as a result of the conduct they commonly see in the House particularly from the two major parties. We in the smaller parties and I think Hone Harawira will testify to this are trying to set a higher standard with our code of conduct. Hopefully in the future we will be able to incorporate a code of conduct into the Standing Orders. Thank you. 
Motion agreed to. 
Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill be now read a second and a third time 
. I would like to express my gratitude to the Justice and Electoral Committee for its prompt consideration of this bill and to say I fully support its recommended amendments to the House. 
The bill will implement a major rewrite of the rules that govern civil proceedings in the High Court by replacing the current rules that are contained in schedule 2 of the Judicature Act 1908. These rules facilitate the expeditious inexpensive and just dispatch of core business or otherwise assist the due administration of justice. The new rules improve the structure and language of that important legislation thereby improving their comprehension and new provisions will ensure a consistent approach. The bill represents the first stage in improvements for civil procedure which will commence in the High Court on 1 February 2009. Following the enactment of this legislation the Rules Committee will finalise new District Court Rules which will take effect later in 2009. 
The reforms to the High Court Rules represent many years of endeavour by the Rules Committee. The project was led by the previous and present chairpersons of the Rules Committee Justice Baragwanath and Justice Fogarty. It has greatly benefited from the considerable legal knowledge and drafting skills of Dr Donald Mathieson QC special counsel for the Parliamentary Counsel Office. 
The new rules closely follow the content of the current rules and the majority of the changes could be made as secondary legislation. However there are certain changes that require parliamentary approval because they go beyond mere practice and procedure. The main changes that require parliamentary authorisation are firstly to extend the power currently enjoyed by the District Court so the High Court can make an attachment order to a person’s source of income in order to assist with the recovery of a civil debt; secondly to clarify the rules of service outside New Zealand for civil court proceedings; thirdly to clarify the High Court’s powers to grant interim relief in support of proceedings before a foreign court; and fourthly to enable the electronic filing of documents—called e-filing—from a date to be established by Order in Council. 
The quality of work that has gone into this bill is reflected in the small number of amendments recommended by the select committee as tabled in its report. 
I express my gratitude to all those who helped to bring this bill to fruition. I have already made mention of some people but others who have made a major contribution are the Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias; the Chief High Court Judge Justice Randerson; and other judges of the High Court. I also specifically acknowledge Mr Christopher Finlayson MP as a member of the Rules Committee from 1999 to 2005; and also my parliamentary colleague Charles Chauvel who has had some input into this bill; many senior members of the legal profession and law schools of our universities; Mr George Tanner QC the former Chief Parliamentary Counsel; and many counsels from the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The consultation phase also involved groups of legal executives and senior court registrars who closely examined the prescribed forms. 
I would finally like to thank the House for supporting this bill through this expedited process. I gladly commend the bill to the House. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to thank the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Rick Barker for those generous comments and endorse what he said about thanks being due to many people who have made this very important project finally come to fruition. Indeed the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill has had by the standards of this House at least a very speedy passage but there was a very lengthy gestation period. As I said in my first reading speech the project really started in 2002 and got under way properly in 2004 and I will say a little bit more about that shortly. The Minister has accurately summarised the changes made by the Justice and Electoral Committee. There were not many changes and I think it is as the Minister said a tribute to the work of those in the Parliamentary Counsel Office particularly Dr Mathieson who have done such a good job that the changes were few and far between. Indeed the opportunity was taken given that this bill was going through the House to make a couple of minor changes for example spelling out through the new clause 4A the functions of the Chief High Court Judge. 
This is an extremely important project because procedure is not just an aspect of justice; it is essential to justice. The key changes introduced by this reform are as follows. The first one which is mentioned in the purpose clause is to state and set out the rules in clear English and in a logical order. In 1985 the former Code of Civil Procedure was replaced and the new High Court Rules were introduced. At that time they were in a tidy order but the passage of time and the encrustation approach to law reform in this area meant that the rules were something of a pigsty and they needed to be reordered in a logical order and in plain English. 
The second point and again it is stated in the purpose clause of the bill is to provide for electronic filing. Subpart 16 in Part 5 has those rules although we do not yet have electronic filing of documents unlike most other jurisdictions of our kind. I certainly express the hope on the behalf of the Opposition that we soon get electronic filing in this country because it is long overdue and it will cut down the enormous amount of paper required in litigation. 
The third major reform is Part 17 which deals with the enforcement of judgments. When the High Court Rules were reformed in 1985 this was one area that did not receive detailed consideration. Even though this exercise was mainly in the nature of a clean-up when the rules were being reviewed an opportunity was afforded to look at the rules relating to execution or enforcement and Part 17 does have some major changes. I refer for example to Subpart 4 which deals with attachment of judgments—bringing into the High Court procedures that have been in the District Court for some time. 
The fourth reform in Part 30 simply restates the existing rules relating to judicial review that are currently set out in the High Court Rules. I have a feeling that these rules will undergo some changes in the next few months because the Law Commission has recently published a report on prerogative writs and this type of judicial review. I agree with the recommendations the commission makes. 
