Volume 686 Week 30 - Wednesday 5 December 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 686 Week 30 - Wednesday 5 December 2012 
[Sitting date: 05 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7133. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 5 December 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Change of Parliamentary Membership—Brendan Horan 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the New Zealand First Party that its parliamentary membership has changed and that Brendan Horan is no longer a member of the New Zealand First Party for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly under Standing Order 34(4) Brendan Horan is from 4 December 2012 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes. Allocations of speaking slots and oral questions will be adjusted. Allocations of funding to the New Zealand First Party and to Brendan Horan will also be adjusted. 
Questions to Ministers 
Climate Change Policy—Doha Conference and Withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol Second Commitment Period 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What policy directives has he given his two Ministers attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Doha? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have not provided any specific directives to the two Ministers—in the same way that I did not provide a specific directive to the acting Leader of the House today on what colour to wear as she sat next to me. However Cabinet has agreed to an updated international climate change negotiations mandate to guide New Zealand’s general approach to the Doha meeting. It is unlikely that there will be a breakthrough at these talks. Our broad goal is to make continued progress towards a comprehensive agreement by 2020. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Dr Russell Norman. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear this question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that delegates to the United Nations climate conference are discussing excluding New Zealand from international carbon markets because of the Government’s decision not to sign up to the second period of Kyoto commitments? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. I am sure there are plenty of discussions going on but New Zealand can hold its head up high when it comes to climate change. Half of all of our emissions come from agriculture. This is a Government that has led the charge when it has come to building global consensus for research in that area. That is likely to do more to actually lower global emissions than any of the wacky ideas that the Greens come up with. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he think it is in New Zealand’s best interests for it to be shut out of international carbon markets as a result of his Government’s decision not to sign up to further binding commitments? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I would not want to pass comment on something the member says has been discussed but certainly has not been agreed. But there would be some people who would believe that access to some of the international carbon markets that would see very cheaply priced carbon coming into New Zealand was not a good thing. I thought that was something that the member’s party was actually opposed to. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he aware of the distaste with which many European countries are viewing New Zealand at Doha because of the demand from his Government that New Zealand have full access to Kyoto-compliant units while rejecting a legal obligation to reduce emissions which is the very reason the units were designed in the first place? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I take all of it with a bit of a grain of salt. For a start-off the same European countries that that member is talking about support their agricultural industries with enormous subsidies. Secondly 85 percent of world emissions are excluded so if they do not like what New Zealand is doing they do not like what 85 percent of the world emissions from countries are doing. Thirdly New Zealand will have its own binding target. Fourthly New Zealand actually met its target in the first commitment period. Under this Government emissions targets were met. Under the previous Government they went up by 23 percent. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he surprised that there is discussion on the possibility of excluding New Zealand from international carbon markets given that the most senior United Nations climate change figure has said that she was very disappointed in New Zealand’s decision not to sign up for the second commitment period? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said New Zealand finds itself with the majority of countries which represent 85 percent of emissions. New Zealand is going down the convention path. New Zealand will next year set a binding target and that is something that we will meet. But we need to understand the philosophical difference here and that is that the Greens-Labour Government if they ever get there wants a target of between 25— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No. Order! The Prime Minister is not actually responsible for a Greens - Labour Party Government or what it might do. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a statement from Christiana Figueres saying that she is very disappointed that New Zealand will not enter Kyoto II. It is dated 9 November 2012. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he now accept that his Government’s decision not to sign up to binding reductions not only has damaged our international reputation but has threatened our access to the international carbon markets? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: When his Minister delivers New Zealand’s main statement at Doha today will he be arguing that the rest of the world step up action on climate change so that his Government can freeload on their efforts and does he believe that that is doing our fair share? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not know the exact details of Mr Groser’s speech but I can say this: the argument that somehow New Zealand is freeloading is a joke. New Zealand is part of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases which is delivering international science and research that will reduce methane and nitrate emissions. They represent half of all of New Zealand’s emissions. The world is getting more populated and more hungry so the Greens’ solution is to shoot one in five cows and this Government’s solution— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is simply untrue and not relevant to the answer. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not think I need any—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Order I say to the PM. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If we did that we would be out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am not sure that members would want me to do that because I suspect that they do want to be able to question the Prime Minister further. [ 
Interruption 
] All I would say to the member—and a point of order has been raised and these interjections should stop. It has been reasonably light-hearted. They should stop. But I say to the member that he accused the Government of freeloading—alleged in his question that the Government was freeloading—so the Prime Minister had some licence in responding. In the way he couched the statement I think anyone could understand that it was not really a serious description of any party’s policy. 
Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus and Reduction in Borrowing 
2. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress is the Government making in managing its finances so it can return to surplus and start repaying debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Crown’s financial statements for the 4 months ending 31 October were issued today showing a $2.87 billion operating deficit for the first 4 months of the financial year. This was close to expectations being $169 million larger than the Budget forecasts. It reflected lower than expected expenses and lower than forecast revenue. Our net core Crown debt was 27.1 percent of GDP or $55.5 billion. This was in line with Budget forecasts. It remains a considerable challenge to get the Budget back to surplus by 2014-15. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: According to the Crown accounts for the 4 months to October what were the main factors behind the Government’s latest financial results? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The figures confirm that the Government is continuing to control its new spending and that is because the Government is continuing to focus on getting better results from existing Government programmes. Tax revenue for the 4 months was $17.9 billion which was a bit below Budget forecasts reflecting the flatter economy in the second half of this year. However it was good to see that the Inland Revenue Department’s tighter collection and enforcement policies resulted in higher effective tax rates for non-incorporated businesses. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: In light of difficult global economic conditions what will the Government’s approach be to managing its finances over the next few years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It will be important that we remain focused on prudent and careful spending and in particular on making sure that the money we do spend achieves the results that the community wants to see and the Government wants to see. We will also continue to focus on assisting our businesses to be as competitive and productive as possible because the Government’s principal sources of revenue will come from a faster-growing economy. 
Hon David Parker 
: If the Minister of Finance to use his words believes he is sticking to a plan that is working can he confirm that the operating deficit for the first 4 months of this financial year is 6.3 percent higher than forecast in his Budget that the tax take is $292 million down and that unemployment is at the highest rate in 13 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can confirm the numbers that are published in the accounts which show that the operating balance excluding gains and losses is about $169 million larger than the Budget forecasts. That reflects the flatter economy which has also helped to produce a higher unemployment number. However these numbers do go up and down from month to month and we are on track to surplus for 2014-15. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: Compared with the other developed countries how is the New Zealand Government placed in reducing its deficit and returning to surplus so that it can start repaying debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are going through a somewhat similar process to other developed countries. In fact pretty much every developed country is trying to get back to surplus so that it can stop its Government debt levels rising further. We remain on track to achieve that although I would have to say we are going through a more moderate adjustment than many other Governments. For instance the Government of the state of Queensland which is very similar in size to the New Zealand economy announced in the last month or so the redundancy of 14000 public servants in a Public Service roughly the same size as ours. We have not had to take that kind of drastic measure. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can it be a moderate outcome when export values have declined 11 percent over the past year next year’s current account deficit is forecast to be the worst in the developed world income— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Oh what a load of rubbish! 
Hon David Parker 
: That is correct. That is correct— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Order! This must stop. The member must just ask his question. The more statements that are inserted into a question the more risk there is of interjection. 
Hon David Parker 
: —income inequality is at its highest level ever recorded in New Zealand and household savings have turned negative again? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have learnt to divide all the member’s numbers by seven and then we can—seven is the magic number in the Greens-Labour Government—rely on them. I just disagree with the member. I think that it is pretty clear that the New Zealand economy is going through a more moderate and actually a more successful adjustment than many developed economies. 
Hon John Banks—Confidence and Prime Minister’s Actions 
3. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his promise to New Zealanders that “I expect high standards from my Ministers…if they don’t meet the standards I set then obviously I will take action if necessary”; if so how have his actions in respect of Hon John Banks this year upheld that promise? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I understand the point of order because the question actually is more than just asking whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement and it is a primary question. It asks: “if so how have his actions in respect of Hon John Banks this year upheld that promise?”. It is a primary question. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. Where there have been questions raised my office has sought and received assurances from Mr Banks. 
Grant Robertson 
: With some months to reflect does he not think he owed it to New Zealanders to actually read the police report into John Banks’ donations so that he could make a judgment on the facts as to whether Mr Banks was meeting the high standards he promised New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why does he not think Mr Banks has lied when Mr Banks told his chief of staff earlier this year that he had not received a donation from Kim Dotcom but only a couple of months earlier had told Mr Dotcom’s lawyer that he could not help him because of the election support? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because where questions have been raised by my office we have sought assurances and received those assurances. 
Grant Robertson 
: How can he claim Mr Banks has not lied when Mr Banks did not declare a donation from Skycity despite receiving it in an envelope at a meeting organised specifically to hand over the cheque and when his campaign treasurer sent a receipt for the donation to Skycity? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: My memory of the PR that was put out by the police was that there was not a prima facie case in that instance. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is it not the case that he is just putting politics before principle to try to hang on to John Banks’ vote and he has broken the promise he made to New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Grant Robertson 
: If the Prime Minister is keeping his promise of high ethical standards for Ministers why did he not ask John Banks to explain why he said: “No I don’t know.” to the question of whether he knew Kim Dotcom had donated to his mayoral campaign when the police file shows that Mr Banks sought the donation he made suggestions to split it into two he thanked Mr Dotcom for it and he acknowledged to Mr Dotcom’s lawyer in February this year that he had received it? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have no ministerial responsibility for anything Mr Banks did prior to becoming a Minister. 
Science and Research Funding—2013 Science Investment Round Grants and National Science Challenges Initiative 
4. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Science and Innovation 
: What investment is the Government making in new science projects? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation) 
: 
 Yesterday I called for applications for $52.8 million worth of Government research funding for the 2013 science investment round. This research funding is another part of the Government’s annual $1.25 billion cross-portfolio investment in science and innovation. Science and innovation are major drivers of progress and key strands of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. We are focusing this particular investment on new science and research projects that will improve New Zealanders’ health and well-being in the areas of biological industries high-value manufacturing and services energy and minerals and health and society. Researchers have until early April to submit proposals which will then be peer reviewed and assessed by independent panels. The science board of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment will decide which proposals get funded by August of next year. 
Colin King 
: What other investments is the Government making in science? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Almost too many to mention. Last month saw the launch of the Great New Zealand Science Project to encourage New Zealanders to get involved in identifying our biggest science challenges. We have identified a number of illustrative challenges including our rich seas land and water food for health advanced materials in manufacturing New Zealand’s biodiversity fighting disease our changing climate and resilience to natural hazards. We are seeking the public and the science community to put forward their ideas and in April next year following public engagement and expert advice from a panel chaired by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Cabinet will decide which science challenges will be funded to make the biggest difference to New Zealand’s future. 
Work and Income—Use of Transition to Work Grant 
5. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: When was she first aware that the Transition to Work Grant had been used to pay for flights to Australia for job seekers who had an offer of employment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 It was just after 1 p.m. yesterday that I was advised there might be cases where payment had been granted for flights to Australia. I am aware that there has been the odd request for airfares to Australia via correspondence to my office. I have been clear that my expectation is that they would not be paid. Transition to Work grants were introduced in 2007 under Labour. That year there were 16 cases where airfares were granted to Australia and I have been informed that there have been six cases this year at a combined total cost of $4600 approximately. I will be removing any ambiguity in the programme by a direction to the chief executive that will be tabled in this House. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Why did she claim in the House yesterday in relation to the Transition to Work grant being used for flights to Australia that “as far as I have seen to date I do not have evidence of that.” and yet that same afternoon she told journalists it had happened the odd time? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I do stand by that because I did not have evidence. As I said to the member yesterday I was told that there might be and so as a consequence I was very careful about my answers in this House. As I say I have now found out that there were at least 16 in 2007 under Labour which did introduce this programme. But I am certainly not happy that there have been some recently as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Jacinda Ardern. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear this question. Order! I say to the National front-benchers that I want to be able to hear the question. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can she confirm that because the Transition to Work grant is a discretionary fund where direct monetary transfers are made directly to the client there is no way that she will ever know how many occasions Work and Income case managers used it to pay for flights and passports for job seekers who had found employment in Australia and in fact every case I have has not been reported as she has claimed? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: If the member has cases then she is welcome to bring them to me and I would be very interested in seeing them. As I say what they have done is no there is not a box that they can tick in the system that then can be looked at from head office. What they can do though is search the system because they still put the information in; they just do it under certain words so a manual search has been done. As I say to date we have got at least 16 in 2007 and to date we have six certainly in the last year. 
Rt Hon John Key 
: Does the Minister find it unusual that a party that set up the fund and used it 16 times in the first year now finds in Opposition that it is opposed to its very own policy that it established? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I suppose I am not really that surprised. I find that that is kind of the sort of standard practice of—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been called. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a very obvious point of order. I thought you would have got to your feet on the basis of the fact that the Minister does not have responsibility for the policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question did not actually ask about policy detail. The question asked the Minister’s opinion—whether the Minister would find it unusual were something to have happened—and I have got to confess that I do not believe that the Standing Orders rule that out. If the Minister had started to comment on detail of what Labour’s policy had been then—well in fact Ministers do have a reporting responsibility for past policy. What they must not do is pass an opinion on current Opposition party policies. But I believe the question— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whoa whoa. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well you should not dip Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am not dipping; I am standing very steadily I think. The matter is pretty simple. These days Ministers can be asked their opinions and the Prime Minister asked whether the Minister thought it was unusual. I was listening to the answer quite carefully to try to make sure it did not transgress and I had not heard it transgressing to that point. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point was that the very question was out of order because it asked the Minister to express an opinion on an issue for which she was not responsible and that was an apparent change of policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I do not think that the Minister was specifically asked to comment on a change of policy. She was asked whether or not she thought it was unusual for a party to have implemented a policy and now be criticising the outcome. You know this is a robust place. Members of the Opposition get to ask questions that I am sure many Ministers do not like. We have heard a couple today that I think Ministers have not felt that comfortable with. Likewise governing party members do have the chance to ask questions that other members of the House may not like either. But I definitely draw the line where the Minister must not—and the member today saw me sit the Prime Minister down on a straight question when he started to make some allegation about what the Green Party’s policy may have been. These rules have to be interpreted very carefully and I try to be fair on this. I have tried to be fair today and I think I would have been unfair had I ruled that out. I think though the question was answered. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can she confirm that a number of the cases she has alluded to under Labour included domestic violence whereas more recent cases of overseas flights have simply involved a client finding a job? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Speaking to that I say that actually this is the Transition to Work programme. There are other ways that they can get funding to help with those circumstances but it is not through the Transition to Work programme. As far as I am aware and have been advised those 16 cases were to help people into work in Australia. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Has she examined every single use of the Transition to Work grant—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the member. I need to be able to hear and there is just too much interjection. I apologise. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Has she examined every single use of the Transition to Work grant over the years 2008 2009 2010 and to date and can she assure the House that it has been used as many times as she has told us today? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The numbers I have given are from 2007 and then recently. No we have not gone through every single one of them but what we have done is look at airfares— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: You’ve picked a year. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: No the member asked about airfares to Australia and that is what we have looked at and that is what we have done. We are still going through the files. I welcome giving the member other years as they come up but we have got 2007 and we have got 2012 with 16 under Labour which quite frankly did introduce this policy with a major hole in it and did nothing to actually fix it. 
Prostitution—Bylaw-making Powers and Potential Legislative Changes 
6. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his reported statement that the Prostitution Law Reform Act 2003 “hasn’t actually worked”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. One of the key purposes of the Prostitution Reform Act was to prohibit prostitution for under-18-year-olds. I do not believe that it has stopped under-age prostitution sadly. 
Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: Given that answer what will the Government do to address the issue of street prostitution? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: My understanding is that the Government has sought advice about the rights of councils. It is the belief I think of Crown Law that councils can pass by-laws to prohibit street prostitution or at least to control that activity. The Government will also be looking through the Local Government Act to change the fines that are possible to assist local government. The Government’s concern about specific bills that look at one particular area is that they may be unfair on other parts of the country that may be experiencing exactly the same issue so we are looking for a nationwide solution. 
Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: Given that acknowledgment will the Government give priority to legislation to allow local authorities the power to ban street prostitution in designated areas; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: My understanding I may be wrong is that the advice from Crown Law is it is the belief that councils already have the capacity to make by-laws specifying places and districts where the business of prostitution or commercial sexual services may or may not occur. As I said the Government is looking to through the Local Government Act make other changes that would support local government. 
Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: Is he aware that the southern local boards of the Auckland Council have received written support for the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill from Christchurch City Council Palmerston North City Council Waitomo District Council Rangitikei District Council and Southland District Council? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and does that not exactly make the point I am making: that if all of these other councils feel compelled enough to write in support of a bill that would actually change the law in relation to the activities being undertaken in Manukau City—the old Manukau City which is now part of Auckland City—then it argues the very reason why a nationwide solution is required. 
Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: When can the communities of South Auckland in Papatoetoe Manurewa Otara and Otahuhu and those of Palmerston North Waitomo Rangitikei Christchurch and Southland expect there to be laws in place to control street prostitution? [ 
Interruption 
] Listen sweetie. I am asking the question.  
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: When their local councils act by passing a by-law. 
Children State Care—Gateway Assessments  
7. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What progress has been made to ensure children in care have access to the health and education services they need? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to inform the House that since July 2011 1048 children and young people involved with Child Youth and Family have received a gateway assessment. Gateway targets children and young people coming into care who are often disconnected from regular health and education services. Identifying and responding to their health and education needs is a critical step in enabling them to thrive. A gateway assessment is very extensive and enables us to build a complete picture of their needs and then act accordingly. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What did these gateway assessments find? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well every single child of those 1048 has presented with significant health issues—three issues on average—ranging from heart murmurs to dental problems and hearing loss. Emotional or behavioural needs have been identified in 53 percent of those assessed. A developmental delay has been found among 16 percent of children hearing problems with 17 percent and 14 percent would seem to have speech problems. Other issues included incomplete immunisations skin problems dental issues and parental mental health. The research said that we would find them and we have. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What is the Government’s commitment to the future of gateway assessments? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Evidence to date as I have just outlined shows us that we really do need them. These gateway assessments will now be available for up to 4200 children and young people each financial year. Five hundred of these are for children and young people already in care 2200 of these are for children entering care and the balance are for children who have been referred for care and protection via a family group conference. The process is well and truly up and running. Nineteen of the district health boards are on board and Hawke’s Bay will be starting early next year. 
Transport Funding—Borrowing for Transmission Gully Public-private Partnership 
8. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that “there is no suggestion of the Government borrowing billions of dollars for motorways”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I stand by my full statement which was: “There is no suggestion of the Government borrowing millions of dollars for motorways. The motorway investment is largely funded … from the dedicated road-user charges and excise tax that go into the road-user fund.” Between 2009 and 2012 the National Land Transport Fund spent around $4.8 billion on State highways and around $1.9 billion on its share of spending on local roads. Over the same period fuel excise duties and road-user charges raised around $7.5 billion. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: How does he reconcile that answer with this letter addressed to the Minister of Finance from the New Zealand Transport Agency dated 2 October 2012 which states that the planned public-private partnership will “allow the NZTA to borrow”—that is enter into a long-term repayment obligation—“for the Transmission Gully project”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is the nature of the public-private partnership financing method but all the cost of that financing comes from the National Land Transport Fund funded by the users of the roads through road-user charges. We do not go to the bond market to raise that money but we do account for it as if it is debt of the Government. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: What is the total projected cost of the loan that the Government will be taking out for the Transmission Gully public-private partnership? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not have that detail here. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I would like to table this calculation done by the Parliamentary Library that shows that the payments would total $3 billion over the life of the public-private partnership. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Why is his Government planning to borrow $3 billion for Transmission Gully when the New Zealand Transport Agency’s own reports shows the project will increase congestion south of Levin through to central Wellington and return only $360 million to $500 million worth of benefit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We can argue about what the $3 billion figure she is quoting means. In fact the cost of that project is considerably less than that. It probably includes all the road-user charges and petrol excise tax which would be used to pay for the project over the life of the project. But the reason the Government is interested in proceeding with that project is its benefit to the region because it does deal with a particular vulnerability of Wellington—having only one coastal route north of the city—and is part of a well-signalled corridor of development stretching from Levin to the airport. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I seek leave to table this Ministry of Transport report from 2008 released under the Official Information Act which shows that the project will increase congestion and will deliver a benefit-cost ratio of 0.36 to 0.5. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: What is his response to Professor John Goldberg who has undertaken an analysis of public-private roading partnerships in Australia who says: “The public-private partnership concept has failed in Australia and should serve as a warning to superannuation funds of the high risk of investment in road infrastructure.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The professor may be right in pointing out that some Australian projects have failed. But the lesson there is that those risks were carried by the shareholders in the large companies that operated those roads. The failures did not fall on the taxpayer and that is one of the reasons that public-private partnerships are attractive to Governments. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Is it not the case that the availability payment model that the New Zealand Transport Agency is looking at for the Transmission Gully public-private partnership actually transfers the demand risk to the Government because it would not be able to get private investors to invest in such a poor project; thus will it not be future taxpayers who are carrying the risk of this $3 billion loan well into the future? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government carries so-called demand risk on every road in New Zealand at the moment because we have not transferred that demand risk to anyone else in any example that I can recall right now. Actually I thought the Greens would be pleased about those projects failing because if they failed it was because fewer cars showed up and given that the Greens-Labour Opposition is opposed to cars they should think that is a good thing. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I seek leave to table traffic volumes for the Wellington region which show that traffic volumes have not been growing as expected and therefore the benefits— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of the document? 
