Volume 680 Week 13 - Wednesday 13 June 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 680 Week 13 - Wednesday 13 June 2012 
[Sitting date: 13 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2887. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 13 June 2012 
Mr Deputy Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Italy—Italy - New Zealand Inter-Parliamentary Union Fellowship Group 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the Chamber of Deputies of the Republic of Italy led by the Hon Emerenzio Barbieri President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Italy - New Zealand Friendship Group is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish the delegation to be welcomed. Benvenuti. 
Questions to Ministers 
Gambling Sector—Use of Proceeds for Lobbying 
1. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Is he concerned that Pub Charity Chief Executive Martin Cheer has publicly declared that Pub Charity was using gaming machine money to fight the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill and what actions has the Department of Internal Affairs taken to enforce its direction that net proceeds were not to be used for lobbying? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 In answer to the member’s question I have not heard those particular comments but I am concerned about the misuse of gaming-machine money and am aware that some gaming societies may have been using net proceeds to support lobbying activities. The actions taken by the department are operational matters for the chief executive but I am advised that—[ 
Interruption 
] Do you want to hear the answer to the question or not? But I am advised that the department has written to all gaming-machine societies to remind them that gaming proceeds cannot be used for lobbying. I am also aware that in the case of Pub Charity the department has been assured that all activities relating to the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill are being funded by other sources and not from gaming proceeds. I am confident that should any evidence emerge that this is not the case the department would take the matter further. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister accept Mr Cheer’s view that the problem is “squarely at the feet of the DIA which had been ineffective in enforcing some of the exposed rorts”; if not what role does the Government play in alerting the Government to potential risks associated with deals such as that considered with Skycity in which additional pokie machines and gambling tables and an extension of the gambling licence are up for discussion? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I do not accept that the department is to blame for the problem. I believe that where non-compliance is a problem the blame lies squarely at the feet of the societies concerned. However I do believe that there are wider issues in the class 4 sector that need to be addressed to enhance the compliance regime. This is why the Government will be paying close attention to the gambling harm reduction bill and to the select committee process in order to inform our actions going forward. 
David Shearer 
: Is he satisfied that New Zealand’s gaming laws are not for sale to lobbyists? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Is it his intention to apply a similar standard—i.e. net proceeds are not to be used for lobbying purposes—to Skycity which has successfully lobbied the Prime Minister for preferential gambling arrangements? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The primary question to be answered here deals with class 4 gambling. The regime that is applied to casinos is a totally different regime and not applicable to the main question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think there are two points that can be made that will mean that you will rule out the—I see the Minister is getting advice from the maestro at the moment. There are two points that should be made. One is that the answer that the Minister gave to the primary question was very wide and certainly allowed that supplementary question. The second one is that asking whether or not rules that apply to one class of gambling should be applied to another is also within order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The primary question principally was to the Minister of Internal Affairs and that is where his responsibility actually lies. His responsibility is managing and affirming the way in which the Department of Internal Affairs operates and I regardthis supplementary question by the Leader of the Opposition as having stepped wide of that. 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I spoke directly to that Minister and his responsibilities. I was simply giving the example of the way that Skycity has used its proceeds to lobby the Prime Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This Minister is responsible for the gaming legislation which applies both to pokie trusts and to Skycity. Asking him whether or not he is going to be consistent between those classes of gaming is certainly a matter absolutely for his responsibility. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Deputy Speaker I do think you need to—as you have already directed the House—go back to the primary question. It talked about the Pub Charity Chief Executive Martin Cheer and then asks for comment on his publicly declared statement etc. That was a very very specific primary question; it got very very specific answers. To try to widen it through other supplementary questions I think is pushing too far. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Sorry Mr Deputy Speaker but I want to speak further to that— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will hear the member. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: —because it is an important point that the Leader of the House makes. It has always been the tradition in this House that supplementary questions are based on questions further supplementary questions and all answers that Ministers give. If we cannot do a supplementary question based on an answer if the Minister extends it wider as he did—and there is no doubt that he did that; it was a very long answer—then the whole purpose of questions falls apart. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contribution. I am just a little concerned that if we do step wide of the mark it does not continue to keep opening up the subject wider and wider. I am going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to restate his question. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to the ruling you have just made I just want to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 169/7 which says “If a Minister in an oral answer to a question adds something more than was sought the additional material could be the basis for a supplementary question.” That seems to be directly contradictory to what you have just said. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No what I have just said is I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition restate the question. 
David Shearer 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that. Is it his intention to apply a similar standard—i.e. proceeds are not to be used for lobbying purposes—to Skycity which has successfully lobbied the Prime Minister for preferential gambling arrangements? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The second part of the question is an opinion. The first part of the question is in order and I will ask the Minister to respond to the first part of the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There have been multiple press statements and claims by the Prime Minister in the election campaign of a change for Skycity. For you to say that that is an opinion and not a fact is just wrong. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Deputy Speaker I just want to contribute by saying that I think you are right to say that there were two parts to that question. The first part was a very straightforward question—I think relatively easily answered by the Minister—but the second part was a supposition that cannot be reached. We are talking about a public company. Public companies do all sorts of things including inviting people to corporate boxes to watch rugby.  
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I intend to apply the law consistently and on the second part of the member’s question I reject his assertion. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Te Ururoa Flavell. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Can the House please come to order. I am accepting a supplementary question from Te Ururoa Flavell. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does he agree with the Lion Foundation that legislative reform is necessary to address some of the problems in the charitable gaming sector and increase the returns to the community; if so what is his response to its recommendation that a minimum of 80 percent of the net proceeds raised in a territorial authority or council district must be granted to applicants in that same territorial authority or district? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Again I have not heard those exact comments but I agree that there are problems in the charitable sector and action of some kind is necessary. The Government will be paying close attention to the submissions made to the Commerce Committee on this bill to inform the actions we take in response to this issue. I am aware that the bill seeks to return proceeds to the communities from which they are raised and I am sure the select committee will hear many interesting submissions in this regard. 
Superannuation—Entitlement Age 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “superannuation is an issue but one thing that is worth noting is that increasing the age of eligibility has much less of an impact than commentators might imagine”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and I note that lowering the age of eligibility to 60 for many workers which the member has proposed would reduce the impact even further. 
David Shearer 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports from Treasury which says that keeping superannuation affordable will mean increasing GST to 19 percent or everyone paying $30 a week more tax; from Mercer which notes that increasing the age of eligibility by just 2 years would save $100 billion over 30 years; from the IMF which says that the pension spending in New Zealand will increase in net present terms by 66 percent of GDP; or from the OECD which says that increases in the retirement age are under way or planned in 28 of the 34 OECD countries? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have seen a few of those and I have also seen the following which is a report from the OECD that looks at pension systems around the world. It asks the question of what the cost as a percentage of GDP would be if there are no changes made. Interestingly enough New Zealand is the seventh lowest in terms of cost if we were to look at countries at about 8 percent of GDP. If we were to look at countries that would cost just a bit more they are Austria Belgium Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Italy Luxembourg the Netherlands Portugal Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland the United Kingdom Brazil and I could go on. That is the first thing. The second thing I have seen is something that the member does not want to talk about and that is that if you raise the age to 67 yes it has a minor impact. That is because— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Actually it is quite interesting. Let us have the debate. It has a minor impact. That is because what is actually driving the cost is not just that. It is actually the link to average wages and what the member does not want to talk about is that Diana Crossan actually wants to decouple it from the average wage and by the way people want a means test. Interestingly enough I see Andrew Little nodding his head. Well let me say these words: “The current … superannuation system reflects a balanced approach to ensuring New Zealanders’ dignity in their retirement.” Raising the retirement age “won’t work”. That was by Andrew Little. Those are the words of Andrew Little.  
Michael Woodhouse 
: What policies has he seen that have significantly reduced the Government’s fiscal costs in the future? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In late 2008 Treasury expected net debt to reach around 60 percent of GDP by 2026 under the fiscal settings we inherited from Labour. Net debt is now forecast to be almost zero— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like you to go back to your ruling that questions should be related either to the question or to the reply. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member would need to be a bit more specific. I believe that the Prime Minister is in order. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am happy to be more specific. The primary question was about superannuation. The supplementary questions were about superannuation. The Prime Minister’s answers were about superannuation and this question is not and neither is the answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The entire question and debate is about the affordability of superannuation. This Government is making sure it is affordable in its current form. If the Opposition does not want to have that pointed out to it it should not engage in debates it will not win. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Are there further supplementary questions? Sorry the Prime Minister will finish his reply. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to the question—let me start again because it was a bit interrupted—in late 2008 Treasury expected net debt to reach around 60 percent of GDP by 2026 under the fiscal settings we inherited from Labour. Net debt is now forecast to be almost zero in 2026 because of all the financial decisions we have taken: the tightening up of Government spending running zero Budgets and paying down debt. So that bill represents a huge saving in the Government’s interest bill of somewhere around 3 percent of GDP. That is far greater than increasing the superannuation age to 67 which would save only 0.7 percent— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I think the Prime Minister— 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —of GDP and that is in 2033. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Supplementary question the Leader of the Opposition. 
David Shearer 
: Finally! Can he today identify any thinktanks groups or political parties that support his position on superannuation other than his National Party caucus? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Let me quote from one: “In a low wage economy such as New Zealand shifting more of the burden of superannuation funding onto working people doesn’t make sense.” says Andrew Little. 
David Shearer 
: How much notice does he believe New Zealanders need of an intention to change the age of eligibility for superannuation? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If such a change was to occur they need some time to adjust. I accept that. But let me go back to this fundamental point. This is a Government that went to the election in 2011 and said— 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straight question and we are getting a speech about the election.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think we will move to the next supplementary question if there is one. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not finished Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have determined that the Prime Minister did answer the question and I have called for another supplementary question. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Has he seen an example of a policy to raise the superannuation age in New Zealand and why was that proposed? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have. At the last election I saw a policy to raise the superannuation age to 67. However the policy was not introduced to reduce the Government’s fiscal pressures against an ageing population. Together with a capital gains tax the purpose of the policy was to pay over a long period of time for a whole lot of expensive spending promises like the $5000 tax-free threshold. Let us distil this for New Zealanders: they want to spend truckloads of money— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has absolutely no responsibility for any of those matters. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leader of the Opposition a further supplementary question. 
David Shearer 
: Given all the advice on superannuation and the position he has taken even with his own coalition partners who have a completely different perspective on superannuation what does he say to John Armstrong who writes that he “is now almost a man alone in insisting there is no need to raise the age of eligibility ...”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I say to John what I always say: he is a wonderfully gifted columnist and I love reading his columns. But I am not a man alone; I am a man with over a million people who voted for our policy in 2011.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can we take it from the Prime Minister then that the increase of the surtax which National brought in in a former time and which was repealed by New Zealand First and the reduction of superannuation down to 60 percent of the net average weekly wage which was revised upwards to 66 percent by New Zealand First are not going to change in the future? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have made our policies in terms of superannuation very clear. We are maintaining the age and we are maintaining the floor at 66 percent linked to average wages. What I can say to the honourable member is that if one day he forms a Government with Labour and the Greens it is going to be really interesting because he hates their policy and he hates that party.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am rather concerned that you did not bother to do anything about that last answer. The Prime Minister is not free to get up and let his lips blow around in the wind when he feels like it. He is required to answer the question directly and leave it at that. If he wants to behave like that then I am very happy to entertain him because in fact the only reason— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I haven’t finished yet—I haven’t finished yet.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not care. The member will resume his seat—the member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has answered the question. Yes he made some comments that probably went beyond what was required but he has now ceased answering the question.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are not in the business of running tackle for a Government here in your important position. The fact of the matter is that nothing in that question asked his opinion as to my view of for example the Green Party. That is not part of his ministerial portfolio. It has no part in his job whatsoever and you cannot let him get away with it.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The Prime Minister— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Do your job properly.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Look I did not hear—there is so much noise that I am having difficulty hearing the member which may be just as well. It may be just as well—I am not sure. But the Prime Minister has now desisted. He answered comprehensively the member’s question but he did add some that was superfluous and I will accept that but we are now moving on.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 383 which is about the content of replies. The Standing Order is pretty black and white. It says that replies “must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked”. They must not contain “arguments inferences imputations epithets or ironical expressions” etc. I appreciate that you have some latitude and so you should. But consistently in question time today the Prime Minister has abused Standing Order 383 and I would ask you to call him up on it.  
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: There is no doubt that Dr Norman’s recitation of the Standing Order is correct but it is simply a mirror of what must be in questions as well. The question asked by the Rt Hon Winston Peters would have been completely out of order had you been forced to enforce these Standing Orders. So I think your call that we should move on is a good one.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We will be moving on but I would just say to the member who raised the point of order that I did stop the Prime Minister in the previous supplementary answer so he cannot say that I have not moved to try to curtail answers in a way that is appropriate to the House. I am trying to apply the rule evenly. We will move on.  
Financial Systems—Stability 
3. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the stability of New Zealand’s financial system? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Last week the IMF noted that New Zealand has a sound banking sector. Non-performing loans have fallen to less than 2 percent of the total loans and capital adequacy has improved since 2007 as New Zealand households and businesses save more and borrow less. There has been strong growth in retail deposits over the last 18 months—that is deposits by New Zealanders—and that has reduced banks’ reliance on wholesale funding from overseas lenders. These factors put New Zealand in a comparatively good position to weather any further banking problems.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What steps has the Government taken since late 2008 to strengthen New Zealand’s financial system? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The New Zealand financial system suffered some damage from both the collapse of the finance companies and then the impact of the global financial crisis. Since then capital market regulations have been overhauled and the Financial Markets Authority has been established. We have brought non-bank deposit takers under Reserve Bank supervision and applied minimum capital adequacy and credit rating requirements to them. The Reserve Bank has introduced new core funding ratios for the banks that require them to have 70 percent of their funding from stable sources and we are progressing a new legislative framework for covered bonds. The Reserve Bank has also ensured that in another financial crisis it can supply temporary liquidity to sound institutions as it did in 2008. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that the Secretary to the Treasury at the select committee this morning said that the Minister has not requested any report from Treasury quantifying the additional losses to taxpayers caused by the mismanagement of the Crown guarantee of finance companies will he direct Treasury to cooperate with an independent assessment of those additional losses to clarify whether they total $100 million or more or less? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No and I do not agree with the assertions by other political parties of those numbers. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the current state of New Zealand’s financial systems compare with what he inherited in 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think there have been a number of lessons learnt from both the collapse of the finance companies and the impact of the global financial crisis. We have made sure along with the Reserve Bank and Treasury that our banks and what is left of the finance companies have been stress tested and that a number of measures have been taken that improve the resilience of the financial system. In fact the banks have almost halved their reliance on short-term funding and are reducing their reliance on overseas debt markets which are prone to disruption. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given that the Minister does not accept my assertion that the losses are more or less than $100 million what report has he received as to what is the additional loss that has been caused to taxpayers by the mismanagement of the Crown guarantee; if he has not received any report how can he deny the need for there to be an assessment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member misunderstands the point of the guarantee. The guarantee was given by his Government I might say—at your campaign launch—to enable people to keep depositing in those institutions so that they would not crash and now he is complaining that people were allowed to keep depositing in them. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was that given that he denied my assessment of the loss what reports had he received quantifying the loss. He has not even addressed that question. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: As I recall the member actually asked two or three questions incorrectly. He has further supplementary questions if he wishes to pursue that one specifically but there was more than one question. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could the Speaker please advise which of the many parts you assert I asked the Minister answered? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. I have made a ruling. If the member wishes to pursue the question about reports he may ask another supplementary question. 
Budget 2012 Projections—Comparison of Spending on Superannuation and Education 
4. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will total superannuation spending be higher than total education spending in the month of June 2016 using the same assumptions as in his latest Budget projections? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I presume the member means some kind of monthly comparison but the Government does not have monthly forecasts for superannuation and education spending. For the year to June 2016 total core Crown expenses for education are at $12.42 billion and are forecast to be slightly higher than total superannuation spending at $12.37 billion. Superannuation costs are rising by about $700 million a year. Half of the increase has come from the increase in the payment rate and the other half comes from increases in the ageing population. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was a question that was down on notice which asked for a specific understanding using the projections. It did not ask what was held in the Minister’s office. It was asking him to give a reply to a very specific question. I would like you to rule that the Minister should have got the advice that would have led him to be able to answer the question.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: With regard to the member’s point of order Speakers’ rulings are quite specific and I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 167/5 which says that “A member cannot demand a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer”. It is not specifically the same but it does require a very specific answer. The Minister who did respond on this occasion gave some reasoning around why he was not able to provide that answer. The member has more supplementary questions with which he can pursue that.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like also to refer you to the recent rulings of Mr Speaker Smith where he has said that where there is a primary question there is an expectation that Ministers get the material required in order to answer that question.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member may recall that I answered the question by saying that the Government does not have monthly forecasts. So if we do not have the forecasts then it does not matter how much notice is given; it is not possible to go and get them.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question was specific but it asked for something 48 months out from here. The Minister has answered that he does not have monthly reports. I think we will accept that that is a response to the question.  
Hon David Parker 
: Why did the Minister say at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning that to change the age of eligibility from 2020 onwards would not make any difference when it would make superannuation more sustainable would improve the Government’s fiscal track and would give New Zealanders proper notice of a change that Treasury the IMF the OECD and the Labour Party all say is necessary? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is not what I said at the select committee. I did say that it will not make any difference between now and then. The member seems to advance his idea of increasing the age of eligibility as a way of paying for extravagant promises over the next few years and that simply cannot be true. Or is he suggesting that he is going to cut national superannuation before 2020? 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he agree with the Retirement Commission’s 2010 review that says that “decisions will need to be announced and legislated well in advance.” and that without this “more severe changes might need to be taken later putting the long-term future of NZS itself at risk.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not agree with everything the Retirement Commissioner says. In this case the Government has made its position quite clear.  
Hon David Parker 
: If the Government is not looking at increasing the age of eligibility for superannuation what does he prefer to do instead: increase future taxes increase future borrowing cut the level of superannuation and tax people more if they have saved more or perhaps all of the above? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well we are going to do a couple of things that that member’s party refuses to do. One is deal with the large costs of long-term welfare dependency and they are enormous costs. The second thing we are going to do is grow the economy because unless the cake is bigger it will not matter how you slice it; people in retirement will get less than they should.  
Hon David Parker 
: Given that within 4 years the cost of superannuation is getting close to 20 times the cost of the unemployment benefit can he not see that this is yet another important issue on which his Government is out of touch with no plan to remedy it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not agree with that but I am intrigued by the member’s continued references to changes in national superannuation in the near-term before the age of eligibility change he is recommending for 2023. If the member is worried about the rise in costs in the next 4 years what action is he proposing to take about that? Let us know. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Could I ask the Minister as to whether or not it is a fact that the National Government is only grudgingly holding on to its present position in respect of superannuation given its past record on this matter because otherwise it knows it will be toast at the next election? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Reaching for the Standing Orders that question is completely out of order—for both the answer and the question.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not see the ministerial responsibility for what the member asked. Are there any other supplementary questions? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What was the problem with that question? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled that I could not—[ 
Interruption 
] I am now responding. The member should sit down. The member has asked me to respond. I am happy to respond. The member should sit down. I did not see the ministerial responsibility and therefore it is out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He was answering questions on superannuation. I asked him a question on superannuation. How did you make that distinction? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Whether or not any political party ends up as toast surely is not a matter of ministerial responsibility.  
Unemployment—Numbers as at May 2012 
5. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What reports has she received that show the Government’s work-focused approach to the benefit system is working? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I have received the latest benefit report which shows that benefit figures have continued to fall. In May there were 49219 people on an unemployment benefit. This is the first time unemployment benefit numbers have dropped below 50000 since May 2009. This compares with the peak in January 2010 when 68000 were on this benefit due to the economic downturn. 
Alfred Ngaro 
: How many young people are currently receiving the unemployment benefit? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The number of young people on the unemployment benefit is now just over 13000. This is a drop of around 44 percent since January 2010 when the peak was well over 23500 young people on a benefit. Of those young people on the unemployment benefit there are just 881 young people who have been on it for 12 months or longer. This compares with 938 last month and 2030 in May last year. I am pleased with the results to date but we still have work to do. 
Alfred Ngaro 
: Why is the Government making changes to reform the current system if the number of those on benefits is falling? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We are seeing a difference in benefit numbers and we could leave the system as it is. We know that unemployment benefits will continue to drop as the economy bounces back and with the current policy settings. But that is not going to help the other 270000 people on other benefits nor those who are relying on welfare in the long term. We are interested in what they can do not what they cannot. That is why we are continuing to work. We started with the Future Focus programme. We are now continuing with our major reforms that are currently before the House. 
Economy Sustainable—Pure Advantage Report 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister for Economic Development—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Dr Russel Norman. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Economic Development: does he agree—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I would ask the House to come to order. I have been having some difficulty hearing some of the members’ contributions and I ask Dr Russel Norman to start again. 
6. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Does he agree with the business group Pure Advantage that “countries that reduce the carbon dependency of their economies most quickly and develop carbon friendly technologies will be the most prosperous in the 21st century”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 No I do not agree that those things will necessarily follow. Although environmental issues are very important the countries that will be the most prosperous during the 21st century will be those that use their competitive advantages the most successfully. The proposition that New Zealand should throw away its own competitive advantages and focus solely on a small section of our opportunities such as those in the cleantech area as promoted by Pure Advantage is with respect quite unrealistic. We need to pursue all of our opportunities in a way that actually balances our economic and environmental objectives to provide jobs and sustain growth to the benefit of all New Zealanders.  
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s projections that under current policies net greenhouse gas emissions will be 30 percent above 1990 levels in 2020 does the Government have a plan to actually reduce greenhouse emissions? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Yes we do. The member may be aware that for example we have an emissions trading scheme which is active right now. We also have a range of initiatives including the discounts for electric vehicles and a number of other initiatives such as the insulation system for housing—a whole range of things. But I think in the wider sense of economic growth it is important to look at all of our opportunities. Yes I think we need all our businesses to act responsibly in an environmental sense including in terms of their carbon intensity but not in the way that the Pure Advantage group suggests which basically says to not advance industries that they describe as dirty. I think we have got past that point and actually the debate is maturing a bit where we actually talk about making sure that all of our industries are acting responsibly while they develop their competitive advantages. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that in 2007 Spain adopted just the sort of policy adopted by the Greens in that Spain’s Government guaranteed feed-in tariffs on investments in solar photovoltaic technologies—a scheme that has now collapsed leaving that Government with over €24 billion in debt—and is that the sort of model for prosperity that this Government is adopting? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member makes a very fair point that those sorts of policies that attempt to subsidise to the extent that the Spaniards did actually can create some very real risks which were realised in the case of Spain as reported in the media in recent weeks. Spain of course is facing unemployment over 20 percent and a debt crisis of some margins as a result of factors including some of these policies and actually it is not a model for prosperity. There are a number of countries that are proposing big subsidies that are supported by Pure Advantage and frankly we do not support that approach. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister agree with the London  
Guardian’s 
 “Greenwash” column quoted in the Pure Advantage report which says that “New Zealand was a friend to Middle Earth but it’s no friend of the earth.” 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: We often do not necessarily side with the  
Guardian  
newspaper in this country but the reality of it is this: New Zealand actually has to balance all of our opportunities. Unfortunately for the member and also for his colleagues in the Greens around 80 percent of our exports come from areas such as food food processing minerals and a whole range of things that are actually what are described by some environmentalists as dirty. They need not be but they are described by some of them as so. In fact this Government is focused on growing the economy doing it in a balanced way and encouraging jobs and growth. That includes areas like oil and gas exploration; that includes areas like intensification of agriculture. These are very important things that we need to see. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How do the following policies of the Government help to reduce our carbon dependence: spending $1.5 billion on the emissions trading scheme to subsidise polluters delaying the introduction of a price on carbon to the industry that produces half of our greenhouse gas emissions removing the emissions cap from the cap-and-trade system and spending $12 billion locking us into a car-dependent future with the roads of national significance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member again demonstrates unfortunately a lack of economic reality. He is basically arguing to make New Zealand businesses uncompetitive in the wider world. Unfortunately the same member will then go on about how we need more jobs and more growth but he does everything he possibly can to restrict New Zealand businesses from encouraging jobs and growing. It is a completely contradictory position. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the Government listen to business leaders Rob Fyfe Sir George Fistonich Jeremy Moon Chris Liddell Geoff Ross Sir Stephen Tindall Rob Morrison Joan Withers and Mark Solomon who comprise Pure Advantage—who are the members of Pure Advantage—when these business leaders urge the Government to change direction and embrace the green economic opportunities facing New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government welcomes all voices in the debate. It is important that we actually have this debate. But I would respond by saying that one of the founders of Pure Advantage the late and much missed Sir Paul Callaghan made I think exactly the point that I am seeking to make: you cannot focus on just a small subsection of what is possible in the world and try to make your success of that. In fact I quote from him: “This is exactly the mistake of the past 10 years prioritising according to some perceived international trend—then Biotechnology now Clean Tech. And the Green’s idea of a Clean Tech line-up is remarkable. … It is absurd in particular because we have proven particularly dreadful at developing [those sorts of industries]”. Look I am sorry but yes it is important that we have those sorts of debates but it is actually a negative thing for New Zealand to be saying this industry will save us that industry will save us or your industry should go and this one shall save us. It is a ridiculous debate. We need to encourage competitive businesses across all our industries to succeed in the world. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does the Government continue to attack anyone who suggests a green growth opportunity and to suggest as the Minister just did earlier that somehow the Greens are against business when it is business leaders themselves—some of our most prominent business leaders—who are the authors of this report and who are sending a message to this Government to embrace the green growth opportunities instead of picking winners in the extractive industries which is this Government’s actual economic policy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Again I am sorry but the member if he reads the report will realise that what these excellent business leaders are doing is arguing for subsidies for the industries that they like. That is what they are arguing for which is an entirely legitimate thing for them to do. But the member needs to open his eyes and see what they are requesting. All the countries in the world that he talks about and that are quoted in this report are making big subsidies to otherwise uneconomic industries and that is not a path to prosperity for New Zealand as Spain has shown. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not the case that what his Government is doing is picking winners and subsidising the industries that he likes? In particular he is giving subsidies to the primary sector and the agricultural sector because they are not paying for the greenhouse gas emissions and he has given subsidies to the road transport sector by subsidising motorways. He is picking the industries he likes like the mining industry which he is subsiding through subsidising the seismic survey so he is picking the winners that he likes. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think I have won the sweepstake that said the Greens’ policy of being pro-mining would not last a couple of weeks. I think that is what actually has happened. But again I am sorry the member is incorrect. What we are saying is that New Zealand’s businesses that export should not have to face costs that other countries’ businesses do not have to face. So when we are applying the emissions trading scheme we are being very careful to ensure that New Zealand’s export industries— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: It’s a subsidy. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No it is not a subsidy— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: It is a subsidy. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Stop whining Mr Norman. It is not a subsidy; it is literally making sure that we are not putting burdens on our companies that other countries are not putting on theirs. In the case of the road transport industry—for the member’s benefit—it pays all its costs by actually paying the road-user charges and the levies into a fund that pays for the roading which frankly is a lot more than we can say for any of the schemes he promotes in public transport which are all subsidised by other road users. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree with Pure Advantage’s statement—from New Zealand’s leading business people—that “Despite our steadfast promotion of New Zealand’s clean green image … we continue to look for economic solutions from extractive industries such as coal and oil.” and why cannot we set our sights higher as a country than just more extraction and invest in the 21st century economy instead of the 19th century economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I presume that the member is not planning on flying anywhere soon because that is a very dirty industry by his standards. The reality is this again: we are encouraging competitive industries across a range of sectors. We are spending a lot of money investing in cleantech. In fact some of New Zealand’s leading businesses are being subsidised by taxpayers as we speak for encouragement of the cleantech industry. We are also investing in and encouraging the agricultural industry. We are also encouraging the food processing industry. We are also encouraging the extractives industry. This Government is focused on creating jobs and growth across the economy and frankly that is the reason the Greens will never be in Government because they do not promote that— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —they promote only their very small sector of the economy that suits them. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the Pure Advantage report  
New Zealand’s Position in the Green Race 
. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table the report of the Government’s Advisory Group on Green Growth which is panned in the— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a public document. I do not think we will be seeking leave to table a public document. 
Mineral Resources—Northland 
7. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What recent announcement has he made about mineral prospectivity in Northland? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I recently had the opportunity to release the 2011 Northland aeromagnetic survey data. This comprehensive data package provides a rich database which is invaluable for a number of applications. Additionally today I welcome the opening of the Northland 2012 minerals tender by the Ministry of Economic Development. I am confident that new investment in minerals exploration and development will stimulate the Northland economy and bring some real jobs and growth benefits that other regions have enjoyed over the last few decades. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What are the potential benefits of mineral exploration to Northland? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: A recent report has highlighted that increased minerals development in Northland is expected to provide many many more jobs than are there currently. It can contribute to more infrastructure. Development will inject income directly into the local economy and see flow-on effects to supporting industries retail and hospitality. New Zealanders also stand to benefit from increased minerals development through taxes and royalties. This is another pro-jobs and pro-growth initiative promoted by this New Zealand National Government. We are very very proud of it and we are delighted that the Green Party in the last 2 weeks has come around and now supports mineral development. 