The fifth reform is in Part 32 which deals with freezing orders. These orders sometimes known as Mareva injunctions are very important orders of the court. They were developed in England many years ago and by a process of adoption of precedents from England were adopted in New Zealand and in other jurisdictions. They are instant freezing orders and are a very important ancillary tool when one commences proceedings and there is a fear that if the ordinary rules are applied by the time one gets to the execution of a judgment assets could have been dissipated or removed out of the jurisdiction. So that is what the Mareva injunction is all about. Part 32 recognises the freezing order and sets out some of the principles relating to obtaining these orders that are developed from authorities over the last 30 years. 
The final reform relates to search orders which arose out of procedures in England: the development of what is known as the Anton Piller order particularly important in intellectual property litigation but of general application now. Part 33 not only recognises the Anton Piller order—which is to be called a search order—but also sets out requirements for the grant of such an order and the obligations on the applicant. 
Although most of the work that is being done could be said to be stylistic—putting things in plain English—there has been an opportunity to tidy up a couple of areas and reform the areas I have mentioned. As the Minister I think fairly acknowledged there is still much to do. The Rules Committee is currently working on reform of the District Court Rules but I think it will have to come back and look at some of these rules over the next few years. I think it is timely to review case management and the way to give evidence. In recent years evidence-in-chief has been given by way of brief of evidence or statement. As Mr Fairbrother would know this was the subject of a lot of discussion when he and I were on a subcommittee looking at the Evidence Bill in 2006 and largely due to his and my efforts a subsection (2) was included in section 83 on the ordinary way of giving evidence. A written statement may be given in evidence only if it is the personal statement of the maker and does not contain a statement that is otherwise inadmissible under this Act. I regret to say there are many statements filed in court in civil proceedings that do not comply with section 83. I think those rules need to be toughened up. 
The other areas requiring reform are the rules that relate to discovery. These are currently far too general and do not recognise the fact that there has been an explosion in the number of documents—both actual documents and e-documents—in recent years which make rules developed in the 19th century wholly inappropriate for discovery. There need to be reviews of rules relating to appeals; electronic filing as I said; and possibly also it is timely to look at whether there should be mandatory mediation in certain High Court proceedings. Just last week we were looking at another one of the Minister’s bills—the Family Courts Matters Bill. It is very fine legislation which has extensive rules relating to mediation and Family Court proceedings. I think it is perhaps timely to consider whether those sorts of rules should be introduced to the High Court Rules. 
Then quite apart from rules other major reforms are required for the law of limitation the Crown Proceedings Act and the Declaratory Judgments Act; and both the Judicature Act and District Courts Act need to be tidied up. I believe that this Government has not paid enough attention to civil justice over the last 9 years. The delays in the civil justice system are shocking. Sometimes it takes months to obtain a hearing on an interlocutory matter and that is why this House needs to pay more attention to those matters. 
I agree that the person who deserves the most thanks is Justice Baragwanath. He is the person responsible for this project. He is the one who ensured that it has come to fruition. George Tanner former Chief Parliamentary Counsel did an excellent job and engaged Dr Don Mathieson a former professor of law and leading barrister to do the work. Dr Mathieson can be very proud of this work. He has given to New Zealand in so many ways over the years as the lead counsel for the Crown in some of its most difficult cases and he has done a wonderful job here. I also want to express my thanks to members of the legal profession many of whom gave hours of work to the reform of these rules. I particularly refer to those who worked on the part dealing with the enforcement of judgments. 
So it is great that this project has finally come to fruition. As I said it really got under way in 2004 but I do not think it is enough to rest on our laurels. There is much more to be done. Civil justice deserves a lot more attention than it has received from this Government over the last 9 years. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to follow the previous speaker because I am aware of the tremendous input he has had into the formulation of these High Court Rules. About half a decade ago someone kindly thought I should be kept in the email loop of the development of the rules and my email box has been continually full of email changes and interesting discourse as by electronic means changes have been debated—sometimes restrained and sometimes not so restrained. 
The rules are often mistaken for being procedural and a hiccup to the administration of justice but in my experience at the Bar which was not concentrated around the civil courts the rules were in fact often a very powerful tool which if used properly cut down much wasted time and expense in litigation. I have to say regarding the formation of the rules I was pleased to find when I came into the House today and looked at rule 6.6 that it brings into the rules the common law I was responsible for developing in the Jenssen case where we argued that a caveat that was due to lapse after 14 days could be extended on service of proper application. As the solicitor we served the application by facsimile and the opposing side an oil company opposed that as being an improper form of service. His Honour Justice Gallen upheld that facsimile in its then primitive form was an appropriate form of service and that was the common law development of the service rules which are now taken into a codified form in rule 6.6 of these rules. 
Then I turned to rule 17.83 which contains the enforcement provisions. I looked at that because many years ago I was responsible for acting for an individual who was continually being arrested for camping on a piece of land in the Heretaunga. Eventually he was imprisoned for disobeying a High Court order and he was held in custody indefinitely under what is now rule 17.83 because he refused to obey an order by the judge His Honour Justice McGechan. Time and time again that individual came before the court and time and time again he was held in custody because he would not move from his habit of camping on the land. He claimed it was family land that was taken dishonourably by the Crown. The Crown claimed it was not family land but I dare say it is now going to be resolved by way of a Treaty claim. 