Julie Anne Genter 
: The New Zealand Transport Agency road monitoring. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Oil Gas and Mineral Resources—Iwi Consultation and Ngati Ruanui Concerns 
9. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does he agree with Te Runanga o Ngati Ruanui that iwi are more likely to be on the ground in respect of oil and mineral operations and therefore inclusion of iwi in the assessment of health safety and environmental requirements is essential; if so how does he intend to demonstrate this? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: The Government does recognise that iwi have a particular interest in respect of some oil and mineral operations in the energy and resources sector as do other New Zealanders at different times. That is precisely why we are introducing a number of measures to strengthen the relationship between permit holders and iwi. However we believe that it is the role of the regulator to properly undertake the assessments that the member mentions. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister aware that Ngati Ruanui as part of the Iwi Leaders Forum mandated group to lead the oil and minerals kaupapa has suggested that an inclusive approach on the development of the Crown minerals bill was not honoured despite early concerns raised by iwi; if so how will he address their concerns? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am advised that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has had in fact numerous engagements with Ngati Ruanui and other iwi on the Crown minerals regime throughout 2012. This engagement has included never previously offered opportunities such as reviewing early drafts of the bill and also minerals programmes. Further the Minister has met with Ngati Ruanui personally on a number of occasions this year. I am advised that although this process has not gone as far as Ngati Ruanui desired it is clear that the level of engagement has been a very marked improvement on what the iwi experienced previously. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: How will the Minister respond to the concerns of Ngati Ruanui that not recognising iwi in the permitting process could create inefficiency and frustration and that further more exclusions will only drive opposition and reinforce barriers? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I have said in my earlier answers the Government believes that it is the role of the relevant regulator to be the decision maker in the permitting process. Officials are committed to engaging with iwi constructively and I believe that iwi will find that the cumulative effect of the amendments proposed in the bill that is before the House and the minerals programmes as well as the operational changes implemented by officials add up to very significant improvements in both engagement and consultation practice. 
Pacific Forum Line—Sale of Shares and Potential Conflict of Interest 
10. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Is he aware of the requirement in the Cabinet Manual “to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards” and have the appointments he has made as Minister met that requirement? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When he appointed Peter Kiely as director of the Pacific Forum Line in July 2009 was he aware that Mr Kiely was from November 2008 listed under the Companies Register as a shareholder in a competing shipping company Sofrana and that he held those shares right through until 10 August 2012? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: If the member wants to ask a specific question about a specific appointment with that level of detail he will have to put down a separate question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a question of whether the Minister was aware; it was not about detail of the appointment. The Minister either was aware or was not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member raises a reasonable point. He did ask whether the Minister was aware. If the Minister could assist with an answer. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: In answering a question with that degree of specificity I would want to check the information that was made available to me at the time so that I could give the House an accurate answer and if the member was to give me notice that that information was being sought I would do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is a fair answer. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was it appropriate for Mr Kiely to have been a shareholder in Sofrana and not disclose that information to his Minister or to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade when Mr Kiely was involved in giving advice to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the sale of the Pacific Forum Line and the preferred bidder was in fact the Sofrana shipping line? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The member should be careful because I think he is getting into territory that calls into question the reputation of an upstanding individual who has rendered excellent service to Governments I think from both sides of the House in a variety of ways. I would want to check the information that the member has asserted across the House before giving a specific answer. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Do sections 139 and 140 of the Companies Act 1993 require that a director must disclose any such interest and is that likewise a requirement under the Government’s  
Owner’s Expectations Manual for State-Owned Enterprises  
for its directors? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister the first part of that question did seek a legal opinion because it asked whether it is correct that certain parts of an Act mean something or require something—which is a legal opinion. I would invite the member to rephrase his question to avoid asking the Minister for a legal opinion. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Minister aware that the Government’s  
Owner’s Expectations Manual for State-Owned Enterprises 
 which governs directors appointed by the Government requires the disclosure of any interest and potential conflict of interest and that that is likewise a requirement under the Institute of Directors’ code of ethics and likewise a statutory requirement? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I can confirm that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in relation to any appointment of the sort would go through the normal procedures which require certain certificates to be completed and I am sure that it did so. But by way of further elaboration can I say that Mr Kiely was invited by me to join the board of the Pacific Forum Line because that line was in some significant difficulty requiring some specialist skills and background knowledge in relation to that company. These circumstances arose because the previous Government had appointed to the board a Labour Party flunkey called Dave Morgan who was partly responsible for that company losing $14 million in the space of 2 years and I needed somebody to fix it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is his Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade correct in the answer that it has given to me that in the proposed sale of shares in the Pacific Forum Line and in the consideration of their disposal no director of the line disclosed any conflict of interest? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I cannot comment on a document that the member is quoting from without notice and the opportunity to check because I would obviously want to give the House an accurate answer. But I do want to repeat that Mr Kiely has in my long experience always behaved as a person of absolute integrity and great professionalism. He was invited to do a very difficult job because the previous Government had made a highly political appointment of an inappropriate person. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is Mr Kiely a personal friend of the Minister and has been for 40 years; is he likewise an active member of the National Party representing the National Party legally; and is he likewise a friend of and a legal adviser to the Prime Minister Mr Key? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The member would need to ask the Prime Minister in relation to his own legal representation. What I can say to him is that Mr Kiely has not acted for me but I have known him for a long period of time and I can vouch for his integrity. I also say that I have found him to be a person who renders the highest level of competent service to Governments from both sides of this House over a long period of time. If the member wants to besmirch people’s reputations he should be extremely careful doing so inside the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a number of documents. The first document is an extract from the Companies Register showing that Mr Kiely became a shareholder as of 3 November 2008 in Sofrana and did not relinquish those shares until 10 August 2012. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the effect that Mr Kiely gave advice to the Government on the sale of Pacific Forum Line shares and further that no director of the line disclosed any conflict of interest in the proposed sale of the shares. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a Ministry of Foreign and Affairs and Trade document? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: These are answers—I do not know yet whether tabled—for the financial review by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have got to be a bit careful if they are not— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: They are not public yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! These answers are the property of the committee. I would need to seek advice as to whether the House is at liberty to—[ 
Interruption 
] The advice is as one might have expected that the House can should it choose give leave for confidential documents of the committee to be tabled. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a reply to a request under the Official Information Act dated 19 November 2012 from Mr McCully to me refusing to disclose any documents on the sale of New Zealand shares in the Pacific Forum Line. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table an extract from the New Zealand Government’s  
Owner’s Expectations Manual for State-Owned Enterprises 
 July 2012 which says that “A conflict of interest arises when a director’s duties or responsibilities to the company could be affected by some other interest or duty.” and that “Directors must disclose any relationships and/or matters that give rise to an actual or potential conflict of interest.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Finally I seek the leave of the House to table an extract from the Institute of Directors’  
Code of Ethics  
and the  
Code of Practice for Directors 
 which says that the companies legislation requires directors having a conflict of interest to disclose the nature and extent of their interest— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Food Poisoning—Statistics and Prevention 
11. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What progress has been made to reduce the incidence of food poisoning in New Zealand? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that very good progress has been made in reducing the incidence of food poisoning in New Zealand. Back in 2007 there were approximately 160 cases of food-related campylobacter per 100000 people. This year that figure is expected to halve to approximately 80 cases per 100000 people. In 2007 there were also approximately 14 cases of salmonella per 100000 people compared with 11 cases per 100000 people this year. What this means is that around 3300 fewer New Zealanders got sick from campylobacter this year than 5 years ago with more than 100 Kiwis escaping illness from salmonella. According to the Ministry for Primary Industries this reduction in food poisoning has produced savings of around $40 million per year. This is good news for New Zealanders good news for our food industry and it translates to significant savings for the economy. 
Dr Jian Yang 
: What has the Government done to achieve this result and how can improvements continue to be made? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The Government has funded research to identify likely sources of the illnesses and the Ministry for Primary Industries has done a good job working closely with relevant food sectors and businesses to improve food control measures. We have also mandated a performance target for control of campylobacter in chicken slaughter and dressing premises which has resulted in significant improvements in this sector. We are currently reviewing this performance target and we will provide further guidance for control of food-borne hazards in each sector as appropriate under the proposed Food Bill regime. As we scrape down the barbecue over the festive season it is a good time to remember to do the food safety basics: do not cross-contaminate surfaces properly cook chicken and make sure the whole family washes their hands before eating—or in other words cook cover chill and clean not necessarily in that order. 
Prime Minister—Statements on Canterbury Recovery Hillside Workshops and Pike River Mine Disaster 
12. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is it fair that his Government is offering to acquire land from owners of insured commercial premises and owners of bare sections at only 50 percent of the rating valuation when he said 100 percent was a fair offer to insured homeowners in those areas even when they were losing tens of thousands of dollars? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. I think that in terms of commercial properties they are entitled to nothing so the Government is actually stepping up and giving them a lot more. In the case of residential homeowners the Government has been exceedingly generous. The reason it has done that is to try to recognise the plight that people were in in Christchurch. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How is it fair that his Government is offering to buy out central city property owners for less than half the value of the land leaving them with insufficient funds to re-establish their businesses elsewhere under the threat of compulsory acquisition and holding up the funds for at least another 12 months? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The advice I have had from the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery is that they are looking at all these properties. They have done the best they can to come up with a proposal that is fair on the valuations. But in principle there is always the risk that some people will be left worse off. That is a statement of fact because of the situation that they find themselves in in Christchurch. But the Government I think cannot be accused of being cheap when it comes to Christchurch. We have put in billions and billions of dollars to support Cantabrians. 
Clare Curran 
: In regard to his statement on Monday on KiwiRail that “when the board informed us of the likely intention to close Hillside we pushed back reasonably strongly and asked them to fully examine their decision” what specific actions did he or his Ministers take to push back against the KiwiRail board? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I remember being in the meeting—I cannot exactly tell the member the date—with the chairman of KiwiRail. He and the chief executive came in and they gave us an early indication that it was likely that they would not find a sale for the part of Hillside—not the foundry but the other part of the business. We said to them that there would be significant implications clearly for those people and that there were real issues for those families. We asked them to go back one more time and have a very good look at the situation and be absolutely sure. In principle we tried to do whatever we could. The advice we got from KiwiRail in the end was that if we wanted to keep Hillside going then we would actually end up having to make a subsidy payment on the back of that. 
Clare Curran 
: When he said on Monday that the only way to keep Hillside going was for the Government to financially compensate KiwiRail how much compensation would have been required to build wagons at Hillside? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have the exact number but it is millions of dollars. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Does he stand by his commitment to the families of the Pike River miners that recovery of the miners’ bodies would remain “an absolute priority” and “it’s not an issue of money”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is absolutely right. The member may or may not be aware that I am writing back to Bernie Monk. I will be doing that. I am visiting the West Coast next week on the 13th. The letter which no doubt will find its way into the public domain also goes to all of the families. It spells out what the Government is prepared to do and all of the risks that are there but it also summarises the very substantial risks that have been identified in going into the main workings of the mine. It references back to Professor Galvin and the comments that he has made in the royal commission’s report which goes on to say that irrelevant of the spending of any amount of money the risks of going into that mine are very substantial. That member should know that if more people get killed on the West Coast going into the main workings of the Pike River mine that would be an utter travesty and I am surprised he is supporting that when he himself knows the risks. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Will that Prime Minister honour his commitment to do everything possible and will he commit to recover the drift of the Pike River mine which is by all accounts and the advice of the three independent experts quite achievable quite possible and quite safe? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It would be quite wrong of me to give the member that information before it is communicated to Mr Monk and the families but I can tell the member that in the letter the Government’s position is very clearly spelt out. Secondly I can tell the member that I will be sleeping very peacefully tonight with the commitments that I have made. And I go back to the final point which is that in relation to the main workings of the mine all of the advice we have received is that it is a very very substantial risk. If the member goes and looks at that letter— 
Grant Robertson 
: Stop trying to spin it. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not spinning it. I am actually doing what is right for the health of people. 
Grant Robertson 
: He mentioned the drift. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If that member wants to kill people going in the mine— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No. Order! I am on my feet. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will wait a moment until the House settles down. This is a tense issue but we cannot have that kind of exchange. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I was very careful with my question. I would appreciate the Prime Minister’s answer on this. I was asking in relation to the drift and if the Prime Minister could answer the question of when that would satisfy my request. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point. He did ask specifically in relation to the drift. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was quite clear in my answer. I can give the member an answer. I have an answer. I will not give the member an answer and the reason I will not give him an answer is that the answer is spelt out in a letter to Bernie Monk and the families and surely that member can understand that those families— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No. Order! The Prime Minister must not say that under a point of order. This was under a point of order not a further answer. I think though he has explained why he cannot answer that part of the question. I must accept that as Speaker. 
General Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Was it not interesting this week to see the Greens measuring up the desks in the Beehive? In fact I think some of them were seen there. There is no doubt at all who is the energetic organised cohesive front end of the Greens-Labour Government. It is not the Labour Party which of course is disorganised lacks cohesion has no energy and has left a vacuum in Opposition which has handed the leadership of the Opposition not as the media think to Ian Shearer the leader— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No no no not Ian Shearer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —oh David sorry—David Shearer the leader of the Labour Party. It has handed the leadership of the Opposition to the Green Party and in particular Russel Norman. 
Hon Member 
: Harvey Norman? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Russel. No not Harvey Norman from Australia. Russel Norman is very keen on office furniture but the most important asset in the Greens’ office is the photocopier where you print the money. That is the most important part of their office furniture. The Greens have been measuring the doors on the Beehive to see whether they can get the photocopier—the money-printing photocopier—through the doorway so that when they have the ministry of finance they can solve all the problems. 
Some of those solutions have become a bit clearer from Mr Norman’s contributions at the select committee recently. I will not go through the rather confused transcript other than to say that I could sum it up this way: “If you printed the money it doesn’t matter whether you lose some.”—if you printed the money it does not matter whether you lose some. This is the new thinking in the Greens-Labour Opposition. Those members have been on through the year about old-fashioned thinking—you know like spending only what you have got and not borrowing too much. That is very old-fashioned neo-liberal conservative extremism but new fresh thinking is an upgraded brand of photocopier. That is the new stuff and probably security features on the money no doubt. But the great news is that it does not matter whether you lose it because it was only printed money to start with. 
Well while the Greens have been taking over the Greens-Labour Opposition—and now find themselves being described by the media as easily the most articulate Opposition spokespeople—the Government has been getting on with its plan which does show some of the differences. I mean the Greens have got a spokesperson on transport who is against transport a spokesperson on energy who is against energy and a spokesperson on finance who is actually against finance—up for printing money. Actually it is an Opposition that is against jobs. And it has a spokesperson on employment of course who has to go out there and say: “What we’re trying to do in Opposition is destroy employment. Anywhere it might pop up we want to jump on it—we want to jump on it.” 
The Government has been getting on with helping people create the jobs in difficult circumstances and through this year we have acknowledged the new reality which is that growth is hard to come by. Many developed countries do not have any growth or any employment growth and we are backing New Zealand’s households and businesses because that is who is making the decisions that are making this economy work. The Business Growth Agenda sets out not one thing but about 200 things actually—policy initiatives that we need to undertake to support our businesses to make the decision that matters which is not turning on the photocopier but the decision to invest real savings made by households which are giving up something to save that money—to invest that money in their business and employ another person. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That was the Minister whom the Prime Minister has found the most disappointing this year. He is the Minister in charge of the asset sales programme that was meant to occur and which has collapsed and the Prime Minister finds his work disappointing. 
I want to make a passing comment about Peter Kiely. I have known Peter Kiely for only 25 years. We have travelled together. We were both once people of promise according to the United States Government and he has been a person who has in the past I think acted with integrity. If what appears to be the case is the case then I think that John Key the chair of the Cabinet appointments and honours committee and Murray McCully who nominated Mr Kiely are in very serious trouble. What appears to be the case is that Mr Kiely has breached a number of laws as well as a number of conventions. 
I decided today to make a list of things that had gone wrong for the Government this year. Members know that normally when I make a 5-minute speech I have about four words on the back of one envelope. I got on to three envelopes today. I got on to three envelopes trying to make a list and that is not good when it is a 5-minute speech. Well it is not the brown envelopes of the sort that John Banks collects full of cash and then forgets. It is not the sorts of brown envelopes that he got from Dotcom or Skycity. It is not the sorts of cash for pokies arrangements that Steven Joyce enters into. Those are just two of the things that have occurred this year. 
If I was the Prime Minister and was being disappointed I would be disappointed about the level of unemployment. It has reached the same level as 13 years ago. It has reached a level that I personally thought it would never reach again. Any coherent Government could have stopped it reaching that level if it decided to make employment a priority. We have had the Prime Minister saying: “I will not remember.” He will not remember the details of the briefings he got from his spy agencies. He will not remember the fact that he had a massive German with giraffes in his front lawn sitting in his own electorate. He will not read the police file the police case that everyone else has read that shows that John Banks is a liar. He has a Minister who has lied this year. John Banks— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that it is not possible for someone to take offence on behalf of another but I think there were a number of Speakers’ rulings breached by the accusations made by the member and he should withdraw them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member was actually pretty careful with what he said. The member did not accuse any member of the House of being a liar. He spoke of evidence that indicated someone had been a liar and that is different from a straight-out accusation. But if the member takes the next step and accuses a member directly of being a liar then he will be asked to withdraw and apologise for that. He needs to be a little careful because it is skating on the edge. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Prime Minister has refused to read the evidence that shows that his Minister Banks lied to the chief of staff. The Prime Minister refused to do that. We will arrange to put it on a podcast so that he can listen to it in the gym if he wants to but the Prime Minister does not want to know about the evidence that shows that he has a liar someone who has lied the evidence that shows— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to debate the facts of the report that the member is quoting but the report does not say that. The only inference that can be drawn from the member’s contribution is the direct one which is in breach of the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a fair point too that I am sure the evidence does not use that word and the member has to be careful now as he interpolates from the evidence that he has been talking about. He must be careful. It is going to lead to disorder if members basically accuse other members of being liars. The member needs to be careful. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am happy to move on. Let us move on to other matters. Let us go along to the ACC leaks the breaches of privacy. Remember at the beginning of the year that Bronwyn Pullar was a hero that she was being acclaimed by the Prime Minister? What are they saying about her now? Remember about the Inland Revenue leaks the Work and Income leaks and the Novopay leaks? 
How about considering education? I think education can be summarised this year as the Ministers did not read the papers. They did not read their papers on Novopay. Neither Foss nor Parata read the papers before they signed it off. The Minister did not read her papers to do with Christchurch before she approved the mergers and the closures of the schools down there. She did not read her papers about class sizes and she was forced to do a U-turn. So what do we have in education? We have chaos from Ministers who should not hold warrants. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 What New Zealanders are seeing today is a Government that is determined with its plan of action to improve the New Zealand economy and provide the better future that New Zealanders are looking for. In these uncertain times around the world New Zealanders can look to the National Party to provide the security and opportunities that they deserve. 
This is a Government that is focusing on the things that matter. You will not hear from Government members in the general debate who said what to whom who did this who did not do that and all this sort of business. You will not hear from us about all the little gotcha stories that you just heard in the last 2 minutes or 3 minutes. What you will hear from this Government in this debate is its determination to stick to its plan and the improvements that it can make for New Zealanders up and down this country because this Government is responsibly managing the finances of this nation. 
We are on our plan to balance the books around 2014-15 which will allow us to strengthen the economy and pay down debt. The average wage is up 20 percent since 2008. There is low inflation. Interest rates are the lowest in 45 years. Who does that matter to? 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: Everyone. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That matters to everyone because it means people pay less on their mortgages they have got more to spend in the shops and it costs them less to set up their businesses. It really matters. Superannuation is up since 2008. It is up 22 percent higher than in April 2008. There have been 65000 jobs created in the economy. Peak debt will be about 30 percent of GDP. This is all good news for New Zealand in difficult times. But it is all at risk when you look at the parties opposite that oppose everything that this Government does to get the economy moving. 
 We have lower business tax than Australia does. Does Greens-Labour support that? What about the 90-day trial period that has enabled 60 percent of businesses to take on new staff they would not have otherwise? Was Greens-Labour in favour of that? What about the starting out wage that would remove the barriers for our youngest workers and potentially create 2000 extra jobs? Is Greens-Labour in favour of that? No. 
What about the changes to the Resource Management Act so projects of national significance—and soon regional significance—can be moved more swiftly through the process so that we can get investments and jobs started? Was Greens-Labour in favour of that? No. Those changes were another thing that creates jobs. We have $1.5 billion committed to the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative and the Rural Broadband Initiative which are about preparing the economy for the future. Well was Greens-Labour in favour of that? No. 
What about the billion-dollar-a-year investment in the motorway networks in order to allow producers to get their products to port and to customers faster? This is fundamental for a strong growing economy and infrastructure. Was Greens-Labour in favour of that? No. What about all the lower ACC levies for businesses which means they have more money in the bank to invest in businesses and create jobs? Was it in favour of lower ACC levies for business? No. There was not a word from Greens-Labour. We have removed 170 unnecessary and excessive regulations from the rule books and the law books to save an estimated $200 million in costs. Was Greens-Labour in favour of that? No. 
So my point here is that this Government has had a plan of action that it has progressively stepped through that has delivered real benefits to the New Zealand economy and more important has invested in the future of our economy through strong infrastructure good regulation and lower taxes and compliance for New Zealand individuals and business. These are the things that matter and time and time again Greens-Labour has opposed this. 
The Greens-Labour platform for New Zealand is “Print the money.”—print the money. We heard about that from its finance Minister “Xerox” Norman—“Print the money.” It is spending money that we do not have and it adds to the debt beyond what we can afford. Those borrow-and-spend policies will threaten the low inflation that has made things more affordable for families the low interest rates that have made it easier for people to borrow and maintain their mortgages and the steady recovery that National’s policies are delivering for New Zealanders. These are difficult times around the world but New Zealanders know they have a Government that is focused on what matters. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 If that is the best defence the National Government can mount after another shocker of a year for New Zealand under its stewardship it is no wonder the soon-to-be-unemployed National Government backbenchers are looking so depressed going into the Christmas break because you can see it in their faces that they know the game is up. They know that they have failed to deliver the brighter future that they promised New Zealanders 4 long years ago. 