Teachers—Funding for Professional Development 
8. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does her plan to improve teacher quality include reinstating the $45 million cut from teacher professional development in Budget 2009; if not why not? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education) 
: 
 In Budget 2009 the total investment in professional development was $99.08 million a difference of $5.5 million from Budget 2008. From 2009 to 2016 we will have invested an average of nearly $90 million each year in professional development to raise quality teaching. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is she aware that the Government is spending $19 million less on professional development for teachers in the next year than it did in 2008; if so what impact will this have on her aspiration to lift student achievement? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: That is not true. We are spending as I said in my primary answer an average of $90 million in each year between 2009 and 2016. We remain committed to raising quality teaching. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I seek leave to table a document showing the decline of approximately $19 million in— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The source of the document? 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: It is a table compiled by the Parliamentary Library. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: I seek leave to table the chart of consolidated appropriation data which sets out the investment in professional development in total from 2003 to 2016. It reflects the fact that in the period 2009 to— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! We do not need the detail. The member has sought leave to table the document. Is there anyone opposed to that? [ 
Interruption 
] Is it a public document as well? It is a public document. The same rules apply. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is an official document. She is entitled to table it. She does not need leave. We are not objecting to it being tabled. We would like to see it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thought the origin of the document was different from what the Minister has. Leave is sought. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. My apologies. I just thought the source was different from what it actually was. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Moroney 
: If she believes that quality teaching is the most important factor in student achievement will she then be reversing the Government’s 2010 decision to not have 100 percent qualified teachers in early childhood education? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: It is not a matter of my personal belief; it is what thousands of reports and reviews testify as the evidence. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite the Minister to table those documents that she just referred to—even one of them will do. I would like to see one of those documents she just referred to. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No you cannot require someone to table anything and the Minister has not responded to that. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Given that the $60 million set aside to help with the cost of postgraduate qualifications for teachers has now been scrapped will students studying teaching in coming years face higher costs or will investment in mentoring of new teachers be cut? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I have said we are now going to have to look for $114 million which will come from a pre-commitment and savings in the education Budget. But we continue to be committed to our quality agenda which includes investing in all the areas of raising teaching quality. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That answer was more confusing than the simple question that I had asked. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: The question was quite simple. If I repeat it perhaps the Minister— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Actually because there was so much noise I could not hear the completeness of the Minister’s answer. I will ask the member to restate the question. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Given that the $60 million set aside to help with the cost of postgraduate qualifications for teachers has now been scrapped will students studying teaching in coming years face higher costs? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Although the $60 million was tagged for specific initial teacher education we are not scrapping our work in pursuing a quality agenda which includes investing in all parts of the teacher spectrum. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: What guarantee will the Minister give to the groups invited to participate in her newly established forum that their ideas to lift achievement and find savings will be adopted even if they contradict Government policy? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: Those are all matters for discussion when the forum is convened. 
Vehicle Licensing Reform Project—Progress 
9. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has the Government made on the Vehicle Licensing Reform project? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that a second workshop with transport industry stakeholders was held earlier this week to discuss a range of possible options. This reform has the potential to save millions of dollars in unnecessary costs and time and I have asked transport sector officials to include all ideas for consideration as long as they result in reducing costs while maintaining safety. 
Scott Simpson 
: What ideas are being considered? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Some of the current ideas are smarter ways to pay the annual licensing fee known as registration; early payment incentives; and as modern cars are consistently improving in reliability and safety changes to the frequency and enforcement of the current warrant of fitness system. This project is creating savings of money and time for householders and businesses and the Government wants to get all the ideas on the table so that we can make good decisions. 
Scott Simpson 
: How can the public get involved? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It will be some months before the public consultation gets under way but in the meantime I have asked the Ministry of Transport to upload information about the project on to websites so that people are able to participate think about their ideas and get ready for that consultation process.  
Accident Compensation Corporation—Inquiry into Release of Personal Information 
10. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What responsibility does she take for failures at ACC since the 2011 Election? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I take ministerial responsibility for ACC from the date I received my ministerial warrant which was on 14 December 2011. In accordance with the  
Cabinet Manual 
 I take ministerial responsibility for the direction and the priorities of the organisation.  
Andrew Little 
: What discussions did she have with ACC Chairman John Judge ACC Chief Executive Ralph Stewart or her staff about referring allegations made about Bronwyn Pullar in their 16 March report to her to the police before that reference to the police occurred? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I received a briefing from the chairman and the chief executive and I can recall that my comment to them was that any decision that they made must be theirs and that I would stand by whatever decision they made as is something that a Minister should do. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did she say when questioned about the leak: “The fact is it also came from Ms Boag”; if so was she indicating that Ms Boag was a possible source of the leak? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Without actually having the full context of that alleged statement it would be difficult to answer because I have learnt from experience not to take everything that is said at face value from that member. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is she denying that she said when asked about the fact that she had passed the email on to Mr Judge and Mr Stewart: “The fact is it also came from Ms Boag so there are possibilities”; will she deny saying that? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Without actually receiving and having a look at any transcript I cannot answer that question that way. The fact is that without it in writing and without proof of it I cannot take that member as having put that supposed comment in context.  
Kevin Hague 
: Is the Minister giving the House a categorical assurance that she neither instructed nor approved nor suggested that ACC make a complaint to the police concerning Bronwyn Pullar? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: My comments to the chair and the chief executive were that they must make their own decision. It is not for me to be involved in those individual decisions. 
Hon Members 
: You said you backed them. 
Hon Members 
: Back them or sack them? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Do they want to hear or not? [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: My statement was very clear to them: they must make their own decisions and that I would back those decisions whatever they were. Those decisions were made after they received their own legal advice and I have since seen a legal opinion prepared by Mr Judge’s Queen’s Counsel which is after the event but which obviously took into account all of the events which backed the decision of the board to refer that matter to the police for advice. The police were the right and proper authority to look at this issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister in terms of her ministerial responsibility as to this from a letter written by Michelle Boag a former head of the National Party: “You will see in the correspondence attached to the email I am forwarding that while Mr Murch asked for the return of the data he did not acknowledge that this would be contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties which was our understanding.” That is from someone who was guilty and convicted of seeking to pervert the course of justice in a commission of inquiry. Is this not extortion—straight out? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not have ministerial responsibility for the actions of Ms Boag or of Ms Pullar. 
Kevin Hague 
: Further to her answer to my earlier question is she telling the House that Mr Judge had his own personal counsel working on the matter of the complaint to the police as opposed to an ACC counsel? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am not sure that that is in fact what I am telling the House. I am telling the House that there was legal advice. The board—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I can say that Mr Judge has advised me that he had legal advice not only from ACC and ACC’s lawyers but from his own Queen’s Counsel in this matter. I have seen the opinion and it backs up Mr Judge. 
Andrew Little 
: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries on public relations advice through Acumen Republic including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is an operational matter but I would also say that— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is an operational matter. It is hardly setting the policy or the direction of the board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very simple question: what knowledge does she have? That is her responsibility. It is not an operational matter. Matters that are the Minister’s knowledge are her responsibility—something she is trying to shift. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will ask the member to repeat the supplementary question. 
Andrew Little 
: What knowledge does the Minister have of ACC spending money that ought to be spent on those who have suffered injuries on public relations advice through Acumen Republic including spending on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged?  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the board. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Ministers are regularly briefed by the board orally and in writing as to the activities of the board. Those matters then become their knowledge for which they are answerable here. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The matter that was raised in the supplementary question is in fact an operational matter. It may not satisfy the member but the member has an answer. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked about what her knowledge was. That is not a matter of departmental responsibility. She was asked what her knowledge as Minister was. The answer may well be that she had none and that would be a proper answer. But it is fair to ask her what knowledge she had of that. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will seek some advice. Order! I have given a ruling and I am going to stand by that. Members have further supplementary questions if they wish to pursue that. Members are seeking to actually litigate a ruling by further points of order. 
Kevin Hague 
: If it is true that the Minister did not instruct approve or suggest the complaint to the police and the matter was entirely an operational ACC matter then why was the legal opinion sought by John Judge shown to the Minister? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is a very good question. Mr Judge sent it to me last week because he was concerned about a story in the  
Dominion Post 
 that made allegations against him. Rather than refer to the editorial policy of the  
Dominion Post 
 he felt it was right to send me the opinion that he had received. 
Andrew Little 
: Is the Minister denying to this House that she knew that ACC has been spending money on public relations advice through Acumen Republic including spending money on polling to see how ACC’s current problems should be massaged? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have no knowledge of any polling being paid for and I do not know why I would have. 
Andrew Little 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was whether she is denying that she knows that the money is being spent. It is not about her knowledge of the polling; it is about money being spent by ACC on that activity. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I think that the polling was related to the expenditure of money and the member does have an answer. 
Prisons Private Management—Serco Performance Targets 
11. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Is she confident that Serco will meet the contracted performance requirements at the new prison in Wiri despite the fact that Serco has been failing performance targets at Mount Eden Corrections Facility by 40 percent? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. However I must note that Serco has not been failing its targets by 40 percent; rather as at April 2012 it has failed 40 percent of its targets. But I am confident that the next set of results will show improvement. 
Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: Does it concern her that last week yet another prisoner escaped from the Mt Eden Corrections Facility on Serco’s watch; if not why not? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Of course it is concerning when any prisoner escapes from any prison and public safety is compromised. But Serco is not the only one to have had a prison escape. 
Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: Is she aware that Serco is being investigated for unsafe practices in the UK and Australia; if so why has it been granted a $300 million prison contract for Wiri Prison? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am aware that there is an inquiry in the UK into this company but my understanding is that it is to do with health and not to do with the running of prisons. 
Prisons Staff Safety—Staff Access to Pepper Spray 
12. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What steps is the Government taking to improve the safety of staff in prisons? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Following a successful 12-month trial the Government will be changing the corrections regulations so pepper spray can be used throughout the New Zealand prison system to improve the safety of our front-line corrections officers. The trial conducted last year found that pepper spray is an effective option that reduces the risk of injury to both staff and prisoners in planned use-of-force situations. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How will pepper spray improve staff safety? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Pepper spray will be one of a number of tools available to corrections officers to improve their safety. It will not be carried on an officer’s belt but will be available to staff as a tactical option for incidents requiring planned use of force where the alternative would be for the officers to put themselves at risk of physically restraining a prisoner. Prisoners will be given the chance to comply before it is used. The strong deterrent effect of pepper spray is also likely to reduce the number of these types of incidents and improve the safety of our officers. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Skycity Convention Centre—Inquiry into Expressions of Interest Process 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Metiria Turei seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the implications for current negotiations with Skycity over its bid to build a convention centre in Auckland given the Auditor-General’s decision today to inquire into the expressions of interest process for the building of the convention centre. There is no ministerial responsibility for the decision of the Auditor-General to inquire into the expressions of interest process. For there to be a case of recent occurrence there must be either a new situation of importance or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance to warrant the business of the House being set aside. The setting up of an inquiry rarely justifies such an urgent debate. The urgent debate procedure is a means of holding the Government to account for matters that have actually occurred. The time for such a debate may be when the Government announces its response if any to the Auditor-General’s inquiry. The application is therefore declined. 
Urgent Debates 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Resignations 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Andrew Little seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the resignation of the chair of the board of ACC and the resignations of the chief executive the deputy chair of the board and a board director. This is a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I accept that it does require immediate attention of the House. I therefore call on Mr Little to move that the House take note of the matter of urgent public importance.  
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. The Accident Compensation Corporation is in the deepest crisis it has been in during its 38 years of existence. It is an absolute disgrace and it is entirely the responsibility of that Government. Two Ministers for ACC have driven the proudest greatest most important institution in this country into the ground. Nick Smith started it when he declared that there was a financial crisis which never existed. He has caused every wage and salary earner and every business in this country to be levied more than $5 billion more than was necessary over the last 3 years to pay for his folly. The Government is so embarrassed about it. It put the levies up in 2009 and had to quickly take them down again just before the election last year.  
But nothing compares to the disaster that has unfolded under the current Minister. What do we have? Breach of privacy after breach of privacy. The Government’s problem was that it got one of its own wrong. It misjudged her. It misjudged Bronwyn Pullar a person whom Nick Smith gave a great reference which caused him to lose his head and it misjudged Michelle Boag—the mighty Michelle Boag. The Government has caused distress and concern to thousands of New Zealanders injured in the course of going about their daily activities whether in work at home on the roads or on the sports fields. They are the people with complex difficult serious injuries who are trying to get support and assistance from ACC. Because of Nick Smith and the directive he has given the board of ACC and because John Judge—whom he specially recruited into the job—gave ACC a directive to cut back cut costs slash and not worry about the difficult cases but get them off ACC’s books as quickly as possible we now have the disaster that is unfolding that is ACC.  
As it has hit the headlines through innocent people like Bronwyn Pullar this Minister has been called on to act and what has she done? What has she done? Very little—very little. She has become the subject of a privacy complaint herself—she and her office—because she cannot be trusted with information that goes to her office and because of that complaint she will not comment on privacy breaches involving the communication between her and Michelle Boag. Then when the heat gets really tough she starts suing her political opponents because that is the best way she knows to shut them down. This is not a Minister for ACC worth speaking of. This is not ministerial conduct that we understand in a Western democracy. This is shocking stuff. If you asked anybody else in the world whether there is a country where a Minister of Justice who is in charge of the courts is using those courts to sue her political opponents you would think we would be talking about somewhere in Africa or maybe a Pacific Island. But we are talking about New Zealand because that is how this Minister deals with a difficult situation.  
The challenge for this Government and its Prime Minister is this: ACC and every claimant under it deserves better. They deserve better. They deserve a Minister who is prepared to give their full-time energy and attention to the job not to suing their political opponents and not to trying to dis the innocent claimants who are just trying to get their just entitlements. We need a Minister who is prepared to do the job of looking after ACC of making ACC the sort of institution that New Zealanders can go back to looking to for support and assistance in their time of need. That is what it was set up for under the Woodhouse principles—the principle of community responsibility. National has turned it into a corporate behemoth. Nick Smith started it Judith Collins has continued it and it is time to have a new Minister who can start afresh give new directions to a new board and start to restore public faith and confidence in ACC.  
National started an ideological change to ACC. ACC was conceived in a spirit of bipartisanship. All parties supported it in 1973 and 1974 when it came about and its board has always reflected a diverse mix. What we have had under this Government is a very narrow range of people who have all come out of the corporate sector and who do not understand the lives of many claimants—those who have brain injuries and complex and serious injuries. We need a new ACC board but most important we need a new ACC Minister who is prepared to give fresh direction and fresh support to a corporation that will start to support and assist New Zealanders when they need it most. What we do not need is a corporation directed by a Government that wants to hike up the levies fleece the wage and salary earners fleece all the businesses extract $5 billion unnecessarily out of their pockets over the last 3 years and cause absolute mayhem. That is what we have now.  
It is sad that someone like Ralph Stewart barely 6 months into the job who brings all his expertise that he brought into the job cannot last cannot stand this Minister and cannot stand what is going on. It is sad that other members of the board who were just starting to make their contributions cannot stand what this Government is doing. It is a disgraceful Government. It has given disgraceful direction to an important institution in this country and it is time it came to an end. Well it is coming to an end because it is unravelling very quickly. They are all leaving like rats leaving the proverbial sinking ship.  
But it all starts at the top and the real top—the real top—is the Minister. The Minister sets the direction. This Government says what happens with ACC. It sets the policy it approves the levies and it decides what happens. We need a Minister now who is focused on the needs of ACC and the people who depend upon it the people who come to it when they are injured at work the people who come to it when they are injured in their cars on the roads and on the sports field. These people should not have to go through hoops and should not have to be treated as something to be managed off a difficult list or a long-term list. People are entitled to be treated with dignity and all around the country I doubt whether there is one MP who is not getting emails and correspondence from the people who have been hurt by ACC under this Government and who have been hurt by its tawdry nasty filthy little strategy of trying to fleece people and get people to lose their entitlements. People deserve better they are asking for better and now is the time to get better.  
The challenge to the Government is this: a new Minister a new direction a new policy and a new culture that says we are here to support people in their time of difficulty and need. Yes let us examine the claims as they come in but let us support people at the time when they need it most. Let us make sure that ACC’s money is not being spent on public relations companies and polling because that is all this Government knows how to do. When it gets in a scrape it goes to the pollsters to find out what is going on. Let us have a corporation an Accident Compensation Corporation that spends its money on the people. That is what the Act says it is required to do: levy people and spend money on their compensation and their medical care and treatment. That is what it is there for. It is not there as a plaything for National Government Ministers to play their ideological games and suffer their ideological bent. [ 
Interruption 
] There is “Mr $5 Billion”—that is his contribution to New Zealand’s economic development in the last 3 years. He fleeced New Zealand of $5 billion over-levied them and in a pique of embarrassment just before the election he realised he had overshot and had to reduce the levies. He has fleeced New Zealanders.  
It is no wonder that ACC is in the state it is. Why would you if you were on the board of ACC and why would you if you were a senior staff member of ACC look to this Government for a sense of confidence direction integrity and reliability? It cannot offer it. It has not offered it for the last 3½ years. It cannot offer it now. This is an opportunity for one of the bright young stars on the backbench of the National Government. Maybe even Simon Bridges himself could step up and say that he takes ACC seriously—that he takes ACC seriously and he wants ACC to return to the time when it was an institution that every New Zealander looked to an institution to rely on to trust and to go to when they were in their time of need as a result of an injury caused by an accident.  
This Government is failing ACC. Every plan that it has had that it called an improvement it has failed to prosecute. It invited the insurance companies to take over but the insurance companies were not interested. It wanted to expand its accredited employer scheme but it cannot do it. It has not done it. This is a do-nothing Minister with a department a corporation that is in urgent need of attention. She has wrapped herself up in legal knots with privacy complaints and with her own litigation against her political opponents and she has compromised herself. She is unable to do anything effectively as a Minister. She should do the honourable thing. She should go to John Key this afternoon and say: “You know what Prime Minister? Andrew Little is right. I can’t do the job any more”— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: You were quite happy to quote how right I was before! She should say that Andrew Little is right and say: “Prime Minister find somebody else who’s up for the job.” It will not be Nick Smith and it will not be Judith Collins. It will not be Steven Joyce because he has got another big ministry to run. But it might be one of the talented ones at the back there. It might be one of the talented ones at the back there who actually believes in accident compensation who believes that when New Zealanders are injured at work on the roads or on the sports fields they are entitled to get the no-fault support that ACC guaranteed them year after year. That is what we are looking for in a Minister: not the last two—not this one and the last one—but a Minister who cares about ACC cares about the people who depend upon it and wants to make a culture difference in it which so far they have not been able to do.  
While they are at it making the culture difference they can start looking to some of the worst victims of the changes in ACC—those who are victims of sexual abuse who have had their counselling support taken off them snatched off them in many cases when they need it most and the ones who have had their privacy breached and their details disclosed. All that the Government can do is stand aside and let the Privacy Commissioner sort it out. The Government knows that that is wrong. It knows that those people are owed an apology but it knows above all that they are owed the support that they were entitled to get as victims of sexual abuse. That is another culture change that the Government can make when it gets a new Minister a real Minister for ACC who cares about ACC and the people who depend upon it and who will do something about it.  
The Government can also make sure that when people need their hernia operations and when older workers turn up with their back injuries and their other orthopaedic concerns they are not going to be told that it is the ageing process but that they are genuine injuries and they are entitled to the support of ACC. It can make sure that they are not going to be kicked around like a football and kicked off a list to suit a Minister’s fantasyland targets but that they are actually going to get the treatment that they deserve. This is the ACC that has been the backbone of a good safe healthy New Zealand for the last 38 years and we want it back. We want it back—we want it back.  
I am saying to that Government and to those Ministers in whatever portfolio on behalf of the thousands of New Zealanders who are writing to me contacting me and saying they have been done over by ACC and they cannot get treated with dignity and respect by ACC—I am saying this to you on behalf of them—that now is your chance to make a change. Now is your chance to do something decent for good hard-working New Zealanders who look to nothing else but the support and the assistance of ACC when they need it. Now is the time to make a change.  
Even Paula Bennett could do something. She could ditch her other portfolio because she is making a hash of that. Young unemployment—there are tens of thousands of young workers who are out of work because she cannot get off her chuff and do anything about it. Maybe she could do something decent with ACC—maybe she could do something decent with ACC. But do not give it to Nick Smith “Mr $5 Billion” and do not give it to Judith Collins who has wrapped herself up and cannot do anything any more. Give it to someone—even Jonathan Young. He has got a smile on his face because he thinks he is in line for a promotion. Even Jonathan Young would do a better job. At least that man of the cloth has got a sense of compassion. Put him in charge because he will do a better job than the current Minister and the last Minister. That is what New Zealanders are looking for that is what they need and that is what they are entitled to have.  
ACC is too important. ACC is too important to let this lot muck around with it and stuff it up. They have gone far enough—they have gone far enough. Their board has told them that their senior management has told them that and now is the time for a change. Start afresh. Start afresh with a new Minister a new culture and a new instruction and give us back the good old ACC that cared about people that looked after people and that gave them the care they needed when they needed it. That is what we are looking for.  
We have come to the end of the road now Minister. The Minister knows we are at the end of the road. She has prevaricated obstructed and avoided as long as she can. She cannot avoid it any more. Her board has deserted her. The senior management is deserting her. It is time she went and it is time the Prime Minister took action put somebody else in charge gave us a decent ACC and gave those thousands of people who have been writing to us in their droves in the last 3 months a chance. It is time to give them hope and to give them a chance to get the care and support they need which ACC was set up for. We do not need surpluses of $3.5 billion; we need a robust sensible organisation that can do the job focus on people and look after people above all—above all. If we are to give those people hope and the treatment and the care they need it will happen only when we have a decent Minister: a Minister who understands accident compensation understands the original social contract understands no-fault and understands that people need help when they are most in distress.  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Mr Speaker have you called me? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes I have. I have called the member. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I could not hear for the noise. Because of the applause I am sorry Mr Speaker I could not hear. That member who has just resumed his seat Andrew Little has called for hope. I have got hope for him. David Shearer is safe. David Shearer is very safe now. I saw today that Mr Little has been undermining Mr Shearer at every chance he can get particularly over superannuation. At the end of the day what we have got here is a member and David Shearer’s deputy who do not want to listen because they are too busy trying to undermine their leader.  
What we have had is a situation where Mr Judge resigned yesterday as at 30 June and I have thanked him for the excellent work he did.  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Ha ha! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: He took over a financial mess in ACC. The former Minister for ACC the Hon Ruth Dyson might well laugh. She was not laughing that hard when she had to resign as Minister for ACC because she was caught drink-driving. If we are going to talk about dirt let us go down there.  
Hon Simon Bridges 
: “So what?” she says.  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: She said “So what?” did she? Well they do not mind attacking my colleague so let them have a little back.  
In fact as for Mr Little I am going to correct something he said in the House today. I am actually getting a little tired of having to correct him on what he says. He said for instance that my office and I were being investigated by the Privacy Commissioner. No Mr Little; I refer you again to the terms of reference. I know that Mr Little may not like getting the facts in front of a story but actually maybe he should. He is supposed to be a lawyer I understand.  
Hon Members 
: No! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is hard to believe. But anyway Mr Judge took over as did my colleague the Hon Nick Smith a situation in ACC where there was a financial mess—a complete mess— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Shame on Labour. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: —and shame on Labour for allowing that to happen. Mr Judge and the Hon Nick Smith had to set about trying to make sure they could bring the corporation back into financial health and they have done so. However what we now have is a situation where it is time for a change in culture in ACC. I think Mr Judge and the Hon Nick Smith have done a fantastic job of getting financial strength and health in the organisation but I want to have a situation where ACC has a culture whereby its staff look at their claimants and they ask themselves: “How would I like to be treated? How would I like my information to be treated?” or even more so: “How would I like my mother’s information to be treated?”. I would like ACC to have that culture.  
I have been around to nine different ACC offices in the last 3 months talking to the staff there. I have to say they have been great. They have been absolutely uniformly supportive in wanting to bring about changes. They have said to me that they accept that they need to improve their performance around privacy and that they need to improve their performance around how they speak about their claimants and about what they actually do. They are extremely committed to getting people back to independence—absolutely committed to getting people back to independence.  
I know that the Labour Party does not like people getting back to independence. We have seen it with the attacks its members have made on my colleague the Hon Paula Bennett and on the excellent work she is doing in welfare. For most people getting back into work will not only help them physically but also help them mentally. That might be something Labour members should think about. Work is good; it is not a punishment. It is part of life and it makes people feel worthwhile and like they are contributing. It is actually very good not only for finances but also for health.  
ACC staff all around the country do not like the fact that Andrew Little day in day out bags them. Day in day out he attacks them for doing the job they are supposed to do. They have been doing a fantastic job of dealing with the 1.6 million claims they get every year. Of course they are going to make errors on occasion—very few errors. I have said to them that they need to put their hand up straight away but they must consider the professionalism that is expected around people’s— 
Andrew Little 
: Why is ACC losing more reviews? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: What is that Mr Little? 
Andrew Little 
: Why is ACC losing more reviews? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh I see. Mr Little wants ACC to not lose reviews. In other words Mr Little wants ACC to have to pay out on every single claim even when it is not legitimate so that ACC would have zero tolerance to any errors.  
The reason we have got reviews is so that ACC’s decisions can be considered. My colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith actually set up Dispute Resolution Services and got it going. It is an excellent thing for him to be able to set up as an independent agency away from ACC so that it could have independence. Frankly do I hear anything from the Opposition saying that that is a good thing? No. But I think it is. I think it actually gives ACC claimants some independence as to where they can go.  
Of course Dispute Resolution Services overturns some of ACC’s claims and that shows its independence actually. If Dispute Resolution Services agreed with everything that ACC did then it would not be independent. If it agreed with everything that ACC did then either ACC is agreeing to things it should not be agreeing to and giving entitlements that are not there or Dispute Resolution Services might be considered to be a puppet of ACC and that would not be acceptable either. Of course we need to change some of the culture around ACC and I am absolutely dedicated towards that.  
I would like to thank Kevin Hague today from the Green Party for the very nice comments he made about me in the media. I think Kevin Hague does generally play the ball and not the person. I would say that about the Greens—unlike some we can mention but we will not bother to mention them. Even though Kevin Hague and I are not going to agree on many things I respect people in this House who actually get on and say what it is.  
Just to give a little bit of context to this I point out that ACC had 1.675 million claims in the last year. How many calls is that received weekly? It is 24385 inbound calls received weekly—24385 total inbound calls received weekly. That gives us an idea of the scale of what ACC is dealing with. It is dealing with people who have been rarked up by people on the other side of the House to think there are entitlements that are not there. That is one of the problems that ACC got itself into in the 2000s under the Labour Government. The policy paradigms were all changed so that it was basically: “Get rid of anything where there might be somebody who is unhappy with the decision.” Obviously we want the right decisions. Sometimes those decisions are not going to be met with universal approval but ACC has got to be able to make those tough decisions.  
Hon Simon Bridges 
: It’s not a lolly scramble. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is not a lolly scramble. It is actually a very serious business because it is other people’s money—levy payers and taxpayers—for those who are in the non-work area. The fact is that it has got to be sensible. On the other hand let us look at it this way. A wee while ago I was in one of the branches talking to its staff. One of the investigators said to me that they had found a person who was supposed to be at home prone on his back and unable to do anything—completely paralysed—on a social networking site showing him surfing in Bali.  
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Awkward. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That is just a teeny bit awkward. That was an extreme. Frankly it is a bit difficult for ACC staff when they are dealing with people when occasionally there is the odd person who is surfing in Bali when they are supposed to be prone on their back at home and unable to work.  
In the meantime ACC has got to actually get on and deal with the vast majority of the 1.675 million claims it had last year from legitimate claimants who have to have their matters dealt with. I can also tell the House that almost every week I get letters from people who are very happy with the way they have been treated by ACC. I get reports from people who have written into their case managers thanking them for the excellent service that they have been given. Actually these 1.65 million New Zealanders the vast majority of whom are very happy with the work that ACC does do not like it when they hear their case managers being pilloried by the Opposition. They want to know that their case managers who are helping to bring them into independence are actually being appreciated not bagged just for helping them to get back to work.  
I also remember just recently going to an Accredited Employers Programme forum. I guess I saw the attitude of some of the unionists or ex-unionists in the Labour Party because I was at this accredited employers forum with trade unionists and employers and obviously with ACC staff. It was a really constructive forum until I got asked questions from some of the unionists. They went something like this: “I hear that accredited employers are forcing people to go back to work on half-time when they’re not ready to do full time.” I thought: “So where’s the problem there?” and I was told: “Oh well you know they’re being punished—to go back to work.” So I said: “I’m sorry to tell you but in my opinion work is not a punishment. It is in fact a fabulous thing that helps people get back to wellness.” But anyway apparently it is a punishment.  