That experience in those days reinforced to me how powerful the rules can be because in fact the High Court Rules enabled a citizen who believed he had a grievance to be held in custody on an almost open-ended basis. I never saw how that man was finally released but I assume he was released because he agreed to move off the property and thus came the end to his time in detention. 
The other area in which I had some involvement before I came into this place was the Anton Piller order procedure. I remember being involved in obtaining an Anton Piller order just prior to my leaving practice and that was a journey into the unknown. I am glad to see that Anton Piller orders are now codified and for someone not frequently using Anton Piller order procedures that may be a little bit easier to follow. 
I have to say that in the adversarial processes of the High Court we do need rules as detailed and specific as the rules we have here. I listened to the comments of my friend Mr Finlayson who spoke of the work required in the District Court. I have to say that my recent experience in the Privileges Committee and also an experience I had when I conducted a case in the coroner’s court about 2 months ago indicate to me that when we move to inquisitorial justice much as is happening in the Family Court then there is the need for a better set of rules so that those involved in the inquisitorial process understand what the procedures will be. 
My experience in the Family Court which is now some time ago; my experience in the coroner’s court which was just 2 months ago under the new Act; and my recent experience in the Privileges Committee show that no matter how well a tribunal endeavours to work through the inquisitorial process if there is a lack of clarity of rules then intuition is not always the best guide to procedure. So I welcome Mr Finlayson’s suggestion that there is a movement to clarify the District Court Rules which have always seemed to me to be a little strange in that they stand apart from the High Court Rules but there are differences in practice of course. But I do think that the Law Commission and the Rules Committee should also investigate the tribunals of this land which are usually an inquisitorial process where advocacy is involved by paid advocates because the inquisitorial process without a clear set of rules leads to intuitive reasoning and intuitive rule-making which is not consistently followed from case to case or in different tribunals. 
These new High Court Rules are a weighty document. From my observation of the email traffic over the last 5 years I know that they have been well considered and deeply thought of. I was taught jurisprudence by Professor Mathieson as he then was. Shortly afterwards at the Bar I appeared in the Court of Appeal as junior counsel and Professor Mathieson appeared on the other side. I revisited the rigour of his intellectual teaching ability in the way he appeared as respondent for the Crown in that case in the Court of Appeal which involved an issue of defamation arising from a police summary of facts that wrongly named a third party. His advocacy then was indeed detailed to the highest degree. With Dr Mathieson’s oversight of these rules one can assume that no stone has been left unturned and I trust that these rules are as clear to follow as some of his jurisprudence lectures were. 
In concluding I must say these rules are long overdue. They will be welcome by the Bar. I do hope that our other tribunals—particularly the coroner’s court and the Family Court—can receive the same attention as to the rules that guide their processes. The rules of a court are the rules that determine that justice is in fact delivered. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 It was a delight to hear Mr Finlayson keep us informed with his careful analysis and review of the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill. As he spoke I was reminded of the comments that Professor Jeremy Waldron recently made at the inaugural John Graham Lecture at the Maxim Institute. Dr Waldron is an American academic although a New Zealander by birth and he spoke about a number of aspects of our parliamentary system that he found lamentable. One of the things he spoke about—taken from the work of Sir Geoffrey Palmer—touched upon the fact that we are the fastest lawmakers in the West. 
I reflect on that as I look at the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill because it is an illustration of it. This legislation came to the House for its first reading on 26 August and just a few days later—11 September—we see it about to go through the further rites of the second reading Committee stage third reading and Royal assent. For some legislation such speedy action is perfectly appropriate. I can think of many other illustrations that we have been treated to in the period of this Labour-led Government where legislation has languished for very substantial periods of time. But where there is a will—and we have seen it here—legislation can be progressed with expedition. 
A few lawyers in Parliament have some knowledge of the rules of civil procedure. I think it is interesting that a number of procedural texts have given depth to these High Court Rules. The older court lawyers here would have been brought up with a text by a Queen’s Counsel called Sim.  
Sim’s Court Practice 
 continues today and is now edited by Justice Quilliam. There are a number of other publications. McGechan has a distinguished work on procedure and  
Laws of New Zealand 
 contains a significant amount of material on that same subject. 
I want to dwell on several matters starting with the primary objective in this legislation which is set out in rule 1.2 “Objective—The objective of these rules is to secure the just speedy and inexpensive determination of any proceeding or interlocutory application.” I shall reflect for a moment on what it is about procedure and on what the limitations of procedure might be as laid down by the judges in a number of cases. I shall refer to two. The first is a case very well known to Mr Finlayson:  
Food-Tech Ingredients Ltd v APV Bell-Bryant (New Zealand) Ltd  
in1989 and the comment made there. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I read it every night. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Some of us have exciting dreams before we wake in the morning; this case might well be an illustration of that. What was said in that case was this: “Although experience demonstrates that when ‘things are done decently and in order’ better justice will result slavish adherence to the letter rather than the spirit effect and totality of the rules is not a recipe for a just and equitable disposition of a matter.” In a second case  
Schmidt v Bank of New Zealand Ltd 
 it was stated: “Procedural rules are the servants of Court proceedings to achieve just speedy and at the least cost expedition of cases. The construction of Court rules should always be approached with care but with a readiness to apply them to meet the justice of the case which is manifest before a Court.” What is being said there of course is that a slavish adherence to the rules of procedure is not necessarily the best way to produce a just outcome. 