They know that John Key promised to stem the exodus to Australia when he stood in Westpac Stadium talked about the number of people going to Australia and said he was going to do something about it and they know that New Zealanders have realised that it was a hoax because in fact now Westpac Stadium is not big enough. Now it would actually require Eden Park to accommodate the number of people who are leaving to go to Australia every year under John Key’s stewardship. The game is up. New Zealanders know that they were duped by National not once but twice. National members will feel the consequences of that next year when they get to the ballot box because New Zealanders are feeling it. New Zealanders are feeling it and particularly they are feeling it in relation to employment. 
Today we are seeing the highest unemployment rate in 13 years under John Key’s National Government. Whatever happened to the Job Summit? That was John Key’s major focus when he became Prime Minister getting people back into work and creating jobs yet we now have 175000 New Zealanders out of work. What is the Government’s response? It is that the numbers bounce around a little bit. Actually if you are one of the people who has lost their job you do not feel particularly bouncy about it. I know that you are about to lose yours Mr Speaker but I will not go into that in any greater detail. 
What else has happened this year? We have had the Government Communications Security Bureau debacle—John Key failing to read the reports and failing to take any responsibility for his own actions. Then of course we have had the ongoing series of debacles in education where three Ministers—Craig Foss Hekia Parata and Bill English—all signed off on the implementation of a new payroll system without thinking to ask anybody: “Will it actually work? Will it work? Has somebody checked to see that when we hit this button it’s actually going to work?”. All three Ministers including the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance signed it off without bothering to ask whether it was going to work. What was the result? Thousands of people up and down the country did not get paid and thousands and thousands more got paid the wrong amounts because the Government did not do its job. 
That is not surprising though when we look at the Government’s track record in education. It is a Government that has well and truly taken its eye off the ball in education. Its one solution this year to make things better for the education system was to make class sizes bigger. Every parent up and down the country knows that having more kids in front of every teacher is not going to improve the quality of the education that their kids receive. Yet John Key even now even after backing down on it in the Budget still thinks it is a good idea. He just thinks they did not sell it well enough. He still thinks it is a good idea. 
It is no wonder the New Zealand public does not have any faith in this Government when it comes to education because this Government’s educational policies are all about ideology. They are about unregistered and unqualified teachers in charter schools charter schools that do not have to adhere to all the rules that every other school in the country has to adhere to and of course the Government thinks that education is a great place for people who want to make a profit as we have seen with its public-private partnerships in schools which have not saved the taxpayer any money. In fact the one public-private partnership that it has tried to implement in the education sector has cost more than if it had just built the school using the good old-fashioned traditional method of getting the Ministry of Education to oversee its construction. It has been a disaster and it has all been so that the National Government can create a profit-making opportunity for someone rather than actually looking at what the best outcome for education is going to be. It has been based on ideology. 
It has been a shocker of a year for the Government on so many other fronts as well. Let us not forget Nick Smith thinking it was all OK—[ 
Interruption 
] Grant Robertson will never forget Nick Smith thinking it was all OK for him on ministerial letterhead to write a letter for one of his friends arguing for ACC cover for them when he was the Minister for ACC. He does not have the judgment to be a Minister. Now John Key is trying to jack it up so that he can be back in the ministry after Christmas. That is a disgrace. That is a telling commentary on John Key’s standards. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Let us get some facts out on the table. Police corrections and the Serious Fraud Office have had a fantastic year—a fabulous year. There are falling crime rates. I think we are looking at the lowest crime rates in this country for 30 years—the lowest crime rates in 30 years. There are reductions in reoffending. In fact instead of 51 percent of offenders reoffending within 2 years we have brought that down over this past year by 5.5 percent—outstanding work by the Department of Corrections. The white-collar criminals who have been paraded through the courts by the Serious Fraud Office are having to face the facts and take account of the crimes that they have committed. So we have lots and lots to celebrate in this Government and I am proud to be the Minister of those portfolios. This Government is proud of those police officers who are out there on the street and we are proud of those fantastic public servants in both corrections and the Serious Fraud Office. 
But what about the other side? Well it is all doom and gloom over there is it not? It is scaremongering that the sky is going to fall. Labour’s police spokesman Kris Faafoi spent the year trying to convince everyone that there were cuts in the police budget. Well I actually doubt that that man can read a set of books because the police budget has stayed the same and what is more it is predicted to stay the same. That is not a cut; that stays the same. That is not a cut at all. If you look at some of his press releases they say that there is a “Grim future for Police under National.” They say “The mood of this week’s Police Association conference is one of disappointment with budget cuts severely impacting on front-line policing.” Well I have got news for Mr Faafoi. Actually front-line policing hours have gone up. There are more police on the front line now than there were 12 months ago and this time next year we will see an increase again. 
He even went so far as to try to link budget cuts with sexual assault investigations saying that we have been cutting back on investigating sexual assaults. Actually that was a report from the Auditor-General which said that the Police had not trained some of the head-office officers in line with the proposals that the Auditor-General had put in front of them. It was nothing to do with sexual assault investigations at all. Mr Faafoi is creating facts to suit his story but he did not convince anyone and he certainly did not convince the Police. 
How about when he tried to put up that gangs were going to infiltrate the police because there were budget cuts? Who in their right mind would believe that? The Police came out immediately and said that yes from time to time gang members do try to get into the police but they always find them out and turf them out before they get anywhere near. It has got nothing to do with the budget. 
Mind you the pseudo-police spokesperson Mr Goff spent the whole year trying to justify the statement he made prior to the last election that we were actually cutting back on police recruits. Well we were not. The Police said we were not. All the Police was doing was what it has done since time immemorial and balancing its recruits with its attrition levels. So yes it does have to move around its numbers. Does that not make sense? But no according to the police spokesman for Labour that was about budget cuts. 
So then we move on to the corrections spokesman Mr Charles Chauvel. Well you know they really have trouble with their maths over there because when we announced what we were doing in corrections to reduce the reoffending by 25 percent we said that we wanted to see 600 less prisoners every year coming into prison. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I think the word is “fewer”. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: All right fewer. I do not mind. There were 600. So why did Charles Chauvel say that reducing prisoner numbers by 100 per year over the next 6 years is hardly anything to boast about? I would suggest that he goes back to school because he might need some national standards in maths. 
He went on and on and on Mr Chauvel did about the tabling of the contract for the Wiri Prison—the building of the new Wiri Prison. He went on and on and on about it. We were contractually—we were legally—bound to table it. We had been in discussions with the Clerk of the House about how that would happen what form it would take and of course it was tabled well within the time. Then what happened from Mr Chauvel? Nothing actually. His only complaint was that I turned the sod without telling people how much it was going to cost. Again he cannot read. All of that was in the press release at the time that we turned the sod. Meantime we have had a great year. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I would like to offer some light relief to the debaters in the House this time and talk about something that everybody in the House supports. I am talking about our educational pathways for Maori students. We are very pleased to announce that with the help of the Hon Hekia Parata we have established leadership scholarships for students to attend Maori boarding schools. These are the Tutahi schools. These are the schools that have for years produced Maori leaders—even well known parliamentary leaders here. We have established these scholarships called Puawaitanga which means to grow and develop and flourish—hence the name Puawaitanga. These scholarships will allow 15 scholarships at any one time at each of the six Maori boarding schools. A student would take it and when that student finishes the scholarship becomes available for someone else to take it through their years. 
What is so different about these is that they are awarded for scholarship and leadership skills academic possibilities cultural strengths sporting skills. This is in contrast to many of the scholarships that exist for Maori schools at this time which are for people who are hard to reach or need relocating or something like that. It is really exciting that each school will get 15 leading pupils who can go through the school. 
The schools are Hato Paora College Hato Petera College Hukarere Girls’ College Turakina Maori Girls College St Joseph’s Maori Girls’ College and of course Te Aute College. There are strong ties to Maori leadership from these schools. You might remember the Young Maori Party of Sir Apirana Ngata Sir Peter Buck Maui Pomare Timi Kara—all those “sirs” who came through the Young Maori Party and made great advances for Maori at the turn of the 19th century. It comes right down even today to people like Shane Jones Te Ururoa Flavell Hone Harawira and so on. But the same schools have produced leaders Dame Whina Cooper Dame June Mariu Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi; singers like the current Maisey Rika and Hinewehi Mohi; and artists like Ralph Hotere Para Matchitt and so on. So they do contribute. Also All Blacks like George Skudder Buff Milner Kent Lambert Walter Little our Piri Weepu and Dallas Seymour. 
Heaps of people have come through these schools and it is because they foster pride in being Maori. That is perhaps the most important thing. Although we have also created kura kaupapa Maori these schools are not in opposition. They sit alongside and they offer choice to parents. For some the boarding school environment can foster support and opportunities to pursue their education in that way whereas kura kaupapa Maori are mainly day schools and people go there for the Maori option to talk Maori and learn in Maori as they go. So I cannot stress enough the importance of keeping these schools alive and keeping them going. St. Stephen’s College has closed and Queen Victoria School has closed but there is a possibility of reopening them and people are talking that way. 
I went to an international indigenous conference in Calgary a few years ago and there were no fewer than 30 ex-students from these schools—Maori students—at that international conference in Calgary. Those were the ones who went there independently. That is how common the graduates are in the leadership in Maoridom. 
So it is a really good-news story and I am really happy that I am able to talk to it at this time. It is about always giving Maori students the opportunity to excel providing the environment and the opportunity for them. The reason the school rolls are down now is largely due to the state of the economy at this time in the world and the hardship that is on a lot of families. I note that Wanganui Collegiate School the second-oldest school in New Zealand along with Te Aute College—formed by the same Act of Parliament—has fallen into trouble too and the Government has helped to bail that school out and keep it going. And it is important to have all choices available to us. So thank you. I thought it was a good-news story. Now everyone can get going and start yelling at each other again. Kia ora. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In this general debate I want to celebrate yesterday’s news that Petrobras will not be drilling deep in our waters this summer. And I want to celebrate those young Kiwis who give me hope because they believe we can tackle climate change. 
First up I want to congratulate Te Whanau-a-Apanui and their members—for example Elvis Teddy who put his body on the line and put a line in the sand and said no to deep-sea drilling in his backyard. I want to congratulate and say thank you to people like Dayle Takitimu who said: “We will now and forever stand up against government recklessness if it threatens that environment and the livelihood of future generations.” I want to thank Greenpeace and the hundreds of thousands of people who signed its petition to say yes to clean energy and no to deep-sea drilling. I want to thank the 99 percent of submitters to the exclusive economic zone regulations who said that the risks of deep-sea drilling were so high that it should be a prohibited activity. Unlike the Government benches the Green Party believes that deep-sea oil drilling is not our future. It is at the frontiers of technology and incredibly risky and if we saw a blowout like we have seen across the Ditch and like we have seen in America the oil spill would be catastrophic for our fishing our tourism and our aquaculture. It would be catastrophic for our environment and our economy. 
We know that in New Zealand for all that risk we would see hardly any taxes and hardly any royalties—because we have got the fourth-lowest Government take in the world—and hardly any jobs for New Zealanders and we know that the profits would flow offshore. I think it is important to recall that although the Government has picked deep-sea oil drilling as its big economic winner for the economy it was the Prime Minister who slavishly rolled out the welcome mat for the Brazilians. The Government gave them and other companies tens of millions of dollars’ worth of subsidised seismic surveys. We saw the Government literally amend the law with permissive exclusive economic zone legislation and we even saw the Government call out the navy to protect the Brazilians from a single iwi fishing boat. Now the Government’s plans are in tatters. Petrobras has surrendered its permit. Anadarko has announced that it is not going to be coming to New Zealand this summer. Now it is time that the Government goes back to the drawing board. 
Why does the Government not look at clean energy? Why does the Government not look at manufacturing job solutions? This is what the country needs. This is what Pure Advantage those business leaders in New Zealand has said. We have a niche—an economic niche—when it comes to renewable energy like geothermal energy. They do not say we have a niche in deep-sea oil drilling. After all renewable energy is always going to be cleaner and safer than fracking or deep-sea oil drilling. The Government’s “drill it mine it frack it” plans are in tatters. They are symptomatic of the dirty old politics and the polluted ideas of the current term. This term the Government has taken a decidedly hard-line anti-environment path. The Government says that the “clean green” brand is simply fake like the McDonald’s slogan “I’m loving it.” But you know what? Kiwis really do love our environment and Kiwis do want to protect it. So while the National Government this term is acting like environmental vandals burning the furniture to keep warm it is trashing our brand and our environment. This is our basis in prosperity and our economy. 
But I do not want to be too pessimistic because I want to talk about what gives me hope and it is Te Whanau-a-Apanui who give me hope. They get that the environment is important to us and to our economy. It is the business leaders at Pure Advantage who give me hope because they get that tackling climate change is good for business. It is the youth who give me hope because they get that it is their future at stake. This weekend we have got 600-plus young Kiwis and Pasifika converging on Auckland for Power Shift the climate change conference and we have got a handful of youth delegates over in Doha. These guys are inspirational because despite what the Government is doing—which is relentlessly attacking the environment attacking the scientists disgracefully weakening the emissions trading scheme walking entirely out of the Kyoto Protocol—these guys are not giving up. These guys say that since the Government has clearly shown that it is not going to act on the fundamental environmental economic and most of all moral challenge of our time they are going to act. 
I believe that we can put our science-based global long-term interests first above the short-term narrow vested corporate interests that we see from the current Government. I think New Zealand does matter to the world and I think we can be leaders. After all the answers are obvious they are available now and they are going to benefit our economy. Ultimately tackling climate change is about jobs energy efficiency smart farming and clean energy. Tackling climate change the big issue of the day is about the economy. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 What we heard from that Green member Gareth Hughes certainly makes Chris Hipkins put his hands on his head in despair because they know that there is no hope when you have such a disunited Opposition with such crazy ideas. What we heard from the Green speaker over the last 5 minutes was nothing but negativity and the celebration of saying no. 
What I would like to talk about is the positive things that are happening around trade training. I was down in Christchurch the other day looking at the employment hub down there. I am pleased to report that there are some fantastic things happening down there. The most important I thought was the 300 young men and women coming from Rotorua who are going to be working in the new year with Fletcher Building Hawkins Construction and other very reputable construction firms in Christchurch. That is a Government showing initiative getting the timing right and reinforcing the value of trades and the skills that are necessary. 
When you stop and look at what the Government is doing it is very focused it is structured and it is a balance between maintaining the entitlements of those who need support as well as stimulating the economy and not going overboard with debt. So when you look at the infrastructure report that was just released there are 67 infrastructure initiatives that this Government is entering into. They have all got a focus on creating a far more competitive and productive economy. 
Let us have a look at some of those initiatives. There is $5.5 billion to repair the terrible damage that befell Christchurch and Canterbury. There is $1.6 billion for ultra-fast broadband and also the Government does not forget the rural community. The Rural Broadband Initiative is a very important part of that and we know why it should be. It is because 70-odd percent of this country’s export earnings come from the rural community and we constantly need to remind all New Zealanders that we need the smartest and the brightest in those businesses to grow this economy. 
We have got $5 billion going into the national electricity grid. That is hugely important especially in the top of the South Island where the Kaikoura electorate is. We do need efficiencies there because of the distance from the generators and distributors down in Islington and so on. We have got $12.12 billion going into roading between 2012 and 2015. This is all very positive stuff—creating jobs doing the best we can and working on things like the 2000 jobs in the ultra-fast broadband roll-out 2700 jobs for people with regard to the Auckland and Waikato hospitals as well as the Marlborough hospital Wairau Hospital and the private hospitals that are being built besides that. There are 1000 more jobs with regard to the motorways 240 jobs with the Tauranga Eastern Link and 1500-odd jobs with regard to the transmission power upgrade. It is just so very positive. And still the Government keeps finding resources to reinforce the trades and skills for the rebuild and finding employment opportunities.  
However we have to mention the obstructive nature of the Opposition members when they have said no to more gas and oil exploration and when they have said no to the very fine policy of the 90-day trial for new employees. We had 3000 jobs that were created by having  
The Hobbit 
 produced and filmed here. The irrigation that the South Island so urgently needs the Opposition—the Greens and Labour—has obstructed as well as the reforms around local government.  
However on the other side of it I think New Zealanders need to be incredibly fearful if they move forward with a Greens-led Opposition into Government because the capital gains tax is such a negative aspect that it will decimate those enterprising young people who reach out to get into their farms and grow their economy. The irrigation taxes—it costs enough now for a farmer to be able to get water past his gate. Some of these irrigation schemes cost about $7000 per hectare to get water past the gate. It will stimulate the economy by hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars year to year and benefit all of New Zealand. And what does Labour want to do? Tax it. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 “On behalf of the Government let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone.” Those were the words that the Prime Minister used to make a commitment to the people of Christchurch that they would not be left to handle things on their own. And what has happened? We have got individual Christchurch people having to deal with insurers and having to deal with the Earthquake Commission. They have been left alone they have been abandoned by the Government and that is why they have said that John Key’s speech to them has been very disappointing in terms of the delivery. He has made many promises; that no one would be worse off that the red zone offer was extremely fair and then in relation to the land grab in the central business district—which I questioned him about today—that the Government would work very fairly with people. “We’re certainly not trying to rip anyone off.” he said. He said that a gun would not be held at the landowners’ heads. 
Today in the House the Prime Minister has stood by these commitments despite the outrageous treatment of these landowners by the National Government. It was said in the House today that it is fair to pay a commercial property owner 50 percent of the amount offered to a homeowner in the residential red zone—that is fair. Why is it fair? I mean even the residential red zone offers were not fair for everyone. There were people who lost tens of thousands of dollars but they were offered 100 percent of the rating valuation. Why do commercial business owners get offered only 50 percent in order to clear out of their land? 
He pretends that it is a voluntary offer but it is not very voluntary when you are staring down the barrel of a compulsory acquisition; when the compulsory acquisition provisions of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority say that it is the market value of the property at the time of the purchase not at the time of the incident. That is not fair either. He has said that it is fair to threaten owners of buildings in the central business district with compulsory acquisition and to hold up the money for at least 12 months so that they are forced to take less than they should essentially because they know that the result might in fact be worse under a compulsory acquisition. 
The threats are being made to people who thought they could rely on a National Government. The most polite word said by former National Party supporters whom I have spoken to is that this is very “disappointing”. Others say that it is a travesty and that they had been betrayed by a Government that promised them so much. It promised to stand by them and it has not stood by them at all. Who would have thought compulsory acquisitions—a land grab—would be the hallmark of a National Government? It is something that it would accuse us of doing but it is not doing it for the sake of the central business district recovery. 
All the Government is doing is compulsorily acquiring land in order to put in a frame. That is why a lot of people are saying that they are being framed in order to reinstate an increase in the property values inside the compact central business district inside the frame. That is not within the purpose of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority legislation and I think that the Government is going to find itself very hard-pressed to actually run an argument that this is required for recovery. It is actually about property values and nothing more nothing less. 
People are frightened of speaking out and it is not surprising because the Government attacks everyone who speaks out. Carpers and moaners are the people who live in the technical category 3 land areas who answered an online survey run by a residents association. The “enemy of recovery” is how the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery describes the Christchurch  
Press 
. I mean for goodness’ sake! It is the enemy of recovery for daring to on occasion want to hold the Government to account. 
I want to read from a constituent who is too frightened to be named because she is fearful of what will happen: “We cannot afford to sell at this price and we can’t afford not to. If we do not agree to the offer there will be a compulsory acquisition and we won’t see a payment from the Crown for maybe up to 2 years. During this time we would still have to pay the mortgage on the land and rates and we would not have funds available to buy another property to operate our business from. It is an impossible situation for us.” It is impossible. They are terrified of speaking out because if the Government finds out who they are then they know that they are going to be put on the back-burner and they know that there are going to be consequences to them speaking out. There are every time. It is not good enough. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Rather than respond to those comments from Lianne Dalziel I think it is probably important at this time to remind us at this stage what this debate is about. It is a general debate of ideas. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Respond if you can. Let’s hear the answers. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well there is another one of those Christchurch members banging on over there. Is that not interesting? Nearly $20 billion is going into the city and you have got someone over there from that city who is banging on and does not know what he is talking about like usual. 
Coming back to the point that I was going to make I think there is one thing that we all agree on in this House and it is that to improve the standard of living in New Zealand we need to improve the income of New Zealanders. I think we get pretty much universal acceptance of that—to improve the standard of living in New Zealand we need to improve the income of New Zealanders. The only debate in the House today is about how that might be done. Most of our opponents over here have put up an argument against every single thing that potentially could improve the standard of living for New Zealand. 
But I want to talk about the sector that I come from and represent which is the primary sector. Food production is now not keeping up with the growing world population. It is not keeping up with it. We are going to have a food shortage in the world within the next 15 years unless we become more efficient in our production of food from the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector or the primary sector in New Zealand represents 71 percent of our total merchandise export trade. Primary exports up to March for the 2012 year were $32 billion. 
 The question I have for the House in this debate is: what would our opponents if they were to be elected—that is a Green-Labour Government—do to this sector? Let us just have a look at what they have said they would do for a start. The first thing they are going to do is introduce an emissions trading tax on methane from animals. The second thing they have said they are going to do is introduce a capital gains tax on the agricultural sector or on the business sector. The third thing they have said they are going to do is introduce a nitrate limit on the amount of nitrogen fertiliser that can be applied. The fourth thing they have said they are going to do is put a restriction on water use and a ban on irrigation in some areas of the country or restrictions on irrigation. The fifth thing that they have said they are going to do is put a restriction on livestock numbers in New Zealand in some areas. None of these things are based in science all of them are ideologically driven and none of them stand up to scrutiny. 
We will listen to the Green Party no doubt go on about the current discussions going on in regard to the Kyoto Protocol. Well when I hear the Green Party members talking about that and about the various conferences and protests and so forth they are going to it reminds me a lot of a bunch of drunkards going to another booze-up to talk about the disadvantages of alcoholism. You sort of cannot understand how they could be so—I know the word is not able to be used but have such a double standard if you like that they would travel thousands of miles in aeroplanes around the world to stay in flash hotels by the thousands and attend conferences to talk about what they could do to save the planet. Have you ever seen or heard such an oxymoron as that? 