Then I got this other one. It gives you the commitment of some of those trade unionists to health and safety in the workplace! How is this one? This is really good! “Some employers are apparently drug-testing employees without the union approving it.” 
Hon Members 
: What? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh no! Fancy that!  
Hon Members 
: No! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No! It is true; that is what he said. The industry by the way—because you will want to know—involves driving great big cranes with great big containers. So what do you think? Do you think they could be drug tested? I thought that was pretty sensible. So I said: “Actually ACC is really interested in keeping down accidents in the workplace. This is one of our big areas where we need to do even better. And actually frankly I think an employer has to take a responsible line. Do you think it is OK for other employees to have to work in a situation where they have got a drunk or drugged person driving a great big crane with a big containers stuck to it?”. The fact is no.  
In essence and in conclusion ACC has been doing an excellent job around this particular area of getting claimants dealt with. However I am still not happy with the privacy protocols. I am still not happy that the culture of the organisation has not gone as far as I would like. I am looking forward—when the new board is in place and the new chief executive appointed—to seeing further progress along the way. There has been great progress this year. There was fantastic progress in the 3 years before. There is still a wee way to go but I am very confident that it will get there.  
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I want to begin by referencing that great New Zealander Sir Owen Woodhouse and the amazing piece of work that he did in the 1960s and early 1970s on behalf of New Zealanders in which he persuaded New Zealanders in fact to engage in a great social contract. It was a social contract where we gave away our right to sue—and thus gave away the expensive inefficient and haphazard basis of the harum-scarum of legal process as a means of trying to achieve redress in accident compensation—in exchange for our accident compensation scheme. It is a scheme based on principles of community responsibility comprehensive entitlement complete rehabilitation real compensation and administrative efficiency. That is the social contract that was engaged in between the State and New Zealanders.  
I mention those principles not as a point of mere historical interest but because in fact that social contract still exists and New Zealanders expect rightfully that it will be honoured by the State in the form of the accident compensation scheme. This is not just some theoretical construct because indeed the Accident Compensation Act that implements the Accident Compensation Corporation lists the purpose of the Act. I will give just the first part of it. The purpose of ACC “is to enhance the public good and reinforce the social contract represented by the first accident compensation scheme …”. The Woodhouse principles are not some historical curiosity. They are indeed part of the current accident compensation scheme and they deserve to be honoured.  
ACC over its history since that time has been through phases of good and bad. I have to say sadly that in recent years it has mostly been bad. We have seen progressive erosion of entitlements so that the comprehensive entitlement that was set out in its social contract has been eroded. We have seen the unfortunate experiment of competition in the work account—and thankfully its reversal. We have seen the introduction of future funding and that is something that the Green Party still opposes. Future funding is funding ACC as if it were an insurance company. It is not. It is a public service and it is a service that ought to be funded in the same way as every other public service on a pay-as-you-go basis.  
The problem with funding it as if it were a private insurance company is that that sets up some of the same drivers that a private insurance company might have. That is how the Hon Dr Nick Smith as the previous Minister and his guy John Judge in 2009 made the extraordinary claims about what a financial mess ACC was—the whole technical insolvent claim about an organisation that at that time had something like $15 billion in reserves— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: And $25 million of obligations. 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: —and an operating surplus of $3.5 billion. They did so on the basis—that Michael Woodhouse is just explaining—of accounting sophistry associated with that future-funding model. But actually for most New Zealanders an organisation that had that level of reserves and investments is not something that is in a disastrous financial state. A return to pay as you go would enable the organisation to greatly reduce those reserves use them for some other meritorious purpose and also reduce levies. That sounds like a good idea to me.  
But in 2009 National—which prior to the 2008 election had been working with the Australian insurance industry on plans for privatisation in accident compensation—brought in the changes that it wanted to do to implement that agenda. That is what this sick culture of disentitlement that I have been talking about actually arises from. Under instructions from Dr Smith and the governance of John Judge the organisation redeveloped its service delivery model away from the Woodhouse principles and away from the purpose in the very Act that it was supposed to work under and instead implemented a series of steps to try to establish that privatisation agenda.  
That is nowhere better illustrated than in the documents that I tabled in the House yesterday from ACC staffers Phil Riley and Denise Cosgrove. They talk about how the organisation had been too focused on client needs; about how it needed to learn from the insurance industry and take on terms like “actuarial release”. What “actuarial release” refers to is the practice of the insurance industry of looking at the claims that cost the most and targeting those for exit. That is what ACC set out to do. That was very neatly illustrated in the  
60 Minutes 
 programme on Sunday in the graph that demonstrated how people with long-term injuries who needed their earnings-related compensation were very aggressively dumped from the accident compensation scheme. Phrases like “low-hanging fruit” used by Riley and Cosgrove to refer to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member must use the full names— 
Grant Robertson 
: No it’s not a member. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It’s not a member of Parliament. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Sorry my correction. The member will continue.  
KEVIN HAGUE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Indeed they are not members of Parliament and hopefully they never will be. They were using a term like “low-hanging fruit” to refer to those people with long-term injuries whom they were attempting to remove from ACC’s books. That is where these practices come from: this targeting of people with these injuries; the shonky assessments which all members of Parliament will be aware of from correspondence from constituents; these extraordinary breaches of privacy not just once not just twice but again and again and again; and the culture of denial of claims and disentitlement. 
I agree with the comment made by Michelle Boag in that  
60 Minutes 
 programme where she said that the default assumption of ACC has become that the people who are making claims are fraudsters. That has become the default. Although it is true that of course there will always be people who are attempting to rip off the system by and large that is not what people are doing. The scheme should go back to its original Woodhouse principles.  
The Bronwyn Pullar case that we saw illustrated vividly on  
60 Minutes 
 is far from unique and again all members will be aware of it. The only thing that distinguishes that case was that in Bronwyn Pullar we had someone with the personal tenacity resourcefulness and connections to keep on fighting. Because she did that the techniques that ACC has typically used to keep on saying no and keep on denying until people give up actually failed and have been exposed. That is the only reason. ACC is used to getting away with it.  
It is a great institution ACC. It is a great institution that does have a proud history and still—as the Minister for ACC the Hon Judith Collins said—has some good people in it but it is on the wrong path. It has been since 2009. We need to return it to the Woodhouse principles. We need to return it to a culture of good public service and the departure of Nick Smith as Minister the departure of John Judge as chairman and today’s departure of Ralph Stewart as chief executive are necessary steps but insufficient for the purpose.  
I take some heart from the Minister’s commitment to a culture change and an understanding of the total need for an overhaul of those privacy management processes. We will be alongside the Government and giving her some suggestions about the agenda to achieve that. That total culture change is precisely where we need to go and we need to go there now. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There are some people in this House who seem to think that Bronwyn Pullar and Michelle Boag are heroes in this matter. I want to remind them that those are the very people from the National Party who began this attack on ACC’s re-visioning under Nick Smith and backed him all the way until one sad day it affected them. Then they wanted to be different from all the rest of the people around New Zealand who were suffering massive cutbacks of physiotherapist services all around the country. All those other people were on the outside because of the policy that they in the National Party promoted and all of a sudden one of their own got caught by their own policies—and some people are trying to forgive them and paint them as heroes.  
What is happening with the National Party and ACC? You see Bronwyn Pullar was a National Party campaign organiser. Michelle Boag is a former National Party president. Despite the fact that she had been convicted of trying to pervert the course of justice at a commission of inquiry by this country’s leading judge she still went on to be promoted to being the president of the National Party. This is extraordinary. Then you have got Nick Smith the MP who was a Minister in the National Government. Collins is a National Government Minister and of course there was Wayne Mapp who used his influence as a Minister to push for Bronwyn Pullar’s case before an insurance company to extract millions from it.  
Now what are the coincidences of this here? It is no coincidence at all that the involvement of these people and the National Party officers with ACC is as though it is some private little fiefdom for themselves. The National Party is using ACC as some sort of private agency. Nick Smith was acting for Bronwyn Pullar against his own department. Then you have got the repatriation of Nick Smith by National as we speak. That is why he is being given all this speaking time and why he has been allowed to ask all these questions. It is because National intends to bring him back even though he was found out to be a totally inappropriate Minister at the time. We all know that. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh no no we are not going to have two standards here for the case of Simon Bridges. No sirree!  
I want to ask Simon Bridges whether you have read this article. Have you read this article today in the  
New Zealand Herald 
? It sets out the words and the writing from one Michelle Boag the former National Party president. You see she is trying to appear as pure as the driven snow but I want to know from Simon Bridges who claims to be a lawyer and a prosecuting lawyer at that—we know that the prosecuting licence is held by the firm and not the private individual although Simon told us otherwise did he not? Back to my point. Michelle Boag writes: “You will see in the correspondence attached to the email I am forwarding that while Mr Murch asked for the return of data he did not acknowledge that this would be contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties which was our understanding.” Mr Bridges does that sound to you like extortion? Because it does to me. It does to me.  
Look just last month Justice Young revealed that ACC had to take legal steps to prevent a man publicly releasing another person’s case notes which the corporation had sent him in error. So there is a court case in the High Court stopping a man doing exactly what these people were threatening to do as part of their resolution plan. That is corruption. That is extortion. The Minister involved in that one is no longer involved here but he knows what I am talking about. Even though it was happening right under his nose he pretends that he somehow was innocent. No he is not and I want to know from the present Minister for ACC what on earth she is doing not going for these people: Bronwyn Pullar and this woman Michelle Boag. Or is it because if you are in the National Party you can do any old thing?  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did the police do? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What did the police do? I am asking Mr Nick Smith the former Minister. Does this not sound like extortion to him? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I think it’s for the police to decide. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no excuse me. It is not for the police to decide. It is not for the police to decide; I am asking that member over there. When you write these sorts of words: “You will see in the correspondence attached to the email I am forwarding that while Mr Murch asked for the return of data”—which he was entitled to ask for. He was entitled to have it given to him before the meeting even started. If there was any good faith here any bona fides here or any sort of fair play they would have handed those 6000-plus files back before the meeting. But oh no they did not. This is what she said: “… asked for the return of the data he did not acknowledge that this would be contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties which was our understanding.” I do not give a darn about what TV3 ran the other night. What I am interested in is what you think those words mean. “We are not going to give back the documents until our case for Bronwyn Pullar is satisfied to our satisfaction.” That is what is being said. There is a word for that. It is called extortion—standover tactics. It is just wrong.  
I want to ask Mr Smith and Judith Collins what they are doing about it. Why is the National Party so silent over there right now?  
Andrew Williams 
: They protect their mates. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no. Those members are looking downwards now because they are protecting their mates. It stinks. There is an acrid stench arising out of this House and it is clear as daylight that it is unacceptable. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Well tell Andrew Williams to leave. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I beg your pardon? 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Tell Andrew Williams to leave. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no no. Mr Williams understands what justice is about. Mr Williams understands that justice is universal. He understands that these principles of justice and democracy are immutable to all people not just to the National Party.  
What we have got here is a cover-up—a total cover-up. There is their former darling head of the party caught red-handed seeking to extort money out of the Crown and what does the Minister do? Oh well she does not want to say anything because that might be an administrative issue. That might be an administrative issue. Meanwhile Mr Smith over there is defending it—defending it.  
Where is the accountability now? What was the role of a board member in setting up a meeting between two senior ACC managers and Michelle Boag and Bronwyn Pullar? What is going on here? Why has the Prime Minister ruled out an independent inquiry? Why has he ruled it out? Do you know why? Because all his friends get nailed if there is an inquiry. Hence no inquiry. And is it not convenient that the chairman John Judge and two of his senior colleagues have been let go—“Don’t come Monday.”? Dead men of course tell tales. It is time to lift the lid on the whole affair. It is time for the National Party to stop protecting its mates.  
It was rightly pointed out by previous speakers that this was a portfolio taken over by the Hon Nick Smith who can be a right “loony tunes” ideologue when he wants to be. He can be a right off-the-wall “loony tunes” ideologue when he wants to be. I will give you an example. He gets the job and the first deceit he runs deceit No. 1 is he says that the whole place is broke—that the whole place is broke. He says if it was an insurance company it would go bust. Well it is not an insurance company. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Yes it is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It was never an insurance company. Read the Woodhouse report. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I have. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no you have not. I will give you a bit of advice. Go and see Justice Thomas QC. Justice Thomas’ serious defence of ACC is on that very basis. With respect I saw that member playing rugby on Saturday. Somebody must have hit his head too hard because he does not remember the facts. The facts are these. It is a pay-as-you-go scheme and the question has always been about the tail. What Mr Nick Smith sought to do was first of all cry havoc and let loose the dogs of increased prices. And that is what he did. The second deceit of course was that he booted up the levies. Then of course the whole thing got somewhat upset when it was found that they were ahead of the surplus so they had to take the opportunity to come into this House and say: “Look we’ve been so brilliant we are going to cut the levies.” which were massively put up wrongly in the first place by one Nick Smith.  
But I want to close and say this. Why is this woman not being charged with extortion? It is all there in her own documents. It is all in her own documents. She wanted to enter into an arrangement that went this way: you get the 6000-plus copies back— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no. It is ACC. ACC will get the 6000-plus copies back contingent on reaching an agreement acceptable to both parties. That is extortion. Why is the National Party allowed to defend its mates when its members shout blue murder and “three strikes and you’re out” for everybody else? They are contaminated with this cant. There is a word for it that starts with “h”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member knows that he cannot use that at all. It is a circumlocution and the member is trying to get round it and he knows better. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Can I just ask you this question then: why is it that these mendacious sybarites still remain in office? 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Let us be very clear about what is happening here. This is the unravelling of a very tangled web of deceit that Nick Smith spun when he became the Minister for ACC. This all flows in one direction and that is back in the direction of Dr Nick Smith. He is the architect of the total shambles that ACC has become. What did he do? Well the first thing he did was manufacture a crisis in ACC. He manufactured a crisis in ACC so that he could massively hike up the levies and overcharge New Zealanders by millions and millions of dollars in their ACC levies and cut their entitlement. He cut their entitlement to cover under ACC and that was all Nick Smith’s work. That was all Nick Smith’s work.  
Kevin Hague talked earlier on about the culture of disentitlement in ACC now and that all flows back to Nick Smith. It all flows back to Nick Smith. He was the one who brought legislation to the House to remove people’s entitlements and to cut back entitlements for some of the most vulnerable people: people who had been sexually abused and people who had suffered work-related hearing loss. These are the sorts of people who were attacked by Nick Smith because of the tangled web of deceit that he wove when he was the Minister for ACC.  
Judith Collins inherited that mess and made it worse. And we had Judith Collins come to the House today and have the audacity—the audacity—to challenge the Labour Party to play the ball and not the man and then she went straight into doing exactly that. She basically then went on to attack Ruth Dyson and dedicated a lot of her speech to attacking members of the Labour Party rather than focusing on the substance of the issue. These are serious issues and I think the Minister should take them a little bit more seriously than she has done.  
I was interested to learn just a few moments ago that this afternoon the website of iPredict—the predictive market—crashed. It reported that one of the reasons it crashed was all the insider trading on the future of ACC and the scandal within ACC. I understand that in addition to that—this is where it gets really interesting—there has been a run on shares in John Key’s leadership because people now know that he is on the way out because he is not going to stick around when the going starts to get tough. In fact the insiders in the National Party know it so much that they crashed the website. They were dumping all their shares in John Key; they could not get rid of them fast enough. They could not get rid of them fast enough and they crashed the whole website and they were so keen to buy up shares in the demise of the people involved in this ACC saga. I tell you what they were not buying though. They were not buying shares in Nick Smith becoming a Minister again because all of this flows back to Nick Smith.  
Nick Smith was the guy who thought that it was OK for him as a Minister for ACC—as a Minister for ACC—to write a letter on ministerial letterhead endorsing the claim of an individual ACC claimant who by the way also happens to be a close associate and a member of the National Party. Nick Smith thought that was an OK thing to do. What is more John Key thought that was an OK thing for him to do as well and continued to defend him. What did John Key say at the time? I think we will go back and find this quote because it is a goody. John Key said: “If you are going to sack Ministers for what I think he would accept as an error of judgment but not a terribly significant one you’d be sacking a lot of ministers.” Gosh he has got a lot of faith in his own Cabinet; he seems to think that if they were going to sack Ministers for errors of judgment there would not be many Ministers left in John Key’s Cabinet. But actually given the evidence of the last few weeks he was probably right in that particular regard.  
All of this—all of this—flows back to Nick Smith. This is the mess that Nick Smith created with the manufactured crisis and with his total lack of judgment in handling the ACC portfolio. He was more interested in how he could carve up ACC and carve it off to the private sector to the Aussie insurance companies than he was in ensuring that New Zealanders get the cover that they are entitled to under ACC. Nick Smith did not care about that; he cared about the profits of the Australian insurance companies. He cared about supporting his mates rather than the people who do not have friends in high places. This all goes back to Nick Smith. This is his mess he has the responsibility and he should never be a Minister again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a thoughtful contribution to this important debate and to correct a number of very basic facts. The very first is that the speaker who has just resumed his seat Chris Hipkins has said that the financial difficulties in ACC were a manufactured crisis. Let the record be very clear. In the 2007-08 financial year—and I have a copy of the annual report right here—ACC declared a loss of $2.4 billion. That annual report was signed off by Maryan Street. Then with exactly the same group of actuaries and exactly the same audit office in the following financial year ACC declared a loss of $4.8 billion. Together those two sums add up to $7.2 billion—more than all the losses of all the finance companies. And have we seen a single—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The senior Opposition whip made a very unparliamentary comment and I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Challenging members to tell the truth is something that is used regularly in the House. It is different from saying that they are lying or that they are not telling the truth. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well it is actually very close to saying that someone is untruthful. [ 
Interruption 
] No it is not acceptable. “Untruthful” is not acceptable. I ask the member to desist. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is important and I can see that quite a lot of discussion is going to happen on this. Asking someone to tell the truth is prospective; it is not retrospective. It is not looking back at what they had said; it is looking forward and inviting them to obey the rules of the House. It is in fact not a breach of the Standing Orders and members should not be asked to desist from doing that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just tell members that this has actually happened before. I referred to the issue of “untruthful” which means given to lying. It also means diverging from the truth. A generalised charge that a member is untruthful cannot be permitted but a particular reference to an occasion on which a member has admittedly diverged from the truth in a certain statement is not unparliamentary. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 42/4 from Gerry Wall. I am asking members to be careful with their use of interjections across the House because they can lead to disorder and that is not what we want. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the spirit of referring to Speakers’ rulings can I also ask members perhaps to read Speaker’s ruling 42/3 from Speaker Wilson who did rule the term “Tell the truth!” as an unparliamentary term as it is a phrase that creates disorder in the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member whose statement you have not asked to refrain has alleged that I was not telling the truth in respect of the figures I quoted of a $2.4 billion loss at ACC for the 2007-08 year and a $4.8 billion loss for the 2008-09 year. I seek leave of the House to table the Auditor-General’s signed-off accounts showing that those two figures are correct. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No he’s not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s already been tabled—for goodness’ sake Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The House is the master of its own destiny. Any member in this place is entitled to seek leave of the House to table something. Members can say no. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will be aware that the Speaker Lockwood Smith has ruled that we cannot seek leave to table documents that have already been tabled in the House and are already available. That is exactly what Nick Smith was just trying to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The document is already available?  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yes of course it is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The document is already available. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I want to speak to Mr Hipkins’ point. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have been in the House a number of years and I have heard Dr Lockwood Smith say that if documents are freely available then they are not to be tabled in the House because it is seen as a waste of parliamentary time. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just by way of clarification what Mr Hipkins said was that the document had already been tabled in the House and that is not accurate in so far as it is tabled on the Table. It has been received and I would suggest that because the document that Dr Smith was referring to is now nearly 5 years old in fact it would be in the public interest to seek to table it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised that the document has to be publicly available and it is publicly available. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Those same financial accounts show that in the period 2005 to 2008 ACC claims expenditure grew from $2 billion a year to $3 billion a year. That is an extra billion dollars in a period of just 3 years. It was financially reckless. It was not sustainable. That is why for me as the incoming Minister for ACC significant changes were required. There is a very important balance required in ACC between ensuring that claimants who have accidents receive the entitlements they should receive but equally so there is a very important obligation to ensure that the levies are affordable and that they do not rise as rates that are not sustainable for households and businesses.  
I also want to put on record that one of the first issues I had to deal with in ACC was genuine corruption—a senior property manager within ACC during the time when Mr Peters was a Minister. And there is a person—not some made-up claim—who lodged a complaint with the police and a prosecution— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote the Pullar letter and why? Talk about corruption! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Mallard that there was a conviction for corruption in a court of law in New Zealand in respect of the property dealings of ACC that was brought forward by me as Minister. I do find that over the 3 preceding years huge improvements have been made in ACC’s finances. In the last year in which I was Minister ACC was able to deliver a substantive surplus and that has enabled levies for both employers and households that are struggling to be substantially reduced. I want to put on public record thanks to John Judge the former chief executive Jan White and Ralph Stewart and the team for the very effective job they have done in correcting the finances and those difficulties that were a very serious threat to New Zealand.  
In respect of the issues over which I chose to resign I also wish to make some comments. It has been alleged in the media and repeatedly by people opposite that I waded into the case of Bronwyn Pullar.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Ah yes you did. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well actually the record shows Mr Peters that I wrote four letters in respect of Bronwyn Pullar. Every one of those letters involved me saying that she was a friend and that it would be inappropriate for me to interfere in her ACC case. I did make an error in putting on record the fact that I knew Bronwyn prior to her accident and that she was well prior to that date. I regret that. In my view it created a perception that somehow if a person is a friend of a Minister they might be treated differently from others. That was never my intent but I do stand very strongly by the principle that this Parliament and New Zealand must have which is that all people must be treated equally—thus my decision to tender my resignation.  
I now want to say that it is somewhat ironic that the Opposition is contradictory in its views of Bronwyn Pullar and so too are the media. When this debate erupted 2 months ago members opposite said she was a villain and that she was a taker. Now we are presented with the case that somehow Bronwyn is a hero. In fact neither of those things is true. Bronwyn is a sad case of a very capable person who has had an accident and it actually well illustrates the dilemma for many New Zealanders involved with ACC as to what is the appropriate time for rehabilitation. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Just following on from that speech from Nick Smith I think we need to look at what ACC is there for. It is actually there for people in need. It can happen to anybody at any time of their life that something can go wrong and there can be an accident and you need that support from the Government to be there in that time. Nobody would wish on any person that they have to go into a situation where they need ACC’s support. ACC has been a flagship for the New Zealand economy and for our Government over many years in terms of how we deal with these issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who wrote this? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Who wrote this speech? That is a typical line from New Zealand First. We always get that. That is Winston Peters’ interruption line is it not? We are looking forward to some better lines as we go through the speech. ACC is there for a genuine purpose. It is to deal with a genuine issue that can happen to anybody.  
When we came into Government there was a world recession. What was there in the world recession? There was a loss on a lot of sharemarkets around the world. And what does ACC invest a lot of its funds in? Sharemarkets around the world. The previous Minister for ACC Nick Smith was quite right in detailing those figures of the losses because they reflected two major things. First the world sharemarket had declined. The US market for example was nearly half its value from its peak a year before that. That value loss was directly going through into the ACC books and there was a major loss that we encountered in ACC when we took over that institution. Nobody could have predicted how that would have returned or what would have happened but we need to get it back on track.  
The second thing was that under previous administrations ACC had changed from its fundamental purpose. The Woodhouse principles were still enshrined but they had been developed to take into account political payments for vestiges that the previous Government had found in its political mandate. It went out there and offered a lot of services that were beyond the original ACC scheme. So we had two things that we encountered when we took over ACC. It had losses from its share investments and it was spending things that were outside the original principles of what ACC was set up for. We had to change those and get them right. That was important. It was very important—when you sat in this House when you sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and you looked at ACC. The National Party and the Labour Party had agreement. The only party that was here that was not in agreement necessarily was the Green Party. Everybody else saw the need to get ACC fully funded so that it could survive by itself in the future. That deadline of 2017 was approaching very quickly and if we had not made those changes then that possibility of a self-funding approach to ACC could have been missed.  
The Greens did not want to do that. The Greens did not want to have a self-funding ACC; they wanted an ACC where you just tax people and pay for it over time. They did not care about the losses that were growing; they just saw it as something in the future. The New Zealand First Party bless its soul was not even here at that time. I do not know why. [ 
Interruption 
] Tell us why? I think it had something to do with an election did it not? Its members did not even have a voice at the table let alone being able to say what they thought. But the Labour Party and the National Party both agreed that we could see the future for ACC but it was a future where we had to see it funded in a way that was good. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I think there has been a Speaker’s ruling in the past—it might have been before the last election—about the inappropriateness of members moving around the Chamber to follow the camera. I think it was in relation to Hekia Parata. I note that Maggie Barry is doing that today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no that is a frivolous interjection. It can lead to disorder and the member knows it. He is a most experienced member of Parliament and a stickler for the Standing Orders. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I say to that member over there that the only day the cameras are going to go on him is if he makes a point of order. We have got lovely members over here and the cameras follow our members because they are much more lovely than what we have over there. They have to fall off a bike or do something like that to get the cameras on them. Trevor Mallard did not want to hear the words: “Labour agreed with National on the future of ACC.” That is why he brought up that point of order. He knew that Labour agreed with us. They are very quiet now. They are very quiet because they know in their hearts that they wanted the same things. They saw the future of ACC because when we go back to it ACC is there for the benefit of New Zealanders and that is what we are delivering with a strong ACC. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 New Zealanders should be proud of ACC. New Zealanders should be proud of a scheme that has lasted over decades. I want to say this too: Sir Owen Woodhouse is a great New Zealander a fantastic New Zealander. National Party members were the people he had to really convince about establishing ACC. He had some alignment with them I think at the time but they are the persons who had to be convinced about having the scheme. New Zealanders should be incredibly proud of a 24/7 no-fault scheme—the scheme that is the envy of the world. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report that came out said that this scheme is the envy of the world. And yet this Government has systematically trashed the reputation of ACC. From the moment it got into office it has systematically trashed the reputation of ACC. 
We have been over it once already in this debate but we need to go over it again. What the Government did on first coming into office was to manufacture a crisis in ACC. That is what it did when it first came in. And the Hon Nick Smith stands up in the House and reads out the numbers that were going on in ACC’s accounts at the time conveniently forgetting something that Mr English likes to bring up from time to time—a little matter called the global financial crisis. And what was happening—[ 
Interruption 
] The GFC which is not to be confused with  
The GC 
 Mr Mallard. That is Mr Mallard’s favourite show. The global financial crisis is what actually caused those problems for ACC. But Dr Smith does not want to hear about that. Dr Smith wants only to hear about the fact that he cannot be held responsible or that he cannot take any of the blame for what happened in ACC. But the truth is that a financial crisis was manufactured in ACC and the people who bore the brunt of that were the levy payers right across this country—the employees and the employers right across this country. They are the people who bore the brunt of Nick Smith’s manufactured crisis. 
In the meantime he sacked the board of ACC that he inherited and began the planning for privatisation. Let us not forget—hearing David Bennett stand up and tell us what National cares about with regard to ACC—that the plan of the National Party is to privatise ACC. That is the plan of the National Party. For once that is actually what the National Party went to the country and said before the election. It has done it once before Mr Bennett. The track record from the 1990s is there. We had to come in and reverse it. National was planning it again. The privatisation agenda is what Nick Smith was setting up. He manufactured the crisis he sacked the board and he began bringing in people who would implement the privatisation agenda. 
Every electorate MP in this House knows what happened after the 2008 election: the number of ACC cases went up. And the reason those cases kept coming in the door of MPs’ offices is because the National Government’s agenda for ACC the privatisation agenda was put in play. So we had the assessments that began to talk about the existing injuries that people had—no matter that they had nothing to do with the new injuries that people had—and people were turned down. I went with constituents as a constituent MP to help them prepare their cases because there was nobody out there who could do it for them. These were people who were genuinely injured. Constituent MPs right across this Parliament know what happened there. 
Then we had the disgraceful cases of people who had been victims of sexual abuse who had their counselling support taken away. It was a disgraceful situation that this National Government—and Nick Smith as well—has never fully taken responsibility for. We have also seen it with hearing impairment. Disentitlement is the legacy of this Government when it comes to ACC. It is not something that the other side of the House can be proud of. It is disentitlement—taking away from people what they were entitled to taking away what New Zealanders were entitled to when we gave up the right to sue when we said we will have this scheme that will protect us all 24 hours a day 7 days a week. This Government comes along with its agenda to privatise and takes away entitlements from people. It is a disgrace. 
But then it carried on from there under this Government. It moved on from the privatisation agenda to undermining ACC itself—cutting staff. Then we had the situation with Nick Smith and his letters on behalf of Bronwyn Pullar. Let us be absolutely clear. What that looked like was that if you knew someone in the National Party you would get treated differently by ACC. That is what it looked like and that is the perception that New Zealanders have: if you knew someone in the National Party things would be different for you in ACC. A Minister wrote letters on ministerial letterhead that endorsed a claimant and talked about the ability of a claimant to return to work. What is one of ACC’s main issues and interests? The ability of someone to return to work. And that is what Nick Smith wrote about. For Nick Smith to stand up in the House today and refuse again to accept responsibility for what he did shows that he should not return to Cabinet because he clearly has not learnt the lesson of what happened there. 