I would make the further point from a court lawyer’s perspective that if we look at the armoury available to a court lawyer apart from the innate skill of that lawyer we see that there are probably two key assets in that armoury. Those assets are a sound knowledge of the rules of evidence and a sound knowledge of the rules of procedure. Of course those rules are buttressed by another aspect. That other aspect is the inherent jurisdiction of the court and that inherent jurisdiction is actually flagged in rule 1.6 under the heading “Cases not provided for”. We should reflect that alongside what purports to be a code is an ability to buttress the law by the inherent jurisdiction of the court and there are still significant areas of the law that can be the subject of orders made by the court in its inherent jurisdiction. 
Mr Finlayson in his comments referred to the fact that these rules do not deal well with the issue of discovery and I made that point during the first reading debate on this bill. Discovery is one of those interlocutory proceedings that requires that the party against whom the order is made disclose the relevant documents in his possession power or control. This has become a highly time-consuming element in the interlocutory stages. In fact discovery has now reached such a stage of sophistication that it may run for many months and produce a huge bulk of material. As others have said the growth in email traffic has meant that discovery of itself may be one of the biggest tasks in the whole litigation process as it runs through from the time proceedings are filed until their ultimate resolution. 
Perhaps the last things I would like to speak about are the important provisions in Part 9 which relates to evidence—in particular the taking of evidence by affidavit. I had the good fortune before I was the consul for Monaco to be the consul for Colombia. Colombian consular work involved substantial interaction with the legal process. That was because a large number of Colombian visitors came to this country and got into significant trouble with the law. They either were bringing drugs into the country or were engaged in robberies and similar crimes to gather funds to purchase drugs in this jurisdiction. I became in my own judgment very much an expert in the taking of fingerprints. The taking of fingerprints is an essential part of the authentication of documents under Colombian law. That is why if one was to exhume bodies in Colombia one would find large numbers of corpses with their arms severed at the wrist. The hands are removed and for as long as viable prints can be taken from the fingers they are used to authenticate documents in the name of the deceased person for the wrongful purpose of gaining access to benefits such as superannuation and armed services entitlements. 
I simply say that in the context of the taking of evidence we must be always vigilant on the issue of authenticity of documentation and we have seen that to some extent in the sad events in this House that have troubled the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I am glad to say that the High Court Rules in themselves provide I believe a sound code in connection with the taking of affidavit evidence and the use of that evidence in the court. 
We see tonight the final passage of the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill. Others have said that much more work is required and I believe that in the area of evidence that is determinedly so. But I know that National supports this legislation. We would like to see its passage its implementation and its use by lawyers in the civil jurisdiction. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very big important and excellent bill. By contrast this speech is short and sweet. New Zealand First supports the bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Well I guess that speech said a great deal about the way New Zealand First sees its future in this House did it not? It will be very short—possibly only 1 more week. I am actually surprised that Mr Jones in recognition of the fact that he may be here for only 1 more week did not take the opportunity to give a somewhat longer speech. It may after all be one of the last speeches he makes in the House. 
My colleagues Mr Finlayson and Dr Worth have indicated—and indeed I have to acknowledge the speech made by Mr Fairbrother as well—that they are experienced advocates in the courts. They know how important this sort of legislation is. 
One of the intriguing things about this Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill—and it is an extremely thick bill—is that it was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on 26 August 2008 for a report back by 9 September. Ironically the committee states in the commentary on the bill: “Given the short timeframe for consideration we were not able to hear submissions on the bill.” It is huge thick bill but there were no submissions at all. But as the committee members quite properly pointed out this work has been the subject of work over many many years by relevant committees primarily the Law Society and also by the judges and the Bar council and so forth. 
One of the things that is perhaps not as well understood amongst the legal profession as it should be is the status of the rules. A lot of people think that the rules are something that are essentially created by the court itself or through the process of the court and that they have a subsidiary aspect about them. That is not the case. These rules are legislation—creatures of statute. The vast bulk of this bill is schedule 2 which is the new High Court Rules themselves. The bill is a complete and comprehensive rewrite of the rules. The bill is called the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill but that should not give people the impression that it is a simple amendment to the rules. This is a new set of rules with some of the issues set out by my colleagues. 
One of the extraordinary features of sitting today and I must take the opportunity to say this is that anyone would think this Government believes it is a 4-year Government. The reason I say that is that when I look at the business of the House—and this is an issue of procedure that I need to speak about—we have some 52 items on the Order Paper. There are actually 66 including notices of motion. Huge numbers of these bills have been set down for first reading. I wonder whether the Government intends all of them to have a first reading because I am aware there are other bills yet to be introduced that would also be put down for first reading. But we have only 1 week of sitting time in which to undertake that exercise. 
Why on earth I ask myself would a Government with 1 sitting week to go have an Order Paper with 56 items of business many of which were introduced this week? Why would it do that? The Government has had 9 years. It has had plenty of time to organise a logical and natural flow of business. We would think the peak period of Government business would be in the second and third years—the second year in particular. 