China is now our second-largest trading partner and as we speak there are members of Parliament being paid by the taxpayer protesting against free-trade agreements and negotiations going on in this country at the moment. How is it that you can have a growing economy in a country where 71 percent of its export merchandise comes from a particular sector yet we are going to protest against the export of those products to the world? How is that? Someone will need to explain that to me slowly and thoroughly in a few moments. 
The largest company in this country is Fonterra—there is no doubt about that. I can understand the concern from some that it does control such a high percentage of this country’s export earnings. I can also understand some commentary that suggests that it is the wrong structure but I do not agree with it and the evidence is that they are wrong. I can do no better than to quote Gareth Morgan who is often quoted as a commentator on various things when he commented in 2004: “So far the industry has simply morphed into a vehicle for generation of wealth for a class of land-owning milk-producing suppliers whose”— 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 The National Government is too hard on Christchurch. Immediately after the February 2011 earthquake in Christchurch the Government did succeed in providing comfort to the people there who had been affected. There were visits as we know by the Prime Minister and genuine concern was shown. Later there were Government programmes for those whose land had to be red zoned. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team were established and later the Christchurch Central Development Unit as government instruments for the rebuild process. All of this did appear to be a good start and had the support of most people. 
But since then the Government’s actions to assist the recovery have not been so positive. In fact the National Government in many ways has been too hard on Christchurch and in fact the Government is now no longer so much a part of the recovery as part of the problem. Last Saturday’s march for democracy in Christchurch shows the extent of the resentment which is still growing about Government actions in Canterbury. The open letter on behalf of the protesters delivered yesterday on Parliament’s steps to the Prime Minister by Lianne Dalziel Eugenie Sage Megan Woods and me sets out the issues in some detail. But it all began with some serious mistakes made by the Government concerning red zone land. The use of 2007 valuations in Christchurch and 2008 valuations in Kaiapoi was unfair to too many red zone people. There were some winners but far too many losers. Those with genuine grievances about what they were offered were not reviewed by any genuine review process. The offer of 50 percent of the valuation of land that did not have any homes built on them and the offer of 50 percent for the land of uninsured homeowners was also grossly unfair. Excuses made about land damage did not make any sense. 
Currently the requirement for red-zoners to leave their homes by 30 April next year is also unfair and urgently needs review. It is too hard on too many of those people because there is still a severe shortage of affordable homes in Christchurch to buy and the influx of workers for the rebuild only makes that worse. New sections coming on the market will be too late for many of these people and there is also a rent explosion. I had a person approach me only a few days ago to tell me that they had had an increase of $100 a week from $450 to $550 in one hit. This was a family with nine children. And yet the Government still refuses to act on the rent explosion. New Zealand First has repeatedly called for a short-term rent freeze until things quieten down but still nothing from the Government. It is too hard on renters in Christchurch. 
As far as the central city is concerned the issue now is the failure of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s process to involve landowners in development proposals before resource consents are obtained. This is intimidatory for those people and the authority should see that they get the opportunity to be involved if possible. Price offers also need to be reasonable and to reflect the future opportunity value of that property and accusations of bullying by some do have some validity especially when only half of the real value is being offered. Earthquake Commission repairs of homes are also inadequate. This week we had in answer to a question a list of figures about how many properties had been repaired. That is just window dressing. Yes some repairs have been done but far too few and most still have not been attended to. So there has been a loss of confidence by many in Fletcher’s and there is a bit of a “don’t care” attitude by that particular organisation. Fletcher’s should never have been the sole project manager. It needs competition. 
But when we come to education matters get even worse. Again the Government was much too hard on an already traumatised city. The Parata bombshell was just disgraceful. It shows clearly the use of the earthquake aftermath to pursue what was really just— 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I reckon the people of Christchurch would be much better off if they did not have naysaying politicians running the city down all the time. The fact is that this National Government not only has poured billions and billions of dollars into Christchurch and the people of Christchurch but also has poured its heart and soul into the rebuild of Christchurch. I applaud what our Ministers in this Government are doing for the people of Christchurch and we will begin to see as time goes on the economic benefits that will come with the Christchurch rebuild. 
This Parliament has one would-be finance Minister who cannot do the maths one would-be finance Minister who thinks that printing money is the way to economic progress and thankfully for the people of New Zealand one actual finance Minister with a clear programme to build sustainable growth based on savings productive investment and exports. At the same time under Bill English as finance Minister we have moved away from the debt the property speculation and the excessive Government spending that marked the 9 years of the previous Labour Government. National is focused on building a more competitive and productive economy. That is essential if businesses are to have the confidence to invest in growth and to invest in jobs. Alongside this we are responsibly managing the Government’s finances delivering better public services. Just while I am on that we had the financial reviews for the Department of Corrections and the Police today and the Labour— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: How did that go? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: How did that go? That is a good question because for the time set down for both of those financial hearings the Labour Opposition was out to lunch New Zealand First was not there the Greens I think offered one contribution and I had to let the Commissioner of Police go after 35 minutes. The Opposition had run out of steam. It was an opportunity once again for Peter Marshall the Commissioner of Police and Ray Smith of the Department of Corrections to show what a good job those two departments are doing for the people of New Zealand. They should be congratulated on working within budget and providing better public services. That is exactly what this Government is about. 
I now want to talk about building the economy.  
The Lord of the Rings 
 and  
The Hobbit 
 movies brought extraordinary opportunities colour and life to Wellington and to New Zealand both in jobs and investment and in the creation of a wonderful film industry for New Zealand with plenty of work for actors. The “Hobbit-haters” over on the other side did go to the premiere—good on them. They have obviously no shame. But it is not just the big projects in the big centres that are building the economy in New Zealand and are so very important. [ 
Interruption 
] And the junior whip yawns. The junior whip does not get it. Once again the Labour junior whip—this is all too big for him. The junior whip does not get it. Yes I think— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we are sick of the ageist contributions from the former  
Play School 
 presenter. I think she needs to get into the present when she is in the House and refer to the senior whip by that title. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is barely a point of order but it just is in that appropriate nomenclatures should be used. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to address the big issues that are facing New Zealand today. If the junior whip wants to have a bedtime story he can turn to his colleague who I am sure will read him something at about the level he understands. In my own part of New Zealand there are some fantastic initiatives under way providing enormous economic benefit to both the local region and also wider New Zealand. 
I want to talk about irrigation something about which I am hugely enthusiastic and supportive. The face of South Canterbury North Otago and Central Otago has been transformed with irrigation. Jobs have been created both locally and further afield. There are skills now in those towns that emptied out in the 1980s and generally there is a sense of buoyancy in those regions that but for the support of the Government and the irrigation investment fund simply would not be there. It is a good-news story for my region. I support it and I applaud it. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What about that cycleway? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Our own senior whip—an excellent senior whip—says “What about the cycle trails?”. Well the Otago Central Rail Trail—[ 
Interruption 
] They laugh at that over on the other side of the House. They do not get regional development. They do not get that $7 million is introduced into the local economy every year because of the Otago Central Rail Trail. Small businesses are being established. In fact there is a brand new café in Ophir. I recommend it to anybody travelling through for its excellent coffee. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is in Committee. Kia ora tatou. Good afternoon honourable members. We are in Committee on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill and the question that the Committee has to consider first is that clause 1 stand part. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can we just take all questions as one question debate it and put it together? Have you got an amendment have you? [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry I thought we wanted to get it through. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no we are just trying to be helpful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is trying to be helpful. [ 
Interruption 
] I am putting it. The question is—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Not yet. The question is that clause 1 stand part. 
Clause 1 Title 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I am very happy to stand and take a call on clause 1 of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. In doing that I want to just perhaps explain to the Committee why I believe that it is so important to go through this bill— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can’t do that on a clause 1 of a Committee stage. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Well with the leave of members and just to set the scene of this bill I think it is important that we do address the clauses of the bill in their entirety. Of course clause 1 of the bill refers to— 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s delaying tactics. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: No it is not actually. I am trying to find my copy of the bill. I think that is important because there are members of the public back in Oamaru who care a lot about this bill and have had quite a bit of dialogue with the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Hon Annette King 
: They’ve waited for years for it. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: No. I think it is probably fair to them that this process is not truncated in any way. If it is truncated in any way they will not feel as if their word has been listened to. 
The Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill deals with three lots of land: one in Oamaru one in Palmerston—neither of those are controversial and they were passed through the select committee—and the third part known as Forrester Heights which has been controversial throughout the passage of this bill through the Parliament and indeed in the local community. That is why I think it is so important that we give good consideration to the entirety of this bill in the Committee stage. I will not talk too much on the first two parcels of land but Forrester Heights was land that was wrongly designated back in the 1930s as a reserve under the Reserves Act. That designation as it turns out was wrong. Through the process of the consideration of this Committee it is being determined that actually the land was reserved in aid of borough funds. It was an endowment in aid of borough funds. Once that is settled the Waitaki District Council can then dispose of the land as it wishes. It is that which has caused so many problems for some of the locals. They do not see the difference between the classification of the land and the use of the land. With that full explanation thank you. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 Interpretation 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Supplementary Order Paper 150 proposes that clause 3 of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be amended to “delete the definition of Lookout Point land” from the bill. The effect that that would have is that Lookout Point or the Forrester Heights portion of land could not be considered as part of that bill. I think it is worth reminding the Committee and perhaps the Green member Eugenie Sage that doing that goes against the wishes of the local authority. This is the Waitaki District Council’s bill. This is not a Government bill. This is not a member’s bill. This is a local authority bill. The local authority wishes to have this matter dealt with in Parliament which is why it brought it to us. What the Supplementary Order Paper does really is perhaps satisfy the wishes of the Green Party but this bill is not about the wishes of the Green Party. This is a local bill. It is about what the local authority wants to do. Therefore I will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 150 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 14. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Clause 4 agreed to.  
Clause 5 Existing reservation revoked 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill specifically looking at clause 5. I want to raise just a couple of points first about the bill. I want to acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Nicky Wagner but importantly I also want to acknowledge Jacqui Dean because I think as I have said before in this House she has done a lot of work on this bill. It has been an important local issue. We know there were a number of issues that related to the Palmerston Showgrounds and Lot 1 DP 345820 but one of the issues that is relevant to Supplementary Order Paper 150 which Eugenie Sage has put up is about the section of land referred to as Lookout Point. 
I want to go now to what the findings of the select committee were with regard to this land and I want to say that I think this issue has been settled. Not only has there been another piece of legislation before the House that has looked at this issue and not only did we hear a number of submissions but also we had several Government agencies looking at this including Land Information New Zealand the Department of Conservation and the Commissioner of Crown Lands. We have also had submissions from the council on this issue. 
I want to touch specifically on the commentary regarding Lookout Point and raise this issue. Obviously there was an issue about what the status of that land was and what we found with regard to this matter was that “In 1937 by Order in Council the Lookout Point land was set apart as reserves for an endowment in aid of the funds of the Oamaru Borough Council and erroneously made subject to … Title was issued in 1942 to the land now comprising Computer Freehold Register …”—I am not going to mention the name. I think we did settle this issue and from my perspective the select committee spent a lot of time going through the records via Land Information to resolve it. 
I acknowledge that Eugenie Sage has this Supplementary Order Paper but I think it has been made very clear that the confusion of the status did arise out of semantics that the land was reserved as endowment in 1885 and that it was not intended that the land itself be classified as a reserve. It was the case that we received extensive advice on this and this is based not only on the evidence of submitters but also on the advice from officials. So although I understand that there has been a long history to this issue I really believe that not only has the local member done a huge amount herself locally but also the select committee on another piece of legislation has looked at this issue thoroughly. We have found that we believe that the confusion arose out of semantics. 
I understand that the Supplementary Order Paper is here today because Eugenie Sage—and I am interested to hear what she says on the matter but it is quite difficult to see how that Supplementary Order Paper can be before this House given that we have had evidence from so many different agencies given that they have gone back through the records and given that we have had another parliamentary process around it. I do believe that this issue is an important issue locally for the people of Oamaru and I do believe that through this bill Parliament has the opportunity to clarify the status of this land. Through substantive evidence we have come to the conclusion as I said before that the confusion arose out of semantics. From that advice we have concluded that Lookout Point is not a reserve and we have confirmed it as being vested in an endowment in the council in aid of borough funds. 
I realise that it is a long road to have got here. I respect the submissions that have come to the select committee. I respect the fact that one member of the select committee has taken a different view and I am interested to hear that but I think that for the people of Oamaru and for the local member Jacqui Dean who spent a lot of time working on this issue this issue has been resolved and that it is important that members of Parliament recognise the huge amount of evidence and the huge amount of work that has been done by a number of Government agencies to clarify the status of that land. I am confident that we can finally settle this issue by the bill addressing the clerical error made in 1937 and by clarifying the status of the land as an endowment. 
I am pleased to say that I do support this clarification for the people of Oamaru for the fact that there has been so much resource gone into this—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite laugh—members opposite laugh—but actually it was a very collaborative process and many people have put energy into clarifying this. When I say that it is important for the people of Oamaru I ask members to go back through the press clippings as I have to see how often this issue has been raised and to see that it has been going on for a long period of time. It is time we resolved this issue once and for all. That is what we are doing through this bill through an evidence-based process. I am pleased to support this bill. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe. Yes the Green Party is not supporting this bill because of the way in which this whole issue of Lookout Point has been dealt with. I certainly recognise the previous speaker Nikki Kaye and the considerable time and effort that the Local Government and Environment Committee went to to look at the evidence. But the Green Party has been convinced more by the submissions that were put forward by the residents of Oamaru and the evidence that they brought—particularly people like Mr Monks and Helen Stead—that the initial decision to vest the land as a reserve was not made in error. That was indicated by their evidence the photographs that showed that the land was treated throughout the 1890s and the early 1900s as a reserve in terms of Arbor Day plantings and for other recreation and that it had been treated that way by the council by being designated in the council plan as a reserve until that designation was uplifted in order for the council to proceed with the Forrester Heights subdivision. 
So it is an issue of principle because the council in deciding to proceed with that subdivision which would raise funds for the restoration of the Oamaru Opera House did not consult well with its community. It went through a non-notified resource consent process. So there is a considerable amount of resentment amongst people in Oamaru who care about this land who use it for recreation and who enjoy the views that it provides over the town and over the harbour that the council proceeded on a non-notified basis. When that consent lapsed the council proceeded to renew it so that it did not lapse and none of this was done with any opportunity for the public to get involved. 
Clause 7 of this bill would by making the land endowment land allow the council to proceed with the subdivision and to sell it. So Supplementary Order Paper 150 in my name changes that clause so that it would not see the land as being endowment land for the council to dispose of. It would remain as reserve land because there is substantial public value and community value in this land remaining administered by council and open to all rather than being subdivided. 
 It is unfortunate that the Oamaru Opera House has not got other sources of revenue that could be used for its restoration. It is also interesting that members opposite are very supportive of the protection of heritage in Oamaru but we do not see that same commitment in Christchurch in terms of the way the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act legislation has been used to expedite the destruction of heritage there. 
But we have had a difficult issue in front of the select committee with natural heritage in terms of Lookout Point and its recreational values as against the historic heritage of the white stone buildings and the council wanting to free up some money to restore those. But that is why we are opposing this part of the bill in relation to Lookout Point and that is why the Supplementary Order Paper is there: so that the council cannot just dispose of it and go ahead with the subdivision that it has resource consent for. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Just very quickly in reply to the member Eugenie Sage’s speech on Supplementary Order Paper 150 treating land as a reserve over a period of time does not make it a reserve and that is exactly what this bill the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill is addressing. I think that the comments on issues around the district plan are a red herring because what this bill does is deal with the status of the land and the status of the land only. This land cannot remain a reserve because it never was a reserve. Thank you. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 Seldom do I disagree with the work and comments of Eugenie Sage—she is a thorough member and is very knowledgable—but on this particular clause clause 5 I believe that she is wrong. I understand the issue of principle and I absolutely agree that the consultation process by the Waitaki District Council was poor. In fact we told its representatives when they came to the Local Government and Environment Committee that their consultation process had been poor. I do not think anybody on the select committee would disagree with that. But at the end of the day that is not a good enough reason to not support this bill because it has been 2 years in the making. Well probably longer than 2 years but 2 years before coming to this House at least so I think it is time that it was resolved and finished. 
I understand the member in the chair Jacqui Dean wanting the opportunity to act as a Minister because this will probably be her only opportunity to be sitting there in the Committee chair and I understand her wanting to drag it out. What I do not really understand is why she would want to do that in that there is agreement with her on this bill. We support the work that she has done. We congratulate her on bringing a bill to this House. 
I do believe that the select committee did a lot of thorough work to ascertain the status of the piece of land that was in dispute Lookout Point. There is no doubt that there was confusion in the evidence and confusion over what had happened there and there were a number of submissions put to us that raised doubt about the status of this land whether it was endowment land or whether it was reserve land. At the end of the day I had to believe what was told to us by officials who went away who did the legal checks who went through the historic records and who came back and assured us that the decisions we were making were the correct decisions. You might not agree at times with everything officials say but we did send them away not once but several times to get us more information about this piece of land. We wanted to make the best possible decision and I think that we have made the right decision about the only controversial part of this bill and that is the status of Lookout Point. 
The last thing I would like to say is that I want to commend two people who made submissions to the select committee Warren Crawford and Barry Monks. I know that some on the Government side were a little scornful of Barry Monks because he was a Labour Party— 
Maggie Barry 
: The failed Labour candidate. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Thank you Maggie. I was going to say it myself—I did not actually need your help—because I am not ashamed of the fact that Barry Monks was a Labour Party candidate. I do not know whether that means that anything he says is wrong but if Maggie Barry had read his submission she would have seen he did an incredible amount of work. He went into the records he went to Dunedin and he searched to try to get the right information about this bill. I want to commend Barry Monks for his submission. I am sorry that at the end of it it did not stack up because there was one fundamental mistake in what the whole argument was premised on. That was that he believed a bill had been passed that in fact changed the status of the land or secured the status of the land. In fact the bill never came to the Parliament it was never passed and therefore the premise on which he was basing his argument did not stack up. That does not mean that it was not a very good submission and I thank him— 
Maggie Barry 
: It wasted a lot of time. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Goodness me! For the people who are listening—Maggie Barry who has not stopped interjecting through the whole of my speech is saying that democracy is a waste of time. Well we do not believe that it is. We believe that democracy is a very important part of our system here in this Parliament. Barry Monks and Warren Crawford took the opportunity to go to the select committee present a submission and appear before the committee. In fact they appeared through telecommunications rather than in person—we are so modern in our committee. Maggie Barry—that is democracy and they have the right to do that. We should be applauding them. 
Maggie Barry 
: He was wrong. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not as she is interjecting a waste of time. It was a very important submission. We would like to see this bill passed. There are only seven clauses. The member has had the chance to stand up and be a Minister. Let us get it over and done with. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. Likewise we are concerned only about this land at Lookout Point overlooking Oamaru township. The rest of the bill we are happy with but it is this main contentious piece of land. 
I think that what people have to remember is the fact that this is not just about bits of paper it is not just about legal technicalities and it is not just about who was right and who was wrong. This is about a physical piece of land that has been there since the 1800s. This land has been there overlooking the township and laid out by generations gone before us for the future of that town but has been used by the people of Oamaru and of the district for more than 130 or 140 years as an open piece of reserve. 
Therefore four or five generations of people have always had the expectation and the understanding that that open large piece of land was for public use and for the public of Oamaru to use. It went up to Lookout Point and it formed part of the extension of the very extensive Lookout Point piece of land. Therefore quite rightfully there is a significant portion of the community who today say that it is wrong that it be carved up and turned into a subdivision for a short-term gain of $3 million or thereabouts of profit in order to plough the $3 million into upgrading the Oamaru Opera House. Once the $3 million is gone and the land is gone and there are hundreds of houses on what was a 100-year-old reserve it will never be there again. 
As I have said in this House before councils all over New Zealand are constantly trying to acquire more land and trying to acquire more public reserves. Just the other day Auckland Council announced that it had just bought a large piece of land up at Pakiri north of Auckland. It is a very sizable piece of land—several million dollars worth—which will be a huge improvement to the park area and the council is very proud of it and Aucklanders will be very proud of having that additional reserve land under public ownership. 
I know that many MPs often do not get involved in this because they do not get involved in local government. It is something quite foreign to them. But those who have been in local government know how important it is to have reserve land in public ownership and how much effort goes into buying public land for reserve purposes. For an expanding population—and New Zealand when I was a child had 2 million people and it has now got 4.5 million— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I didn’t realise the member was that old. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: You did not realise who was that old? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Yes there were 2 million people— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Two million people? 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Yes there were 2 million people when I was a child. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You’ve worn pretty well. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Exactly; I have. So now that our population is growing and is heading towards 5 million and in another 20 or 30 years it will be 6 million open reserve land becomes more and more and more precious. In a township like Oamaru where there are significant numbers of people saying: “We don’t want that lovely big ridge of land that overlooks the town being chopped up and turned into houses for a short-term gain.” I tend to fall on the side of those who are there to protect the land and keep it in perpetuity for our future generations. 
I think there was enough doubt even though the officials said that after analysing everything it seemed to be that it was an endowment piece of land rather than a reserve piece of land. There still seemed to be a certain area of doubt there and it was basically down to interpretation. I think that if you threw enough Queen’s Counsel and learned people at this you could come up with different answers at the end of the day. 
Therefore in that respect where there is an element of doubt and where there is a significant element in the community saying: “We want to keep our land and we want to preserve it.” I tend to err of the side of the reserve. New Zealand First likewise does not believe that it is in the interests of the area of Oamaru to start carving off reserve land for houses. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I want to commend the member of Parliament for Waitaki Jacqui Dean for the work that she has done on this bill the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill but more particularly for the work that she does for her absolutely huge electorate. She is one of this Parliament’s most effective local members of Parliament. The way that she has championed the cause of this bill on behalf of the Waitaki District Council speaks volumes and I am not surprised at all that she has got a majority about the size of Mount Cook in her electorate for a seat that was once held by members opposite. 