The saddest thing of all of this is that this Government is so totally distracted by scandals and mismanagement and cronyism that it is letting go of one of the great things that New Zealand has ACC—let alone the fact that it is not at all focused on trying to grow the economy or any small matters like that. The Government is so focused on its own mismanagement and its own cronyism within the organisation that it is completely distracted and ACC is in trouble as a result. 
The Minister for ACC spoke of the need for a culture change within ACC. There are many of us on this side of the House who would agree that there are aspects of the way things have gone in ACC that we would like to see changed. But the Minister’s idea of a culture change and our idea on this side of the House of a culture change are very different things. The culture change that the Minister is talking about is a culture change towards more privatisation. That is the culture change the Minister means. She does not mean a culture change where we get back to the default assumption being that somebody who comes before ACC is a New Zealand citizen who has a right to the entitlements that ACC offers. Yes there will be people who try to rip the system off and we should root out those people and make sure that they do not get their claims fulfilled. But the vast majority of New Zealanders who come before ACC come because they have been hurt or injured and they expect ACC to be able to provide the support and the services that they need. The culture change this Minister wants is to take more entitlements away and to have a greater role for the Australian insurance companies which benefited the last time when National wanted to privatise ACC. They are what will benefit. The interests here are not those New Zealanders who get hurt or injured or their families. The interests being perpetuated by National are the Australian insurance companies which will benefit from privatisation. 
So the culture change that this Government wants is not the same culture change that we want. We want a culture change that sees ACC back to its core principles back to the Woodhouse principles the things that make New Zealanders proud. But you know what? We know where this culture change is heading because of who the Government has decided to put in place to run ACC now and that is Paula Rebstock—Paula Rebstock the go-to person for the National Party the person whom the National Party is turning to as it looks at its agenda of welfare reform as it looks at its agenda of undermining social security in this country. It is bringing her in as well to look at ACC. It brings her in to oversee what is happening at ACC—further proof that the culture of change that this Government is looking for is a culture of change that is around putting privatisation in place. 
This is a distracted out-of-touch Government. These are people who no longer understand why they were elected—to promote ACC and to promote the well-being of New Zealanders. They have got themselves so mired in scandal and cronyism. We have now a Minister for ACC who is incapable of dragging ACC back to where it should be. This Government needs to get New Zealanders in a position where they can be proud of ACC again. At the moment they cannot be because this Government has mismanaged ACC it has manufactured a crisis and it has introduced cronyism into one of the most important institutions in our land. Those members should be ashamed of themselves. ACC is in a shambles and it is this Government’s fault. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will accept that this is not ACC’s finest hour and the disclosure of private information in any situation must be an extremely stressful experience for the 7000 people who were on that spreadsheet. But I will not accept criticism from that party over there under whose watch over 9 years ACC was led into financial and operational disarray. The member Mr Grant Robertson can talk about a manufactured crisis but I remind that member of the sorts of things that the Minister for ACC in December 2008 faced when the phone rang in Dr Smith’s office in December 2008 and on the other end of the line was the Chair of ACC Board Ross Wilson saying “I know we’ve just written this really good briefing to the incoming Minister but we forgot to mention the small matter of the fact that the non-earners account is basically insolvent and can we have a cheque please for $305654000?” which was just to sustain the non-earners account for the following 6 months. He wanted another $1.5 billion in cash to sustain it over the next 3 years. That led to the sacking of the chair and rightly so and it also led to an inquiry which found that the Minister of Finance Dr Michael Cullen deliberately excluded that information from the pre-election fiscal update in breach of the Public Finance Act. And do you know what he did? Do you know what Dr Cullen did? He blamed Treasury. He blamed the officials. He said it was not Labour’s fault—$305654000—and then said that he did not put it to Cabinet because it was not subject to sufficient detailed scrutiny. He had assessed it down to the last dollar and it still was not good enough for the Labour Government.  
Well I know what I think about that. I think there was a little bit of stuff being shoved under the carpet a little bit of “nothing to see here everything is fine at ACC”. But we know it was not. We know it was not because Maryan Street signed an agreement that presided over a $2.4 billion loss followed by a $4.8 billion loss. And do you know what Labour said? “Accounting sophistry”—accounting sophistry! We had Andrew Little—whatever he was in charge of the Service and Food Workers Union—saying it was a deliberate hatchet job. He accused the auditors the actuaries the Minister himself of generating a false crisis. I tell you what was not false—the levies. The levies went up by billions and here is why. There was a $7.2 billion deficit to recover and assets of $10 billion and liabilities of $24 billion. I am an accountant. I am a chartered accountant right so I kind of get this stuff. But it is really only simple maths. Listen up it is really important. Ten billion dollars $24 billion—what is the difference? It is called $14 billion and it is a serious crisis and it is real. The levy increases were real and the actions that Dr Smith took as the Minister for ACC— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One of the traditions of this House is that when members leave especially when asked to by members of the Government the fact that they are leaving is not drawn to the attention of the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member is absolutely right. I did not actually hear that someone was mentioning that the member was leaving but can I say to members on the Government side that everybody has to leave this Chamber at some time or another. It can be for any reason. I would urge members to abide by the Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders that mention that no mention whatsoever must be made of members leaving the House.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: What an excellent bit of interference I must say. Where was I? Fourteen billion dollars I think. It was the simple maths was it not? Ten billion dollars $24 billion—it is not that difficult. It might be an accounting number but it is pretty real. Let us just say this. If we were to shut down ACC tomorrow—and that will not happen—what would we need to do? The Government would need to write a cheque for $14 billion. The member should try going to his bank manager and saying “Look my business is in really good shape. I’ve got $10 in the bank but I owe $24 and everything is going to be fine.” You multiply that out by billions and it is a very serious problem.  
Here is why it occurred. It occurred because Labour had a come-one come-all approach to ACC. We warned Labour when it wanted to change medical misadventure to treatment injury and have all sorts of medical complications that that would be a Pandora’s box it should not open. It was costed by the Department of Labour at $8.7 million. I was the president of the Private Hospitals Association. I said that that number was a nonsense and so it proved to be because that change cost $87 million a new cost on the taxpayer. We warned Labour when it proposed to remove the co-payments from physiotherapy consultations that it would not cost anything like the $50 billion it was prepared to invest. It cost $250 billion. Let me tell you about elective surgery because an interesting thing was happening. Private medical insurers were making sure that claimants got a “no” letter from ACC before organisations like Southern Cross would approve private surgery. So I can tell you that applications to ACC were put in by surgeons that said “This is not an accident. Do not approve this claim. All we want is a letter.” and ACC would approve it. So let us just talk about a culture of disentitlement because what ACC is having to do under this administration is reverse the nonsense that took place over 9 years and that has cost the levy payers into that scheme and of this country billions and billions of dollars. It is not accounting sophistry. It is simply not. It was a real problem and I congratulate both Dr Smith and the current Minister Judith Collins on turning it round.  
I want to touch on the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ comments about it not being an insurance scheme. He is quite right on one level. The architect of the royal commission report Sir Owen Woodhouse was at pains to point out that this should not be an insurance scheme like other insurance schemes but he did acknowledge that when one creates an incident-based event where payment or rehabilitation follows an accident through no fault and that the levies are subject to the experience of how many claims and the claims’ duration that is by any measure an insurance scheme. What he did say in the report though and I think it is very important is that it should not be risk rated. In fact no party perhaps with the exception of the Greens now believes that the scheme should not be risk rated. What that means is that the forestry worker pays the same premium as the office worker in our out-of-Parliament offices. Simple nonsense. So the levy differentials are about 10 times. Sir Owen did not say that that was a good idea. There is no one in this House who would now agree with him. He made no reference—in fact he made passing reference—to women. He said that housewives should possibly get some cover after about 4 weeks of suffering an injury because the times did not have women at work. It certainly was not written for the very modern multicultural multi-gender work environment that we now have. This is very important because the royal commission report has been around for 42 years and the five principles that underpin the ACC scheme are still real and enduring and this Government subscribes to them. But the report itself is not a sacred cow. It must move with the times. We are in a very very different environment from the one in 1967 when that report was written. I think the changes that are being made are very sensible and necessary. Heaven help us if Labour and the Greens ever get back to the Treasury benches and soften and just leave the scheme to its own devices and bring back a come-one come-all scheme. The simple fact is that some things are caused by an accident some things are medical and some things can be both and there will always be people who are disappointed not to have their claims accepted.  
The last thing I want to say is directed at the staff of ACC. Mr Little has said in the media that this is the worst crisis in 38 years of ACC and some of the senior members of ACC would probably chuckle at that. It is not—it has actually been through the mill on two or three occasions. I was a member of the staff at ACC in 1997 during the last pretty big crisis and they got over it and they improved it and they made the scheme better than it ever was. So I say to the members of ACC the 2500-odd staff right around the country: “We back you. We back the things that you do for the 1.7 million claimants.” The vast majority of them get excellent service and are compensated and rehabilitated in a fair and timely manner even when sometimes a little bit of tough love is involved in getting people back to work on a part-time or graduated basis—things that I know some but not all of the unions would agree with. So I say to them: “Hang in there. You are doing a fantastic job and keep up the good work.” 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
General Debate 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. In recent weeks there has been a cacophony of calls a literal caterwauling of echoes regarding a campaign being launched against the senior citizens of this country. They are being targeted because politicians pressure groups and the media have decided they are getting too much money and they are getting it too early. I want to remind members what these people are being paid at 65 years. It is $348 a week for singles who are living alone; it is $536 a week for a married couple. Is there anyone in the House living on that? Are any of these people over there on the Government side living on that? No.  
When there are problems society always looks for scapegoats—let us find someone to blame. Let us for example pick on the elderly. In Nazi Germany they had to find scapegoats. They did not blame their own militant leadership between 1914 and 1918. They just blamed the Jews. We cannot blame the elderly for problems facing New Zealand and I am going to tell members why. These problems were caused by politicians greedy banks and the corrupt leadership of finance companies in the last few years. Since 1984—this is what has happened to New Zealand—two Governments have come into power one in New Zealand and one in Australia. Australia has by making incremental change and reform grown 37 percent larger in terms of GDP in real terms than New Zealand which went down the road of economic experimentation.  
The blame lies fairly in the experience of this House not with the elderly but with those people who thought and still think that this experiment is going to work. It is not going to work. What is the growth rate of Australia which Mr Key has been talking about all this time saying that we are outperforming Australia? Well the growth rate came in for the end of March at well over 4 percent. What is ours? It is 1.1 percent. This genius from Merrill Lynch has been telling this House that for month after month and it is all absurdly false. What is the average of the growth rate under his administration? Well it is a lousy 0.8 percent per year and that is why they are looking round here in this House now and outside for scapegoats and they have found the elderly.  
Who is leading this charge? Well it is the Financial Services Council. Who are they? Well their chairperson is Jenny Shipley. The person who could not understand the BNZ disaster the wine box or the Asian financial crisis is now heading the financial services sector of this country. She was the very person who back in 1997 opposed New Zealand First’s offer for a referendum in this country for people to save from tax cuts 8 percent eventually to go straight into their personal account. We would have had tens of billions now had we done that—and Jenny Shipley went out and opposed it. But now she is leading the financial services and she is saying: “We’re going to have to have a savings plan.” What damn hypocrisy! What a sham that she of all people should be doing this saying: “Well we’ve got to do something about our savings because we can’t afford superannuation 80 years from now.”  
I think there are only 10000 New Zealanders who are 20 years old right now and who have got any chance of living to 100 in 80 years’ time. She is very concerned about that because she says that half of them if they are born now will be 100 years old 100 years from now! No analysis no facts just public relations spin out there and the report has not even been released to anybody yet. No no—you see they are saving the report for some future time. In the meantime they are just scaremongering.  
We know how this problem started. You get certain sections of the public who believe—and the media believe them—that the elderly should pay. We are referring to someone’s grandparents. It is an outrageous situation and New Zealand First will start a revolution before we will let the pension get cut again. We do not intend to run a miserable failed economy. Oh no! We are the ones who believe in the currency being controlled for farmers and exporters. They do not. They believe in downtown Queen Street paper shufflers speculators and foreigners—all sorts of people. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wall Street not Queen Street. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes Wall Street. Nobody in New Zealand is of any interest to them. They look after all the people who have pumped money into their financial coffers. We know what Bill English did the last time he was the Minister of Finance. What did he do? He cut the pension from 65 percent to a lousy 60 percent.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the Hon Amy— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Our list for the day had the National Party as the first on it and the Labour Party as the second. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All I can say is that I have New Zealand First first and then I have National and then Labour. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I apologise. 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am getting heartily sick of sitting in this House and listening to Opposition parties that claim to care about jobs claim to care about incomes and claim to care about raising the living standards of New Zealanders yet continually oppose every single policy that will actually create jobs raise living standards and create prosperity for New Zealanders. They claim to care about those things but let us judge them on their actions. Every time this Government brings to this House a proposal to do things that will create jobs and that are creating jobs things that will get a handle on debt and things that are creating prosperity and a future for New Zealanders Labour New Zealand First and the Greens oppose it—every single time. Their policies are contradictory inconsistent misguided and misleading. In fact they are intellectually duplicitous. They promise New Zealanders that they care about those things but they oppose every single opportunity to actually make a difference to the wealth the prosperity and the future of this country. 
 While this afternoon we have sat here and listened to petty political point-scoring from Labour this Government is watching the fact that the international situation is increasingly more serious. Anyone who is following the situation in Europe understands that there has hardly ever been in our memory a time more serious in terms of the international and local financial management. This is a time for sensible prudent fiscal management and that is what this National-led Government is delivering to this country. We are focusing on getting our debt under control so that we are not reliant on international lenders and having to pay more and more money to offshore lenders as the Labour Green and New Zealand First parties would want. We are focused on keeping our debt under control getting Government debt down and getting back to surplus in 3 years so that we have choices and so that this Government can deliver policies that will create more jobs as we are.  
We are focused on creating economic growth for this country and we make no apology about that. We are here to create economic growth we are here to create opportunities and it is delivering. It is delivering. The Opposition does not want to hear it but the facts speak for themselves. This afternoon in question time you heard the Minister for Social Development confirm that the number of people on the unemployment benefit is now at its lowest level for more than 3 years.  
Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: They’re on their way to Australia.  
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: You see they do not want to hear it. They want to keep blustering and bleating away from the sidelines knowing that they broke the economy and we are fixing it. They do not want to hear it but the fact remains that the number of people on the unemployment benefit is not only one of the most respectable in the world but also now at its lowest level in more than 3 years. Even more impressively the number of young people on the unemployment benefit has dropped by 44 percent.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Where are the jobs?  
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: Well that is where the jobs are Mr Cosgrove. They are being filled by those people who have got off the unemployment benefit and whom you abandoned. The jobs are exactly why we now have a 44 percent decrease—a 44 percent decrease—in the number of our young people on the unemployment benefit. That is proof that this Government is delivering an effective economic growth strategy to this country. That is why the New Zealand people continue to put their faith and their trust in the John Key - led Government because we are focusing on what matters.  
We are focusing on getting jobs getting opportunities and lifting living standards for all New Zealanders and we are prepared to walk the talk. We are prepared to walk the talk. We do not come to this House and oppose growth structures. We bring to this House infrastructure plans like the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband the Rural Broadband Initiative and the roll-out of the 700 megahertz spectrum all of which the Labour Party opposed. Labour members do not want you to have ultra-fast broadband. They do not want to move to a digital economy. They have opposed that. They had 9 years to do anything and they did nothing. Yet this Government is rolling out a digital future for this country because we know that that is where the future lies. That is why we have invested $1.35 billion in ultra-fast broadband. That is why New Zealand is being taken into the future with a digital economy by this Government which is focused on infrastructure and which is focused on innovation.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 This is a broken shonky incompetent out-of-touch Government so distracted by scandal and cronyism and its own mismanagement that it is missing in action on providing any economic leadership for this country and on addressing any of the underlying issues that this country has.  
But let us look at just 2012 in this Government. A few years ago there was a book on the top of the Amazon best seller list called  
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius 
. Well if they were writing a book about this year under this Government it would be called “ 
A Mind-boggling Term of Staggering Incompetence 
” because that is what we have seen right from the beginning of the year with the Crafar farm deal about which a High Court judge said that Maurice Williamson and Jonathan Coleman had misdirected themselves in law. They got it wrong and the Government is so out of touch with the public’s view about the importance of our farmland that it wants to see it hocked off.  
Then there are asset sales which are not only opposed in polls by 80 percent of Kiwis but also opposed by 99 percent of submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. But it is apt that the Government is acting in the interests of the 1 percent because that is what it has been doing throughout—the 1 percent of submitters the 1 percent of this country—and bulldozing this Mixed Ownership Model Bill through the select committee.  
Then we have John Banks up a river on a cabbage boat without a paddle. He does not know what he is doing. He does not know what he is doing in this Parliament. The Government does not want him here but it is stuck with him because he is the only way it can get its ridiculous agenda through.  
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has seen disgraceful mismanagement and passing of the buck by Murray McCully. In ACC there is a legacy of cronyism internecine National Party warfare and Michelle Boag playing “peekaBoag” and lurking around pillars in Parliament trying to get on the television. It is an organisation let down by its Ministers and let down by this Government. Then we have Skycity the convention centre and the pokies—a grubby deal and the Prime Minister is right in the middle of it. Make no mistake when the Auditor-General’s office is looking into this it is the Prime Minister’s actions it is looking into the Prime Minister who interfered in a deal the Prime Minister who got in front of other bidders and said: “Forget about it. I’ve got a deal for you with Skycity.” There are dinners and there are all sorts of things in this when the Auditor-General gets into it. But make no mistake this is the Prime Minister a dodgy deal and this is what the Auditor-General will be looking at.  
But I want to refer to the Budget. Once upon a time Budgets were documents of certainty and gravity thoroughly worked-through proposals based on analysis and debate. Ministers even offered their resignations if something leaked out. Well look at this National Government and its Budgets. It seems to see them as a cross between a Sunday newspaper horoscope and some kind of policy  
Dragons’ Den 
 where half-baked ideas are pitched to an unwitting New Zealand public who are forced to protest and threaten before the would-be policy dreamer backs off and admits that their idea would never have floated in the first place.  
The most avid reader of the horoscope is of course that well-known stargazer Bill English. I actually half expected his Budget speech to begin with: “The presence of Jupiter planet of joy and happiness in our sign indicates 140000 extra jobs and enables a totally unrealistic growth forecast. Go for it!”. But no what we had once again was the Budget coming from Bill English where we failed to meet our growth targets where the numbers are wrong and then the final indignity in this Budget a core proposal in education that is ditched after 2 weeks.  
The Government had a crack at pitching its idea to the public before ditching it and leaving a huge hole in the books not to mention a bizarre belief that the Prime Minister holds to this day that teacher professional development is possible only with class size increases. He is the only person making the causal link. He is the only person who thinks that New Zealand children do not deserve quality teachers unless we cram more children into the classes. He is wrong. It is not just a political mistake it is a mistake and this Government should admit that.  
If this Government was putting an ad in the personal columns it would say: “Hopeless policies seeking incompetent management; long-term relationship assured.” That is what we are seeing from this Government and the only real plan this Government has now is to adopt a new strategy: “WWPD: What Would Paula Rebstock Do?”. That is the strategy from this Government. That is the person whom this Government turns to when it is trying to come up with a plan because it does not have one of its own. There is no strategy from this Government to grow the economy. The only strategy for actually doing something about the economy is coming from this side of the House. We know that to invest in our future we need to support education and we need to support a clean green clever innovative economy.  
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 With all the conflict and economic gloom and doom around the world right now I am really glad to be a Kiwi. Yes we have had tough times in the last few years. We have had a global financial crisis the Pike River disaster the Canterbury earthquakes—all 11000 of them—and the  
Rena 
 spill but despite the negativity of the Opposition actually we have coped pretty well.  
New Zealanders are resilient. They are adapting to change they are making the most of every situation they are working hard to move forward and we are getting results. I am glad to be a Kiwi because we are made of the right stuff. We are smart educated innovative people. We live in a beautiful clean green environment. We have a stable and I must say excellent National Government and we have prudent financial management.  
 Economically most of the world is far worse off than us—the eurozone is in a meltdown the US is just treading water and even China was affected last week dropping its interest rates to stimulate its economy. Unemployment is rife across the world. We are looking at 24 percent in Spain and worse still 50 percent of young Spaniards are out of work. Right across Europe there is about 11 percent unemployment. It was interesting to hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters talk about Nazi Germany because frighteningly the economic statistics coming out of Europe right now are very similar to those of the 1930s. Both Britain and the US have over 8 percent unemployment and so has Canada. But in New Zealand although our unemployment rate is still hovering around 6 percent our job growth strategies are working. The rate has been coming down consistently since early 2010 and job numbers are growing.  
But the most significant thing is that most Kiwis seem to understand financial risk and they are adapting well to the global economic uncertainty. Households and businesses alike are cutting costs they are reducing waste and many are even managing to save. This Government is doing the same thing. We are determined to keep our debt down to deliver more and affordable effective services and to develop a more productive and efficient economy. And we are getting results here too with interest rates the lowest that we have seen for years—something that affects every New Zealander—and growth in nine out of the 10 last quarters. In fact we are forecast to grow even faster in the next 3 years than Europe Britain Japan the US and Canada. We are even expected to match Australia’s growth. When you think of Australia the Lucky Country with one of the best performing economies in the OECD if we are close to them we are doing well.  
I am also glad to be a Kiwi because we are living in the right part of the world. Sixty percent of our exports are going to Australia or Asia and they are the most vibrant and thriving regions in the world. The Government and Tim Groser are focusing on new trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific region that will give us new markets we are investing in innovation and new technologies and we are increasing funding in engineering science and research. So what we are doing is building on our strengths because that is where our future lies.  
I am glad to be a Kiwi because we are developing a more sustainable economy. Tourism and agriculture are predicated on a clean green environment and New Zealanders are absolutely focused on making sure that we look after it. The Government is investing in clean-ups. The Land and Water Forum is looking at water issues. There are toughened standards from Fonterra and dairy companies. All that will improve our water quality and help our waterways.  
But I am really interested in the new environmentally friendly businesses that are flourishing. At the Green Ribbon Awards last week we heard about companies like Eco-Stock a company that is turning waste that would normally go to landfill into valuable animal food. We heard about CarboNZero a Canterbury company that is helping companies all around the world to cut their carbon emissions. We heard about the wineries that claim that their global competitive advantage is being from environmentally friendly New Zealand. There are a host of other innovative and sustainable products.  
But most of all I am glad to be a Kiwi because I am from Christchurch. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Next week the Earth Summit reconvenes in Rio 20 years after the first meeting. I shall be attending—apart from a Cabinet Minister for a few days I shall be the only member of the House to be there. Some 110 leaders attended back in 1992. The global problem of sustainability was on the agenda. A global framework for action was adopted in a genuine attempt to address the global problem with a global approach. Conventions on climate change on desertification and on biodiversity were adopted. Forestry eluded us but we issued ringing declarations about sustainable consumption and production and we called for new concepts to measure the carrying capacity of the planet. In an imperfect world we left Rio back in 1992 thinking that we the international community of States had laid the basis for at least future action to address these daunting problems on behalf of the global community of peoples. 
Twenty years is a long and a short time. It is long enough for us to have been able to follow through with protocols to develop effective action within each framework. This we failed to do at least effectively because it is too short it seems for our international institutions and national mindsets to transform into legitimate global decision-making. And it is long enough for the planet’s continuing degradation and climate instability to become apparent as a result to the intensifying alarm of the scientific community. 
The United Nations Environment Programme’s latest report released last week advises humanity in the following way. Earth’s environmental systems are being pushed beyond their biophysical limits beyond which looms sudden irreversible and potentially catastrophic change. “As human pressures on the earth … accelerate several critical thresholds are close or have been exceeded. Once these have been passed abrupt and possibly irreversible changes to the life-support functions of the planet are likely to occur with significant adverse implications for human well-being.” The chief of the United Nations Environment Programme Achim Steiner says: “Once the tipping points occur you don’t wake up the next morning and say ‘This is terrible can we change it?’.” That is the whole essence of these thresholds. We are condemning people to not having the choice any more. 
So we assemble next week back in Rio geared up to review what we have done since 1992 and preview what we might do in the future. Perhaps the mindset is changing. Very few now query climate change. Most want a switch to a low-carbon economy even as we argue over how to retain it. Most are very worried about the potential for “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. At last we are recognising that our international institutions need to be beefed up.  
Rio Plus Twenty will address two major themes: the green economy and an institutional framework for sustainable development. Consideration will be given to forming a Sustainable Development Council to strengthen the UN’s environment programme and establish an ombudsman for future generations. Priority will be given to food security water energy oceans climate change forests biodiversity land and deserts mountains chemicals and waste. A set of global sustainable development goals might be adopted brilliantly eliding from the Millennium Development Goals of 12 years ago. The limitations of GDP and the need to adopt new indicators of well-being may be acknowledged. This of course is by no means enough yet it is not too late to transform this draft into something with real substance. This is not the moment for specific action on climate change; that will occur at Qatar later in December. It is not the moment for specific action on the other themes. It is the moment for political will for changing the mindset and strengthening the institutions. Let us see how we do. “We” means humanity. “We” includes New Zealand. 
It is a shame the New Zealand Prime Minister John Key is staying away. He has no appetite for grim challenge. The fate of the Earth is off his visionary agenda but the other 115 or so leaders will decide. They will decide for him and therefore for us. Whether or not Nicky Wagner is thrilled to be a Kiwi they will decide for us. This is no time for tears no time yet but the challenge ahead is immense. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I take a call in this general debate. When we watch and read the news day after day informing us of the massive challenges and problems being faced by much bigger developed economies it brings into sharp contrast the incredible job our National-led Government is doing in protecting and building our own economy. New Zealand is only 0.25 percent of the world economy. We are not insulated from global forces just because we are geographically remote. We are affected by what is happening to the rest of the world.  
But the great news is that we are beginning to emerge as standing out from a large part of the pack because this Government is doing the right things. Growth in New Zealand over the next years as my colleague Nicky Wagner alluded to—and by the way I must say that Christchurch is very lucky to have a representative like Nicky Wagner who is as passionate about the rebuild there as any New Zealander could be—is forecast to be higher than in Europe Britain Japan the United States and Canada. We are expected to achieve around the same growth rates as Australia at about 3 percent. That is because we are getting the fundamentals right.  
Brendan Horan 
: The forecasts so far have been so widely askew.  
MARK MITCHELL 
: You might say “So what?” but this is actually very important to most New Zealanders. We are expected to achieve those growth rates because we are getting the fundamentals right. We have sound economic and financial institutions. We have products and services that are in demand and will continue to be over the coming decades. We are growing our exports in the most vibrant and thriving regions of the world like East and South-east Asia. The rebuilding of Christchurch will effectively be a huge stimulus programme funded largely by significant insurance payouts coming largely from overseas. So as a country we face a relatively favourable set of circumstances and opportunities over the coming years. We are ready to make the most of those opportunities while continuing to carefully manage the exposure to global risks.  
I would like to talk about our business sector and the key growth initiatives of this Government. Back in my own electorate of Rodney I have been running a series of business forums of which I held my third last week in Silverdale. These are some of the issues that have been highlighted as being important to our local business people: a reduction in red tape and compliance costs— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What have you done about that? 
MARK MITCHELL 
: This is what we are doing—this is what we are doing. We are removing 176 unnecessary regulations from the law books and repealing 31 obsolete or redundant Acts. We are amending 13 Acts to reduce compliance costs and the regulatory burden on business. What would Labour and Mr Cosgrove do? They would apply a capital gains tax to all our businesses. They would return to 1970s industrial relations policies and wind back National’s ACC changes meaning higher ACC levies.  
What else is important to the local business people in Rodney? Investment in infrastructure was highlighted as being important. Investment in infrastructure is highlighted as being important so what is this Government doing to invest in our infrastructure? We are investing $12 billion over the next 10 years in new State highways and $1.8 billion in new local roads. This is important.  
This is significant actually to our communities and I would welcome and invite anyone to come as a guest and visit the people of Rodney north Rodney and Northland and to speak to them about the Puhoi to Wellsford motorway. This has been tagged as a holiday highway by the Opposition. It is not actually a holiday highway; it is an economic highway. Labour members as I understand are saying that if it was up to them if they were in Government this road would be cancelled. Come north and find out how popular that policy is.  