One of the remarkable things we noticed late last year and early this year was how incredibly thin the Order Paper was. It got down to about 21 items of business. I find it frankly almost an abuse of procedure for a Government to think after 9 years that it can load the House with 56 items of business pretending that the House will be sitting for weeks and weeks or for months and months and that it will send all of these bills off to select committees as if there was no election coming at all. Frankly that shows a Government that is arrogant a Government that is tired and a Government that thinks it can fool people by looking busy when in fact we are about to terminate. 
I wanted to specifically raise that point with the House because I think the public needs to know the way this Government operates and the way it essentially abuses the democratic procedure. There is a lack of appreciation that the people have a say and that they will have a say in just 8 or 9 weeks’ time. Surely we would expect a Parliament to respect that judgment and not pretend that this is a 4-year Parliament. 
I congratulate—well it is less the Parliament in this instance because although this is said to be a Government bill it originated directly from the legal profession and the judiciary and in a sense we are acting as a conduit. Nowhere is that more demonstrated than by the fact that we have a bill of 766 pages. The bill itself which introduces the schedule is less than half a dozen pages long—it is 5 pages in fact—but it does one significant thing in relation to the role and functions of the Chief High Court Judge. It is a very important function. 
At one stage the Chief Justice of New Zealand used to be in the High Court and then we had a Court of Appeal presided over by a president and our top court was the Privy Council. With the establishment of the Supreme Court it was appropriate and necessary that the Chief Justice be in that court. It is proper that our highest judge be represented in our highest court. It always was a rather odd circumstance that our Chief Justice was in a lower court and that the decisions of the Chief Justice could be appealed and overruled by the Court of Appeal. One would have to say that it was somewhat idiosyncratic. Once we had a Supreme Court there had to be an administrative judge within the High Court itself to manage the organisation of the judges such as the planning of cases the establishment of rules and so forth. So the judges—and it is the judges in this instance—have added some additional powers for the Chief High Court Judge in the exercise and management of that court to make it rather more sensible. 
National supports this legislation. The observation that it has taken 9 long years to get it here should I guess properly be made. But more seriously I find there is a pattern of what I see as essentially an abuse of approach by the Government. Loading this Parliament right at its very terminating point with 56 bills is frankly an example of Government arrogance. I say to those members some of whom I suspect will not be returning to this Parliament that the reason they will not be returning is this example of arrogance and pretence that the people do not count. Let me say to those members that the people do count and they will have their say in 8 weeks’ time. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I listened intently to the previous speaker in the hope that with the extension of his time to 10 minutes we might hear something interesting at the end and sure enough I was waiting for this Government to be attacked on the basis that we are a busy Government. We have 56 items of legislation all of which have gone through a planning process all of which have been negotiated through the MMP system and all of which are sitting on the Order Paper of this Parliament. I think it must be many years since a Government with 9 proud years behind it has had a good 6 months of House business sitting there on the Order Paper ready to go. So if I could respond initially to that I think that having 56 bills on the Order Paper far from being a sign of Government arrogance is actually a sign of Government confidence of Government efficiency and of a Government that understands how the MMP system works. 
We are here this evening to talk about the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill. This is a good example in spite of the factional nature of the last speech of MMP in action because this matter has taken what one could reasonably call a casual and an elongated route through to our Parliament starting with the Rules Committee beginning to redraft the High Court Rules back in 2004. Now here we are four-and-a-bit years later at the end of that process. The legislation is massive; it is detailed. In that sense in my head it is very similar to the process we recently went through on the Income Tax Act which produced equally voluminous legislation and was a good example of parties in this Parliament working together to good advantage. Next on our Order Paper is the Walking Access Bill which again in a shorter period has produced a similar level of agreement. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time and a third time. 
Walking Access Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 2 September. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions ( 
continued 
)  
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I understand that this debate is a continuation of the debate on Part 1 that I was not here for so I do beg the indulgence of the Committee if I canvass some matters that have already been presented in debate. Part 1 sets out the purpose of the bill which is followed by some matters of interpretation that are quite significant. Essentially though I want to focus my comments on the purpose of this legislation. 
It is probably appropriate to discuss some of the history behind the establishment of this bill. I am not sure how far back we want to go but we can go back to about 1839 when the first instruction came from Queen Victoria. That actually pre-dated the Treaty of Waitangi. The instruction was to embrace a chain 22 yards along every waterway in New Zealand. At that point the instruction was rejected. Queen Victoria again gave the instruction sometime early in the 1840s—I think it was about 1843—which became part of the fabric of New Zealand. The instruction was that New Zealanders should have rights of access along waterways. That was the beginning of it. 
This bill is a continuation of several pieces of legislation and of instructions that have occurred both in local government and in the Government itself. It was John MacKenzie whose statue is on top of a hill near Palmerston who under the Ballance Government in 1891 moved this whole area significantly forward again. Not only did he break up the large squattocracies of the South Island and institute what became the symbol of New Zealand farming—the family farm—but he again attempted to extend the walking access of New Zealanders. As well overlaying a great part of New Zealand is a series of paper roads. There are various calculations as to how much of those exist in New Zealand. The smallest figure I have come across is about 56000 kilometres but the figure rises to about 76000 kilometres. The amount is significant. So that is the history of what we have had in New Zealand. 