I want to comment quickly on a few of the issues specific to Lookout Point. I actually want to commend Annette King for her thoughtful contribution and her comments about officials. Annette and I do not agree on everything but we do have respect for officials. We on the Local Government and Environment Committee as a select committee gave them very specific instructions. We said “Provide us clarity about the origin of this land.” and they came back—not conditional not saying there was any doubt but absolutely definitive—and their advice was that this was endowment reserve for the local authority. On that basis Annette King has quite honourably said “Look we accept that.” and that is why Labour has taken its position on the bill. I commend the Labour Opposition for taking that principled stand. 
I want to particularly challenge the Greens and New Zealand First because I have witnessed so many speeches in this Chamber in which they stand up for local democracy. That is what they say they stand for. Here we have the locally elected council the Waitaki District Council coming into Parliament and saying “We think the best use of this land for our community is for it to be a subdivision and for the council to be able to enjoy the $3 million that it will receive for the sale of this land to be able to offset the debt and the rates of its communities.” And here we have the arrogance of the Greens and New Zealand First saying that they know better than the Waitaki District Council. How many votes did the Green Party and New Zealand First get in the Waitaki community that they believe they can veto the view of the local council? It is truly arrogance from those two parties. Really their view on local democracy is that if councils agree with them then of course they will back them but if they disagree with them they should veto them. That is effectively the position that New Zealand First and the Green Party are taking in respect of their double standards. 
I also want to commend my colleague Maggie Barry from North Shore because there is something that she understands that Andrew Williams will never understand—that is time is money. Time is money. You see when you have got a piece of land that is worth $3 million every week of delay is a cost to that local authority of $3000—$3000 every week. That is the cost. We know this from Mr Williams’ experience in North Shore where rates went up so hugely. We know that in North Shore there was an appalling record in terms of delays in getting resource consents and building consents—incredibly slow and bureaucratic—and that there is no understanding from either the Green Party or the New Zealand First Party that time is money and that we need to progress these things on so that there is not that expense. That applies to resource consents that applies to building consents and that applies to the passage of this bill. That is why the member in the chair Jacqui Dean and my colleague Maggie Barry from North Shore have had the view that we need to get on and deal with these issues in a timely way because every week that we delay is a cost to the ratepayers of Waitaki of $3000. 
The very last point I would wish to make on this bill is to ask why it is that members in the Green Party and New Zealand First do not trust the locally elected council. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 150 in the name of Eugenie Sage to clause 5 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 21 
Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Noes 98 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Clause 5 agreed to. 
Clause 6 Vesting of fee simple estate 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 This part of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill which vests those parcels of land in fee simple is the part that probably matters the most to the folk who are in the parcel of land in Oamaru and the folk who are in the parcel of land in the Palmerston Showgrounds. It matters a lot to them that this bill passes through this House because they have bought property or they are in property that a council and they mistakenly thought had a title that was able to be transferred. It was determined that it was not transferable and so this bill is correcting those mistakes made by a council. The impact of that will be positive for those two families living in those two homes and so this is quite a critical part of this bill for those people. 
Also of course this clause relates to Forrester Heights and again it will correct a historical mistake whereby the land was wrongly designated as a reserve. It never was a reserve; it was a mistake. It was correctly gazetted back in—I forget the year now but in the late 1800s as an endowment in aid of borough funds so in effect it was endowed in the predecessor of the Waitaki District Council effectively as a land bank. The current council of the day wished to have that designation corrected so that it can do whatever with that piece of land. Whatever it does is up to it and so it should be. Thank you. 
Clause 6 agreed to. 
Clause 7 Lookout Point land declared to be endowment land 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that clause 7 stand part. I would just like to advise the honourable member Eugenie Sage that the amendment to delete clause 7 and the cross-heading above clause 7 which is set out on your Supplementary Order Paper 150 is out of order as being a direct negative of the question. OK? So therefore the proper course of action for the member is to vote against the clause standing part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 21 
Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Clause 7 agreed to. 
Schedule 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The next vote we have is on the schedule. The amendment of Miss Sage is also out of order as it is inconsistent. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 13; Mana 1. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a second time 
. It has been my privilege as the member of Parliament for Whanganui to sponsor this bill a local bill from the South Taranaki District Council to vest with Cold Creek Community Water Supply the water-race scheme that the members of that community built for themselves back in the mid-1980s according to an incentive scheme that was provided by the Government in those times as a dollar for dollar subsidy building water-race schemes with the proviso that they increase productivity. The local farmers got together and put together a water-race scheme built on the Cold Creek water catchment and built that scheme and so lifted the productivity of farms in that area but provided fresh and clean water for the consumers both animal and human within that catchment. 
I want to thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who have considered this bill. I want to acknowledge the chairmanship of Nicky Wagner and all the parties who conducted themselves really well and in a good debating sort of a manner over the course of the consideration of the bill. I recognise that the bill has—and I am grateful for—the support of the bulk of the Parliament. The Labour Party New Zealand First United Future ACT and the National Party have indicated support for the bill. Those dissenting have been the Green Party the Maori Party and the Mana party. I want to acknowledge too that the dissenting votes that they will cast are really based on philosophy. The fact is that in respect of the Maori Party for instance the Maori Party members have consulted with local iwi as to which way they would want them to vote in respect of this matter. Iwi have asked that they not vote for it. Iwi have said that they do not see themselves in respect of local tangata whenua to be in a position where they would be consulted by the district council on this. They are upset as they do not feel that they have been consulted in the way that they should have but see themselves as Treaty partners and so should be exercising some governance over the allocation of water at regional council level or at central government level. 
In respect of the Green Party the Green Party has said that it believes that the water-race scheme should be retained within community ownership. It has been my contention to their member responsible for this bill Eugenie Sage that in fact this is the lowest level of community ownership that you can have. It is owned by the people who built the scheme. It is owned by the people who use the scheme. In the end we end up in a situation where the Green Party believes it should really be held by the territorial local authority. I suggested to Eugenie a little tongue-in-cheek that if it was a kibbutz she would vote for it. She said: “Yeah but it’s not a kibbutz.” I actually said that it is a collection of farmers working together for the common good using a natural resource which is pretty much a kibbutz in my language. However I do not profess to be an authority on that. As far as the honourable member Hone Harawira goes I think he would just be against it because he is against most things but there we go. 
I wanted to acknowledge the philosophical differences. In any event I believe that the Local Government and Environment Committee worked in good spirits across parties to be able to ensure that the transition of the bill went smoothly and all issues were raised. 
Consultation as I have indicated was an issue for iwi. The council felt that it had consulted with iwi. It has an iwi liaison group representative of local iwi and in raising it time after time over many years and also giving the issue publicity through the newspaper and running the community notification the council felt that it had consulted. It had consulted with iwi by going through its iwi liaison committee with as I say all iwi represented. Iwi felt that they should have been consulted and approached iwi by iwi. To try to give some rectification to that Cold Creek Community Water Supply actually held a hui at the Tariki hall. I was present and chaired the meeting. We did have a discussion with iwi about this. They ended up at a place where they did not see that they could instruct the Maori Party that they were happy or comfortable for them to be able to vote in that way. 
Then to cover off who should own a water scheme as I said the origin of this scheme was that it was a dollar for dollar subsidy—dollar for dollar with the taxpayers and the local farmers. No ratepayer money went into it. How the South Taranaki District Council got to be the owners of this scheme was really that at the time a number of the farmers who were part of the construction of this scheme were on the Egmont County Council. They saw that as a viable place for the Government to put its money so it would be used according to the scheme. The Government required somebody—you know with hindsight they could have used the local iwi or they could have used Kiwi Cooperative Dairies at the time which went on to become Fonterra but because they had members on that council they decided they would vest it with that council. Then with local government amalgamation in 1989 it came into the South Taranaki District Council list of assets. 
 I have said who has paid for it. They were the farmers and the taxpayers of New Zealand. The taxpayers’ investment was to be based on productivity gained by the implementation of the scheme and the taxpayers have had their dollars back many many times over. So since the mid to late 1990s the Cold Creek water-race scheme members have been administering the scheme and acting as the owners of the scheme. Members of Parliament may well say well why change that? If it is being run by them now they are keeping the profits of it these are put back into the scheme and it is costing the council nothing why is it so important for those people to be able to have their names on the title or to own the scheme? 
The reason is simple and it is totally around the human condition and that is that at the time this was built rates for borrowing money were exorbitant. Those of us who were trying to buy houses or farms or whatever in those days will remember those days when the interest rate was 18 percent per annum and the penalty rates were 22 percent and 24 percent. Struggling young farmers who were doing their best to build up a business like the honourable member Shane Ardern and his brother were borrowing money on those rates and yet they had to put in I believe $67000 in respect of their farm to build this water-race scheme. 
So having gone through that process and having sweated blood for a scheme that many other people are benefiting from right now they want to own it. I can see that as being a perfectly reasonable place for them to be in bearing in mind that there is no real right of ownership on the constituency of the South Taranaki District Council. 
There were questions around health issues because a clause of the bill had given the South Taranaki District Council an indemnity in respect of public health issues and the Ministry of Health made it quite plain that they cannot opt out of that. They cannot be given an enduring indemnity in respect of public health issues because they will continue in the way that they do for other district councils over the catchment of the whole of their constituency. The fact is though that they will not bear a responsibility for matters that rest with the Cold Creek company: the provision of clean water access to water and those sorts of things. 
The council will have the responsibility to make sure that there is monitoring in respect of the quality of that water and if they are found wanting they will lead the prosecution in respect of that. If someone sets up a business drawing water from Cold Creek and they were requiring public health notifications and monitoring these would still rest with the council albeit the day-to-day responsibility of providing clean and potable water through the scheme still stays with the owners of the scheme. 
I want to finish off now just by thanking again members on the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work that they did and congratulating the members of the Cold Creek water-race scheme company on the work that they have done over about 12 or 13 years now to reach this time. They are very pleased to know that within the next few members’ days they will have vested back with them this asset that they worked bloody hard to achieve for their community. Thank you. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 Labour will support this bill the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill right through to its final reading. When it was introduced into this House at that time we said we would support it going to the Local Government and Environment Committee but we wanted to hear the evidence and we wanted to hear what the community had to say what the local authority had to say and what iwi had to say on this bill. That is because there were some concerns. There were concerns particularly around overriding the Local Government Act. There were concerns around the way that the whole thing had been managed and fears that a lot of these decisions had been made behind closed doors. I know that my colleague Andrew Little will go into this a little more and will raise some of those concerns that he has heard up there in the Taranaki area. But at the end of the day when we looked at the bill in its entirety how it emerged what it is to do and the safeguards that have been put in it then we believed that we ought to support it. 
There were lots of concerns however over iwi consultation. I think that this was not handled very well at all. I think that we need to say to both those who will own this scheme and the council itself that they need to improve their consultation. They need to start earlier. They need to be talking to and involving people in the area. Perhaps through lack of practice they did not achieve a good level of consultation. 
The other concern was whether this was privatisation of an asset an asset that had been built up with a dollar-for-dollar subsidy from the Government—not from ratepayers but from the Government. You could argue that this is a type of privatisation because it goes into the hands of those who manage it and use this scheme but you could also apply that argument to those who are given a subsidy to build community houses but still provide that service. You would not say that we had privatised their housing. In terms of this particular scheme they have put up money they have managed it they have been the ones who have used it and they are the ones who occupy the land on which the water is used. So we believe that we ought to support this bill at this stage. 
It has had a long history this particular scheme going back over a decade. The South Taranaki District Council has been wanting to divest the scheme to the users as far back as the late 1990s. In fact it did a lot of work when we were in Government towards the divestment of this scheme. Unfortunately it stalled in about 2006 but the company that has got it now has been managing the scheme since 2001. 
One of the issues that we raised was around the use of the water out of the scheme for the people of Ohakune because there are particular times of the year when the people— 
Andrew Little 
: Opunake. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Opunake sorry. There are times of the year when the people of Opunake actually need access to this water scheme. One of the things that we were assured by the council and by the company was that they have agreed to continue the current arrangement for this scheme to supplement the Opunake water supply in an emergency. That was when it was used. So that was something that we were very clear that we needed to have tied down: that the people there would have access to the water. 
As I said we will support it. It has been a long time in the making. It has not been a particularly good process but I do commend Chester Borrows for bringing it to the House as a good local member would. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I am delighted to be making a contribution on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill and I want to begin by complimenting the work of Chester Borrows the member for Whanganui who has not just championed this bill but been such an effective advocate for a very large electorate. 
Andrew Williams 
: This is the self-admiration club again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well he is such an effective member. I would love to compare how many votes Chester Borrows got in Whanganui with how many votes Andrew Williams got. Could Maggie Barry remind me? 
Maggie Barry 
: He was the fifth-lowest polling candidate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He was the fifth-lowest polling candidate in North Shore as compared with the sponsor of this bill who I am not surprised got not just 1000 votes more than Andrew Williams got not 10000 votes— 
Andrew Williams 
: What’s that got to do with it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member interjects with “What’s that got to do with it?”. Well it has actually got quite a lot to do with it. It is to do with your mandate to speak for your communities. Chester Borrows has a very strong mandate to talk for his Whanganui electorate because not only is he a damned good Minister he is actually an excellent advocate for that very large electorate. What this bill shows is that Chester Borrows is not just being an effective advocate for the city of Wanganui but actually goes the hard yards for those smaller rural communities that are part of his electorate and the community that is going to benefit from this bill. You see this bill oozes common sense—oozes common sense—and I think every member of this House would know that if there is a member who champions common sense it is Chester Borrows and what is in this bill. 
What this bill enables is 162 members of the Cold Creek community water supply scheme to be able to run their water scheme as a cooperative. Who in this House would oppose a bunch of 162 property owners who want to get on and run their own water supply? In my own electorate I have got lots of these water supply schemes and they are run very effectively because— 
Andrew Little 
: Because more than half of it was paid for by the taxpayer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Andrew Little who has interjected a number of times is ideologically opposed to New Zealanders doing stuff for themselves. He hates it. He wants people to be dependent. He cannot stand the idea that people might be able to do things for themselves and have a water scheme that provides their community with a good supply of water that is run by their own community. 
What is interesting is that on this bill and on so many other things there is an ideological split within the Labour Party. You see you have Annette King who made a very sensible contribution. She said in a very pragmatic common-sense way that if the people of this community want to run their own water scheme that is a good thing and providing there are proper checks in the bill she is prepared to support it. On the other hand you have got Andrew Little representing the hard left of the Labour Party which hates people doing things for themselves. He indicates by his interjections that he is opposed to this bill and all members on this side of the House say “Here we go again. The Labour Party is all over the place as it has been all this year not able to resolve the ideological rifts within the Labour Party and we have no idea where it stands.” 
What we do have though is concerning opposition from the Green Party to this bill and I am not surprised by that. You see the Green Party is opposed to any bill that represents pragmatic common sense. It will always find a reason to get in the way of New Zealanders being able to do their own things. It is interesting in respect of what I call the ideological ratchet which the Labour Party and the Green Party members so often operate. If a council wants to buy a water scheme they say that is good and it should be allowed to do that. But if ever a council wants to divest a water scheme they say you cannot do that. 
Hon Chris Tremain 
: Asset sales. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right. My colleague from Napier says that you then get into an ideological rant around asset sales. Well actually this is. This is one where a community has said “Hey we have got a water scheme.” The people who run it and use it on daily basis would like to run it for themselves. The local council says it thinks that is a good idea. We have even put a protection in Chester Borrows’ bill that requires there to be a referendum amongst the local people—the only people who are affected by this bill—to have their say. And now Andrew Little and Eugenie Sage say they are going to stop and oppose communities making that decision for themselves. The arrogance of those members! And do you know what it really illustrates? It illustrates the huge risk to common sense if this country ever faces a Labour-Green Government because every member on this side of the House knows that the ideological hard left idealism of the Labour Party is always going to trump and is going to get in the way of communities like Cold Creek being able to get on and run their own water scheme. That is what is going to happen and this little bill actually exposes the risk to common sense that there would be in the event that Labour and the Greens were to form a Government. It is extraordinary. 
I want to just follow through Eugenie’s argument. It goes this way. Because the Government provided a subsidy many years ago to provide good quality water in this community as it did all over New Zealand then the referendum on the future of this Cold Creek rural scheme should be over all the people who contributed. Well let us just test that at a practical level. That means you have got to have a referendum over 4.5 million New Zealanders as to whether the Cold Creek community water supply of 162 people are able to get on and run their own scheme. Well it would actually cost about $3 million to have a referendum over a scheme that is not worth that much. But that is the sort of ideological nonsense that you get from the Green Party. That is when people are not allowed to have the common sense that Chester Borrows advocates overall. The co-leader of the Green Party Metiria Turei is questioning that. That is exactly the ideological view we got at the Local Government and Environment Committee from the Green Party that everybody who contributed which is the taxpayer to this scheme should get a say in the future of it. Who in their right mind would spend over 3 million bucks on a referendum about which most New Zealanders would say “Look if the local people want to get on and do this why would Parliament get in their way? Why would we object to the local people running their local water scheme as a cooperative?” 
Andrew Williams 
: Can we quote you on that when you become the local government Minister? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Mr Andrew Williams who is interjecting what he has got against the people of South Taranaki—162 people. All they are asking Parliament to do is to let them run their own local water supply? They are not asking for a single dollar of subsidy from the local ratepayers in running the scheme. 
Andrew Little 
: That’s because they’ve already got it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Andrew Williams interjects and says they have already got it. Well actually throughout New Zealand the Government provided subsidies for setting up water schemes. That was part of actually improving the clean water supply for communities and I think that is a good thing. We are a practical party of environmentalists over here. We are providing subsidies right now as a Government for cleaning up lakes. We are actually spending more money than any Government— 
Andrew Williams 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was waiting for you to pick up the Hon Nick Smith but he referred to another member and referred to that member as being me and it was quite incorrect. He said it was Andrew Williams when it was actually Andrew Little and I do not like to have my name used in that manner incorrectly. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sure that was a genuine mistake but the member will be alerted. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I want to assure you it was not in any way a mistake. The Andrews—both Williams and Little—have interjected during my speech indicating their opposition to this bill and I am challenging both of them and asking why they are opposed to common sense. Why are they opposed to the people of South Taranaki being able to run their little water scheme as occurs in so many parts of rural New Zealand on an efficient local basis? The truth is that they are members for bureaucracy they are members for extra cost and they are members who actually have no regard for New Zealanders being able to get on and run their own little water supply for their communities. Members on this side of the House say that is sensible and we say it occurs all over New Zealand. We should give that opportunity to the people of South Taranaki who use the Cold Creek community water supply scheme. We support them. We support them doing that— 
Andrew Williams 
: You’re going to hang yourself at this rate when you’re local government Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member Andrew Williams interjects and I say to him that if there are members in other communities who would like to get on and run their local water scheme in a cooperative way such as this that is something that members on this side of the House would be happy to support. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Is it not rich to hear Nick Smith lecture this House on giving communities the chance to run their own affairs? This is the Minister who took away from the people of Canterbury the right to vote for their regional council and he comes to this House and he tells us that members who might oppose this bill want to take away the rights of local communities to have control over their own affairs. Have a look in the mirror Dr Smith. I know it is not pleasant but when you do you will see somebody who took away those rights. 
While we are on Dr Smith’s contribution could we not have just a little bit more generosity from Dr Smith about the fact that the taxpayer has contributed to this scheme because— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: And so many others. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Indeed but the impression being given by Dr Smith is that this was all the work of the local community nobody else has done anything there is this terrible injustice being created here and if only we had just let the local farmers run this right from the beginning right from day one everything would be fine. This has been a partnership between the local community and the taxpayer. That should be recognised and I do not think Dr Smith in his contribution did that. 
I am going to take only a short call on this matter. I was not on the select committee the Local Government and Environment Committee that heard the submissions but I do have two or three issues that I want to raise. Annette King has outlined the Labour Party’s position on the bill and has done that very well. 
Of the two or three issues that I want to raise the first of those is around process. I know that other members in the House will raise the concern that iwi have raised about the process. I am looking here at a newspaper article from the  
Taranaki Daily News 
 in 2010 that makes it clear that the last time iwi were consulted about this by the council was in the year 2000. That is a whole decade in which iwi were not consulted about the future of this scheme. That simply is not good enough. Annette King has registered that point on behalf of Labour and I want to register it again. 
In processes like this it is vitally important that the local community is engaged and in this case in particular the local iwi. They have said very clearly that their stance on this bill—and I know that we have already heard from Chester Borrows that the position of the Maori Party is in fact based solely on this point—is that the iwi are taking a principled stand and saying that they are not prepared to see this bill supported because they simply do not think they were consulted sufficiently well. That is their right but it also points to the fact that we do need a lot more work done on the way in which consultation happens on these issues. 
The second point of process that I want to raise I raised in the first reading debate and that is the way in which this proposal was put to the South Taranaki District Council the last time it was debated or when the vote was held. That was in August 2011—August last year. That was a split vote. That was a six to four vote of the council. I think we need to be very careful when bills come up as local bills to this House to acknowledge that there will not always be unanimous agreement within the local authority that sends a bill to this House and it is only fair that in the discussion of a bill like this we acknowledge that. 
I also in that first reading speech raised the fact that the people who showed up at the South Taranaki District Council to promote this to promote these ideas were Chester Borrows as the local MP—as it should be—but then Neville and Shane Ardern. It presents to me some significant difficulties when you look at the minutes of that South Taranaki District Council meeting which I have previously tabled in the House and you see the presence of Neville and Shane Ardern making statements about what might happen if the council did not vote for the bill to come to Parliament. I think we need to be very careful about the role of MPs particularly when there is a family connection. I said in the first reading that I respect Shane Ardern but I think the impression could easily be given when those two gentlemen arrive along with Chester Borrows to the South Taranaki District Council and make comments about what will happen if the council does not agree to send a local bill through. Essentially what they said was that they would find a parliamentary means of achieving the goal. That is not acceptable. That is poor process and it is the poor process that has characterised this over the last few years. 