We are investing $12 billion over the next 10 years in new State highways and $1.8 billion in new local roads. We have committed $750 million to the $4.6 billion plan to improve the rail freight network and to help rail to become commercially viable. We are investing $1.35 billion in public-private partnerships to roll out ultra-fast broadband with 90 percent of businesses to be covered in 4 years. This is a significant policy. If you talk to our small businesses and our entrepreneurs in remote areas who rely on an ultra-fast broadband service or to those whom an ultra-fast broadband service would allow to expand and grow in the global market this is important.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 Before I get to the guts of my speech I just want to address the last point that the member Mark Mitchell raised. He talked about what the Government has done for small business. He talked about a bill called the Regulatory Reform Bill in the name of Minister John Banks which does something amazingly innovative—it repeals 31 Acts that do not exist. But apart from that it is now languishing on the bottom of the Order Paper because the Government is so scandal-ridden that it does not want its fingerprints its boot prints or its toe prints anywhere near John Banks. Do you know what the cost of that is to small business? I talked to the film industry. I went and visited them on Friday. It is costing them $50000 a week because there is a clause about classification that when passed will make the industry efficient and save them $50000 a week. But it is costing them because these guys will not pass the bill because they do not want the ghost of “Uncle Fester” anywhere near the public—anywhere near the public eye.  
Now that we have put the sword into that one I will read Government members a few quotes from the Christchurch  
Press 
. This is a headline from the Christchurch  
Press 
: “The Government has made itself look careless and incompetent”. It says: “The Government’s botched handling of education reform raises significant doubts”—oh this is a cracker—“about the competence of senior ministers and the Prime Minister.” This is from the Christchurch  
Press 
—not known to be the reddest publication in the world.  
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Newspaper of the year. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is the newspaper of the year. It says that senior Ministers in this crowd are incompetent. What the education back-down shows us is that there is no blueprint no plan and no strategy. They are poll-driven fruit cakes and they change their minds like Gerry as he goes from brunch goes to lunch and goes to dinner. They change their minds like they change their socks. There is no plan it is ad hoc there is no blueprint and there is no strategy. They change their minds every day based on a poll result.  
I will read them another great headline here from last weekend’s  
Sunday Star-Times 
: “Key’s govt losing charm offensive”. It says this: “The proposed increase in class sizes was a minor matter a stupid idea invented by Treasury and swallowed by sleepy politicians.” I think it is talking about Nicky Wagner actually. “But the Government won’t back down on its core policies.” Then it says this: “The sell-down of state assets after all is nearly as unpopular as the increase in class sizes. But the Government is ramming through the asset sales in a rush and popular protest won’t stop it.”  
It goes on to say this: “There is no good argument for asset sales. They make no difference to the Government’s net debt. It is flogging off assets for ideological reasons not economic ones.” Yet again it is not-thought-through slipshod work and populist stuff—for some of its constituency about 1 percent. It is not thought through at all—the incompetence the lack of a plan. And every day there is another scandal that rolls out. Some of them hide behind their desks. They are like a bunch of what I think the Australians call skinks—you know lizards. I think Paul Keating actually said this. Most of them over there are sort of lizards sitting there frozen—alive but looking dead. They are alive but looking dead all of them. And I say— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no—Jonathan Young moves like a tuatara.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague says that Jonathan Young moves like a tuatara. There is scandal after scandal. It is an inward-looking Government that is obsessed and myopic about its own incompetence. Every day our people in the communities languish. There are 87000 young people on the scrap heap and the Government is proud of it. There are people in Christchurch who have had a glacial pace—a glacial pace—to their recovery from the earthquake disaster and the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery interferes with one of the best chief executive officers I think we have had Mr Roger Sutton who has now basically been corralled sat on and had a fence put around him. He cannot do his job because Mr Brownlee puts the politics in front of everything including the humanity of our communities.  
The Government is inward-looking. It has “third-term-itis” in the second term. John Banks Nick Smith Richard Worth—the scandals go on—Judith Collins ACC and all the time our communities the people men and women who need help who need assistance who are in desperate times and cannot make ends meet and who look to a Government for leadership for a strategy for a plan for help and for assistance get nothing from this crowd because it is so self-obsessed.  
Well I say this: when you start to get headlines like this when you start to get major newspapers calling the Prime Minister incompetent and saying that the charm offensive is over when you start to get newspapers and media saying that senior Ministers are incompetent then that is when you start on the slippery slope.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 Well I have got to say what an impassioned speech that was from the previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. What did I get out of it? Well we got called lazy we got called lizards and we got called self-obsessed but nowhere in that speech did I hear about a plan from Labour a vision from Labour or an alternative Budget from Labour.  
 So what did we hear from Labour members? We heard criticisms put-downs and personal attacks. Nothing has changed in the last 4 years. But it is good to see for the first time in 4 years that they are starting to wake up. It is good to see them taking notice of what is happening around them. It is good to hear them say that they are looking forward to a brighter future for all of New Zealand because that is what this National Government is going to deliver.  
We are a nation that is not afraid to roll up our sleeves and get down to some good hard work. We are a nation of hard workers we are a nation of integrity and we are a nation of innovation. They are key to economic growth in New Zealand. That economic growth will be driven by this Government driven by the 120-point plan because this is a Government that is going to build that brighter future for all New Zealanders. We are taking responsibility for ensuring that we have got our books in balance to ensure we return to surplus in 2014-15. This is not a new aim; this is not a new plan. This has been in place for the last 4 years and that is what we are going to deliver for New Zealand.  
We are looking at economic growth at 3 percent—equivalent to Australia’s. We are looking at creating 154000 more jobs for New Zealanders. In the last 2 years we have created 60000 new jobs. This is important to New Zealand. We are building economic growth on strong fundamentals. We are going to make the most of all the opportunities that we can find. But we know that businesses depend on six things. There are six key components to business. The first one is ideas and innovation and we are great at that in New Zealand. The second one is allowing businesses to have access to money. We have worked with the capital markets to improve those and improve confidence. The next one is access to raw materials. We have got plenty of those in New Zealand. The fourth one is a skilled workforce for our businesses and we are working on that. The fifth one is customers who want to buy our products. That is why we are working with these emerging markets around the world. The sixth one is infrastructure. Businesses depend on infrastructure like electricity broadband and transport. Those are the three areas that we are focused on.  
I would like to touch a little bit more on research and development and innovation. We are increasing our spending significantly in science and innovation. We will spend $385 million in the next 4 years which is more than $1.3 billion by the year 2015-16. We believe that science and innovation is one of the major drivers for economic growth and our international competitiveness. So $166 million goes into the advanced technology industry and it will work with our businesses. We will put $60 million into national science challenges $100 million into a performance-based research fund and $59 million into increased funding in science and engineering tertiary education. We are focusing on these areas because that is our future and that is how we will stand out from the rest of the world.  
But I believe that we need to change the way that we look at science and innovation. We have to challenge our culture around science in New Zealand. We need to get the science community the businesses the universities the public and the Government all having open discussions about how we can increase our economic development. We need to start mature debate around the issues that really matter to New Zealand. These debates previously have been based on emotion not science and evidence—for example fracking. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Is it not funny how this Government has gone from something resembling  
The 
Love Boat 
 with the New Zealand public to  
A 
Nightmare on Elm Street 
 in the space of just a short few months. The names of what has taken the Government there are already writ into political legend. They are “Banks and the banana boat” and the sieve that is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The photocopier must have been going double time over there from what has arrived in the Opposition offices. McCully is the exorcist. That is what this is. The sleazy deals where the Government has sold the law—things like I do not know Warner Bros the Telecom broadband deal MediaWorks which is the company that Steven Joyce used to own and then bailed out. And now Skycity. The poor old Opposition is drowning in a sea of riches at the moment. We are finding it difficult to know quite which scandal to touch on first. Because at 11 o’clock today the Office of the Auditor-General said that it was investigating Steven Joyce and the deal with Skycity— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And John Key. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —and John Key for the lack of due process for the lack of transparency in the tender. Then at 1 o’clock Mr Joyce issued a press release which said: “We don’t give a damn. We’re going to carry on regardless. We don’t care what the Officer of Parliament the Auditor-General says. We’re going to carry on regardless.” Exactly what will happen if the Government does rush out a shoddy deal with one party—Skycity—and then the Office of the Auditor-General comes out and says: “Sorry back to square one.”? Could it be that Skycity could then sue the Government—sue the taxpayer—for non-performance? Could it be that the jilted suitors at the wedding could also sue? Morrison and Co. Infratil ASB Bank Auckland Council Ngati Whatua—what of those? The word around the Auckland business community is now “Have the rules changed? How do you get work done in this town? Do you have to invite the Prime Minister to dinner?”.  
You know they may not have loved the form-filling that went with Ministry of Economic Development tender processes they may have sometimes chafed against the paperwork but nobody ever said it was not fair. But in this case let us just look at the time line. It actually goes right back to 2001 when none other than Judith Collins the current Minister for ACC whom people will have noticed is under just an incy-wincy cloud at the moment was the National-appointed chair of the Casino Control Authority. She approved 230 extra pokie machines to get the first Skycity conference centre built and thus set the precedent.  
I understand the Beehive is trying to spin that as a Labour decision when it was taken by the chair of the Casino Control Authority Judith Collins. Well is that not interesting? Fast-forward to August 2009: the Ministry of Economic Development does a feasibility study under Steven Joyce but none other than the Prime Minister the Minister of Tourism intervenes to say “Stop work. Nobody do anything on this until my mates at Skycity have presented their proposal.” At the same time Skycity is saying how well connected it is to the Government and only after Skycity’s deal arrived is any sort of process restarted. Surprise surprise—everybody else’s proposals are bagged and the Government negotiates with only one partner Skycity.  
How very very interesting. Why would any Government negotiate with only one tenderer giving itself no fall-back position and thus losing any guarantee that the taxpayer would get the best value? That will be one of the questions that the Office of the Auditor-General will seek to answer. And why did the Government not treat all parties to that tender equally? Why did it not give ASB the same chance it gave Skycity? Why did it not give Infratil the same chance it gave Skycity? The answer is easy: the board had not invited John Key to dinner. Well I do not know that that is going to be good enough for the Auditor-General’s office. And when and if it is not then the question will be asked: why did Steven Joyce thumb his nose at the Auditor-General—thumb his nose not only at due process but at the Officers of Parliament? 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand here today and speak from the sensible side of the House about what New Zealanders want and that is a life to aspire to and a livelihood that is going to build and support their families here in this country. In order to build this life you have to be positively pro-growth—something that we know the Opposition of course opposes. It opposes everything that this Government is doing. It opposes growth and every single idea that we have proposed to enlarge our economy. For every single idea that we have proposed to bring restraint which would bring us back to surplus all we have heard is opposition. All we have heard is complaint.  
Here are some of the initiatives that our opponents have said no to. We want to intensify and develop our agricultural sector; they want to put it out of business like last time with their tax. We want to develop our mining and our oil reserves and we want to see—as I know and I experience in Taranaki—the prosperity that that industry can bring to New Zealanders but they say no to that as well. We want to see Australian companies move jobs to New Zealand. Just recently the Hon Bill English was across in Australia and Australian businessmen were saying that it is more competitive for them to be able to locate here than there but our opponents oppose that. They do not want to see more business come here. They do not want to see New Zealanders get jobs like that.  
We want to bring an element of work to those who are beneficiaries because we believe that work is good for people. It is not a punishment; it is a reward. It is something that builds esteem that builds wealth in people’s lives that builds skills and social interaction and that enables them to contribute to their communities. But no every idea that we put forward they oppose. We want to help people get into jobs and help businesses to grow. We have brought in a 90-day probation period for new employees but they are against that as well. So many employers that I talk to say that because of that law change they have given somebody a go when they would not have done that before because the risks were too great. Yet we have done it and we have seen—the Department of Labour said—13000 jobs grow because of that. And all of our other labour-market reforms the Opposition has opposed.  
I guess to be in Opposition you oppose but there are so many good workable ideas that are helping New Zealanders that we are putting into place. We are bringing some stability some strength some economic growth and opportunity. We heard today that unemployment is reducing. We are not happy with those levels of unemployment at 6.7 percent but we know that right now they have gone under 50 percent. We know that there has been a reduction of 44 percent of those youth who have been unemployed. We know that in times of recession the young people are the ones who struggle to find work and we are seeing more and more of them being able to take up opportunities. A lot of that is to do with the labour laws that we have put in place.  
We are in times in our world where there is a lot of uncertainty beyond our borders and we need to acknowledge that. We know that there is social disintegration taking place in a number of countries up in the northern hemisphere. We understand that there is a gap between what people want and what they have and I guess that has always been the human dilemma. People have always wanted more and aspiration can fulfil that goal if people are prepared to work. But if we want the world’s best we have to become the world’s best. We have to find out what we are good at and what our point of difference is and become very very good at it whether that is farming food processing engineering or making movies. We need to use our ingenuity and innovate and this Government is putting so much effort funding and support into those particular areas where we can develop innovation and where we can become the world’s very best at what we are good at so we have that point of difference and are able to compete in a mobile and global world like never before. That is so important.  
What we are seeing in Greece and in Europe is that there is a tremendous disconnect taking place in those economies between what people have become used to and what they can actually afford. I was reading this week’s  
Newsweek 
 magazine and there it showed pictures of people in Greece having a party. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 The member Jonathan Young who just resumed his seat mentioned that Labour is opposed to some of National’s policies and I have to say that is right. It is the only good thing it is the only correct thing it is the only sensible thing that he has said during his contribution to the general debate.  
I am pleased to confirm that Labour is opposed to mining in schedule 4 land of our national parks—land that has been put in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act because it is so precious and so important. National wanted to mine it. Thousands of people up and down our country protested and National said: “Oops! We’ve done the wrong thing again.”  
I am also very pleased to confirm that we do not support sacking a worker in this country without the employer having any obligation at all under the law to tell the person why they have been sacked. That is all that is required actually under the current trial provisions in the employment relations legislation and what the National Government did was take away that small but very important obligation—what I think is a moral obligation—to tell a person why they are sacked. Just gone. The member for New Plymouth thinks that is a good thing. Well I think it is a bad thing. Not once did he mention any plan any strategy or any vision for New Zealand that the National Government has because it does not have one.  
You know sometimes on general debate day Opposition members say: “Oh well that is good. We have had a little mistake that a Minister has made a little policy gone wrong from the Government.” and the Opposition focuses its entire time in the general debate around that one single mistake one single policy that went wrong. Well where do we start? Where do we start this week? 
Kris Faafoi 
: An embarrassment of riches. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Talk about an embarrassment of riches as my colleague Kris Faafoi has just said. This week is overwhelmingly bad for the Government. It has been described by the media as the worst week John Key as Prime Minister has ever had. It is incompetence dripping from the Government—incompetence rampant throughout the ranks of the National Government. No wonder its support partners have been nowhere around this week. They are hiding in every possible corner of the building.  
Of course we have got the ACC debacle. Well that is just going from bad to worse. It was bad enough frankly when Nick Smith was the Minister for ACC. It was bad enough watching him cut the entitlements of injured people because he wanted to narrow the scheme and then mislead New Zealand about the financial situation of the corporation which he later had to admit he had made up so that he could cut the entitlements of injured workers. People who were victims of sexual abuse had their support cut. People who were partially deaf because of the excessive noise in their workplace had their entitlement cut. Nick Smith made so many errors to the point finally of writing a letter of support to the corporation on ministerial letterhead about his close friend Bronwyn Pullar. He was its Minister and he wrote that letter of support. In the end he had to go.  
Well we thought that was bad enough but under Judith Collins—talk about things looking good under Nick Smith! It is just extraordinary what has happened and she as the Minister is washing her hands of all responsibility. I frankly find it hard to figure out why she accepts her salary every fortnight if the best effort she can make is to wash her hands of the responsibility. She got poor old John Judge up to her office. First of all she said she was going to back him then she thanked him and then she sacked him. Out—gone by lunchtime. Then it was the poor old chief executive Ralph Stewart. He has hardly been there 5 minutes—less than 6 months I understand. He has gone as well and this afternoon two more board members from ACC— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Rob Campbell walked. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am not going to make any comments about whether Mr Campbell should have been on the board in the first place; I think that is not great territory for me to go into. The Minister has lost her chairman her chief executive and two board members and she is saying: “Whoa not my fault.”  
Hon Member 
: Careless. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: To say that Judith Collins as Minister is careless would be a significant understatement. She is the Minister who as my colleague David Cunliffe has just pointed out in 2001 as chair of the Casino Control Authority did the first shonky deal with Skycity. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have sat here all afternoon and frankly I wonder why I did. I have witnessed members on the other side of the House reading the paper to us. I came here and I am sure this side of the House came here to make the news not read about it. In fact we have spent the afternoon listening to a lot of history—the history of a pretty second-rate Opposition in my view. We have also listened to a member of the Greens talking about how to fix the rest of the world not how to fix New Zealand. This National Government is here to fix New Zealand. I am relieved for the men and women of New Zealand who need help that National is in Government not Labour because if we were relying on Labour we would be in deep strife.  
We in the Rangitikei understand the need to grow production not consumption. We understand the need for an export-led economy that will play a part and more in realising this. We know how to produce good quality milk meat wool malt carrots potatoes eggs and many other amazing agricultural products. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Vegetables over there! 
IAN McKELVIE 
: Absolutely—and they are productive. We know how to produce great university graduates and outstanding soldiers and air force personnel. We know how to host and transport tourists and above all else we know how to manage our environment for future generations. We also know what it is like to face a decreasing population and the pressure this brings to bear on an ageing infrastructure as fewer and fewer people are left to pay for that upgrade. We know the pressure on our local councils to produce better facilities for less and on the Government to provide better health and education services to remote parts of New Zealand.  
We like other remote parts of New Zealand know what it is like to fight for what we have. We know how hard it has been over the last 20 years to retain our services. We cannot successfully carry out any of these activities or provide these services without sound government great policy and practical positive budgeting. We feel the harsh economic realities of today but we understand the need for constraint. There is a need to create an environment where this great country can prosper and grow once again; an environment where we can get our produce to market efficiently and as quickly as possible; one where we can be proud of our small communities their schools their health services their infrastructure and their recreational facilities; and one where we can look forward to a brighter future.  
Building a brighter future is about joining many dots along the way including responsibly managing the Government’s finances building a more responsible and competitive economy delivering better public services and rebuilding Christchurch. These dots are contributed to by boosting early childhood education renewing our commitment to what I call special education services and other education reforms i.e. national standards and effective and better supported teachers under the leadership of Minister Parata. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
IAN McKELVIE 
: At least it has cheered up the Opposition members. They look particularly gloomy. Delivering faster broadband services is absolutely essential to rural New Zealand and to our future. Minister Bennett and her welfare system reforms are enabling people to get back into work and my electorate knows what that is about. Reducing crime improving personal safety and improving prisoners’ opportunities to get back into society is most important to my community as well.  
The Treaty settlements process under Minister Finlayson will have a very positive effect on rural New Zealand and a positive impact on our history and on the morale of New Zealanders in general. Reforming the Local Government Act 2002 will enable councillors to become fleet of foot and efficient and effective providers of essential infrastructure.  
Growth for growth’s sake is not the answer for New Zealand’s future. We must have a planned structured growth and to achieve this we need a country moving in unison. We need planning undertaken in a strategic manner by our Government and councils and in the course of this we must protect and restore our environment as it is critical to the future of my electorate and yours. In the Rangitikei we rely on the environment to provide our income. It is critical to farming and tourism. We also have the resource to provide for solutions to these initiatives through our university and research-based businesses on the Massey University side of the Manawatu River.  
We are a Government about growth about people and about success for New Zealanders. We are a Government about protecting the future for future generations of New Zealanders and I commend the activities of this Government in this term of Government. I think we have done a fantastic job. Thank you. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill 
First Reading 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate that the Local Government and Environment Committee consider the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. The items contained in this Waitaki District Council local bill have been a long time coming to this House. Although on the face of it when we read the bill the matters contained look relatively dry and of a legal nature actually the impact on the people whom it affects is quite strong. So to those people I have talked to and to whom the matters in this bill relate I am very pleased for their sake that tonight we have commenced the parliamentary part and the scrutiny of this local bill.  
The bill contains three matters and I will run through them in turn. The first one relates to the Palmerston Showgrounds. This bill revokes the reservation of part lot 7 known as the Palmerston Showgrounds under the Reserves Act 1977 and vests ownership of that land in the Waitaki District Council. The history of this item is that the council entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of the Palmerston Showgrounds with the current lessees of the showgrounds in the year 2000. However the problem was that the reserve status of the property gives effective ownership of the Palmerston Showgrounds to the Crown as a Crown-owned reserve. Ngai Tahu and the Department of Conservation have consented to the sale of the Palmerston Showgrounds by the Crown to the council. The council in turn on the passage of this bill considers it appropriate to regularise the occupation of the current lessees—that is a family—of the Palmerston Showgrounds. It is going to do that by revoking its reserve status freeing it of all express and implied reservations or restrictions—which of course it has under the Reserves Act 1977—and vesting ownership of the property in the council absolutely. The council may then consider selling the property to the current lessees. That is the first item contained in this bill.  
The second item is a lot in Oamaru township itself and that is lot 1 under the Reserves Act—DP 345820 to be specific—which will come under scrutiny by the select committee. Again the bill vests ownership in the current registered proprietors. So the ownership will not be vested in the council; this item in the bill vests ownership with the current proprietors who will then become the owners of that property. I know that this particular part of the bill is really important to that family who I know are very concerned that it goes through this Parliament.  
At the time that the council entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of the freehold of this property which was in 2004 the council was unaware of the reserve status of the property which gave effective ownership of the property to the Crown. Ngai Tahu again and the Department of Conservation have consented to the revocation of the reserve status and the ratification of the sale of the freehold property by the council to the original registered proprietors who will then on the passage of this bill become the owners and they will be very glad to do so.  
Those are the first two items contained in the bill and the third item contained in this bill relates to Forrester Heights which is also locally known as Lookout Point. It is a parcel of land that looks north-east down on to the Oamaru Harbour and currently is a relatively steep bank that is under grass and a bit of scrub. It is quite a nice parcel of land as it happens.  
There was a historical error made by the former borough essentially in relation to semantics. The land was originally purchased by the Government from Ngai Tahu in 1848 as a part of the Kemp purchase. The land was included in the original subdivision of the town of Oamaru. Oamaru is a historic town and this was part of the original subdivision. In 1885 the land was set aside as an endowment in aid of the funds for the benefit of the then Oamaru Borough Council a predecessor to the Waitaki District Council in accordance with section 38 of the Land Act 1877.  
Now we come to the interesting part of the bill. An administrative oversight that occurred in 1937 mistakenly vested that parcel of land as a reserve. Reserve status and endowment status are two completely separate concepts and the local borough of the day may not have been fully aware of this or appreciated its importance back in 1937. So the confusion that surrounds the status of this land is largely a result of language or semantics. The land was reserved as an endowment in 1885 but it was not intended that the land was ever to be classified as reserve itself with the consequent encumbrances on that land which have now become apparent with the passage of time. This bill addresses the clerical error made in 1937 by clarifying the status of the land as an endowment.  
The Waitaki District Council has been working with Land Information New Zealand together with Ngai Tahu the Department of Conservation and the Commissioner of Crown Lands. I have been involved and so has parliamentary counsel on this matter. All those parties have consented to the content of the bill and to the objectives of the bill. It is worth noting that Ngai Tahu have taken considerable advice on this issue. They have confirmed to the Waitaki District Council that their view is that the council has a right to freehold title to the land and that the land is therefore not subject to the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998.  
So there you have it. It is on the face of it a perhaps pedestrian and technical bill to do with three matters but I can tell members that as far as the locals are concerned this bill is of great interest. I can assure the House that the Local Government and Environment Committee will give it its closest consideration. I commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Labour supports the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee as we do with almost all local bills that come to this House. I want to acknowledge the member for Waitaki. She is doing her job as a local MP bringing this bill to the House on behalf of her constituents.  
It is appropriate that local bills deal with matters like this and we note that the Waitaki District Council has requested that the House help it by regularising the status of three pieces of land which the member for Waitaki has been outlining for us. The council tells us that mistakes were made—“clerical errors” in the words of the member for Waitaki. The council now wants Parliament to sort the problem out for it.  
I do note that another bill is still before this House the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill which I think contains provisions that would do the job required for two of these blocks of land. But for some reason since this Government was elected in 2008 that bill has languished at the bottom of the Order Paper and progress has not been made. The poor member for Waitaki has been forced to bring this local bill to the House. Nevertheless Labour supports this bill going to select committee but I want to sound a note of concern about one of the three blocks of land that this bill deals with. In respect of the reserve land that is being vested in private interests and is the subject of significant controversy and argument in Oamaru I think that deserves proper scrutiny and debate at select committee and I will devote some of my remaining time to dealing with that issue.  
The Palmerston Showgrounds I think was a pretty straightforward case. The reserve status was discovered when the council found that the block of land did not appear on its electronic database. The council wants to sell it to the current lessees and in fact it thought it had sold it and then found that it had not; it had only purported to sell it but the land is still legally a reserve. The second block of land dealt with by this bill is at the northern end of Oamaru and the council tells us that a technical error occurred when the status of the land was changed from recreational to commercial. As Jacqui Dean told us both Ngai Tahu and the Department of Conservation have expressed support for the changes in this bill. The land at the northern end of Oamaru was in fact sold or purported to be sold by the council in 2004 and has since been onsold to another proprietor. This second block as well would have its reserve status revoked by this bill. Its title would be vested in the current proprietors.  
It is altogether more interesting for us to talk about Lookout Point also known as Forrester Heights. It is controversial. It has been dogged by disputes all the way along and continues to be the subject of much argument locally. The council believes that a mistake was made in 1937. It discovered that apparent mistake in 2006. It says that the mistake was made after the land was originally set aside in 1885 by the Government as endowment land and as the member explained the status in fact conferred on that land was reserve land. The council wants that reserve status to be revoked so that the land can be sold and subdivided. That idea has been contested vigorously by individuals and groups including Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens and the Friendly Bay Society. They oppose changing the designation and they maintain the land was always intended to be a reserve and should not be subdivided. The chairman of Waitaki Ratepayers and Concerned Citizens Mr Warren Crawford told the  
Otago Daily Times 
 earlier this year that the group continued to oppose the subdivision. It believed the land should be retained as a reserve and planted in native trees.  
This is a classic case of land that some people at least in the local community believe is publicly owned land and that it should be preserved for the public good and maintained as a community asset. On the other hand we have the Waitaki District Council and presumably others in the community who believe it was always intended to be developed for private use and private gain. The land is going to be subdivided. It is a 5.8 hectare subdivision overlooking Oamaru Harbour the town and the coast. A profit of $3 million from the subdivision has been earmarked by the council to pay for a $10 million refurbishment of the Oamaru Opera House. As I said it has been dogged by dispute. It is a matter of considerable controversy in the town and we on this side of the House believe it is important that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The Oamaru Opera House? I remember that story. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Maybe the select committee should go to the Oamaru Opera House.  
The reason why we think this deserves scrutiny is that when National comes to this House with a bill that proposes to alienate public land and transfer it into private ownership the alarm bells ring on this side of the House. The National Government has form on this issue. This is the Government that has made an art form of transferring public resources into private hands. We see it in many many bills that come to this House. We have seen it in the way that it has made asset sales its primary— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The time has come for the dinner adjournment. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: We are discussing this evening the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. As I was saying before the break Labour is supporting this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee but we do so with the intention that elements of this seemingly uncontroversial bill should get proper scrutiny at the select committee.  
I was focusing my comments before the dinner break on one of the three blocks of land which is known as Forrester Heights or Lookout Point. Like the other two blocks of land dealt with by this bill the Waitaki District Council believes that administrative errors were conferred on the block’s reserve status when in fact it should have been treated as an endowment. Now the council wants to dispose of the land and Lookout Point has been earmarked for a subdivision a 5.8 hectare subdivision 27 sections on Cape Wanbrow which is above Oamaru Harbour.  
The reason that we think this deserves scrutiny at select committee is that it involves the disposal of publicly owned assets for private gain. Taken at face value that may be perfectly fine but as I was saying before the party on that side of the House has form in this area. It believes that selling assets is our national economic development strategy and it is quite happy to dispose of assets in the public good for private gain. There is another bill that we recently sent off to select committee a local bill the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill which involves transferring a council-owned water supply scheme into private hands. There are all sorts of allegations surrounding that bill of improper pressure brought to bear on the local council and a good deal of local controversy.  
So I think there is reason to tread carefully. It is all too easy for lawyers councillors politicians and real estate agents to use their informal relationships and networks to extract private gain from public resources. I think it is a fundamental principle of our democracy that our public resources should be managed in the public good and in the public interest and that is something that we should fiercely protect. So that is the principle at stake. We support this local bill brought to the House by Jacqui Dean we support it going to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we look forward to properly scrutinising the provisions of this bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a 5-minute call starting with Nikki Kaye. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging the local member of Parliament for Waitaki Jacqui Dean. What we are seeing within this piece of legislation is the initiative of a local MP—and obviously this bill is to do with the local authority for Waitaki—who has done her work she has done her research and she is doing what she thinks is best for the community.  