The reason we have this history of course is that New Zealand has a resource in terms of its rivers its mountains its scenic vistas and its conservation land. All of these are part of the birthright of New Zealanders to enjoy and no one shall own access to them. However there are some issues of difficulty. In some places we have conservation land marginal strips the Queen’s chain or whatever for which there is no point of access except by crossing private land. So this bill sets out some steps involving a negotiation process by which access can be gained across private land. 
The bill also sets up a Walking Access Commission which will have the responsibility for this negotiation. It will have the responsibility for compiling a database of what actually does exist in terms of private land and of establishing a code of conduct. It is important that where we have negotiated access the public adheres to a code of conduct that is in keeping with the land use in the area. That will be the role of the Walking Access Commission. The commission having been set up by this bill and coming into existence after the bill has been passed will look after and conduct the affairs of those people who are seeking to walk across private land in New Zealand. I need to just make these points; this has been a bit of a tortuous process. 
Initially Jim Sutton Minister for Rural Affairs back in about 2003 I think set up a ministerial committee to look at the issue of walking access. I think that perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in the stellar career of the Hon Jim Sutton was to say: “I want you to have a look at the wander-at-will provision.” because this immediately raised the hackles of every single private landowner in New Zealand. It is important to note that while on one hand we talk in this bill about what the public resource is and how important it is that New Zealanders have access to it as their birthright we also have enshrined in the fabric of New Zealanders property rights. So just to lay down a wander-at-will provision certainly would be contrary to the expectation of every property holder in New Zealand and this suggestion in terms of the public has raised considerable ire. There was the yellow ribbon— 
Hon Member 
: Orange ribbon. 
ERIC ROY 
: Oh orange ribbon was it? Yes it was. Well anyway there was the ribbon parade where all the landowners got quite upset about the proposal that walking access would be freely available under the wander-at-will provision. 
I also need to say that I was actually on that first ministerial panel so I have some understanding of that process. In the just over 400 submissions that the walking access reference group received only 1½ of them wanted that wander-at-will provision: there was a vague reference in one submission and another clearly came out and said it. So there is no great desire in the New Zealand public to have that provision but there is clearly a desire to have a body like the Walking Access Commission sit down and do the negotiation in a way that allows access in and around New Zealand. 
This bill is primarily about walking access but there are also some other issues in the purpose clause for which the Walking Access Commission will have a responsibility to negotiate. In some instances it is not only about just walking; walking is a means to achieve other interests that New Zealanders have whether they be hunting fishing— 
John Carter 
: Four-wheel driving— 
ERIC ROY 
: —well yes—and it is not only about just shooting with firearms. Also mentioned here are other means of propulsion so that people who are archers can be catered for for example and the Walking Access Commission will be the body that does the negotiating for that. 
There were a huge number of submissions and probably of most concern to a lot of the people who submitted was the fact that they could see that this bill would impinge upon other rights of access. One part in the bill suggested for example that the paper roads would be a point where walkways could be put in and the assumption was that this would impact upon the rights of four-wheel drivers to be able to use the area as it was originally. 
John Carter 
: And it would. 
ERIC ROY 
: Well I tell Mr Carter that I am not sure whether it would or would not. But the select committee in its discussions said: “Well look there is an access guaranteed along a paper road; there is no need to designate a walkway on a paper road.” So I just want to assure those four-wheel drivers who are out there in drive-time right now—and I still almost every day get emails from people concerned about what this bill might mean to them—that their rights are in no way impacted by the Walking Access Bill. 
Furthermore under the purpose clause clause 3(c)(ii) states that the Walking Access Commission can negotiate for “motor vehicles” as well. So there is a whole raft of things that this panel will do. Primarily this legislation as set out in the purpose clause is about providing access across private land to conservation land marginal strips or whatever. Wherever there is a public resource the bill is about negotiating on that and it is about a code of conduct and the compilation of the database. So I think this bill is an important step forward. 
I need to say also that this legislation will not resolve every single issue that exists out there but I believe that it is another step forward. It is a logical step forward and it is a very reasoned step forward. National is happy to support the bill during the Committee stage. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow my learned colleague Eric Roy who very clearly articulated the basis of National’s support for the Walking Access Bill. In dealing with Part 1 I just make the comment that I can remember being at Meat and Wool New Zealand’s office when I heard that John Acland was asked by Jim Sutton to conduct a process that would take walking access within New Zealand one step further forward. I can remember talking to the chief executive officer Mr Taylor and we both agreed then that there would not be an easy way to go forward. It is interesting that we have now had a pretty torrid sort of a journey but we have got to this Committee stage where we are looking at Part 1 of the bill which includes the purpose and interpretation clauses. 
I will dwell for a moment on the code of responsible conduct because there is still the need for the Walking Access Commission when it is set up to develop a code of conduct. That is effectively what clause 4 the interpretation clause deals primarily with. It takes us right through a whole range of things and gives us the meaning of what is referred to by way of interpretation under the bill. It talks about the administering authority it talks about the Crown and then it talks about the code of responsible conduct. That code is very important because although we hear very often in New Zealand about people’s rights we do not often hear enough about people’s responsibilities. There is no doubt about the fact that this code of responsible conduct will talk about those responsibilities. At the end of the day it is best to treat these things with respect and as a privilege because that denotes a responsible standard of behaviour. 