We need to ensure that when local bills come here we have a clear and honest conversation about the community’s views on these issues. We also do not want to see members of Parliament arriving along at a meeting of a local council and making all kinds of veiled or otherwise comments about what may or may not happen if the council does not agree to put the bill before the House. 
I do not have a lot more to add to the particular situation. The Labour Party has decided to support this bill on the grounds that this will have community ownership for this water resource but I do think it is vitally important that we acknowledge that this was a joint project between taxpayers and the local authority and in the future I would like to see a far better process for consultation with interested groups such as iwi and a far more open and transparent process about what happened inside the council in terms of it coming here. There are certainly people in the South Taranaki community who do not support this and I think that should have been recognised more clearly by the Government. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. I am particularly pleased because some of the statements from Government members indicate that the Government is very worried about a Labour-Green Government in 2014. I look forward to being part of that Government. I think the one thing I do agree with Dr Nick Smith about is that this bill brings to bear some of the issues of principle which is one of the reasons we are opposing this Government because it is all about a privatisation agenda. 
It is fascinating being in the Local Government and Environment Committee and having what seems like a small local bill come along that throws into relief these big issues of principle about privatisation of community assets especially essential community assets around water. So I certainly congratulate Chester Borrows for his very good work as a local member on bringing the bill to the committee. The Green Party supported it at the first reading in accordance with the convention to support local bills but it has been the further information that has come through the select committee process through public submissions that means the Green Party will not be supporting the bill at this reading and subsequent readings. 
This bill is needed—those wanting the bill need it—in order to transfer ownership of the small-scale water-supply scheme that was built in the 1980s to rural landholders in the area. There are about 160 dwellings and about 400 people. The water supply is used primarily for farming purposes. One of the reasons we oppose it is because the Local Government Act 2002—and one of the areas that the Government has not amended thankfully—contains quite explicit provisions that restrict local councils from disposing of infrastructure necessary for providing water services in their districts. So without this local bill the council could not divest itself of the scheme because the number of households that the scheme serves exceeds the threshold in the Local Government Act. 
As other speakers such as Annette King have mentioned this desire by the scheme users to divest the scheme goes back to the early 1990s. Then they were very concerned that future councils would corporatise or franchise the scheme. Those fears have not been realised so we do not see why there is a need to privatise the scheme. That is because there has been quite significant public funding of the scheme. There was a 1984 Crown grant of $1.28 million which met half of the construction costs. Also I understood from the submissions presented by the South Taranaki District Council that there had been an effective ratepayer subsidy for some of the scheme’s operation costs as well. 
But one of the major reasons the Green Party is now opposing the bill is because of the strong submissions by iwi and the potential injustice that the privatisation would result in. There was a submission from Paraninihi ki Waitotara Inc. It was very concerned about the privatisation affecting the value and the potential rental return from its leases in perpetuity over Maori reserve land in the scheme area because the scheme infrastructure the head works and the reticulation network are all improvements. So in terms of privatising the scheme the value of those improvements is not reflected in the rental value of the land that is on this perpetual lease. 
It is also concerned—and this concern is even more serious—that there would be quite a lot of uncertainty over whether water from the scheme would be available to its lands in future. As the incorporation noted a number of waterways in Taranaki are already under pressure in dry periods during the summer and many rivers and streams are fully allocated. Some of the leaseholders who are leasing land from the incorporation on a perpetual lease also own blocks of freehold land. The incorporation was concerned that the current water permits issued by the Taranaki Regional Council might be transferred from the leasehold land to these freehold blocks and so the incorporation’s land would potentially in future no longer have a certain access to water through the water permits issued by the council. 
The incorporation made some suggestions about how the legislation could be amended to provide certainty that Maori reserve lands would have the certainty of access to water. The select committee did not accept those amendments. Given that the land was first confiscated then given as Maori reserve land for perpetual leases there is potentially a major second injustice caused by this legislation if there is any risk of Maori reserve land being denied water permits in future. So that is one of the reasons we are opposing it. 
Dr Nick Smith as is often a characteristic of Dr Nick Smith promoted a lot of misinformation about the other reason we are opposing the bill and that is in relation to the referendum. We have never proposed that there be a referendum over the whole of New Zealand as to whether the scheme be divested. It is a referendum over the whole of the South Taranaki District that we propose. The bill as it was amended in the select committee provides for a referendum over only the scheme area—an area that could be served by the scheme. So it is over a very small part of the district not over the whole of the district which is what the Green Party supported. We want given the public money that has gone into this scheme all of the district to be involved in that referendum. But it is typical of the National Party—and we have seen that too in the changes to the Local Government Act 2002 and the withdrawal of the mandatory referendum on any reorganisation proposals—that it wants to restrict the number of people who have an ability to vote. 
So for those reasons firstly the very narrow area that the referendum would be conducted over; secondly the fact that there is a potential second injustice to Maori landholders from the proposal; and thirdly that substantial public money has gone into constructing the scheme—it has been subsidised by ratepayer funds— 
Maggie Barry 
: Taxpayer. 
EUGENIE SAGE 
: —and it had a major investment of taxpayer revenue of $1.8 million thank you Ms Barry—the scheme should stay in council ownership. The council is quite capable of administering it and managing the scheme for the benefit of the users not privatising it and seeing those users get potentially quite significant private benefits given the enormous value of water particularly in summer dry periods. So for those reasons the Green Party will be opposing the bill. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I am very happy to speak on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill in its second reading. Also as other members have done I want to congratulate the local member Chester Borrows on not only bringing this bill to the House on behalf of his local authority and local ratepaying constituents but also for appearing before the Local Government and Environment Committee on several occasions to make some pragmatic and practical explanation of questions that were raised during the course of the select committee’s consideration. Nicky Wagner as usual is doing a wonderful job— 
Andrew Williams 
: Here comes the self-admiration club again. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: —in chairing this select committee. It is not easy actually for the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee to put up with the likes of some of the members on it who are— 
Maggie Barry 
: Always fighting amongst themselves. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: —always fighting amongst themselves and the reasons seem to be far far away from some of their consideration. 
I just want to pick up the point that the previous Green speaker Eugenie Sage noted towards the end of her speech about a referendum not being held over the whole of the South Taranaki District Council area—nor should it be. Rates for rural water schemes are not collected from the whole of the South Taranaki District Council area. The rates when the scheme was rated were collected over the area of benefit accrued to those— 
Andrew Little 
: The member doesn’t know what she’s talking about. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes the member does know what she is talking about. Under the rating legislation for rural water schemes they are rated across the area of benefit. So it is just and it is the right thing to do that when there is a referendum that it is done over the area that is affected by the rural water scheme. 
The area that I have the privilege of representing Waitaki is absolutely peppered by rural water schemes. Some of them came about actually as a result of farmers utilising the Chinese water races which are an amazing network that is still standing today. The water races of course were used in the business of getting gold and sluicing for gold. They were so well constructed—they could teach us a thing or two about water races—that they are still now being used in some of the water schemes around Central Otago. 
Around North Otago groups of farmers as with the group of farmers that this bill relates to got together many years ago—sometimes over a hundred years ago—and decided that they were better off working together to get a supply of water from say the Waiariki Creek or the Kakanui River. So they formed a committee back in the day they dug the trenches by hand and they laid pipes by hand. One of the things they did not do was asset management plans because they were not required back in the day so a number of councils around New Zealand have spent considerable time trying to find out just where those pipes go. The old-timers know because they were the ones who put them in or their fathers or their grandfathers put them in and they helped so they know where they were. 
I remember when we lived out in the country. We were on the western rural water scheme. Not only did we have slaters in our water and occasions when the water would also run out—which was irritating as a young mother—but also when there was a leak Whitestone Contracting the local company would have to come out and spend days trying to find just where that leak was. That would be a charge upon the farmers and consumers such as ourselves so councils brought asset management plans into being and I think that was a pretty good move. 
Now we know more about rural water schemes. They have a really rich history in New Zealand. Just as in my region the farmers who took water from the Cold Creek community water supply scheme did the same thing. They decided that it was to their benefit and that it would be far more efficient for the 162-odd families to work together for a rural water scheme. They were the beneficiaries of a Government scheme at the time that was a dollar-for-dollar subsidy. Well good on them. Good on them for forming a committee having the wherewithal to decide that they needed to deal with their water issues and for applying for and getting a dollar-for-dollar subsidy. Hallelujah! I think that is fantastic. 
What puzzles me occasionally about the response particularly of Labour and the Greens to the fact that this rural water supply is now going to go into the ownership of the farmers is that they seem to object very strongly to public money then going to the benefit of the private operators. But then I think to myself about Labour’s failed housing policy that they release and release in the hope that anybody will take any notice which they do not. The numbers are tragically all wrong but that is par for the course. Labour is happy to subsidise people into houses but it is not happy for Government money and a subsidy to go into a rural water scheme. 
I can only conclude from that that Labour and the Greens hate farmers. It is a theme that underpins a lot of the philosophy of the Labour Party and the Greens. They simply cannot conceive of the fact that farmers are underpinning the absolute economic wealth of this country. They cannot accept that. Philosophically the Greens and Labour cannot accept that the ownership of the Cold Creek community water supply could possibly go into private hands. Well I can. I think it is a good thing. I think those farmers should be commended for this work and for bringing this bill to the House. I think the South Taranaki District Council should also be commended for understanding and recognising that a local company running a rural water scheme is actually going to do a better job than a council. It is well understood particularly in my area that local control of a rural water scheme means you get local good sense and that local good sense can save money for those ratepayers and has everything to recommend it. Thank you. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First for the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. What a lengthy name it is for what is a relatively small water supply set-up. 
I firstly would take exception to the Hon Dr Nick Smith putting us in the ranks of those who would be opposing this bill because he obviously had not heard my previous speech earlier this year when we said that New Zealand First had looked at all the facts of this matter and would be supporting this particular proposal because it did seem to at the end of the day stack up. So that perhaps takes that out of the sails of the Hon Dr Nick Smith who was making out that we were doing otherwise. 
 One of the reasons we supported it was that it did come to our Local Government and Environment Committee and it came quite a number of times. It was thrashed out at length and was sent back to the local council it was sent back to the officials and indeed there were other advisers who came along. We managed to sort of flesh it all out to get some pretty good improvements out of the whole thing because in the beginning there were doubts about some aspects of it and we had some grave doubts. 
I think it started off from the situation where there were concerns from the council that the local member—and this is the member who is part of the self-admiration club of the National Party—had gone along with the chairman of the water company Mr Neville Ardern who happens to be the brother of the MP Shane Ardern and who happens to be mates with the local MP Chester Borrows. Nepotism is alive and well in the National Party obviously as we heard in question time this afternoon—nepotism is alive and well. It was unfortunate the Local Government and Environment Committee was told that there was a little bit of standover tactics from these people. These MPs and the chairman of the water company stood over at this council meeting of the South Taranaki District Council and said: “Well basically if you don’t agree to this if you don’t do this we’ll have it rammed through Parliament anyway and you won’t have a choice in the matter.” 
I think that set off a few alarm bells for members of the committee when we heard that there were elected members of Parliament putting pressure on the local council to comply with their wishes—this included the brother of one of the members of Parliament—or it would basically have its local government rights locally taken away by Parliament. The Hon Nick Smith can sit there smile and say: “Well this is the National Party giving the locals what they want and the locals their opportunity to speak.” It was only as a result of the Local Government and Environment Committee spending a lot of time and making sure that the local people were not actually being walked over by a few heavy-hitting members of Parliament with family members associated with the deal that that was the case. 
In regard to this we were also very concerned that the people were not being asked about it. One of the requirements of our select committee was to get a referendum in place and that was when New Zealand First said we would be prepared to support it—if the local people affected by the scheme who were the users of the scheme and who were in that catchment area of the scheme at least had the right to be asked: “Do you want this to be taken over by your local people or do you want it to be left as is?”. The fact that we were able to get that referendum included in the bill was a major step forward as well. 
We also were concerned when we heard from local iwi who felt that they had not been consulted adequately—some members of the local iwi who submitted to the Local Government and Environment Committee felt that they had been left out of the loop entirely—and again we were somewhat surprised that there had not been adequate consultation. Again we got built into the bill that there would be improved liaison with local iwi. So that was a good outcome. 
I think at the end of the day this is a somewhat unique situation in that the source of this supply comes high up on the sides of Mount Taranaki—Mount Egmont—and comes down into this particular catchment area. It was developed 30 to 40 years ago by the locals who at the time needed water reticulation and irrigation for farms and also water for some of the small dwellings of people in the area. Now there are more than 500 or 600 people who are consumers of the scheme. Therefore it is a unique scheme in a sense in that it is self-contained. It is for the one community and it does not then go on and feed others or link into anywhere else. 
It is a self-contained scheme and it is one where a lot of local money has poured into it from the various farm owners. We were told that a lot of work had been done voluntarily over the years by farmers to keep the pipes and keep the scheme operating. A lot of labour had been put in over the years. The council had also provided at no cost some engineering assistance and expertise over the years so it was a bit of a joint effort on the part of many and some taxpayer money had gone into subsidising parts of the scheme to ensure that it operated. So in that respect it has been a win-win for the community and by returning it to community ownership of the people who are the scheme users then it does become very much a cooperative water scheme which has merit. 
The committee was also concerned in terms of health issues and you will note that in the bill there are also provisions that there must be consultation with the health department in terms of the quality of the water because again we did not want to see a situation where the scheme was not meeting health quality standards. That does raise for the Hon Nick Smith’s benefit again the fact that all around New Zealand local government and local communities for the last 10 or 15 years have increasingly had to meet higher and higher potable water standards for good healthy drinking-water. It has been a big burden on many communities in New Zealand to get their water up to standard. There has been some considerable cost go in all around New Zealand to improve the infrastructure in our water supply systems to ensure that we do have good healthy clean drinking-water. Often Dr Nick Smith will say that councils are spending some outrageous money around the country on all sorts of things. In fact one decent chunk of the money that every year goes out is actually part of the improvement of the water supply around New Zealand which back in the 1980s and 1990s had got into a somewhat dire state. During that period it was very very clear that many water systems around New Zealand needed some major major upgrades and improvements. 
So can I just also commend—rather than the self-congratulation committee of the National committee—all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee on both sides of the committee not just the National ones who like to just congratulate themselves. We all had an input into this and we did I think make some significant improvements to the bill which at the end of the day those people in that South Taranaki area and in the Cold Creek rural water supply area will benefit from. It was a good outcome for all. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on this South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. I am also pleased to say that I will be in Wanganui on Monday with the Hon Chester Borrows. I look forward to being in that community because what was very clear when we heard these submissions was the passion from the people who have contributed to this scheme. We are proud on this side of the House to say that we believe in community assets and we believe in empowering the community. 
What I want to say with regard to this bill is that it is very interesting that we have a situation here where many residents have contributed to this scheme and all they want to be able to do as the Hon Nick Smith mentioned is to control this scheme and potentially vest it in the ownership of the community. That is a really positive thing. Can I just say as well and point out to members that what this bill does is set in train a process. It sets in train a referendum for residents to potentially get ownership of that scheme. That is a positive thing. We in the National Party support that. 
I want to seek clarification particularly from the Green Party on this issue because I do understand and I do actually have a lot of respect for them. I might not agree with Eugenie Sage but I have a lot of respect for the work she does. I want to seek clarification on the issue of the fact that the Crown did provide some funding for this. Why would the Green Party have a position that if that funding is provided then it should not lead to community asset-ownership? I would ask the Green Party then to clarify all the waste management schemes around the country. There are many other community assets that have some Crown funding and to state a position that says that somehow as a result of that there should not be community ownership I think is a sad day for New Zealand. But I do welcome clarification on that particular point. 
I want to make two other minor points. The first is that there have been some very good improvements to this bill partly as a result of looking at who can be involved in that referendum and also the issue of ensuring that there is better iwi engagement in terms of the process. I want to acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Nicky Wagner and I want to acknowledge all other members of the select committee as well for their hard work on this particular issue. I am very pleased to support this important bill which is about empowering communities and ensuring that for this asset there is a process in train to enable the people who have contributed to this asset to actually have ownership of it. That is a good thing. We support it. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. It was very good of the member who just spoke Nikki Kaye to say that she is going to be in Wanganui or Whanganui on Monday with Chester Borrows. She will be about an hour and a half’s drive away from the area that will be affected by this bill so she has got a little more work to do if she wants to get an understanding of just how people in that area feel about this bill. There is not a unanimous view that this is necessarily a good thing. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That supports it or opposes it? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Let me be very clear: the Labour Party will support this bill. That is the position that is being taken. But because Dr Nick Smith thinks in very simple terms he cannot understand that there might be you know gradations of support and there might be other concerns that are equally relevant. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Shades of grey in his case. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Shades of grey in his case yes—you are not 50 yet not  
Fifty Shades of Grey 
 hopefully. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Spare the thought. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: Exactly. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Keep it seemly. 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: That is right. No no we like to keep our cultural references current and to the point—no pun intended. But here is the thing: the Labour Party will support this bill but that is not a reason not to register the sorts of concerns that my colleagues—Grant Robertson in particular—have already noted. 
Let us be very clear: the farming communities in all parts of Taranaki including South Taranaki are absolutely vital to the region and are a good bunch of people. That is why the Labour Party in Taranaki enjoys a very good close relationship with the local branch of Federated Farmers. We have good dialogue we meet regularly and we have good discussions. But there are concerns about measures like this and those concerns should be put on the record. 
Let us go to the origins of this particular water scheme. It was funded by a 50 percent or a dollar for dollar grant by central government when it was put in place in the mid-1980s. That grant made its way through what was then the Egmont County Council which had responsibility for that area. I do not know why it later became the South Taranaki District Council or the “STD Council” as it is known locally which is a most unfortunate name. But I promised I would get off  
Fifty Shades of Grey. 
 The scheme had a 50 percent subsidy from central government. That subsidy was paid on the basis that the scheme would demonstrate a greater than usual marginal benefit for the subscribers to or the users of the scheme. Indeed that has been the case. 
Of the submissions that went to the Local Government and Environment Committee there were some very good ones that showed the actual impact of the scheme. Those local farmers who were originally part of the scheme and those who have come into it through succession or acquisition of farms have enjoyed not just the benefit of the mere existence of the scheme but also the added value that it has created and that is a good thing. It is a wise use and a sensible use of taxpayer money and a partnership relationship between the Government and communities such as this. 
There were two other sources of value that have made up the scheme. One is the sweat equity and hard labours of the farmer subscribers to the scheme who at the time of its construction used their plant and machinery amongst other things to assist in its construction and development. Also the local district council now the South Taranaki District Council provided its engineering expertise as part of the maintenance of the scheme. In particular in terms of the head works and the pump-house it has provided some maintenance and engineering expertise to support that and be part of its upkeep. So it is not true to say that it is just the hard labours of the local farmers who are the beneficiaries of the scheme at the moment. 
That is why I think it is important that we take time and we pause to reflect on exactly who has contributed and where that value might be properly reflected. It is for that reason too that it is good to see that as part of the referendum process and the change that has been suffered as a result of the select committee process it is not just a simple referendum but a referendum that requires all of the relevant information to be put before the electors—those who will be able to take part in the vote. 
Let us be clear about why some of the farmer members who have made submissions to the select committee want this transfer to go ahead. They have been very clear. One submission was from a farming couple. They say they have got a farm near Te Kiri with two dairy farms and a drystock unit and they receive their water from the Cold Creek system. This came from a second-term councillor on the South Taranaki District Council who had declared his conflict of interest. He said that one of the attractions of the scheme when it was built was the one-to-one Government subsidy on the basis that it would be able to generate a designated economic gain from production increases. Those submitters went on to say that the reason they wanted the divestment now is that they did not want the scheme to be caught up in potential negotiations over iwi settlements. 
Another farmer with the surname Ardern—not the chairperson of the scheme and not the member but a different Ardern again—said he supported it because as he described it “It puts ownership of the scheme infra structure where it rightfully belongs. Local ownership and management …”. There is no acknowledgment of the public contributions to the scheme just that the locals should have ownership of it. 
Another submitter Anna Dodunski said that “… local ownership brings with it a quicker response time” and that “local ownership of Cold Creek Water Supply is fundamental as only the residents on the scheme have invested interest in protecting the waterway and ultimately the future of the river which is cold creek.” That is a farmer sentiment but it is not all entirely correct. 
One of the main iwi who submitted on the bill of course noted that they had not been consulted on it. One of the other changes that the select committee process created was that there will now be proper consultation with local iwi—and not just one iwi of course but all local iwi. They will all now be consulted on it and they will have a chance to have a say. 
None of that was in the original bill and none of that went before the South Taranaki District Council when it was being asked by Chester Borrows Shane Ardern and Shane Ardern’s brother to support the bill. Those changes have been made. It is important that those changes were made and it is good that they have been. For those reasons in spite of the reservations we had originally Labour will support the bill. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this bill the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. I would like to echo some of the sentiments that were raised by the local member who proposed it. I think Chester Borrows is an excellent local member of Parliament. As he pointed out when he worked through the background to this bill and the history of this bill it has been a long time coming. The people—400 individual people and the 162 connections—have been working on this for about 12 years. There have been bureaucratic changes which the member who just sat down Andrew Little outlined accurately so I will not go into those. There really needed to be a common-sense approach to this and the local member Chester came to this House and had an excellent idea. 
The Greens have opposed it and I wonder whether therein lies the problem—that they do not have local members. They do not have to listen to anyone who does not think the way they do. They do not actually represent a group of people and have to actually take a local cause to a wider arena explain it and argue it through. They just cocoon themselves in their own little mad Green world and say “This is what matters. We think it is right and therefore it is.” 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal offence at that reference and ask that she be made to withdraw and apologise for it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: In the course of an earlier contribution from a member in the party to the right of the Greens there were very crude assertions made about the motivations of a colleague of ours Shane Ardern implying corruption and other things. I think there does need to be some degree of robustness about points such as those being raised. 