What we are going to be talking about this evening is three pieces of land. Contrary to what the Opposition has said—it has talked about the transfer of assets as such a bad thing—we all know that across local authorities across New Zealand every day there are situations where assets are transferred between local authorities and public citizens. This is not a scary thing that happens. This is something that happens every day. But in this situation and this is why we are currently here before Parliament we are dealing with three parcels of land. I want to just take us through those three parcels of land first because I think there are some unique situations around each of them.  
But the first thing I want to do is also acknowledge again that you have got a hard-working diligent MP who has done her research worked with the local authority worked with Ngai Tahu and iwi and come up with a proposition so that this can go to a select committee people can have their voice heard but also put on the parliamentary record what has happened with regard to these three pieces of land. Contrary to the Opposition members who say this is a very scary thing that is before Parliament members on this side believe actually this is a well-researched piece of legislation by a good local MP.  
So the first parcel of land that we are dealing with— 
Scott Simpson 
: Who was that local MP? 
NIKKI KAYE 
: The local member is Jacqui Dean just so members and anyone listening can hear what a great local member of Parliament she is. The first piece of land that we are talking about is the Palmerston Showgrounds piece of land. The provisions will allow Waitaki District Council to sell the land to current lessees. The second is a piece of land called lot 1. This will allow the Waitaki District Council to regularise the sale of the section to the current registered proprietors and allow title to their property to be unencumbered by any notation relating to the Reserves Act. That does not sound scary to me. Does that sound scary to other members? 
Scott Simpson 
: Not at all. Not at all. 
NIKKI KAYE 
: Not at all. There are situations right across New Zealand that happen on a regular basis with local authorities where situations arise where they transfer parcels of land. For the record let me just say that on this side of the House we understand that actually sometimes to grow your assets and to improve your asset base you might actually do transfers. It is a radical notion—it is a radical notion—but New Zealanders do it every single day in their households and with their businesses and that is all that the Parliament is dealing with in this piece of straightforward legislation.  
I just want to deal with the third piece of land because this piece of land—and Mr Twyford has mentioned it but also the local MP for Waitaki Jacqui Dean has mentioned it—is where there has been a fair amount of discussion in the public domain. This piece of land has been referred to as Forrester Heights but is also known as Lookout Point. It is a lovely piece of land. I have never been there but I have as a student when I was travelling to Dunedin travelled through the beautiful town of Oamaru. I was delighted when I was doing my research this evening because I was not aware that you can catch a live show at an opera house and that you can spoil yourself with some lovely made soap and with a cheese platter at the local cheese factory and I just want to acknowledge that this evening.  
But with regard to this Lookout Point piece of land what happened here was that it was originally purchased by the Government from Ngai Tahu in 1948 as part of the Kemp purchase. There was an administrative oversight in 1937 which mistakenly vested the land in the Waitaki District Council as a reserve. What actually happened here was that the land was vested as a reserve but what was meant to happen was that it was an endowment. It basically got reserve status and it was supposed to be reserved as an endowment. So we see this as a clerical issue.  
However we acknowledge that it is really important for people to have their voices heard. We do understand that this bill has come to Parliament because the Waitaki District Council believes that it is an important piece of legislation to have in Parliament and because Ngai Tahu have recognised that they have confirmed this view. So I am very pleased to support this bill going to a select committee and I commend it to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Far from this legislation the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill being progressed quickly I think the member for Waitaki has been in that role for 7 years—she beat me congratulations—and this issue has been outstanding since then. Indeed I was the Minister for Land Information after Jacqui knocked me off my perch and this issue was raised with me in respect of Forrester Heights. I was embarrassed that it took 2 years for me to get it into legislation because it was incumbent upon me as the Minister for Land Information to check that the council was right that this was endowment land that could be used for whatever financial purpose the council wanted rather than reserve land. So I as is the proper thing got the Department of Conservation to check—twice in fact—as to whether this was properly endowment land rather than reserve land. If it was given for reserve purposes then it cannot just be changed at the whim of the council and put to some other purpose. After 2 years I did get it in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill which has been languishing on the Order Paper under this Government for 4 years.  
 Far from this not being solvable in respect of Forrester Heights—and I know that Jacqui Dean on the other side has the decency to smile because we both sat on the Government Administration Committee that looked at the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill which is still on the Order Paper but has never been advanced in the last 4 years by the Government. Far from the member for Waitaki having exerted vast influence on this it is belatedly coming to us.  
The issue here is whether it is properly endowment land rather than reserve land. If it is endowment land then it is fine for the council to sell it; it is the council’s choice. Whether individual members of this House might agree or otherwise the council is devolved with responsibility for that decision at a local government level. It wants to sell it to help defray the costs of its opera house. It is a very nice piece of reserve land that sits above the historic precinct and looks out over the Oamaru harbour.  
If it is properly reserve land rather than endowment land then it ought not to be sold. I understand that that is still a matter of controversy notwithstanding the Department of Conservation’s investigations at the time. I am told that someone has now uncovered a letter from Parliament—this Parliament—many many years ago when there was an early proposal by the council to sell this land. Parliament wrote to the council and said: “I’m sorry you can’t do that. It is reserve land intended to be reserve land rather than endowment land.” I have not seen the letter. I am told it exists. If it exists it should come out at the Local Government and Environment Committee. If it comes out at the select committee this legislation probably ought not to proceed. If on the other hand that evidence is not available at the select committee and we have the other evidence—that is the Department of Conservation inquiry into the history of this which suggested that it was endowment land as originally intended rather than reserve land way back when—then the councillor and the member are correct. This ought to go to the select committee. That is the question that is at large and I look forward to the consideration of it.  
The other issue in respect of the Palmerston Showgrounds is by comparison less significant. I do not know that there is any controversy surrounding that.  
But in respect of this reserve land the second thing I would say needs to be checked at the select committee is I know there are local concerns that the reclassification of land will extend beyond the Forrester Heights block that is intended for subdivision and will extend to some of the other land that goes beyond that towards the seawards side over towards the old gun emplacements and things. I do not think it is in dispute that that is reserved reserve land rather than endowment land. There is some suspicion amongst some of the people around Oamaru that through this process that land will be reclassified too. I do not think that is a valid concern but I think that those concerns should be assuaged at the select committee by people having the ability to participate in an open process. The big issue is whether this is reserve or endowment land and there is still uncertainty around that point. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call on this Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I congratulate the member for Waitaki Jacqui Dean on representing her community and bringing the bill to this House. In my short time here I have noticed that small local bills that might on their surface seem uncontroversial can actually reveal a range of issues beneath them when they get to select committee and when the public has an opportunity to make submissions. I suspect that this bill may be one of those.  
The Green Party will be supporting this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. As others in the House have explained it does seek to rectify several drafting errors. As the Hon David Parker has noted—and I thank him for explaining a bit more of the history of the third piece of land at Forrester Heights—the first two changes in the bill are uncontroversial. They seek to fix errors by the Waitaki District Council in purporting to sell land that the council did not in fact have the power to sell. Obviously those errors have implications for the current occupiers of the land so should be resolved. Similarly with the land under the former caretaker’s cottage at the Palmerston Showgrounds that also has been sold purportedly and it was not clear then that it was the Crown rather than the council that had title to the land. So that error should also be corrected.  
The land at Forrester Heights and Lookout Point as its name suggests has got spectacular views of the coast and of the harbour. It is said by the Waitaki District Council that it was an administrative error way back in 1937 when the letter “d” was omitted from the word “reserved” so the land become reserve rather than endowment land and open to the Oamaru Borough Council then to do whatever with it. This change in this bill which concerns a lot of local people has much wider implications because of course by vesting the land with the council as endowment land the council can sell it. Even on the council website there is a very attractive brochure that promotes the Forrester Heights subdivision as having spectacular sea views being north-facing sun-drenched safe secluded and sheltered. To me that suggests that the land has quite important scenic and amenity values which the community may well want to hold in public ownership. So I look forward to the submissions from the community when this bill comes before the select committee about whether the reserve status has in fact been incorrectly given and whether the land should stay as reserve and should stay in public ownership.  
It was also instructive to look at the council’s draft long-term plan. The council pointed out that it was having to increase its rates and increase its revenue generation—and the Forrester Heights subdivision proposal is part of the council’s property plan process—because of increased insurance costs and also because of reduced Government funding for local roads. As other members have mentioned this money from Forrester Heights may be going to the opera house but the fact that the council is having to sell potential assets because of reduced Government funding highlights what this Government is doing with local government. Not only is it reducing the funding for local roads but also it is seeking to interfere more in local government and direct local government through the extensive powers that the bill we considered yesterday is giving to the Minister of Local Government. Potentially he will push councils and direct them to sell more assets such as this important land at Forrester Heights.  
Because of the potential can of worms that there may be in relation to the status of the land I look forward to the bill being considered by the select committee and to hearing public submissions on it. Thank you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all the Palmerston Showgrounds are in fact reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 and hence Crown land. The Waitaki District Council has applied for the reserve status to be revoked so that it can sell the land. It has Department of Conservation and Ngai Tahu consent but there is insufficient information as far as I am concerned in the explanatory note of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. It appears that the land was sold to the current lessees in May 2000 even though it was a reserve. We are not told why the showgrounds are being sold in that way but the revocation as a reserve was publicly notified and there were in fact no objections. We presume that the land is no longer needed as showgrounds but you would not know that from the information that we are given.  
I think that perhaps Parliament is being regarded to some extent as a rubber stamp in this matter. It is unclear what is really happening. We are first of all told that there was a purported sale in May 2000 then we are told that the council resolved to sell to the lessees in April 2004 subject to the surrender of the lease. Yet we are also told that the land is to be vested in the Crown subject to the lease “so that the council may consider selling the property to the current lessees.” So I am not sure what has actually happened here and the explanatory note is as clear as mud. It is very confusing indeed. However it does appear that the bill will regularise the council’s errors in this matter and we must assume that this is appropriate. I hope that the committee will have a good look at the reasons behind it.  
Secondly the bill also deals with lot 1 on DP345820. Again the council sold a reserve—purportedly sold it—and it was in fact transferred and transferred again and again. The bill will vest the land legally in the current proprietors and the Department of Conservation and Ngai Tahu have consented. Again there is no real explanation why the reserve status is not needed and why the land was originally purportedly sold. There has been no public notification and we are left again to presume that the reasons for the revocation and sale are valid. Again I hope that the Local Government and Environment Committee will investigate this because there is nothing in the bill as presented or in the explanations I have heard that would justify it.  
Thirdly the Lookout Point land which was originally endowment land for the Oamaru borough—now the Waitaki District Council—was apparently erroneously made a reserve and a title was issued with a reserve memorial on it. Hence there is said to be confusion about whether the land is a reserve or not. But once again there is little or no explanation about the claim of confusion as to whether this land was genuinely to be a reserve or was to be just endowment land for the council. As a matter of fact however the Order in Council of 1937 did make the land a reserve. So it is indisputably in fact actually a reserve and therefore the council should in my view have to go through the usual process to revoke a reserve involving full public consultation and the full formal process for that to happen. There is no information again why this reserve status should be revoked in this case. There has in fact been absolutely no public notification no Department of Conservation consent and no Ngai Tahu consent. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Read the bill. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: So we are not told why the Waitaki District Council wants to sell. I have just heard opposite that there is information there. But I have read everything I can find on it and I say that there is not any information about that and that the full process should have been gone through. So overall New Zealand First objects to the introduction of this bill without adequate information without clear reasons for the revocation of reserve status without evidence of public notification and without the usual due process. But New Zealand First will support the bill going to the select committee so that a more comprehensive explanation of all the circumstances behind these three pieces of land can be given and so that we can have a good and proper look at whether the bill should in fact be passed. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to compliment David Parker Eugenie Sage and also Denis O’Rourke on those thoughtful contributions on this bill the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. I also want to compliment Jacqui Dean the sponsor of this bill. Jacqui Dean in my view is one of the most activist local members of Parliament that we have in Parliament. She has done some magnificent work in terms of the twilight reserve in the Mackenzie Country which was announced earlier this week. There is the Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust which she has been the flag bearer for as well as initiatives such as this bill. I also note her bill in respect of Easter trading and the exemptions that she is trying to get for her community. She is a very effective member of Parliament for Waitaki.  
I want to make three points about this bill. The first of those is that it is interesting that when one of the really hot bills of the week is about being able to sell assets and buy others—in the form of the Mixed Ownership Model Bill which I think we will be debating tomorrow—there is a pretty strong consensus within the Parliament that it is actually really sensible for public entities whether they be councils or otherwise to sell some land and to use that asset to do other things. In this case the member has promoted the view that these 10 hectares of land could quite suitably be sold and that the money should be used to fund things like the opera house in Oamaru—a magnificent building and actually a project that Jacqui Dean worked on as the deputy mayor of that community of Oamaru.  
I just have to ask the question of members opposite: where is all the rhetoric about no asset sales? I thought asset sales were the end of the world! I keep seeing these brochures everywhere: “Labour Stands New Zealand First Stands and the Greens Stand For Absolutely No Asset Sales”. And yet we have a bill here that is to facilitate the sale of land to allow communities to be able to rejig their capital balance sheets and use these assets. It might have been appropriate in the 19th century for them to be owned by a public entity but actually subdividing and selling the land and putting that asset into other things is perfectly logical. I just challenge the members opposite: if the logic applies to councils being able to sell these three blocks of land and use that money for other assets is that not exactly what this Government is doing tomorrow with the Mixed Ownership Model Bill? I am just hoping that Eugenie Sage Denis O’Rourke and David Parker will reflect on the sensible speeches that they have given this evening and will make sure that they do the same tomorrow.  
The second point I want to make is that I actually think in the debate about local government—and I was fascinated when we debated the bill yesterday—that members are saying that we should give local communities more say over their future and that local democracy is what it is all about. Well if we have local democracy should not councils be able to rejig the mix of land and reserves that they have in their communities so that they work best for the area? I think it is horribly bureaucratic. The reality is that many of our reserves and blocks of lands that were set aside were set aside for the needs of communities 100 years ago—you know those smatterings of little reserves that get negligible use. It would actually be really sensible for us to give councils more flexibility and more local democracy to be able to make decisions on blocks of land like this. Really we should be reflecting on why it is that it requires a bill of Parliament for the local Waitaki council to change the status of 10 hectares of land. Should we not as parliamentarians really be reflecting on whether our laws actually do give local democracy and do let councils have a say about their areas of land and how they might be more usefully used for communities as they manage their assets?  
I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am going to look forward to hearing the community on this bill. I really do encourage this House around those issues of local democracy sensible utilisation of communities’ assets and rationalisation. It is really good sensible policy that is being promoted here by Jacqui Dean. I just hope that the consensus that the Parliament can find on this bill can be found on other bills because it is good sensible policy. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I think the member who has just taken his seat Nick Smith has demonstrated clearly that he has not been following the debate so far. Many of the points he accused us of not covering were covered very eloquently by my colleague Phil Twyford earlier in the debate. I shall come further to the matter of asset sales which he raised as I continue.  
This issue of Forrester Heights is an issue of concern for many locals and that is why we in the Labour Party are keeping a close eye on it. The question of whether it is properly reserve land or endowment land is a live question as my colleague the Hon David Parker alluded to earlier. The Waitaki ratepayers and concerned citizens and various other folks in the community there want to make sure that the right decisions are made and who can blame them? We have asked for local democracy and this is local democracy in action. There are many locals in Oamaru who believe that in the 19th century the land was made a reserve for all time—that sheep grazed on it that it was there as a reserve and that it was not endowment land. We will hear this debated at the select committee—and Labour will support the bill’s referral to the select committee to hear this bill debated—because it is a live issue. It is contentious in the local community.  
There is an ongoing dispute about whether or not an error occurred—it is not even completely clear that an error occurred—and about whether or not this land should therefore fall under the Reserves Act. Those people who are upset say that the council has refused to provide evidence of the error the Crown allegedly made. If this is true it is of concern indeed. This should be a transparent process and I have little doubt that it will be a transparent process once it gets to the select committee but these are contentious issues.  
It is also alleged that the council granted itself a consent without a full public consenting process. Again locals are niggly about this. They feel that again they deserve full transparency in these processes and they question whether consenting done in this way is lawful. So there are some in the community who suggest it may be advisable that an independent commissioner be appointed to examine the council’s granting of consents to itself. These kinds of suggestions show the strength of feeling in the community and that is why we should have this full debate at the select committee.  
We understand that Ngai Tahu supports this changing of the status of the land to clarify it as endowment land if indeed that is the right thing to do but it is also true that Waitaha have concerns about this land. Those concerns are yet to be aired and they will I am sure also be aired in the select committee.  
We know the history of the bill or some members have alluded to it. The changes in this piece of legislation were previously contained in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill which currently languishes at No. 29 on the Order Paper. It is not progressing. But the select committee process should progress this matter and bring it to a fruitful conclusion.  
I would encourage the select committee to consider going down to Oamaru and seeing the fine sights down there— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oh wonderful idea.  
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: —visiting the local opera house and I am sure the local member will make the committee members feel at home. It is a fabulous part of the country and when Labour took the Waitaki River plan legislation through the select committee process it made absolutely sure that the select committee went down to Oamaru— 
Phil Twyford 
: There was a very good MP then.  
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: —there was a good MP locally then the Hon David Parker—because Labour believes in having good local consultation. I would encourage the select committee to follow that model to get down and speak to the people in Oamaru and to make sure that all those local views are taken into consideration.  
On the matter of asset sales as we close Dr Nick Smith mentioned asset sales. Well there is feeling about these assets. There is concern that there is a potential here to privatise things that should not be privatised. We think that sunlight will be a great disinfectant here. These things should be examined. They should be looked at. Members of the local community—those I have spoken to—are indeed concerned about asset sales and I would encourage them to get down to Dunedin this coming Saturday to the march that will leave the dental school at 11 a.m. to express their discontent with the Government which wants to sell the assets. But in Oamaru if the select committee comes down they will have their say on this issue as well.  
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am very pleased to follow my colleagues who have spoken so ably on this bill the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill sponsored by Jacqui Dean. We have heard already the just fantastic results that as a local MP she has been able to achieve unlike the member who was in the area before her.  
I think it is really important just to reflect on some of the comments that my colleagues have made because I think it is worthy that they are brought back to the House’s attention particularly the one about the fact that this is a local bill. This side of the House is really proud to make progress on local bills so we will be efficiently and effectively dealing with this local bill unlike some of the others that unfortunately we had to deal with in the 49th Parliament. Also just to reiterate this is a local bill and this is a Government that is delivering on the wishes of the local people of Waitaki which is very similar to the discussions we had in this House yesterday around the local government reform debate.  
I was listening very carefully in the earlier debates and I am sure I heard those members opposite saying they were supporting this bill so I shall also be very interested when they speak tomorrow and in further debates on legislation allowing the ability for assets to be moved replaced and altered for things that can be done far more effectively. Given the confidence of my colleagues before me I shall leave it at that. I am proud to support this bill.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I want to thank members across the House for their contributions in the first reading of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill and I want to thank them also for their support of this bill to go to the select committee. There were a couple of comments that were made that I will pick up perhaps in a gentle way because I think we are going to have very good scrutiny of this bill. If there is indeed a letter around that will be used as evidence to prove one way or another whether the land known as Lookout Point is reserve or endowment land then let us see it so that the select committee can consider its contents and get some advice on it. The second matter was raised by the New Zealand First member who said that there has been no public notification. Well in the course of advertising for a local bill of course there is public notification so the process has just started with this bill. Of course the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee will be opening this bill for public consideration and submission and I look forward to—and indeed I am encouraging—many people to make submissions on this bill. 
As members around the House have acknowledged there are three matters that are raised in this bill. The first two are relatively uncontroversial. They regularise the status of two parcels of land and once this bill has passed that will be to the benefit of two families one in Palmerston at the show grounds and the other one in the north of Oamaru who are waiting for this bill to be passed through the Parliament so that that land which they in good faith thought was theirs either by ownership or by lease can now be theirs legally. Those were the first two parts of the bill. The third portion of the bill which is to do with Forrester Heights is as we have seen a little more contentious and I look forward—if indeed there is any new evidence to be brought to the select committee—to seeing that evidence so that we can give it consideration. My belief is that this provision is about correcting a historical mistake. 
Furthermore I just want to say about that third matter that what the local authority may or may not choose to do with that land is outside the scope of this bill and is also contingent on the bill in fact passing. I would also like to add that whatever the council decides to do with that land is a matter for it because that is what local government is all about. Our part through Parliament is to scrutinise and either confirm amend or reject the proposition that has been put up to us via this bill.  
I want to acknowledge Ngai Tahu I want to acknowledge the Waitaki District Council for bringing this bill to the House to council solicitor Ben Coleman who has worked on this bill and also I want to acknowledge the assistance of the Office of the Clerk which has been really helpful both to me and to the local community in bringing this bill to the House. 
Again and I am going to say it again because I think it is very important and I do hope some members of the local committee are watching or listening: please make your submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have already given my commitment to some of you that we will make it as easy as possible for you to have your point of view heard during the course of this bill. I can assure the House on behalf of the chair Nicky Wagner because it is her committee that the committee will give this bill very close and open scrutiny. So I am very pleased to commend the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill to the House.  
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill 
First Reading 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatau e te Whare. I move  
That the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move at the appropriate time that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
I hiahia ko te iwi ra ki runga o Kopukairoa papa te whatitiri ki runga o Maunga Mana papaki tu ana nga tai ki Karikari te tere o te Waitao whakapapa pounamu te tahuna o Rangataua. I whakanukuhia i whakanekehia ki tai wiwi ki tai wawa ki te tai papaki onepu ki te whai ao ki te ao marama ti-he mauri ora.  
[ 
In accordance with the wishes of that tribe upon Kopukairoa the thunder claps over Mount Mana the tides crash against Karikari the current of the Waitao River and the calming beach of Rangataua. It then disperses here there and upon the repelling beach to the world of light and of understanding behold the breath of life. 
] 
Can I start by saying that I am honoured to sponsor this very important bill into this House. What is really pleasing to me is how the council and mana whenua have come together to bring about a positive outcome. I want to say congratulations to the Tauranga City Council and Nga Potiki on showing the way. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975. This bill for members in the House takes us back to another time some 40 years ago in 1972 when the Mount Maunganui Borough Council proposed a sewage disposal scheme—[ 
Interruption 
]  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate there is allowed to be some banter here but actually it would be good if the banter was about the bill as opposed to something else. Could I ask that I be given a little bit of leeway in being able to present this korero as there are a lot of people listening back in Tauranga Moana who think it is quite important. I would like to think that the House thinks so as well. 
Hon John Banks 
: Some of us are sick and tired of the inane interjections and we ask you to give this learned member an opportunity. I am sitting beside him and I am interested in what he has got to say. Give him a fair go. If they want to go away and do something else in their spare time they should. But this is Parliament; it is not a kindergarten. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The House has been in reasonably light-hearted mode this evening. There have been interjections and at times they have been over the top. I would just ask members to show some courtesy. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like you to affirm your ruling in respect of conduct in this House. When that member was on the telephone we thought he had fallen asleep or fallen off his perch but he was on the telephone— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! The member was not creating any disturbance whatsoever. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have already ruled on it. Please sit down. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: A separate point of order? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yes Mr Speaker. With respect you have had points of order from Mr Flavell and Mr Banks on conduct. I have raised a legitimate point which is a rule and I invite you to rule on it. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on it. I will just say this. When members raise points of order they are not opportunities to attack other members of the House and in that regard one of the people speaking to the points of order did use that as an opportunity to degrade other members of the House and that is not appropriate. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Can I just start again. This bill takes us back to another time some 40 years ago to 1972 when the Mount Maunganui Borough Council proposed a sewage disposal scheme that required substantial reclamation within the Rangataua Estuary in Tauranga. That council is now defunct but the legacy of its actions remains. The legislation we are repealing today established the construction of oxidation ponds from which effluent would temporarily be discharged into Te Tahuna o Rangataua or what other people refer to as Rangataua Estuary.  
I want to just acknowledge the work done to ensure that Te Tahuna o Rangataua as of 10 May 2012 is now the official geographic name of this area characterised by the tidal mudflats and sandy area of the inner south-east reaches of the Tauranga Harbour. The Nga Potiki hapu of Tamapahore Marae submitted the proposal to alter the name Rangataua Bay to Te Tahuna o Rangataua. Rangataua Bay was gazetted in 1974 as an area of Tauranga Harbour. It makes for great timeliness that at the same time we are adopting the new official name we are also repealing the legislation of this time.  
Going back a little bit the 1972 proposal I referred to earlier would have eventually been supported by the construction of an ocean outfall at Papamoa. For Nga Potiki and indeed Tauranga Maori the discharge of human waste into the pristine Te Tahuna o Rangataua which had served as a pataka kai for centuries was and remains an issue that has caused deep resentment. The proposal was particularly abhorrent for Nga Potiki as the area designated for reclamation was part of the ancestral landscape.  
For the purposes of the record let me just go back a little bit to the history of this land. It traces its history back to the award of the Papamoa Block to Nga Potiki by Crown commissioners in the 1880s. Nga Potiki and its close relation to Te Tahuna o Rangataua is celebrated through its rich oral traditions including pepeha whakatauki and waiata and is demonstrated by the location of marae in close proximity to the shoreline.  
The deep relationship where the health of one is believed to be linked with the health of the other and vice versa was referred to in many briefs of evidence submitted by Nga Potiki kaumatua to the Waitangi Tribunal held at Maungatawa Marae in 2000. Throughout the early 1970s the late Paraone Reweti MP for Eastern Maori and Wiremu Ohia chairman of the Tauranga Moana Maori Executive on behalf of tangata whenua were particularly vocal in their opposition to the Mount Maunganui Borough Council’s proposal. Even the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Ministry of Transport also opposed the proposal to reclaim foreshore and seabed. All recognised the importance of protecting an asset of significant environmental and cultural value and maintaining water quality.  
An environmental impact report entitled  
Crown Acquisition and Desecration of Nga Potiki Land 1999 
 commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal acknowledged that “a flourishing ecosystem on the tidal flats would be lost” through the reclamation but claimed that the effects of the oxidation ponds would be minor. This is a really damning statement which adds to the history of this bill and I would have to say that as the local member for Waiariki I am pleased that we are at long last making efforts to rectify this to make right something that was wrong. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in a report around this same time concluded that the reclamation could not be justified because of the impact on the area and the possibility of other sites being used. In or about 1977 the Mount Maunganui Borough Council completed the construction of the easement to enable the discharge of effluent into the ocean.  
But it gets worse. This easement was constructed through an ancient Nga Potiki urupa or cemetery located in the sand dunes at Papamoa. Nga Potiki again opposed this work on the grounds that human waste in close proximity to a wahi tapu was grossly disrespectful and abhorrent. That effluent was to be discharged into the pristine ocean environment at Te Akau ki Papamoa or Papamoa Coast which has for centuries served as a pataka kai and was equally offensive. In 1989 the Mount Maunganui Borough Council and the Tauranga District Council were amalgamated and their sewerage systems became jointly managed. Some 10 years later the Tauranga City Council embarked on a consultation process with Nga Potiki that eventually led to the establishment of extensive wetlands in addition to other filters aimed at removing solids from waste water prior to discharge into the ocean.  
However the concerns on the part of Nga Potiki around the discharge of effluent through its urupa have not been completely allayed even four decades later. For Nga Potiki the reclamation of the foreshore and seabed the construction and continued presence of oxidation ponds and the discharge of effluent represents a failure by the Crown to protect Nga Potiki and their ancestral landscape as provided in the Treaty of Waitangi. These issues form part of the settlement currently being negotiated with the Crown as well as an application before the High Court seeking a customary rights order under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.  
Although the repeal of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975 brings a certain amount of closure it also represents a vindication of the many many Nga Potiki kaumatua in the 1970s and 1980s who as a group protested against what they viewed as an invasion of their ancestral landscape and cultural values. In spite of their advocacy and widespread community opposition legislation was enacted anyway.  
In the year 2000 the Tauranga City Council established the Tangata Whenua Tauranga City Council Standing Committee to facilitate improved engagement between Maori and the council. In 2004 the Tauranga City Council established the Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua Committee to encourage numerous hapu of Tauranga Moana to engage with the council. In 2006 Tauranga City Council established the Wastewater Management Review Committee comprising elected councillors and appointed tangata whenua representatives. Te Runanga o Ngai Te Rangi Iwi Trust and Ngati Ranginui are each represented by one person and Nga Potiki represented by two people reflecting the significance of issues relating to the area.  
Nga Potiki say they enjoy a good relationship with Tauranga City Council based on mutual respect and underpinned by their relationship as Treaty partners. The joint approach by Nga Potiki and the Tauranga City Council to Parliament represents the latest initiative reflecting the commitment on the part of both parties to work together collaboratively and constructively. It will have the effect of helping to heal the past and strengthen an already positive relationship. It is therefore most appropriate that Nga Potiki and the Tauranga City Council jointly sponsor the application to Parliament to repeal the legislation. The Maori Party is delighted to stand alongside them and to commend this bill to the House.  