I will concentrate for a moment on the minority report from the Green Party. I believe that that report represents the remnants of what caused so much grief regarding the previous bills around the right to roam that were introduced into this House. The Green Party talks about enshrining the right of public access to land and it talks in such a way as to suggest that this bill does not give the Walking Access Commission sufficient teeth. That enshrining in the law of a right of access is something that has to be balanced against other people’s rights and that is why it is very important that we talk in terms of privilege and responsibility. We look forward to those concepts being developed within the code of responsible conduct the development of which will be one of the fundamental responsibilities of the commission. 
Another aspect of the interpretation clause that has come about through the progress of this bill through its second reading concerns firearms. Once upon a time it would have been inconceivable that we would have a negotiated outcome around access and the use of firearms. However we see that clause 4 talks about the use of firearms. It also defines an honorary enforcement officer as being “an honorary enforcement officer appointed under section 48 and warranted under section 49;”. Those officers will have responsibility for ensuring that the code of conduct is adhered to and if there are any issues those people are the ones with whom someone can make first contact in order to sort the issues out. 
There is a fair amount of information in Part 1. Comments about the landowner would have come up but during the second reading and in the select committee process that term was changed to “landholder”. That seems to be quite sensible to me because largely speaking there is a whole range of tenure of land. One can have leasehold land and one can have freehold land. Basically the term refers to the person who occupies the land. In this case it is very appropriate that we refer to “landholder” because not all land is freehold. From that point of view we can move forward and actually keep the interpretation of the bill quite clear. 
The interpretation clause refers to the Minister who is ultimately to be in control and accountable under the legislation. That Minister will be the Minister for Rural Affairs and that raises a point that concerned many of us on this side of the Chamber originally. This bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is interesting to see that the advice that was given to the select committee came from the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. That still leaves me wondering why the bill was not originally sent to the Primary Production Committee. 
Of significance too are the efforts to accommodate as many people as possible in having access to the outdoors. Of course the interpretation clause refers to personal mobility devices. That pertains explicitly to people with disabilities and to the fact that they should have the opportunity to be able to access walkways whether on unformed roads or on formed roads. 
There is a lot of work to be done by the commission and that will be quite an exercise because the commission has to look after aspects of structure and maintenance. It has to be able to manage the walkways in a constructive way over private land and over public land and it has to constantly be aware that there is a high level of accountability back to the Occupational Safety and Health Service and to other such organisations. The maintenance of tracks will need to be kept up. When we stop and think about the structures involved we realise that we are talking about bridges fences gates shelters stiles boundary markers hoarding markers and notices. That being the case there will be a restraint on the commission in the sense that it will not want walkways to fall into disrepair. 
The maintenance issue was highlighted quite early on when the bill went to the select committee. The comment was made that effectively the Department of Conservation because of its huge landholding was actually starting to lose its focus on as well as its funding for the maintenance of tracks appropriately. When we look at Part 1 we see that the responsibility for access to public land will be transferred across to the Walking Access Commission. On that basis we will be looking forward to a much better performance. We will be looking forward to having much better public access to public land held by the Department of Conservation and we will be looking forward to seeing a higher standard of maintenance signposting and mapping of walkways. 
When we look at Part 1 we see that things are very positive. It is important that we do not lose sight of the purpose of this bill and of the fact that we are pleased to be able to support it. It has been a long journey. The interpretation of aspects within the bill relating to the landholder and the responsibilities and privileges of access is borne out in clause 16 “Contents of code”. We look forward to seeing that code come to fruition. It will be advertised publicly and will be out for consultation. No doubt that in itself will bring about the expression of a certain level of ire and there will be a lot more input made into the code. It is a pleasure to speak in support of this bill. Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I will make two points in this debate. I say to members I may not necessarily take 5 minutes to make them either just so my colleagues are aware. The first thing is that it is interesting that Government members cannot be bothered making a contribution—none at all—on the Walking Access Bill which they have touted around the place for months and months. 
Eric Roy 
: This would have been a messy bill without us. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Unquestionably; and indeed I notice even the Green members have not bothered to take a call yet it was they who wanted the right to roam in the first place supported by the Labour Party. 
I noticed earlier on in the debate on the Waste Minimisation Bill that the Minister for the Environment stood up said “I move the bill.” and sat down again. That is disgraceful. I would have thought that Government members would want to show at least a little bit of interest. It just reflects where they are—dead in the water. That is actually what that is about. They are dead on the walking track dead on the purpose of this bill or dead on whatever part we are speaking about. It just shows their attitude now to the governance of this country. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What about the bill? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well a member over there is happy to interject but it would be nice if he took a call instead of asking those inane questions that he asks during question time which give everybody so much pleasure including himself. Let me talk about the bill for a minute or two. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Oh good idea. 