Metiria Turei 
: If the member is taking offence at something that somebody else has said then he is quite entitled to but I have made explicit reference to an explicit statement concerning mental health issues which Maggie Barry has accused the Greens of having. I take personal offence at that and I ask that she be made to withdraw and apologise for her comment. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am just struggling to recall the comment that was made and the context in which it was made. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I can help without being specific Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Be very careful but helpful. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I will not repeat the comment Mr Speaker but there is no doubt that the member referred to the Greens generally—the parliamentary Greens—as having mental health issues. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Having— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mental health issues. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Did the member do that? 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Not at all. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. She knows what she said. She knows the word she used and I am asking that you require that she be made to withdraw and apologise for the use of that word. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am going to ask the member to withdraw the comments—I am going to ask the member to withdraw the comments. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: I am not wishing to cause any trouble here but I am just not sure which comments— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No just withdraw the comments. [ 
Interruption 
] I am going to ask the member to withdraw the comments that caused offence. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: I do not know which comments they were Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have given the member the words. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: I withdraw the comments that caused the offence. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Right. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Hon Member 
: But how does she know not to say it again? 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: No I do not. So—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Thank you. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Stop being so offensive. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Yeah? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She’s had a long lunch and she goes stupid—a long lunch and she goes stupid. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Oh thanks very much. So I need the permission of the heckler opposite tonight before I continue? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! Thank you. Look we were making quite reasonable progress. I have asked one member to withdraw. I could ask the member to withdraw his comments as well; I am not. I am just going to give a general warning. Let us make some progress on this bill. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I will resume. So as Chester Borrows the local member so eloquently put it earlier why did they want to make this change? Why did the people of Cold Creek some 400 members of them in this connection want to go to all this trouble and fight for 12 years? It is because it is a common-sensible approach. They want to run their own water supply and they should be allowed to do so. It is an excellent idea. 
The other point that Chester made which I think is particularly useful and again it comes back to representing a group of people as opposed to just a broad philosophical negativism is that the farmers had to borrow money to set up that scheme and it was not an inconsiderable amount of money at the time that they put the scheme in motion. So they had made an investment and they felt that they needed to own it. I think that is a point that came through loud and clear in many of the submissions that we received on this particular bill. I think that they have the right to have that sense of ownership and that is why we all support what Chester has said and why we all support this legislation. If these people want to run their own scheme why stop them? 
It is a very good thing I think too that the local iwi Nga Ruahine Rangi have advised that they are not interested in acquiring this asset as any part of any future claim. This is being referred to constantly by the Opposition—that the iwi somehow feel marginalised. According to all the evidence that came before our select committee they were very happy with the arrangement and were not interested in acquiring the asset. They have been consulted perhaps not all of them in every bit of the detail but on the whole there was enough accord to make it seem as if it is an excellent community initiative. I think that this is a piece of legislation that should proceed through the House directly and without opposition and I commend it to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is normally a split call. Is Labour not seeking a call? David Clendon has the call. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 In my few minutes I will focus on clause 5 and particularly on the proposed amendment where the Local Government and Environment Committee to its credit belatedly endeavours to install the principle of consultation into this bill the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. Clearly consultation is something that has been sadly lacking in the development of this legislation—most particularly in terms of consultation with Maori with tangata whenua. I am astonished by the closing remarks of the speaker who has just sat down Maggie Barry in terms of one particular iwi or hapu and I will come to that shortly. 
This proposed amendment is too little too late. One can hear the echo of the stable door slamming and the horse has long disappeared over the horizon. It is too little because all that it actually requires the council to do is to consult with every iwi authority about the transfer of this asset from public ownership into private ownership. The bill does not require it to go below that level. It is too little and it is too late because the core decision the key decision has long since been made. 
I think it is worth referring to the generally accepted principles of consultation that have evolved and developed particularly since the early 1990s around environment law resource management and local government law. One of the key propositions arising from an Environment Court ruling is that consultation involves the statement of a proposal not yet fully decided upon listening to what others have to say considering their response and then deciding what will be done. It is that notion of a proposal being not yet fully decided upon. Clearly in the case of this bill the key decision has long since been made. It is right there in the core purpose of the bill: to establish a process by which the council may obtain the authority to transfer the asset effectively from the community and into private hands. Further the principles of consultation also require adequate information about the proposals to be given in a timely manner. Consultation should not be treated as a mere formality. The parties are to approach consultation with an open mind. 
This legislation fails on all of those tests in terms of the engagement or rather the failure to engage or consult with affected tangata whenua in the Taranaki region. The evidence for that is very clear. It is contained in the submissions to the bill. The Taranaki Iwi Trust one of eight iwi in Taranaki with an approximate area of interest from west of New Plymouth around the coast to Opunake and inland into the mountain to Taranaki maunga say in their submission that “… given the lack of consultation engagement and involvement in the development of the Bill the Trust does not have all relevant information in respect of the specific details relating to the management and operation of the Scheme.” The trust goes on to say: “The Trust was not consulted or engaged with at any stage regarding the development of the Bill.” 
We heard from Dr Smith who endeavoured to substitute volume for content. We heard constant reference to community. Maori the tangata whenua make up a pretty significant chunk of the Taranaki community. They have been utterly ignored and excluded in the development of this bill. There is no consultation. There has been no engagement. It is there in black and white from a significant iwi with whom the Crown is engaging around Treaty settlements of course. 
The trust does acknowledge that two marae have had some marginal input into this. They make the point that those two marae have got the right to determine their own futures but they make the point very clearly that this does not constitute consultation or engagement with the trust the mandated body for Taranaki iwi. 
Similarly the runanga of Ngati Ruanui with a very similar submission on behalf of 7000 uri 16 hapu and 10 affected marae make the equally clear point that they are kaitiaki of this area and they oppose this legislation in its entirety. They make the point that this bill has the potential to affect a sea change. The notion that assets that involve water which are known to be under Treaty claim known to be subject to Treaty claims could be transferred from public ownership to private ownership is a very significant and potentially a very dangerous precedent. They go on to say that “Ngaati Ruanui raises serious concerns about the South Taranaki District Councils consultation with iwi about this Bill. In the last 10 years iwi has not been given an opportunity to discuss or be involved. This Parliament and the Crown should not continue this exclusion.” 
These are fairly clear-cut fairly unequivocal statements of exclusion of failure to consult and of failure to engage in a process that has been going on for 10 years or indeed 12 years. It is unacceptable. This harks back to the 1970s and the 1980s when Maori were routinely ignored in decisions about land and water use and allocation and so much else besides. Ngati Ruanui again notes that “the development of this Bill has for many years been debated and constructed by the South Taranaki District Council. … meaningful discussion could have been undertaken with the iwi of South Taranaki. No such consultation has occurred. … The Council failed in this duty to consult with iwi.” And we must agree entirely with that. It is clear-cut; it is straightforward. 
The remarkable statement that the former National speaker made was that Nga Hapu o Nga Ruahine iwi gave some sort of sign off to this legislation. I would like for the member’s benefit and for the benefit of the House to quote from the submission to the select committee from Nga Hapu o Nga Ruahine holding a Crown-recognised mandate to represent the iwi and hapu: “We oppose the Bill in its current form. … there has been inadequate consultation with local tangata whenua by the Council in developing this Bill.” 
How one can derive from that the proposition that somehow these hapu support this legislation is frankly beyond me and I do wonder where that assertion came from. I would love to hear some defence of it or some support for it. So clearly this bill has failed to engage with iwi. It has been over a decade in the development. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: I am pleased to take these final few minutes just to reiterate some of the points I made earlier about the very poor process of the development of this bill which is one of the major reasons why the Greens are opposing it despite having supported it at its first reading. 
We have heard some rather rose-tinted opinions from the Government benches as to the engagement of the community and others and the community benefits that will flow from this legislation overlooking the fact that a very very significant part of that community—that is the Maori community of Taranaki—has been ignored excluded overlooked and not engaged with and those are terms that are taken directly from the submissions offered to the select committee by the affected party. 
The Taranaki Iwi Trust insists that the engagement with the marae that have signed off—the two marae out of who knows how many—did not constitute consultation or engagement. This has been a project some 10 or 12 years in the making. We have read repeatedly from iwi and hapu indeed who ought to have been consulted that they simply were not engaged with and in this day and age that is an unacceptable process. 
It is true that there is some credit to be given to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It has now belatedly inserted an amendment to clause 5 which at least will allow for a modicum of consultation. Sadly it will be only about the detail of the process. The key decision has already been made which is contrary to those basic principles of consultation that I referred to earlier which is to say that consultation should be undertaken before the final decisions are made. Clearly in this instance the opening phrases of the key provisions of the bill indicate that the single large decision—the fact that this asset will go from public ownership into private ownership—has been agreed to and made and there will be very little opportunity to reverse that by interested iwi and hapu. 
I suspect in fact that there will not be a great deal of pick-up on this opportunity to be consulted with or to engage in a consultative process by Maori in this area simply because it will be so marginal to the key issue at stake which is whether or not those assets ought to go from public hands and into private hands. There are the issues around the precedent it could set for Treaty settlements and for the privatisation of water assets that undoubtedly will be part of the Treaty claims that are in train now reminding us that some of these entities that have made submissions have been recognised by the Crown. Thank you. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 As someone who received a large number of votes from Labour and Green supporters I am very pleased to see a large amount of bipartisan support for this bill the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill although I am disappointed that my supporters amongst the Greens have not come in behind this bill and supported it. In essence this is a practical and a fair solution. It is not a significant economic asset but the farmers who use it and who will be the shareholders are the ones who are affected and who will benefit from this scheme. 
Just going back quickly over the summary of the details the ratepayers of South Taranaki we should remember have never paid towards the purchase maintenance or otherwise of this scheme. It has been operated by the residents. Therefore they want ownership vested to them under the company Cold Creek Community Water Supply. This company has managed the scheme including finances operations and maintenance since 2001. The South Taranaki District Council had agreed to transfer the ownership. However the Local Government Act 2002 means that the water supply cannot be privatised requiring this local bill. 
We have considered this bill very carefully in the Local Government and Environment Committee. Some very interesting submissions were received. I am very pleased to support this bill the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill at its second reading. Thank you very much. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 16 
Green Party 13; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 14 November. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 In the first part of my speech I was outlining the fact that casinos benefit from theft fraud and money-laundering crimes and I was making the case that this bill would reduce the level of crime associated with casinos by introducing disincentives. When there is no disincentive there is no will to actively monitor the gambling activity of people who spend large sums of money. 
Casinos make millions—absolute millions—from the proceeds of crime that are being gambled there and there is no incentive to reduce crime because it will affect their profit margins. I listed several examples of casinos making millions of dollars from people convicted of theft and fraud and explained that small businesses not-for-profit organisations and family members are being defrauded of huge sums of money—money that essentially the casinos get to keep. 
This bill says that if a casino knows and can reasonably know that vast sums of money are being spent on their premises then they need to do something more than just sit back and take the profits. They need to do something about it. And they do know when it is happening. That is what VIP cards are. That is what loyalty cards are. They track what casinos are doing. The winners of casino crime are the casinos. This bill says that the money should go back to those who have lost that money. Thank you. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 This bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill is a particularly bad piece of legislation. What the Green Party is trying to do is fix a problem that does not exist. I get that Green members do not like casinos. I think they do not like them because people have a choice to go there and have fun should they want to. The only part of our legislation around our police force that the Greens seem to be in favour of is when you get the fun police out to look at normal New Zealanders who are choosing to have fun in their recreational time and the Greens want to stop this. You see this bill covers only casinos. What the Greens are saying is that criminals who may gain revenue for themselves through illegal actions go only to casinos to use that revenue and I would challenge that. If the author of this bill really was concerned about this issue the bill would include New Zealand Lotto and it would include the TAB and it would include many other places that non - law-abiding citizens—criminals—can go to spend their ill-gotten gains. 
This is nothing worse than political grandstanding of the very worst type—in fact the worst type of political grandstanding I have seen since I came to this House 4 years ago. I believe that the author of this bill is wasting the House’s time with this legislation. There are already things that deal with this and they deal with it for all companies in New Zealand that are involved with any type of financial transaction. Of course the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act an Act that went in to place in 2009 already deals with this. Therefore casinos are covered by that piece of legislation. Casinos themselves have special legislation in New Zealand around host responsibility—a host responsibility programme. This is not them choosing to do this by themselves. Actually the host responsibility programme comes about because the current legislation that provides for casino licences demands it. I believe that casinos take this extremely seriously because if they do not they put their licence to operate a casino at risk in this country. 
We also have the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act which went through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in the last term of Parliament when I was a member of that committee. That piece of legislation does a number of things. It says to all businesses in New Zealand that are involved with financial transactions which therefore includes casinos that when there is activity that is deemed to be unusual or different or over a certain threshold—$6000 in some cases; $10000 in others—they must keep records they must get extra information from the person conducting that transaction and they must be assured that the funds that are being used are being done so appropriately and have not been gained through terrorism or through money-laundering or through ill-gotten gains. So already we have legislation in place to cover this. 
I come back to what I said earlier. The Green Party does not like casinos because everyday New Zealanders have the choice to go there and enjoy themselves. We will be voting against this legislation because it adds absolutely nothing at all. It does not fix any problem at all. If the Green Party was serious about this it actually would have spent some time researching the issue and coming forward with things that actually might help rather than saying that it is going to beat up on an industry in New Zealand that this House has said is legitimate and has a right to be here that employs so many thousands of New Zealanders up and down the country that plays an important part in our economy and that has safeguards placed upon it. This bill does absolutely nothing at all and I will be very happy to vote against it shortly. Thank you. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I want to thank all of those parties and members who have spoken in support of this Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill. We very much appreciate that commitment to protecting New Zealand families communities and New Zealand businesses. I am shocked by the level of ignorance displayed by the National Party members who have spoken on this bill including the last contribution just made by Todd McClay. It is certainly true that there has been some anti-terrorism and anti - money-laundering legislation that has been passed and does come into force next year I think. That legislation does put some parameters around trying to stem money-laundering in particular for which casinos are very well-known. What that legislation does not do—and in fact what no legislation yet does—is require casinos to forfeit the profits that they make from money that is spent in their establishments that has been stolen. There is no means in New Zealand law as yet that requires the casinos to return money to the businesses the communities and the individuals from whom money has been stolen for the purposes of gambling at casinos. 
There is a great gap in the law that means that families and communities and businesses are paying for the profits of casinos and have no way of having that money returned. My bill will close that gap in the law. My bill will make sure that families and communities and businesses have the chance to recover at least some of the money that was stolen from them for the purposes of gambling. By closing that gap my bill will make the casinos subject to the same kind of forfeiture regime that every other New Zealander in this country is subject to. There is not a single New Zealand citizen who is entitled to keep the profits of crime. That is what the law currently says. Like it or not casinos are themselves in receipt every day—every day—of some form of money that has been stolen to feed a gambling habit. Casinos too should be subject to the same laws and requirements as the citizens of New Zealand. 
There are a number of cases that I want to talk about so that people in this Chamber particularly those who have been blind so far to the effects of problem gambling can understand who is being affected. These are cases from just the last 2 years. November 2012: a 36-year-old finance officer at a nursery convicted of stealing $455000 from his employer which he used to visit casinos. October 2012: a 64-year-old Feilding payroll clerk convicted of stealing $260000 from her employer because she had a $700-a-day gambling addiction. October 2012: a 61-year-old accounts manager at the University of Otago sentenced for stealing $230000 from his employer. He stole to support his gambling addiction. June 2012: a 50-year-old finance officer employed by a marae stole $330000 from her employer. She had worked there for 17 years and used her employer’s credit card at the casino bank to withdraw money to feed her gambling addiction. June 2012: a 33-year-old sales assistant employed by a Wellington company stole $88000 worth of copper piping to sell in order to feed his gambling habit. December 2011: an Upper Hutt property manager convicted of stealing $54000 from his employer to fuel his gambling addiction. 
These are just some of the cases that we see in this country month after month year after year where businesses and community organisations are having money stolen. It is being spent at the casino and in other gambling places and that casino never needs to return any of that money either to the Crown or to the people from whom it was stolen. That surely is unfair—that surely is unfair. Those who have had money stolen from them and where that money has been forfeited by the Crown under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act can apply to have that money returned so it is possible to have that money returned to them. That is what this bill does. It is an important legislative gap that needs to be filled and it is justified because families and communities and businesses should not have to feed casino profits day after day after day. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 E te Kaikorero Matua tena koe. E nga rangatira o te Whare nga mema o tena ropu o tena ropu tena koutou tena tatou katoa. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker. To the leaders of the House and to the members of each party acknowledgments to you and each of us all collectively. 
] 
I move  
That the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill. This bill intends to give greater protection to children in their working lives. It does this by ensuring that children aged 16 or under who have paid work outside the home will be regarded as employees. This does not cover personal domestic or household work. It is intended to cover the commercial employment and contractual engagement of children in work. It is the simplest step we can take to improve the safety and working conditions of children. 
Our country has a tradition of part-time work for children. Many of us entered the workforce while we were still at school through holiday or after-school jobs. Many New Zealanders regard children’s work as a rite of passage—a harmless way to spend a few hours gaining a work ethic and some skills while earning a little pocket money. This may be how it has been in the past. It may be how we experienced work as a child ourselves but we cannot take for granted that this is how working children today are experiencing employment. 
On a regular basis children’s work problems and issues hit our headlines.  
Fair Go 
 earlier this year revealed stories of child leaflet delivery workers who had their pay rates cut without notice or negotiation. The Catholic agency Caritas has reported children experiencing potentially serious injuries harassment and poor treatment at work in two surveys of children’s work experiences. 
ACC figures show that there are children aged 9 years or under who have received compensation for work-related injuries. In 2004 an Otago University report showed that on average there was one work-related child fatality each year between 1985 and 1998. In another study conducted by the Department of Labour in 2007 over 3000 Taranaki secondary school students were interviewed by health and safety inspector Jo-Ann Pugh representing 46 percent of students in Taranaki at the time. Twenty percent of the students said that they had experienced a work injury or illness. In addition 88 percent of these young workers reported having been asked to do something at work that they considered unsafe and yet they went on to do it anyway. Over half of the young workers in this study did not recall receiving any health and safety information from their employers. 
New Zealand has comprehensive health and safety legislation that requires both employers and employees to identify hazards and take action to prevent or minimise them. It requires employers to give health and safety information and training to their employees. Many people assume that health and safety regulations cover all workers including children. Like me the members of this House will be shocked to learn that some industries that depend on the labour of children in fact carry no responsibility for their health and safety. That is because they employ children as self-employed contractors not employees. 
Take this example from the contract between a large advertising leaflet distribution company and a 12-year-old: “The parties acknowledge that this agreement is entered into by both parties on the basis that the Deliverer is an independent Contractor and that the Deliverer is not an agent or employee of the Company.” Another example from a different delivery company’s contract with a 14-year-old says: “You are employed … under a contract for services which means that you are an independent contractor. This contract does not therefore create an employment relationship between you and [Company].” 
Employing children as contractors absolves employers of obligations they would otherwise have including responsibility for health and safety. It is the reason that we get those  
Fair Go  
stories of children whose pay and working conditions are changed without their consent. It is probably one of the reasons that so many of the school kids in the Taranaki study were not given information about health and safety by their employers. If the children were regarded as contractors their employers simply did not have any obligation to tell them anything. I do not believe that contracting for services was ever intended to cover the employment relationships of our youngest and most vulnerable workers. They deserve the greatest protection not the least. 
When we look at a child’s employment agreement we ought to see the best care and attention paid to their well-being not the most distant and casual form of commercial relationship. It is actually the youngest of New Zealand’s child workers who are most likely to be working as contractors and in unsupervised situations. The stories given to Caritas have shown that 10 to 13-year-olds employed outside the home are more likely to be working as delivery workers while older children are more likely to be working in larger workplaces such as in retail and fast-food outlets. 
We have heard many words spoken this year about the protection of vulnerable children. Although many New Zealand children grow up in loving and protective families we all know that some children do not. They deserve and require the protection of the State and the wider community. But children are not only vulnerable in their homes. New Zealand children may be vulnerable in their workplaces. Many New Zealand children are well looked after at work and have good experiences to report about their employment and that is great. But there are other children who are not well looked after and have had bad experiences at work. They deserve greater protection. 
Some of the responsibility for that protection lies with their parents who are the first defenders of their children’s rights. There are many parents who wish their children to work but at the same time feel very unhappy about their children’s working conditions and feel powerless to change them. They feel there is nothing that they can do when faced with a take it or leave it contract. We need to give parents greater power to influence their children’s conditions of work. This means there needs to be an employment relationship that allows for the negotiation of conditions that are safe and suitable. 
But the responsibility for protection of children at work also lies with their employers. Businesses whose profits depend on the work of children should have a very high moral responsibility for the children they employ. Responsibility for protecting children at work also lies with those charged with the legal framework and rules and regulations around the employment of children. That means that this House must ensure that labour legislation adequately protects our most vulnerable workers. 
The children who are doing these jobs are not all doing it because they are saving for a university education or kids’ luxury items like iPads or smart phones. No many of these kids are helping out with bread and milk money or contributing to their school camps. Things are tough on ordinary Kiwi families and some of our children are growing up before their time. These children also miss out on other things. Being on the street delivering means they are not playing on the sports fields and they are missing out on kapahaka poly club or the choir. They are missing out on the social benefits that schools and communities give to our children. 
Children are our taonga. Who of us in Parliament takes for granted that all children are entirely safe in their homes? In the aftermath of Pike River who of us in Parliament takes for granted that all workers are safe in their workplaces? Why then should we take for granted the safety of children who work? In doing research for this bill I went back to look at some of those old Victorian era labour protection laws—and there were none. Talk about an era of sweat houses and child exploitation! Someone came up with a law that stopped adults sending 7-year-old boys up chimneys to clean and made the legal age 9 years. Incredible! There were 9-year-old boys and girls squeezing up chimneys to put fires out. Surprisingly very little has changed since those times. This House has more aroha than that. Surely let our kids be kids—let our kids be kids. If they want to work after school then good on them. But let us not turn our kids into small business units responsible for sub-contracting supplying their own equipment ACC levies and tax. I know adults who are in business who struggle with this sort of paperwork. 