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be speaking on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. Can I start by acknowledging the member who has just spoken Te Ururoa Flavell the member for Waiariki. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Simon Bridges who I know did work hard and I know he has had a number of discussions with the previous member on this piece of legislation. The Hon Simon Bridges is a very hard-working member for Tauranga. He has a small majority of about 17000 and I know there are other members in this House who care deeply about Tauranga.  
I want to touch on a few things that have been previously said by the member who spoke before me. The first thing is that this bill is being obviously sponsored by the Tauranga City Council but also with support from Nga Potiki. I think we need to acknowledge in this House the speech we have just heard from Te Ururoa Flavell about some of the cultural issues that have obviously been involved in some of the background to this bill coming to the House. We also need to acknowledge something that the member has just said. He said—and this is a bit of a positive point—that we can see a good relationship between the council and Nga Potiki. That is a really positive thing for the future.  
When I think of the Mount—I have visited there and I have done public meetings with the Hon Simon Bridges—I think of a place of the future. This is a city that is growing. We know that it has gone from something like 48000 to 103000 in a very short period of time. What is really important for the future is that we are able to look to it and really ensure that there is good community infrastructure there. That is why it is very relevant that with this bill we are dealing with waste water and discharge because that is actually fundamental to a city being able to develop in the future. I acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell’s speech and the cultural issues that obviously still surround this particular area of land. But the reason we are here is that the council and Nga Potiki have come together along with local MPs to say that we need to repeal the original Act.  
If we look at some of the history in terms of the legislative history what we see is that the original Act the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act authorised the Mount Maunganui Borough Council to reclaim tidal lands constituting part of the bed of the harbour of Tauranga and to develop such reclaimed land for sewerage and other municipal purposes. The land was then transferred as part of the seabed of Tauranga Harbour to Mount Maunganui Borough Council which was authorised under the Act to transfer a total of about 73.5 hectares. The council reclaimed only about 23.5 hectares.  
We then saw that the authority to reclaim the balance of the area was revoked by the legislation of 1991 so that the principal Act had no legal effect. But what happened here was that during an application process to upgrade Tauranga City Council’s waste-water treatment plant iwi and other stakeholders expressed grievances regarding the scope of the land that could be reclaimed under the Act and the adverse effects as has already been mentioned by the previous speaker in terms of the waste-water treatment.  
So where we are at is that both the Tauranga City Council and stakeholders concur that we need to repeal the principal act returning the legal status of the land to what it was before 1975. We on this side of the House believe that this bill should go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We believe that it is appropriate in the context of these grievances and concerns to repeal the original legislation. That is why we here on this side of the House are supporting this bill. But we also believe as we have seen with other local bills that have gone through this House that it is important to have local members of Parliament—like the Hon Simon Bridges and like Te Ururoa Flavell—who really get into the community and talk to people who are involved and affected by situations like this and ensure that people have their voices heard.  
Some people will see this as a small piece of legislation but for other people who have been affected in the past it is significant. I acknowledge the work of local members to bring it to this point. I acknowledge the future of the Mount the fact that it is a growing city and that some of these issues are integral in terms of community infrastructure and development in the future. I support this bill to the House.  
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of Labour. We will support this bill the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill at its first reading. Having listened to the previous speaker from the National Party Nikki Kaye I say that if National is so passionate about ensuring that iwi concerns are taken account of especially on resource management issues it would have supported my member’s bill the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill which sought to have regard to and provide for iwi management plans and planning documents of regional councils but it did not. However it is important to recognise the Maori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell and his comments regarding the history of Nga Potiki and their relationship to the site on which waste-water treatment plants are currently sited because they have a particular interest. I will pick up in some part where that member left off to say that when the Tauranga City Council got together and established the Maori consultative committee in 2004 it had a document that went out for consultation in which a number of iwi in Tauranga Moana contributed and had a say about their particular views as tangata whenua with regard to continued developments in their area.  
There are a few points that I would like to mention. Firstly I would like to mention Nga Potiki’s particular relationship with the area on which waste-water plants are. I am noting from the document on te maunga wastewater treatment facilities. I really wanted to raise in the House an important meeting that Nga Potiki had a hui-a-iwi or hui-a-hapu on 3 October 2004 when RereamomoOhiaand Tai Taikato presented some key recommendations to the council from the hui-a-hapu. Firstly “That Nga Potiki do not support the application by Tauranga City Council to continue to discharge wastewater from the Sewage Treatment and Wastewater System located at Te Maunga into Te Moana A Toi Te Huatahi.” Secondly “That Tauranga City Council ‘commit’ to decommissioning the entire system at Te Maunga within a specified time frame.” and thirdly “That there be no further ‘hook ons’ including those proposed in the list contained in the consent application and those omitted from the list.”  
I make that point in reference to this debate only to ensure further on down the track when negotiations are occurring that it is clear in this House that Nga Potiki have expressed their interests in their area through successive consultations over time as cited by the member for the area and successively in terms of engaging in resource consent processes. That is important to mention because there is great hope and aspiration that in working together for the future the interests of tangata whenua in that area are not overlooked. They in particular made a point about the repeal of the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowerment Act because they did not want any further reclamation to take place and as the previous speaker Nikki Kaye mentioned the full reclamation of land intended here in Tauranga was not utilised. Nga Potiki supported the repeal of this Act because they did not want to extend reclamations on the basis of their ongoing interests.  
 It is also important to recognise that tangata whenua in the Tauranga Moana area have had very strong views about the ways in which waste water should be managed and treated. The expression that there should be land-based treatment prior to discharge has been a view that is long held. It is clearly cited in this particular document which I did a little bit of research and study on. I think it is important again to state and continue to state that these are not new issues for the iwi. They continue to be issues that pervade the ongoing best-management practice for the care and responsibility not only of land-based activities but of whatever happens within the marine environment. Again I want to reiterate that Labour will support this bill in its first reading to the select committee. We look forward to hearing ongoing process on the other hand with Nga Potiki and their broader interests as tangata whenua in the area. We certainly look forward to a continuing positive relationship with tangata whenua in Tauranga Moana on all issues within the Tauranga Moana area. Kia ora. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. As we have been saying on this side of the House there is a lot of accord around this. We heard Te Ururoa Flavell talking about it; one wonders how much there is to debate around this. If Labour has agreed to get it through to the select committee that is certainly where we would like it to be. 
But having heard Te Ururoa talk about the history of this and the clear need for redress and putting the things that were wrong to the right to rectify the situation it does seem as if the repeal of this Act is long overdue. In respect of the protection of ancestral areas it seems like the discharge of effluent as Nikki Kaye pointed out a few moments ago is a growing area that will have growing sewage issues as a result of that. Really one wonders how you could continue on without referring it— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Thanks for that. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Yes nothing personal Mr Bridges—everybody has to do it. But of course it does appear that this is something that has been caught up in the local authorities for some time. If council and iwi and politicians on all sides of the House are agreeing for it to go forward there does not seem to be a heck of a lot more to be said about it. 
I think taking Te Ururoa Flavell’s line of healing the past and strengthening the relationships and people joining together to rectify past wrongs is something that the National Party has stood by. Repealing legislation that is unnecessary is also something that has been a hallmark of this Government. So without further ado I recommend that this bill goes to the select committee and that we refer that to the House. Thank you. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Thank you. I am pleased to take a short call on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. Although as the previous speaker Maggie Barry noted it may not be controversial I think it is instructive to look at some of the history of the bill and I am very grateful to Te Ururoa Flavell for explaining some of it. 
The bill repeals a 1975 Act that gave authority for the transfer of 73 hectares of seabed to what is now the Tauranga City Council for its sewerage scheme and other municipal purposes. The Green Party supports the bill because it will prevent further ecological damage from infilling of the harbour and because it recognises the grievance of Nga Potiki in relation to its Treaty claim. 
Even a very brief reading of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on Tauranga Moana’s 1886 to 2006 claim highlights the importance of this ancestral landscape and the natural environment of Tauranga Harbour to tangata whenua. Chapter 7 of the tribunal’s report begins with the words: “By 1840 Tauranga Moana had become one of the most continuously occupied and densely settled landscapes in New Zealand. It is not hard to understand why. It is a place of great natural beauty and diverse and productive ecosystems: open seas offshore islands coastal sandy beaches and rocky shores the large harbour lagoon and its many estuaries mudflats tidal pools and wetlands together with many waterways draining densely forested hills.” 
Tangata whenua told the tribunal that over many decades in which the town of Tauranga had burgeoned into a city they had been shut out and excluded from decisions that influenced the city’s development. They had been unable to act as kaitiaki to guard and protect their taonga—the harbours the waterways the forests the fisheries and the sacred mountains of their ancestors. When you read the tribunal’s report it talks about widespread typhoid amongst Maori populations because of the very poor way in which sewage was discharged; the fact that even in the 1950s effluent at Mount Maunganui was ending up in an open drain there were septic tanks that were seeping into the harbour and the borough council’s “solution” was to develop this reclamation and sewerage scheme. It was strongly opposed by iwi at the time because of the impact of the discharge on the estuary and the fact that it would diminish the very flourishing ecosystem there. The estuary discharge did not proceed but there was further work which the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment opposed as well. There was opposition by iwi to the reclassification of the waters in the harbour to allow the sewerage scheme to proceed. So there has been a whole history of Nga Potiki and others putting forward their concerns about the impact of the sewerage scheme. 
This was at a time when we had the Town and Country Planning Act 1953. Unlike the Resource Management Act it had no specific provisions for local authorities to have regard for either Maori land or Maori interests. That was characteristic of that time and it was very much the poorer for it. 
So this Act that we are repealing is a creature of its time. We have moved on since then. The repeal of the Act will go some way towards assuaging the very well-founded grievances of Nga Potiki. It does reflect its time. We hope that with the Resource Management Act and the much greater concern the statutory recognition in that Act for kaitiakitanga there will be much greater attention paid in future to making sure that sewage discharges and sewerage treatment schemes do not impact on the values of mana whenua and the ethic of kaitiakitanga for their taonga. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call Andrew Little—sorry Andrew Williams. I apologise. That is the second time I have done that. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I think that is the second time you have made that mistake. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill. I would firstly like to acknowledge also the work that our colleague Te Ururoa Flavell from the Maori Party has put into this bill before the House today. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people of Nga Potiki whom this legislation most concerns. I know that for some and for them it is a matter that is very close to their hearts. Also I would like to acknowledge the Tauranga City Council in this whole business. It was the architect of this bill.  
My background as many of you will know is from local government. As the former Mayor of North Shore which has the longest urban coastline in New Zealand—some 150 kilometres of coastline—I am only too aware of how important our foreshore and seabed and coastline are to every citizen in this country. As the House has been told this bill is intended to repeal the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act 1975. The Act’s purpose back then in the 1970s was to authorise that reclamation of 73.5 hectares of the Bay of Plenty harbour. That authority of course has since been revoked rendering the Act null and void. That has been the case for more than 20 years. So now in 2012 the 50th New Zealand Parliament finally confronts this matter.  
But this is not simply about uncluttering the statute book by removing unnecessary legislation; it is also about acknowledging past wrongs. This is a symbolic gesture to Nga Potiki. It is a fundamental step towards forging a new future as one people and one nation. We cannot go forward into the 21st century without first recognising the historical injustices committed against our fellow New Zealanders. Only then can we move on. In that respect I want to commend the Tauranga City Council and Nga Potiki for this enlightened approach that they have taken. New Zealand First is proud to stand with them.  
However—and there is a however—New Zealand First urges all parties in this House to stop and take note. That includes the National members on the other side of the House. No one community or group—including Mr Tau Henare there who should be aware of this—can ever claim to be the sole owner of any precious coastal or marine areas. The division seen in this country during the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004 could very well emerge again should this Government continue to pursue the wishes of the Maori Party and further perpetuate the Treaty gravy train in what we call the “bro-rocracy” of which it and its supporters are so fond.  
 I would like to give you a personal example. When I was the Belgian trade commissioner and vice-consul the Belgian Ambassador to Australia who was accredited to New Zealand visited from Canberra and he visited Northland for a few days. He was most upset when he was confronted by a group of young Maori on a beach where he was walking with his wife to be told: “Get the hell off our beach.” He reported this back to me when he came back to Auckland. He said that he did not realise that this was occurring in New Zealand and he did not feel that that was the way New Zealand should go forward. He did not see a future for New Zealand if that was the way New Zealand was going to be separated and divided.  
We certainly do not want to see that sort of happening occurring in our country. Any legislation concerning the foreshore and seabed particularly ownership should be treated delicately. This legislation applies in respect of all areas of our coastline and as this refers to the Mount Maunganui former borough council we also take note that the maunga the Mount itself is under some questioning as to what its status will be in the future. Again I would say that that treasure that national icon must have open access to all New Zealanders; there must be free and open access for all New Zealanders to enjoy that national icon.  
New Zealand First supports this bill and commends this bill to the House but we do make note of some of those reservations that we have about the continued open access to our foreshore and seabed. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. Tena koe Mr Speaker. I arise to support earlier speakers. We will support this piece of legislation the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill but there is an element that crept into Mr Flavell’s contribution that suggested that effluent drew a distinction between brown white yellow and black people. The reality is that a number of these changes over the years have been egregious but a number are absolutely necessary. If we are to have civic works and if we are to retain essential services that all of us in the community are going to be the beneficiaries of and pay for then that must not be lost sight of.  
I actually know quite a bit about the history of the hapu Nga Potiki-a-Tamapahore the ancestors who moved into that area several generations before my ancestors went through the area. Nga Potiki have been right to remain vigilant. They have been right to challenge both the Crown and sub-national levels of government. But at the end of the day it is to the benefit of all groups in our community if essential works are to take place.  
I am the first to say that the takutai moana seabed and foreshore piece of legislation was certainly the nadir of that particular time and our contribution as Labour politicians in response to a furore that had developed but we have moved on beyond that. This legislation—fortunately brought forward by Te Ururoa Flavell—does endeavour to correct some of the effects of that legislation. But there are two elements to be borne in mind here: there is the importance of ancestral land and there is the importance of balancing the scales of justice. But if you want to live in a modern society there is the importance of enabling those who were put in power to proceed with the creation and the maintenance of essential services. I do not think it is very sensible that we allow those two issues to be mixed up because there is always going to be a trade-off.  
It is good to see that the Tauranga City Council is working effectively with this group of tangata whenua a hapu of Ngai Te Rangi. It is good to see that they have moved on from the very bleak time when the library was ransacked and—if I recall accurately—was almost burnt down as a consequence. I actually attended that particular protest in the 1980s by Ngai Tamarawaho—if my memory serves me correctly. A lad from St Stephen’s School—Hugh Sayers I think was his name—was playing some sort of role there. It is good to see that Tauranga Moana District Maori Council has moved on from those times.  
Although we want to actually support this bill this is a part of Aotearoa where there is a great deal of growth and where there is a great deal of attractiveness of wanting to live there so essential services are required. And this is a timely reminder. Let it not fall disproportionately on groups such as Nga Potiki. But I also say to those of us in the Maori community that we have got to take a balanced approach as well because we are the beneficiaries when civic infrastructure is expanded. 
 Not only has Tauranga Moana got a rich history in terms of Maori but also it is now turning into such a successful port that it eclipses the Port of Auckland. I will not say too much more about that for fear of being seen to have lobbied for the expansion of Marsden Point the diminution of the Ports of Auckland and the restoration of the Auckland port back to the citizens of Auckland but that is another matter. I seem to remember a famous Labour parliamentarian Mr Mallard wanting to improve the quality at that time but—[ 
Bell rung 
] I presume that is a signal for 1 more minute and it is not what I fear it could be.  
We will support this bill. It is an important area of Aotearoa but two things are to be borne in mind: sure be sensitive to those concerns of ancestral land claims etc. but bear in mind that no city no country and no nation can advance itself in the absence of an evolving improving civil infrastructure. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is a real pleasure to speak on this great little bill the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill which has come before this House and to do so proudly as the happy member for Tauranga and as a proud Mount Maunganui resident. I have very proudly been a resident of that suburb for over a decade now. Of course I think it is right to reflect that when this law that we are repealing first became a law in 1975—the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act—Mount Maunganui was physically in many ways some way away from the city or the township as it probably was then of Tauranga because people had to take a long journey to get to the Mount for a holiday. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: We solved that with a couple of bridges. 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: That is right. Of course there was a lot of progress between 1975 and the 2000s—we have bridges now. We will not dwell on how that came to be. We will not get into the details of that because we all know there are many sides to that story. But be that as it may it is good that there are two bridges in Tauranga connecting the area there and making the city connected and much smaller. I have to say that there still is though—and I have found this when first standing for Parliament—a sense of the “Mounties” and of those who are city-side and that is still present to some extent.  
But this is a good bill. It is not I think going to be the most exciting or controversial bill that comes before this Parliament but it is a good one none the less. Can I pay tribute to Te Ururoa Flavell who has brought it before this House. I did have responsibility for it at the very beginning but he is the member who has done the lion’s share of work and who has spent a lot of time with the council and on getting the details into place. Can I acknowledge the Tauranga City Council for its work in this piece of legislation and Nga Potiki as other members have said for their work. I know it is a happy evening for them.  
The story of this bill and the substance of this bill are pretty straightforward. The old law is now defunct. It is pointless. The purpose for it and the land reclamation no longer are necessary. As I say I know there will be many in Nga Potiki and indeed the workers at the council and Te Ururoa Flavell who will be very happy indeed that we can pass this repeal bill and get on with life again in the great suburb of Mount Maunganui in the great city of Tauranga. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Just briefly I want to acknowledge two of the contributions in this debate. The first was by Te Ururoa Flavell who gave us a fulsome account of the history behind the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill and the experience of Nga Potiki and how they feel about the waste-water treatment plant and the effect of that particular infrastructure on their ancestral lands and waters. 
I also want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague Shane Jones which was typically erudite and thoughtful. If it had not been for his contribution in this debate tonight we could not have really called it a debate actually. I think that Shane made the point that it is important to recognise the sensitivities and the aspirations of the tangata whenua in a situation like this but equally we have to balance that against the need for essential infrastructure and economic development and the costs and the burdens of that infrastructure should not be allowed to fall unduly on one particular section of the community. 
I was really struck in listening to the contributions this evening by how this story is almost a universal story. It could have taken place almost anywhere in New Zealand. Any town or city has a similar story. In fact in Tamaki-makau-rau there are countless examples where the land and the harbours have been used in a way that has really had an impact on the sensitivities of the mana whenua. The journey towards properly managing the effects of that kind of economic development is one that has seen both Maori and Pakeha making huge strides in the last couple of decades in dealing with these issues. I would submit that we are in a much better place as a country now than we were a generation ago in reconciling these differences. Labour supports this bill to select committee. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora ano tatou katoa. Firstly can I thank all members for their contributions and for adding to the story. I very much appreciated that we have all of that discussion on the record.  
I have to say I feel a little bit embarrassed about the accolades being given to me for leading this bill the Mount Maunganui Borough Reclamation and Empowering Act Repeal Bill into the House because all I did was sponsor it. The big accolades really should go to the Tauranga City Council and Nga Potiki who came together on this project to present it into my hands fortunately this time but it could have been Mr Bridges or it could have been Mr Ryall. So I do want to acknowledge very much the council and Nga Potiki whom I met just 1 week ago in Tauranga where we sat in the room and went over the final details to make sure that everything was signed off before we came to the House. I can say with pretty much hand on heart and also with a list of people that this was fairly much put out there amongst the Tauranga community and wider to ensure that everybody was in the know about this bill and that we generally had a good sign-off on it.  
I just want to take a minute to pick up on a couple of points. I think everybody acknowledges that what we are talking about here is righting a wrong and under those circumstances I am pleased that we have got cross-party support for this bill and I am hoping that we can move it pretty rapidly through the whole process.  
I was a little bit disappointed about some of Mr Williams’ comments. To say that some people go on to land and are told the hell to get off implies that Maori for one reason or another are the only ones who tell people to get off land. That is I think a little bit out of place. In fact in Rotorua there are a number of people who tell me when I go fishing to get off their land as well so let us just put that in perspective. For Mr Williams to say that no one should claim the foreshore and seabed he should check with some of those private owners of the foreshore and seabed throughout the country and ask them how they feel about the same issue. I think that those points need to be challenged so as not to denigrate this particular bill in the way it has been.  
I wanted to pick up on Mr Jones’ point in respect of his saying: “Well some land over history has been taken for the betterment of the country.” Yeah sure but you add it all up and in this particular scenario it is right smack through the middle of a urupa. As Mr Twyford has talked about there are other examples of this. I think in this case people have got something to jump up and down about. In fact if you add it all to things like battles like Te Ranga add it to confiscation in places like Taranaki and Tauranga Moana and add it to raupatu and the loss of land over time which has been well documented in Waitangi Tribunal hearings I think you would understand why people should be pretty angry and upset about these sorts of things. But in a positive way and staying with the positive at least at this point in time the two parties have come together in a way forward.  
I just wanted to say one last point and it is that in about a couple of weeks’ time there will be a commemoration or at least the signing of a move forward on the part of a number of the Tauranga iwi. Te Ranga was an important part of Tauranga history—not that I know it all—but there will be a time when people will go up there to commemorate in a sense the battle of Te Ranga at Gate Pa which is documented in history. Again all of that is about healing healing our time as a nation just as much as this bill albeit small is a positive move if you put it in the context of the many other things that are happening. It bodes well for the future and I hope that may continue.  
In the last part I will say on the back of all this discussion about being together just to think about the  
Rena 
 disaster last year when again iwi were involved in decision making at the highest level with the authorities through Maritime New Zealand and so on and the outcome was absolutely wonderful to see. It was Tauranga people coming together to address that.  
So with those few words I thank the House for all your contributions and look forward to ongoing support as the bill goes through on its journey. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou ki a tatau i tenei po tae ra no ki a koutou e whakarongo mai na i te wa kainga Tauranga Moana Tauranga tangata ka mutu ki te Kaunihera o Tauranga ka nui te mihi. Tena koutou tena koutou kia ora tatau. 
[ 
I greatly appreciate you and us collectively here tonight as well as those of you listening in from back home in Tauranga the people and of course the Tauranga City Council. I am overwhelmed by the huge acknowledgment. Greetings to you greetings to you and greetings to us collectively. 
] 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I move  
That the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill over the next number of months. I need to declare straight away that this piece of remnant bush and the very large house that was once the family home of the first settlers on the Plains the Deans family is in my electorate. Between 1989 and 1996 I was a member of the trust board that administers that particular property and between 1992 and 1996 I was chairman of that trust.  
This is a piece of legislation that dates back to 1914 when the Deans family decided that the last remaining remnant of native bush on the Canterbury Plains at Riccarton should be in public ownership and so they gifted it to the people of Christchurch at that time. There was a trust arrangement set up to administer all of the necessary caretaking of that bush which involved quite a large number of local authorities that existed in and around Christchurch at that time. Later in 1947 the family decided that they would exit the large house on the property which had been built progressively from 1856 through to the early 1900s and they sold the balance of the property to the Christchurch City Council the Heathcote County Council the Waimairi County Council and the Paparua County Council as well as the Borough of Riccarton which at that stage had become the trustees if you like of the property.  
I think it is fair to say that over the years the value of the bush was not as well recognised as it possibly could be. At one point it was the policy of the caretaker to in fact mow all of the undergrowth from one side of the bush to the other so that you could look beyond the tree stumps from one side of the 15 acres to the other. That is clearly not the sort of way in which the bush should be looked after. In recent years particularly with the Royal Society putting on to the trust board—and I say “recent years”; that is the last 30 to 35 years—Dr Brian Molloy the stewardship of the bush has changed considerably. It is now in a much more natural state and far more natural than it has been probably since the latter part of the 1800s. In recent years a predator fence has been put round the outside of that and that has facilitated a number of native species being able to regenerate themselves inside that particular part of Christchurch. It is one of the hidden gems of the city and it is very very valuable not for its particular monetary value but for its intrinsic value as being such an important remnant of what once covered a greater part of the Canterbury Plains.  
The house itself is interesting. It has been renovated to about the 1900 style. But if you go back to 1990 the city council at that stage was considering what its future might be. I think Denis O’Rourke the New Zealand First member was probably on the council at that time. There was a decision made that it should be subject to a management plan and that restoration should be carried out on the house. One of the quirks of the 1947 Act was that there was the ability for the participants or the trust itself to levy the contributing counties a percentage of the rate base to fund their activities. By the time we got to 1990 immediately after the amalgamation with just the one local authority now the contributor the potential for payment through the formula was quite considerable.  
The council at that stage struck what I think was a very sensible arrangement in continuing to fund its operations with a view to that funding renovating the property. A new roof was put on with Canadian shingles which was most of the original type of roof. A full sprinkler system was put inside. There was earthquake strengthening put into all of the chimneys and all of the fireplaces were kept operational although only two of them are actually used these days under current air consent policy. But the point is that having done all that work this house although it has suffered some damage has come through the recent earthquakes extremely well.  
What we see today is the trust board in conjunction with the Christchurch City Council working out what we need as a piece of legislation to guide us through the next long period of the history of the property. It does recognise I think the value that Christchurch can see in that property. I am very proud to say it is a heritage building and it will continue to be a very important part of the fabric. But it is the bush that is the true gem if you like that the bill is setting out to protect.  
I am very delighted to move this bill to its first reading today. I am sure that some of the history that goes around this particular part of Christchurch will interest the select committee as it goes about its work. It is appropriate that the bill does go to the Local Government and Environment Committee because the local government side of this is very very evident in a positive way and then the environmental protection that is afforded to the bush will be of interest to those on the committee who take that particular interest on board. I look forward to the select committee going about its deliberations in a timely manner and the bill’s return to the House and ultimate passage. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the local member Gerry Brownlee for bringing this to the House. I also want to acknowledge the Riccarton Bush trustees for their work who along with the Christchurch City Council legal services unit did much work in preparing the bill that we are examining now. As the member opposite has indicated Riccarton Bush is in the Ilam electorate; it is not in the Wigram electorate. But it is only a few metres over the boundary. I observe that I can see it from my window.  
This bill tidies up the 1947 Riccarton Bush Act and the governance arrangements that were put in place for the board for the Riccarton Bush trustees. It better defines their functions to provide for the continuation of the very good work they have been doing and it enhances what they can do in preserving this. Labour will support this bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We believe this is based on good consultation. The board has been very involved in putting together this piece of work local people have been consulted and a number of Christchurch people have had their input.  
We think it is really important that as Cantabrians confront their future we preserve our past. Riccarton Bush and the land and buildings that are there are an important part of that past. We think that our heritage and preserving our heritage in our city is important and we would like to see some of those heritage buildings left standing. I will just indulge the historian in me for a few moments and get on the record some of the important history of this site. Riccarton Bush is an incredibly important part of our natural history. It is part of a protected remnant of bush that we once saw all over the Canterbury Plains. The species and the plants that we see growing there were once what much of the plains looked like. It is now as the member bringing this bill to the House has noted protected with a predator fence and we are seeing some important work in terms of biodiversity in the Canterbury area taking place in this area.  
This was a site that was also important to Ngai Tahu. This was an important mahinga kai site and it was also an important timber site for the iwi. It was from the bush that much of the carving and waka were produced and it was also an important place for gathering pigeons and an important food source site.  
I also note that Riccarton Bush was perhaps one of the first rewrapped and given back Christmas presents in Canterbury. The Deans actually signed their deal to buy the land with the agents of the Canterbury Association on Christmas Day in 1848. They promptly gave half the bush over to the emerging settlement to be used as a source of timber in building the city. This is something that I think resonates with many of us in Christchurch at the moment thinking about building and rebuilding as we go about recreating a city. We had some settlers who had the foresight to think that their civic mind actually was to contribute to the city that was growing up around them. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We’re not going to cut down the other half. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: Well actually I do note that by 1851 all of that timber had gone; the settlers had used all of it. The Deans on the other hand were exemplars of what we need to do in terms of preserving this bush. Theirs has actually survived. They used only timber that fell down and they adopted what was very much a conservation model in terms of their own stand of trees that they were looking after. Much of the timber was used to build Homebush. That is just some of the history of the site.  
The board when it was looking at the legislation that was needed to enhance the governance of this area of land identified a number of areas that needed tidying up. It said that the new legislation would make amendments to the Act rather than repeal the Act that was in place. It elected to pass this amending piece of legislation because it wanted the original Act to actually stand as a historical document itself. But it said that the amendments needed to reflect the shape of local government as it is now and the financial planning that happens in local government as it is now. It needed to update the statutory functions of the board and it wanted to require the board to adopt a management plan much like a management plan that would happen under the Reserves Act because of course this is governed by its own Act of Parliament. But one of the significant drivers for the board in seeking these amendments was the low level of statutory levy that was payable by the local councils. What was happening in reality was that much of their funding was actually topped up by additional grants.  
Labour welcomes this tidying-up particularly around this funding and we welcome this particularly in light of the local government reforms that are currently going through this House. Who knows whether Riccarton Bush would be a core service under the local government reforms? This Act gives this incredibly important historical site within our city protections and gives its funding some certainty and some protections. There is a bit of a yes/no/maybe game going on with what will be regarded as a core service. V8 Supercars races? No. Garden shows? Yes. Who knows when it comes to Riccarton Bush? The kiwis in the bush—who knows whether they would be seen as a core service? 