JOHN CARTER 
: If the member listens he might even learn something. One of the things that came out in this debate that goes right to the purpose of this bill is that initially the intent of it was to guarantee everyone’s right to roam. We have such a beautiful country that people do want to go and access all sorts of places—and so they should too. But the interesting thing is that the debate came down to the compulsion part of it. Landowners said: “Hang on a minute. We don’t want you thinking you can just walk right across our properties any time any style whatever you like however many people whatever it is.” 
The fact is that most landowners—and I am now talking about rural landowners—are fair-minded people. Part of that is reflected in the way they vote. Most of them are National supporters and of course National supporters are all good fair-minded people. 
Hon Member 
: Common sense. 
JOHN CARTER 
: It is just a bit of common sense unlike a lot of the socialist people. 
The fact is that with a lot of this stuff if people go and talk to a farmer or a landowner and say to that farmer or landowner that they would like to have access please to get to a lake or whatever it may be most of them are pretty reasonable. Most of them will say: “Well just be aware that there is an issue here. We’ve got some stock in that paddock.”—or whatever it may be—“Would you mind making sure you shut the gates etc.” That is fair enough. People should be as responsible as that. Most farmers will allow people access across their properties but the point is that there are the odd one or two people who for whatever reason—maybe they have had difficulties in the past—need to be given some encouragement to do so. This bill moves that situation forward in that it allows the opportunity for people to sit down and negotiate and that is a good thing. 
This has turned out to be a good positive bill and as we move forward and this bill becomes law in our country and as people start talking and negotiating two things will happen. First we will make good progress and disagreements will be sorted out amicably. I think we will find that very rarely do we have to enforce the Public Works Act to take the land if that is what is required because some conclusion cannot be reached. 
The second thing that will happen is that people will become more educated too. There will be debates in the community about this whole thing; it will get publicity and that means the public will be better informed about the purpose of the bill and the reason a farmer may object to something. The public will become more learned and that in itself will be a good thing because what is asked for in this whole issue is that the people who might want to have access be responsible as they cross privately owned land. 
So I think some very good results will come about because of the way the Walking Access Bill has been finally drafted and by the way it will be implemented by this Parliament. It is certainly far better legislation than it was. It will certainly serve a far better purpose than it would have when it was first put down—because of course of the input from the National Party. Without the National Party input the legislation certainly would not have ended up anything like this bill—it would have been a negative bill instead of the positive bill that it has ended up as. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 The Walking Access Bill does not justify such a pedestrian speech from the last speaker John Carter. He limped through the history of this thing. As I read the bill—I was looking for something to do while he was speaking—it struck me that the Court of Appeal that handed down the decision for Ngati Apa in 2003 has a lot to answer for as the genesis of this bill. When the Court of Appeal determined that the foreshore and seabed may no longer be public property it took away our assumption of rights to use what we commonly understand to be public spaces. At that time we thought that all of us could walk along the area between high tide and low tide on the beach. Many of us thought it was what is known as the Queen’s Chain. We all had an uncertain understanding of its legal status but we were all dead sure in our heart of hearts that this was New Zealand and we could use the beaches as long as we respected the environment. 
Well the Ngati Apa decision brought us into the 21st century—it woke us up to indigenous rights. A collateral of that was that people started to ask what the rights are for the public over areas of land what the riparian rights are along private land; and whether one can walk up the riverbed of a private property go fishing wherever one wants put up one’s tent alongside a river and camp there as long as one respects the environment. No longer could we assume that one could climb over a strainer post to cross a fence to go on to a piece of land to get to the river. It was a reminder that we had to ask. 
Then we saw instances predating the Ngati Apa case along the east coast of the Wairarapa where a landowner—who lived in Carterton of all places and made leather jackets—decided that public access along the road to the beach over his property should not be widely open because four-wheel drive vehicles were abusing that right. So he had the temerity to erect a gate which was locked. That brought a howl of protest. That demonstrates that as we have become more mobile in this country and our enjoyment of the open spaces is no longer restricted to moderate passive use—people engage in more intrusive forms such as four-wheel drive vehicles and people understand their rights such as indigenous rights and their property rights—it has become necessary to have a clearer definition of just where the public may go what our public spaces are and what our private spaces are. 
I do not think it is a bad thing that this debate was highlighted by Ngati Apa because Ngati Apa brought us to the indigenous rights law the aboriginal law that has been developing around the world and it put it fair and square on New Zealand’s plate. I think the consequences of that are still being digested and it is seen frequently in the debate about the issue of tino rangatiratanga. I think that debate has not yet been fully explored in this country. So the Walking Access Bill as I see it is part of the unintended consequences of earlier ground-breaking—if I can use the term without it being a pun—legislation which was designed to settle differences over what had proved to be a very emotional issue causing much reaction and overreaction from many people and some say from certain Government sources. 
So the Walking Access Bill is one that I think most members of the Committee clearly welcome and its objectives are set out in the purpose clause clause 3. I remind members of the public who may be listening that that purpose is “to provide the New Zealand public with free certain enduring and practical walking access to the outdoors”. 
We in New Zealand grow up believing we are an outdoor country. We in New Zealand grow up believing we have the right to go fishing and the right to go hunting. I think that is an inherent right that is part of the New Zealand character. It has to be carried forward so that those who have the privilege of private property can be informed when those rights are going to intersect and so that there is a degree of negotiation and a degree of clarity. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.