 We are very happy to see this go to a select committee as I noted at the beginning of my speech. We think that it has had good local public consultation but we think the opportunity for more public input would be good. We welcome many of the provisions that are in the bill. I want to point especially to the statutory protection that expressly preserves the right of free public entry to Riccarton Bush and the lands vested in the board. I would like to congratulate the people who have put together this bill on having that provision in there. That is something to be acknowledged and to be congratulated.  
I also note that the bill authorises the board to own and to acquire other lands for purchase or that are gifted to it. At the select committee consideration what I would like to see considered and what we would like to see considered is whether there could be protections against the sale of this asset. I do note that this bill was put together 4 or 5 years ago at a time when the people putting it together would not have imagined the pressure that would be brought to bear on Christchurch City to sell off its assets. I do note that it is the very member who has brought this bill to the House who is putting that pressure on Christchurch City to sell its assets. So we would like to use the opportunity of a select committee to see whether there is a good opportunity to protect this most valuable asset for the people of Christchurch for ever. I did note with some relief that the member did note that there was not much monetary value in Riccarton Bush so it has obviously gone through his thinking process. But we would like to see this preserved for ever for the people of Christchurch and not put at risk. That is something a select committee could examine to strengthen an already very strong bill that is going to do much to make sure that Riccarton Bush is at the heart of a recreated Christchurch and is there for generations more Christchurch people to enjoy. Thank you. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to support the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I have been visiting Deans Bush in Riccarton all my life. I know that it is officially called Riccarton Bush but locally and perhaps fondly it is known as Deans Bush as a mark of respect to the Deans family because of course it was the Deans family who donated that property to the people of Christchurch in 1914. Indeed it was a most generous and appreciated gift. 
Deans Bush is a wonderful stand of kahikatea. It is mixed with totara and matai and it really is an oasis of green very close to our city. It is the last of that kind of bush on the plains. I think those trees are possibly about 600 years old. On the fringe of that bush is the original Deans cottage which was made out of wood cut out of the bush. It was built in 1843 and it is the oldest building standing on the Canterbury Plains. I am very pleased to be able to report that it is undamaged by the recent earthquakes. 
The brothers John and William Deans came from Kirkstyle Riccarton in Scotland and they arrived in New Zealand in the early 1840s. After negotiating with local Maori they settled at Riccarton. They became very successful farmers and traders and over the years they built a very beautiful and very large Victorian-Edwardian home. I say Victorian-Edwardian because it was built over 30 or 40 years. And it still stands there. It stands there very proudly but unfortunately is closed because of damage with the earthquakes. That home is known as Riccarton House and the grounds were purchased by local councils in 1947. The legislation was changed at that time to include it with the bush. 
Of course the Deans were Scottish and good Presbyterians. In recent years Riccarton Bush has become the spiritual home of the Scottish community in the city. There is now a monument to the Deans family there and to the ordinary early Scots settlers and regular Scottish events are held in the grounds. I am sure the Deans would enjoy those pipe band competitions the Scottish dancing the clan parades the haggis eating and particularly the whisky drinking. 
The Deans were well established at Riccarton before the first four ships carrying settlers for the Canterbury Association arrived in our city. They came with a vision for the Canterbury Association to transplant a perfect Anglican society to New Zealand. Local folklore tells us that the location of Hagley Park between the main settlements for the Anglicans and those Presbyterian Deans was perhaps deliberate. It kept them well on the other side of the city at arms length from the new settlement. I am not sure whether that is true but the fact that the city fathers later allocated land for the Catholic community at the other end of town near the gasworks would tend to let us believe that it might be true. 
This bill today is a further amendment of the original Act and is necessary to update and modernise the governance structures to better define the role of the board and to vest the land at 30 Kahu Road to the board. Deans Bush at Riccarton is now an especially lively place since the earthquakes because although the old Deans homestead as I said is still closed with damage it has become even more of a community centre and every weekend farmers’ markets are held in the grounds. Apparently John Deans was an early conservationist because on his deathbed he asked his wife Jane to be sure that Riccarton Bush remained for ever. So this bill which once again amends that original Act brought to the House by the local member of Parliament Gerry Brownlee—thank you Gerry—will keep Riccarton Bush safe for many years to come. So I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Like other members I am delighted to be able to take a call on the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I want to begin by congratulating and commending the local member the Hon Gerry Brownlee MP for Ilam for what is probably a lot of work actually that has gone on behind the scenes in introducing this bill. Even though it is quite a small bill it has three parts and I know there would have been a lot of consultation and engagement with local organisations to get it to this stage.  
Like my colleague Megan Woods member of Parliament for Wigram I want to acknowledge the trustees and also the legal services team at the Christchurch City Council for the work they have put in. I am delighted that the member in charge of the bill has advised the House that he is proposing to refer it to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I was particularly touched by the way the member explained the links between local government and environment in the same way that he passionately described the need for protection of the bush and heritage buildings and I would like him to repeat it—a lot. We like to hear it in Christchurch from the member in his other capacity as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery because those are the two things that we are in danger of losing quite a lot of. The member’s obvious personal inclination came to the fore and I personally want to hear more of it.  
I would recommend that the Local Government and Environment Committee come to Christchurch. It is quite common during a local bill to come to a city. Some people so I have heard think there is not much to come to our city for but I can advise them that that is not the case. I know that the local member—the member who just resumed her seat Nicky Wagner—Megan Woods and I and our other Canterbury colleagues would be delighted to look after them and ensure they see a lot of our city. But it is seriously important that they go and see the actual area that is being discussed in this legislation.  
We heard some excellent history from Megan Woods and I want to thank her for bringing that information to the House. I know that during the consultation process the local member would have had a lot of engagement and discussion with the Deans family who of course are very strong still in the affairs of our city and our region. I would be very curious to know—and perhaps the member could tell us in his concluding comments—whether they mentioned their continued frustration with the compulsory acquisition of private land that has been enabled because the Government has not taken any action to fix the part of the Resource Management Act that allows that. Also because of the Central Plains Water Trust activity part of their farm which goes back as long as this very area is now going to be compulsorily acquired. You know it is hard to imagine in this day and age—[ 
Interruption 
]—and we need smelling salts for Mr O’Rourke momentarily while we discuss this. 
 That farmland has been in the Deans family as long as this land has been in the Deans family then later put in a trust and now it will have a compulsory acquisition stamp on it which the Minister could do something about. I would encourage him to do that—in fact I would like to advise him that I have a member’s bill in my name which for the second time will be presented to this House. Last time he clearly was not aware of the repercussions of the compulsory acquisition of private land because he voted against it. I am sure that will be raised in future discussion with the Deans family.  
I want to conclude as I started by acknowledging the work that the member has put into this bill alongside the legal team at the city council and the trustees themselves. I listened to the member’s contribution as he began the first reading debate on the bill. He mentioned the chimneys and it gave me a bit of inspiration to suggest one small thing that the member might like to do to fill a vacuum of time that will clearly now be in his life—because he has finished the work on this bill to this stage—and that is to use his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation to grant all Cantabrians existing use rights so that we can have our log burners back in our rebuilt homes. The granting of existing use rights is a power that he does have under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation. That is the only change that is required. While we support the transition of the chimneys being lit through this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill so too could the member support constituents all our constituents across our city being able to light their log burners as they were able to prior to the February quake. It is a pleasure to support this legislation. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Like others in the House I am pleased to take a short call on the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill which amends the Riccarton Bush Act 1914 and the Riccarton Bush Amendment Act 1947. The Green Party will be supporting this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
I acknowledge the member for Ilam the Hon Gerry Brownlee and his recounting of a little of the history of the bill and the work of the board. The last major overhaul of the board’s functions and powers was in 1947. This bill will both modernise and update the governance arrangements for the board that manages Riccarton Bush Riccarton House Deans Cottage and the very attractive grounds that surround those buildings. 
Riccarton Bush is just along the road from the Green Party offices. It is an area that I used to bike through on the way to the university and it has very high heritage and amenity value for Christchurch and for Canterbury. That as other members have said is because it is the last remnant of flood plain kahikatea forest on the plains. Deans Cottage is the oldest building on the plains and both it and the Victorian homestead of Riccarton House are category I listed historic buildings. 
The board’s careful stewardship of these assets has been recognised in several awards including one from the city of Christchurch the environmental award in 1999 and another one in 2000 and Environment Canterbury’s resource management award in 2004. Certainly like the Minister I acknowledge the work of botanist Brian Molloy in terms of his expertise in guiding the management of Riccarton Bush. The bill by better defining the board’s functions and improving its financial reporting and administration will update these areas. It makes sense to have a financial plan. It makes sense to have a management plan for the bush because of the nature and importance of the assets that the board is charged with managing. 
Certainly Riccarton Bush has benefited from much greater attention to the ecology of the bush. There was a very generous grant by Grant and Marilyn Nelson’s Gama Foundation which funded the erection of the predator fence. That has meant that Canterbury gecko have been reintroduced and tree weta and that the bush has been part of the Department of Conservation’s Operation Nest Egg where kiwi eggs are taken from the wild and hatched at the Willowbank Wildlife Reserve and then the kiwis are reared to a stage where they can confront predators like stoats before being released back into the wild. 
But there is a problem with Riccarton Bush in relation to the earthquake which the MP for Ilam may not be aware of. Because of the collapse of the cliffs at Sumner where a lot of feral pigeons used to roost a lot of pigeons are now roosting in the kahikatea trees of the bush. Their droppings are fouling the forest floor. These are feral pigeons; they are not the native kereru. They are quite a management problem for Riccarton Bush. The board with its very modest budget of about $400000 annually and the grants it gets from the Christchurch City Council does not have the funds to control the feral pigeons. They are an ecological pest. The predator fence obviously does not keep them out. So the problem may be within the member’s responsibility for earthquake recovery. This avian problem in the bush is something that perhaps the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority could do something about. 
I understand that the board did not want to repeal the original 1914 or 1947 legislation because of the extensive history that they provide but to me it makes more sense if the legislation is consolidated in one statute. I would be interested to see if there were submissions on that. Like the member for Wigram I am pleased that the bill safeguards public access to Riccarton Bush and the grounds though it does allow the board to charge for services such as the ranger-guided tours and it does also allow for a licence for the café which we hope will reopen when Riccarton House is reopened once the damage there has been repaired. The Green Party supports the bill and looks forward to public submissions on it. Thank you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 Deans Bush with its remnant of kahikatea forest and the Deans homestead since 1843 is an area of extraordinary beauty on the banks of the Avon River in Christchurch. It is a very important Christchurch City asset one of many such assets in Christchurch that should never be sold—one of many assets in Christchurch that should never be sold. I would like to compare that statement with a speech made just a few minutes ago in this House by Nick Smith who celebrated the fact that councils were able to sell land including reserve land and do what they like with it. That is not the situation as it should be especially with properties like this.  
This property has been well cared for but only since about 1990 using ratepayers’ money and that needs to continue. I joined the Christchurch City Council and was on it for 15 years between 1989 and 2004. It was for the first time then that we committed the funding necessary for the preservation of this house. I remember going there and inspecting it along with other councillors looking at the roof and the state of that looking at rooms that were completely unusable and looking at a lot of other very unkempt aspects of that particular property including the bush itself. We committed voluntarily the funding necessary to make sure that that all changed and what we see now is a property that we can all be proud of despite the current earthquake damage. We did it because we knew it was needed and we knew it was valued by the people of Christchurch who could visit it free of charge then as well.  
For the same reasons this Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill should now be supported because it brings the Riccarton Bush Act up to date. New Zealand First does have one serious reservation which I will mention later. However new sections 5 and 5A in clause 14 do provide for a board of eight people five of whom are appointed by the Christchurch City Council and two of whom must be community board members.  
I would like to take this opportunity to remember the late Ishwar Ganda who was a councillor for the Wigram ward—actually it was called the Wigram-Riccarton community at that time. He was a staunch supporter of the Riccarton Bush and Riccarton House and he was a long-time member of the Riccarton Bush Trust board. I would also like to acknowledge David Close who was the councillor who actually did insist on the fitting of sprinklers to the property as he did to many heritage and other properties owned by the council at that time. The Deans family of course can appoint two board members as well and always have and the Royal Society one member too. That is an appropriate mix of members for the board. The council supplies the money; therefore it is appropriate it should appoint five out of the eight board members.  
New sections 4 and 4A in clause 4 concerning the terms of office of board members and new sections 10A 10B and 10C in clause 5 relating to functions and powers of the board are also appropriate and do modernise the provisions for the board and bring its functions up to date. 
 New section 14 in clause 7 confirms public access without the restrictions that were in the old Act the Riccarton Bush Act 1914 and makes sure that no fee would be payable for public access and that is very important. However the reservations that New Zealand First has do relate to some of the aspects of the financial plan. Section 21 of the principal Act assumed a grant and it was always made available but the new sections give the board a bit of a blank cheque. The city council in new section 23(3) in clause 10 can only approve and not disapprove of the financial plan which I think is something of a defect. Although it is true that with five out of eight board members there is not much of a risk that there would be an inappropriate financial plan it is actually not good law to make it possible for the council to only approve the financial plan and not for it to be able to disapprove it. The legislation should at least say that if there is an issue then the board and the council should be able to sit down and agree upon it provided always of course that there is sufficient funding for the management and the operational capital plans. Subject to that reservation New Zealand First will be happy to support this bill going forward.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I speak to the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I say to the House that I always thought Riccarton Bush was known as Deans Bush so there is one thing that I learnt today. This is a good bill because it does what a number of other good local bills that have been brought to previous Parliaments have done. Indeed we have had a look at two local bills previously this evening. What the bill does is modernise arrangements for the governing body of in this case Riccarton Bush.  
The history has been fascinating. I say as a South Islander of a more southern persuasion who is always travelling to Christchurch that just off Riccarton Road there is the magic of what I thought was Deans Bush. It is something to look forward to as I do tend to go down that road past the Green Party offices too quite frequently because Christchurch Boys’ High School is fairly close by as well—if my geography is correct. It is a lovely part of Christchurch. You can tell when you go to Christchurch that Christchurch folk are understandably proud of Riccarton Bush proud of the legacy of the Deans family and also very proud indeed of the kiwi breeding programme of which I am also aware and of the kahikatea forest remnants.  
Looking though this bill the objectives of the bill are pretty straightforward. It is to modernise the governing arrangements. The speaker previous to my contribution Denis O’Rourke outlined some of the clauses which I have also noted that tidy up and modernise the governance for this organisation and provide for terms of office of members of the board detailing functions of the board allowing for the establishment of committees—that is a more modern way of delegating functions amongst board members—and empowering the board to delegate some of its functions and powers. It is pretty straightforward. I do not have the misgivings shared in the previous member’s speech.  
I note in clause 10 new sections requiring the board to adopt a financial plan to be integrated with the planning processes of the Christchurch City Council. The next part of that clause provides for the application of the Local Government Act 2002. Clearly the Local Government and Environment Committee has got some work to do on this bill but none the less it is yet again another good local bill. I commend the local member Gerry Brownlee for bringing it to the House. Local bills do not just appear on the Order Paper; there is a lot of work and a lot of consultation going on before that happens. I look forward to scrutinising the bill through the course of its passage through the select committee and then back in the House. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. I am pleased to speak in support of the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. Along with my other colleagues I support its first reading and its referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee.  
This bill in terms of modernising the governance arrangements with the Riccarton Bush trustees really concerns the beautiful piece of historic bush that makes up the property in question. We have heard a lot this evening about the wonderful history that Canterbury and Christchurch people and the Scottish community have with the bush area. It also goes further back as my colleague Megan Woods touched on. It goes right back to Ngai Tuahuriri when the bush in its Ngai Tahu name was called Putaringamotu. My own tupuna would have frolicked around in the bush catching the kereru pigeon on their seasonal travels as they went around the motu of Te Waipounamu. I can just see them now occupying the bush area as it would have been quite an extensive forest in those days. So yes there is a lot of history and a lot of connection that all the communities have with that area. I do acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee for supporting this bill the other “member for Riccarton Bush” within the great vast area of Te Tai Tonga. We also support it in recognition also of that historical connection.  
I was just thinking about the issue that Eugenie Sage the Green member raised earlier regarding the feral pigeons. I am pretty sure that some members of Ngai Tuahuriri after their mutton bird season expeditions could do something about that if they were given the opportunity.  
This is a bill that I am pleased to support. I was just having a flick through and I have one suggestion which I hope is considered by the select committee. It was raised by Ms Sage and it would be perhaps to consolidate or recast the bill into a single Act. It is 98 years old now the initial 1940 legislation that set up the trust. Then we have had a succession of amendment bills: I think there was a significant one in 1947 and then a series of ones that came further on. Thank goodness we have got electronic updates on legislation these days because back in the day when they had to glue in the pieces of amendments in terms of the statute book to deal with trying to piece this piece of legislation together would be quite a task. So that would be just one suggestion that perhaps will be taken up through submissions to the select committee.  
I know that the trustees want to retain that historic connection I guess through the legislation but the purpose of the bill is to modernise and to bring the processes of the board up to date and perhaps that could be a worthwhile suggestion—to modernise the whole Act completely and recast it into a single consolidated Act in 2012.  
There is a great history there. I also like to think in recognition of that history that these are taonga these kahikatea trees. I do not know too much about botany but I do know that the kahikatea is the tallest native tree and it is significant in Maoridom because we have a pepeha saying “Me uru kahikatea”. The kahikatea is the tallest tree. You always see kahikatea trees in clumps. You will never see a single tree and it is because of the roots of the kahikatea. They bind together and that is what “Me uru kahikatea” means: to bind together and stay strong. So perhaps recognition of Putaringamotu in the make-up of Riccarton Bush would be appropriate as well. But I support this bill through to the select committee. Kia ora tatou. 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak to the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill tonight. Like others who have spoken here from Christchurch Riccarton Bush has special significance for me for several reasons. As a young student more than 25 years ago I used to wander through the bush and I have to confess that because at that time the bush was quite trampled and degraded I did not find it that impressive compared with some other places that you can be in the South Island. But a couple of years later when on a guided tour as part of my ecology class the significance of the bush was explained to me and my eyes were really opened. I should explain that there are hardly any places left in the Canterbury ecological region where the original vegetation remains. In fact it is less than 1 percent which is pitiful. So this means that every remnant is incredibly precious and deserves the best protection management and preservation for future generations.  
Riccarton Bush serves as a reminder of what the Canterbury Plains used to be like before human settlement and I think we always need that reminder. Since I was first there 25 years ago the bush has made a remarkable recovery under the management of the Riccarton Bush Trust. I agree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee that it is now one of the hidden gems of Christchurch. In particular the rejuvenation and restoration of the bush that has occurred during the last 25 years has been absolutely wonderful and much of this progress has happened since the predator-proof fence was erected. That has allowed the native flora and fauna to flourish birdlife to thrive and so on. That has also allowed the reintroduction of small populations of the Canterbury tree weta and the threatened Canterbury gecko which are now both in the area and also a creche for juvenile kiwi before they are released into the wild. So it is growing and flourishing all the time. I understand that they are now planning to reintroduce other bird species such as tomtits and the rifleman.  
With such a wonderful vision for Riccarton Bush I think it is absolutely timely that the management plans and so on and the way that it is being governed are updated because this will allow the vision to really flourish in the future. When it comes to public submissions the Green Party will welcome the Local Government and Environment Committee hearings being held in Christchurch to allow the local public to submit and to hear their particular input as to how the vision for further restoration of the bush can be improved upon. Thank you.  
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank all members for their contributions on this bill the Riccarton Bush Amendment Bill. I am sure it will be quite an enjoyable select committee process for those who are involved because this is a part of Canterbury and indeed Christchurch that has a very rich history. I want to just acknowledge that the very first chairman of the Riccarton Bush Trust after the gift in 1914 was John Deans III. He was the son of John Deans II who was the son of John Deans the brother of William Deans. William Deans died very shortly after their arrival in Canterbury and John Deans farmed that property himself for quite some time. Then of course when he went back to Scotland he married Jane Deans. Jane McIlraith was her maiden name and he had been betrothed to her I think for some 12 years and finally went back to marry her. Whilst coming back to New Zealand he was horseback riding on the Isthmus of Panama got caught in the rain took a cold and never really recovered from that. So John Deans II really did not get to know his father as well as he might have. He of course then had a very large family. The property that is being amalgamated by the trust today became the home of I think John Deans III who was also the first chairman of the trust that I spoke of before. 
In my time I have known Patrick Deans who was a trustee Hugh Deans Richard Deans and Hugh’s son whose name escapes me just at the present time but who has been a great contributor. And of course the chairman today is Charles Deans. In between times Richard Harrington who was the Mayor of Riccarton was chairman of the trust for a very long time. So it has had very good stewardship from people who are quite passionate about it. Denis O’Rourke mentioned one of the trustees before who was equally passionate about the place. 
The connection to Homebush was mentioned by Ruth Dyson and that of course is also a home that has been lost due to the earthquakes and that brings its own sadness. Some of the barns that went with the farm on the property of Christchurch Boys’ High School have also been lost after so many years. So it is important that that house does get back on its feet and does get recovered.  
Can I just also mention that in a country like New Zealand where we have so few degrees of separation for the time I was on the trust the trust’s secretary was Roger Cave. Roger Cave is the brother-in-law of Prime Minister John Key. So there are a lot of connections in this House not only to local members but to others as well. 
In the front of the property away from the bush there is quite a splendid stand of oak trees. The seeds for those oak trees were provided to the Deans family to Jane Deans and her son by Governor George Grey. They are known as the George Grey oaks. They stand there very proudly. But I am pleased that so many people have recognised the value of the bush itself—the remnant stand of kahikatea. The site is known as the member for Te Tai Tonga pointed out as Putaringamotu. I believe that is “the place of the severed ear”. I have asked Rick Tau a number of times exactly what the story was behind that and he has given a bit of a gruff laugh and never really let on what it was about. I suspect he was trying to make up something that was pretty fantastic. 
At the time we launched the management plan for this bush Rick Tau did speak on behalf of Ngai Tahu. He spoke most eloquently as he always does about the value of whichever particular project he is involved in. He said of this place that he was happy that Ngai Tahu could always have communication with the trustees but did not need to be on the trust because the original lease to the Deans brothers was a genuine one. It was for some 6 miles in a radius from the site that is roughly where the house is now. He made the comment that when the settling company the Canterbury Association came to New Zealand in 1850 both the Maori and the Deans got done. I am sure that many of the explanations for these stories will come out during the Committee stage the second reading and the third reading and I look forward to all those processes. 
Thank you to all the members who have done so much work on this bill and I must say that although I am proud to bring it to the House other people have done the work behind it including the legal services team from the Christchurch City Council and they should be congratulated on that. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill had its genesis as long ago as December 2009 when it was introduced at the first reading by my friend and colleague the Hon Amy Adams. Due to her ministerial promotion she has not been able to proceed this legislation to its conclusion. So I want to acknowledge and thank her for her foresight in bringing the bill to the House and in entrusting me with the role of completing the work she started. 
Although the bill has undergone something of an overhaul in respect of its structure and wording its fundamental purpose remains the same—that is to provide increased transparency and public accountability for professional third-party collectors who are in the business of collecting funds on behalf of registered charities. At least $2.5 billion a year is donated by New Zealanders to registered charities. It is not only money that New Zealanders commit; we commit time and effort to our communities through sports clubs Rotary Clubs and Lions clubs local church groups and advocacy groups. But when that commitment is financial there is a reasonable expectation that the funds donated reach their intended destination. There is definitely a cost to raising funds but a trend has emerged where fund-raising organisations are used by charities to assist with the collection process. Indeed because of that trend those donating money do have a right to be given accurate information about the proportion of those funds that are retained by those groups. 
I want to restate my thanks to those who made submissions to the Commerce Committee in the last Parliament and also to officials from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs for their advice particularly with the reframing of the legislation to provide a more effective means of delivering the policy intent.  
I want to touch on a couple of the comments made in the Committee of the whole House—in particular comments by the Opposition that although the bill does not do any harm it does not do anything and even more cruelly comments by Mr Parker who described it as a worthless waste of money. I find that somewhat ironic given the undignified manner with which his party approached members’ days last year. I think he should reflect on his party’s contribution to the worthless waste of money on members’ days that occurred in 2011. 
I am actually more compelled by his former colleague Carol Beaumont’s comments at the first reading when she said that it was a good bill and that it addresses an area of concern for the public which is why Labour is supporting it. There is a good reason for that support. The public’s perception of and confidence in the likelihood that the money solicited on behalf of charities actually gets to those charities are reducing. In its briefing to the committee the ministry reported that Consumer New Zealand informed it that the cost of third-party collectors for charities is a common complaint and an online poll taken around that time in 2010 showed that 95 percent of respondents wanted greater transparency of the cost of third parties. 
The Charities Commission also reported regularly receiving complaints relating to third parties and noted a rising awareness in the media of the use of third-party contractors. Its 2010 trust and confidence survey indicated reducing levels of trust and confidence in charities and reduced confidence that a reasonable proportion of donations get to their end cause. In summary although confidence in our charitable sector remains high it is dropping. The rise in prominence of third-party collectors is co-related with—and in my view at least in part causing—that loss of confidence. Examples of perceived unethical practice by collectors include charities receiving less than a quarter of the donations raised by telemarketers. Examples have also been reported where long-term planned giving arrangements see the first year or more of contributions withheld by the fund-raising organisation before the charity sees the money coming through. 
I sense that those involved in the fund-raising area including members of the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand who submitted on the bill have an honest belief that firstly the amount of money withheld by them in commissions is appropriate and secondly there is a risk that members of the public misunderstand or may be overly swayed against giving by the transparency that this legislation when passed could provide. I respectfully disagree with that view. I sense that the submitters—the institute and the other submitters—against this bill are concerned that their commissions when revealed might be misconstrued and that people could be dissuaded from giving. But I have more confidence in New Zealanders to understand the context of arrangements of this nature and to give generously notwithstanding that transparency. However I do accept that it may result in movements of donations away from organisations where such transparency reveals the worst excesses of commission collecting or possibly it may have a moderating effect on those organisations. That is one purpose of the bill. So I would applaud that development were it to occur—hardly a law that does not do harm but does nothing and certainly not a worthless waste of time. 
The Fundraising Institute also suggested that the best way forward is self-regulation. I am quite fond of self-regulation in most circumstances but I do note that in the 3 years since the bill was entered into the ballot I am not aware of any attempts at self-regulation in order to prevent the need for this legislation being put in place. In any event it was also noted to the committee by those who did engage in excessive commission-collecting—known by some as charity muggers or “chuggers”—that they were not actually members of organisations that would make them subject to voluntary regulation. 
The bill in its final form will provide for regulation-making powers for the Minister of Consumer Affairs. Concern has been expressed that this will not occur or that the environment will be too complex for the regulation-making powers to be effective. The Minister of Consumer Affairs the Hon Simon Bridges advises me that he is prepared to draft regulation in a timely manner and to consult with affected parties as is required by the bill. The House can be sure that both I and the Hon Amy Adams will be diligent in ensuring that our colleague delivers on that commitment. 
I trust the generosity of New Zealanders and I trust their ability to discern fairly the information provided on an appropriate commission or sum withheld. I have no doubt that their enthusiasm for charitable giving will remain high. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am pleased to be standing in support of the final reading of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I want to traverse a little bit the history of why we are debating this bill separate from the review of the whole area of fair trading that is being undertaken at the moment. I think that legislation is in front of the Commerce Committee at the moment. Jonathan Young is helping me out from the other side of the House and nodding his head. As I am no longer on the Commerce Committee I do not necessarily keep myself up to date with all of the particular goings-on in that committee.  
I think it is a shame that the bill is separate from that legislation because the legislative framework that is now in front of the select committee is actually I think far more integrated than dealing with things on a piecemeal basis would ever allow. I think it would have been better to be able to include this bill with it. However we were persuaded and we agreed as a select committee—and I chaired that committee at the time—at the request of Amy Adams the sponsor of the bill at that time to allow this bill to proceed because it had raised a significant amount of concern within the community. Certainly that was reflected in the submissions that we received but the submissions were not unanimous in the views that they expressed. We did not receive from all of the charities universal support for the approach that the bill was adopting.  
I think people were relatively comfortable with going down a regulation-making pathway that has all of the consultative requirements as the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse has just explained to the House but they were a little bit concerned about the message that might be sent about certain approaches that were adopted by professional fund-raising organisations fund-raising—totally transparently—on behalf of charitable organisations but expecting a professional share of that for the professional services they were providing. I think one of the clearest examples we had of that was the organisation Greenpeace where people could in fact be contributing for up to a year before the professional fund-raising arm of the organisational aspects had been fully recompensed and then as far as Greenpeace was concerned it had a member for life. It was that ongoing gift of the lifetime contribution to the organisation that actually made the initial contribution worthwhile. It did not want to see anything passed through Parliament that actually prevented it from having professional fund-raisers being able to operate in that way. I see that the member is shaking his head and I know that the legislation is crafted in a way— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.