Children are the most vulnerable of workers and deserve safe and secure working conditions. Ensuring that children are regarded as employees is a simple but real step we could take to improve the working lives of New Zealand children. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tatou. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The only good thing out of that speech was that that member Rino Tirikatene is going to send the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. But I did like that he said he had researched it. I am pretty sure he got it pulled out of the ballot and the day it was pulled out he had to work out what he actually had put in. 
The thing is that this bill is an attack on the fundamental ability of people to make decisions in their own life. It is democracy being attacked by the Labour Party again. It is the Labour Party trying to tell people how to live their lives. This bill is the thin end of the wedge because the reality is that the Labour Party members want to make all New Zealanders employees. They do not want any contractors in the New Zealand economy. They want only employees and this bill is the first step to achieving that. The Labour Party members are using young people as the first step in that saying “Oh we are looking after the interests of young people. We have to do this.” Rubbish! The Labour Party has got an agenda to make everybody employees and this bill is just the first step in that agenda. How dare you use young people in that way! 
 I remember this afternoon we sat in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we had the Labour Party members saying “We cannot have any difference in the wage rates paid to young people. Can’t do that. Can’t do that.” But now in this House they want to have different contracts for young people so that they cannot be in contractual service but have to be in employment. One of the fundamentals of the society that we live in is freedom—freedom of choice democracy and the freedom for individuals to make choices about the arrangements they enter into. How dare the Labour Party take away the freedom of our young people! What gives those members the right to take away that freedom from young people in this country as people going forward? 
The Labour Party speech made an assumption. It assumed that if you are in a contractual relationship you are in a worse position for health and safety than if you were in an employment arrangement. That is not the case. It is not the case. There are accidents that happen in all workplaces. We need to make sure that all workplaces are as safe as possible. You cannot make assumptions like that in this House and then try to take away the freedom of our young people as a result of that. 
We also need to look at the practicality of this. Young people often need to be in jobs that are outside their school hours at times they can accommodate with their own timing. Being under a contractual basis is normally the easiest way to achieve that. It is the flexibility that is important for the young person and Labour members are taking that away. They are denying young people jobs and opportunities. They are denying the future paper boys and paper girls of New Zealand the chance to deliver that paper and that is a shame on the Labour Party. And it is not only for the really young. It is for 16-year-olds as well—16 and under. So a 16-year-old who may want to go farming who may want to go and become a contract milker cannot become a contract milker in New Zealand. Under the Labour Party they have to be an employee. You are dumbing down the workforce of New Zealand just for the purposes of Labour Party control and that is not in the best interests of this country. 
I am disappointed that this is the first bill that this member Rino Tirikatene has brought forward. I had more hope that he would have come through with a bigger bill that was in the interests of his communities rather than a fanciful approach of the Labour Party trying to test the waters with what it wants to do around employee contracts. It is a shame that he is being used by the Labour Party and it is a shame that that party is using young people in this way. The National Government will not do that. We believe in the freedom of our people we believe in the freedom of our young people and we believe that they should have a choice of how they arrange their employment relations whether as an employee or as a contractor. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We move to 5-minute calls. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 First of all I want to acknowledge the Catholic Social Services agency which has done a lot of the background work on this. To be honest with you I found that member David Bennett’s contribution embarrassing—extremely embarrassing—if not to say ignorant because this is— 
Phil Twyford 
: He’s a fellow member of the committee. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yeah he is a fellow member of our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—when you think of the opportunity that we would have had to examine what is a really really important issue. New Zealand is a country that prides itself on how we treat our most vulnerable and our most vulnerable are our children. Our children under current labour laws have very little protection. They have no minimum wage and so some of the work that was done by  
Fair Go 
 for example found that some of these children are being paid as little as 25c an hour. I want to hear from the National members whether they think 25c an hour is fair. 
The most ridiculous thing about the current law is that young children can be employed as contractors which means essentially that they are being told that they have their own businesses. So they set up their own businesses where they have to pay ACC levies and where they have to pay tax. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes and they can employ subcontractors. We are talking about children who are as young as 10. I want the National members to get on their feet and tell me that children as young as 10 11 or 12 are capable of working— 
Hon Member 
: Do you think they’re not capable? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Mr Speaker I would like to be heard if I could please. I am sorry if the National members are going to demonstrate their ignorance in that way. Of course young children are capable but they are not capable of negotiating with adults on the basis of an equal footing in an arrangement that is a commercial arrangement and that is what this bill is about. It is about protecting our children. 
New Zealand has signed up to international child labour conventions but we have a child labour problem in New Zealand. In fact we have been criticised for that not only under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child but also by the International Labour Organization. Also at the International Labour Organization we have been repeatedly criticised for doing nothing about children’s employment. 
As I said great research has been done on this by Caritas. There has been great research done on this by the Department of Labour. As I said at the beginning it is simply ridiculous to have a law to have a situation whereby our children are expected to be engaged as independent contractors in their own business to be paid 25c an hour and to be responsible for their own health and safety responsible for contracting and responsible for their own ACC. It is a ridiculous situation and I am ashamed to be in a country where we have a Government that is so arrogant and smug about the situation that it thinks it can sit there and mock when we have people in the gallery who have done serious work on this issue who have studied it for years. They have studied it for years and yet the National members want to mock and not take it seriously. I feel very very ashamed actually to be in this debate after my colleague Rino Tirikatene presented such a very very good case. 
I want to give just one other example if I may about what sort of contracts kids of 10 11 and 12 are signing up to. Here is one: “The Contractor is an independent contractor and as such is free (in addition to the Contractor’s freedom to engage sub-contractors and others to use carrying equipment …) to select the Contractor’s own means and methods of performing the services … The Contractor shall bear all costs and expenses incurred by the Contractor in connection with the performance of the services.” That is a contract for a 10-year-old. How shameful is that? 
As I said I am ashamed to be in a Parliament where we have a Government that does not care about child labour and that is not prepared to support a simple measure like this which would examine the exploitation of children being employed as independent contractors and employed on 25c an hour—shame on the Government. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Talking about child labour! 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: That guy should go back to watching movies—he is better employed in that area. It never fails to amaze me how many anti-worker provisions Labour can come up with and bring to this House. I say they are anti-worker provisions because they will make it far more difficult for people aged 16 years and under to go out there and get work. The Labour Party wants to change the definition so that it becomes almost impossible for someone under the age of 16 to be employed as an independent contractor. 
I would like to refer to this bill the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill as an attack on the paper boys out there. It is an attack on the paper boys out there because it will mean that it will be far more difficult to employ paper boys. It will mean that paper boys or paper girls around the country who are out there delivering the papers delivering the junk mail and who are actually happy to earn a bit of money will be deemed to be employees. They will have to be subject to all the provisions of the Employment Relations Act and that will make it far more difficult for them to be employed. 
We know that Labour likes to do things that cost jobs and this is one of those things that will cost jobs for those people out there aged 16 or under who are currently working as independent contractors. They will be joining the 13000 people whom we helped to get a job and who will no longer have a job when Labour changes the 90-day law. They will be joining the 6000 people who will be out of a job when the $15 minimum wage they want to bring in comes in. 
Darien Fenton 
: Yay! 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: Darien Fenton is going “Yay!” because people will be losing jobs. That is what she actually did. People will be losing jobs under the employment relations framework that Labour wants to bring in and Darien Fenton is saying “Yay!” about it. Darien Fenton says “Yay!” because paper boys out there any person aged 16 or under who is an independent contractor will end up losing their job under this legislation. That is the face of employment relations in the Labour Party. 
I would like to refer the House to the current section 6 in the Employment Relations Act because I think there are some interesting provisions in there. Section 6(2) talks about what the Employment Court or the Employment Relations Authority can determine at present. I will read it out: “In deciding for the purposes of subsection (1)(a)”—(1)(a) is about the meaning of “employee”—“whether a person is employed by another person under a contract of service the court or the Authority (as the case may be) must determine the real nature of the relationship between them.” 
Section 6(3) states: “For the purposes of subsection (2) the court or the Authority—(a) must consider all relevant matters”. Essentially what that means is that the court or the authority at present can consider all the matters in relation to an employment relationship between a company an employer and a 16-year-old or an individual under the age of 16 and the court can actually at the moment determine that that person who is thought to be an independent contractor is an employee. 
The Employment Court or authority can pretty much investigate the exact nature of the situation. So if the Labour Party or anyone is concerned that an individual is in a relationship that looks and sounds like an employment relationship and is effectively the same as an employment relationship that someone over the age of 16 is in I point out that there is already redress in section 6 of the Act. I do not believe that this bill is necessary. 
This bill will be an attack on those 16 and under who are currently delivering papers and currently are independent contractors. It will mean a loss of jobs and it will be in line with the other proposals that Labour has put forward that will mean a loss of jobs—taking away the 90-day trial and introducing the $15 minimum wage. When Labour abolished youth wages we saw a whole lot of young people losing jobs and now as we are trying to help people with a starting-out wage Labour is opposing that. The proposals that we want will mean more people get more jobs. Everything we come up with to create jobs they oppose. They keeping bringing us proposal after proposal that will cost jobs and that is exactly what this bill will do too. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 Nga mihi nui ki a koe. It is my pleasure to speak on this bill the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill. We will be supporting it and I congratulate the member on bringing this bill to the House. Finally something positive for our young people and young workers in New Zealand is being promoted in this House and I sincerely hope it passes into law. 
This bill is an important step in recognising and protecting young people in New Zealand. We seem to have this mistaken idea that New Zealand is a benign country and that our children are not exploited at work but this is simply not true especially when you consider that the Government has introduced a bill for youth rates for young workers starting out on their working lives which deliberately invites exploitation. Add to that the fact that this Government is now taxing paper boys and girls. We are entering a time of cynical fleecing of young workers in the guise that it is good for them. 
This bill will do what the Government has not: offer protection to our young people. They are amongst the most vulnerable workers in New Zealand. Unlike most countries in the world New Zealand has not got a minimum working age. This bill will ensure that young people even if they are under 16 are to be treated as employees—employees rather than contractors—and that is a start in job protection. 
On the one hand we encourage our kids to get a job—and as a parent I was desperate for my kids to earn some money so they could stop fleecing me—not just to save up for treats but also to contribute to the household. The other thing about it is that we encourage them to get jobs because that is where they develop their work ethic and their work-readiness. 
There are many thousands of New Zealanders—young people children—who are treated as independent contractors rather than employees. For these kids their first foray into the workforce can frequently be unpleasant. They probably do not even know that they are independent contractors; mainly they just feel like they are being ripped off like Waiuku boy Max Hansen and his 13-year-old sister. They were delivering pamphlets for 3 years and were told suddenly one day that their $6 an hour was halved. Their mum tried to negotiate and went public but these kids were out of luck because they were independent contractors. That company has 6000 independent contractors most of them likely to be kids. It is unlikely those kids know they are independent contractors. It is more unlikely that they are in a position to be able to negotiate because the balance of power between a child and an adult is not even. They are not even going to get anywhere near a negotiating table. 
The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions suggests that there are thousands of children in this country earning $2 or $3 an hour. That is paying on the same level as sweatshop owners in Third World countries. We had a “sweating commission” in New Zealand in the 1870s and we abolished cruelty to children but this Government says that we can carry on with that. 
We know that independent contractors do not have the same protection as employees and you can just look at the 
 Hobbit 
 film and what happened with independent contractors there. These kids have to pay their own ACC and their own tax they have no holiday pay or sick leave they have to provide their own weather protection and they also have to maintain their own health and safety—and these kids are at risk on their jobs every day. Risky situations that pamphlet deliverers face for example include dogs include traffic and include other sorts of injuries. 
Today the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has been hearing submissions on the youth rates that this Government wants to introduce. Part of the conversation we are hearing is that we need to be doing more for children who are in the workforce who are under 16 as well. There are international conventions that we have not signed up for. This bill is a great start in the right direction. I commend it to the House. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I anticipated hearing Mr Tirikatene speak on his first—I think it is his first—bill in the House the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill. He is a man with a noble name a good lineage and an orator to behold but sadly he came up with this one which is really as someone has already suggested perhaps something that was simply drawn out that he then had to build a case around as best he could. But I was astonished to hear that the research he has done was on the Victorian era and that he finds that we have not moved forward since then. That defies imagination and it shows really the level that Labour is at—it wishes to stop everything. 
This Government is committed to increasing opportunities. I have heard this evening that 10-year-olds cannot negotiate. When I was 10 I negotiated my first contract on a Thursday afternoon— 
Phil Twyford 
: What’s happening to that accent? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: What is that? 
Phil Twyford 
: I never know which accent I’m going to get from you. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well which one would you like to hear? I negotiated without any trouble at all in Suffolk in the market place and ever since then whenever I have negotiated a position for myself it has always been as a contractor. So I do not know why that side of the House wishes to deny opportunities to entrepreneurial young people. They do exist. I was told by a colleague this evening. He showed me the top 25 young entrepreneurs. They are young they are successful and they negotiate. Why does Labour want to stifle any individual ability? 
The bill might have positive intent but it does not have positive effect and this is symptomatic of the party that is responsible for it. That is something that worries us. It worries us Labour’s current state. [ 
Interruption 
] We do. The current leadership is failing Labour. Why else would it promote a jobs bill that increase overheads reduces opportunities and reduces the likelihood of employment opportunities? When I think of the jobs I negotiated for myself as a boy brought up by a single parent they would never have been offered as employment opportunities as an employee. It did not work that way. 
I worry for Labour because this bill does not bode well for its future. It is symptomatic of its frame of mind at the moment. Far from being bright its future is looking more and more like that which befell the crew of the  
Bounty 
. The Labour members are not sure what is going to happen to them. So while this National Government is focused on ensuring that our employment relations framework is fair flexible and entrepreneurial the Opposition seems focused on internal dramas and wanting everything suppressed. I heard Opposition members speak in the meeting we had—the select committee meeting—this afternoon. Again it was: “Let’s suppress opportunity; let’s suppress entrepreneurial activity.” It is these theatrics taking the eye off the ball that lead to bills like this one. So I worry about Labour and the Opposition. 
The House should not be debating this bill. It should be as focused as the Government is on helping young people into work not trying to get them out of it. While the Opposition has shown nothing but opposition we on this side have been working. We introduced the starting out wage which will help more young New Zealanders to get a foothold on the employment ladder. That is a good one no matter what was said about it this afternoon by the other side. We introduced a 90-day trial period for new employees. Where are the complaints? Where was the raft of awful examples? It did not happen. Oops! You had two—two. And they are the first ones to surface. We introduced flexibility in the Holidays Act—not too many complaints about that other than from that party. 
Although I might not be as youthful as my colleague from Tamaki both Simon O’Connor and I understand that the last thing young workers need is a bill in Parliament that threatens to remove incentives for employers to take on young workers for short-term unskilled work by making the process unnecessarily complicated. We are approaching Christmas. I had not expected Labour to be such a Christmas Grinch as it is turning out to be with this bill. Thank you. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am pleased to take a call on the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. We have to congratulate the member Rino Tirikatene on getting his bill drawn from the ballot. It does not happen very often. In New Zealand First we believe that the industrial relations environment must be based on fairness. We work towards that because it is important that every worker gets treated equally. This is very very important when we consider younger workers. Children aged 16 and under are the most vulnerable group of workers. They deserve safe and secure working conditions. Many of us can identify with that particular group. Some of us were employed when we were under 16. For some of us that is a bit longer ago than for others. Some of us have children who are or who have been in that particular group. 
The Caritas report from 2007 investigated children’s delivery work and of course it centres mainly around newspaper and pamphlet delivery which is most of the work that our young people carry out throughout their schooling. A whole host of issues actually arose from this work. The first one that arose was the very inconsistent and very low pay that many of the children received. Second there are the health and safety concerns. In New Zealand we have got the Health and Safety in Employment Act and employers have an obligation to carry out their duties under this Act. But when people are employed as contractors particularly young children who are not aware of some of the health and safety aspects of their role it becomes a real concern. These children have got no idea and of course the companies do not have to really worry about them. 
Third there is the absence of any sick leave or annual leave when you are actually employed as a contractor. Some of these children rely on that money as pocket money. That can easily be done. Finally the biggest concern is the total lack of supervision. If young workers—children—had the employment status of employees their employers would have to declare their earnings as a part of their ongoing obligations. This would give a much clearer picture of the size of children’s participation in the workforce. At present we do not have that. It would also clarify ACC obligations and entitlements. 
I went on to the internet to have a look and see what other countries do. Other countries do not have a law allowing children in work the same rights as those above 16 so the National Party can be quite happy with what it is saying. They do not even say anything about the level of hazardous work. That is something that New Zealand does have but not to the extent that some of the other countries do. We currently restrict in New Zealand those children under 15 from working in hazardous work and a young person younger than 16 cannot work during school hours or actually perform work that will interfere with their schooling. That is a priority. 
The United States has the Fair Labor Standards Act which sets wages hours worked and safety requirements for minors working in jobs covered under that particular statute. The rules vary according to the age of the minor and the particular job involved. As a general rule 14 years of age is the minimum age for employment and they limit the hours worked by minors under the age of 16. Many other countries also stipulate work hours for minors such as Ireland. Children aged 15 may do 8 hours a week of light work in school term time; the maximum working time for children outside of school term time is 35 hours a week. 
Children are a very vulnerable group. This bill would be a step forward. We do need to know how many young children are actually working in the workforce and we would look further to working on this bill. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 This Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill is an interesting bill. It is interesting not so much because of its content but because of what it implies and what it says unspoken about where the minds and hearts of the Labour Party members are at the moment. I am a new member in this House and I came in at the same time as the member who has introduced this bill Mr Tirikatene. As a previous speaker in this debate has said he comes from a long line of superb heritage in this House. For him to introduce this bill— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It’s sad. 
SCOTT SIMPSON 
: It actually is sad. It is a sad sad thing that he should be after his long lineage of history introducing a bill that is as shallow as this. I do not think he came to this House to unionise paper boys or maybe he did—maybe he did. That is perhaps what the game plan is. I think that this could be part of a cunning conspiracy on behalf of Labour to simply improve union membership. Union membership is really what all of this is about. We are going to unionise the youth of the nation and try to brainwash them into all that that sort of thing incurs. 
I know the member who introduced this bill. I know that he is an earnest sincere and thoughtful member and I know that his sponsorship of this bill is probably more by accident than by design. I fear that probably his name was simply allocated to it by the party whips. Indeed what happened was that once it was drawn from the ballot he did have to go and do some research he did have to go and find out what it was all about. So here we are confronted with a member’s bill in his name that stifles initiative that stifles responsibility that stifles entrepreneurism in our very young kids who actually should be at the very point that they are learning about the benefits of work the benefits of a work ethic and the dignity of work and entrepreneurism and profit and business. Those are things that we should be encouraging. Here comes a bill from the Labour Party that wants to do away with that. 
Well I say shame on the Labour Party for this. It is an undesirable relationship between reward and effort that Labour wants to somehow do away with. I cannot understand that as a National Party member because we are all about creating opportunities—creating opportunities for young people to make their way in the world to see what can be achieved by their hard work and their effort. 
 I have a confession to make. I am an employer I guess of a person under 16. He is a guy who comes in and he mows my lawn. I live in the very fine township of Thames in the Coromandel electorate—in the very fine township of Thames—and it is the lawn that grows. Other grass grows but grass on the lawn needs mowing. So the grandson of my neighbour negotiated with me a very fair price—a hard price I might say. In fact it was a price that was higher than the commercial going rate and he mows my lawn. I want to know from this member whether this person is an employee or a contractor because I pay him a fair and reasonable rate to mow the lawn and I do not know whether he in fact has other clients. He has maybe done a hard sharp deal with some other neighbours of mine around the neighbourhood in Thames and he is probably doing a very very good job in mowing lots of lawns. I would say that that is a good thing. That is a good thing that we should be encouraging in our young children. That is something that we should be encouraging the children of the nation to do—get off their chuffs and understand that with effort comes reward. I think that is a very very good thing. 
So what have we got here? We have got a Labour Party that is against freedom that is against enterprise and that is against initiative. This bill is nothing more than a leap back into 1970s and 1960s unionism and it is a desperate move on behalf of Labour to try to just improve union membership. The nature of a job is determined by what the job is not the age of the person doing the job. This is a better bill for being not supported and I do not think we should. So I oppose it—and I do so very keenly oppose it. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in support of this very well drafted very well crafted Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill. You know this really is a night for the season. It is the season of Dickens. We have had the “Silas Marner” of the National Party caucus David Bennett stand up here and talk about the freedom of workers and the freedom of employers to exploit because that is the only freedom that is at stake here. The right that the National Party is defending is the right for employers to exploit and to exploit the young. Then we have the “Ebenezer Scrooge” of the National Party caucus Chris Auchinvole. He gave us a great list of National Party achievements in employment—in the whole area of employment law. He talked about the 90-day “no rights” period and all the rest of it. There were a couple of achievements that he did not talk about such as the increase in unemployment which has turned out to be the highest level in 13 years. He did not talk about the highest level of youth unemployment in more than 20 years. I did not hear that achievement on his list because he knows that its retrograde measures introduced by this Government consistently over the last 4 years are having a deleterious affect on the employment rights of young middle aged and old alike. 
Then we had “Fagin” in the form of Scott Simpson who stood up there and said that he was exploiting his young labour too. The question I have for the “Fagin” of the National Party caucus is why bother paying them at all? Why when you can get away with it would you bother paying them at all? 
Then there is Jami-Lee Ross. I am not quite sure how to characterise Jami-Lee Ross so we will call him the “Little Dorrit” of the National Party caucus. He is the “Little Dorrit”. 
But the reason why I support this bill and why Labour supports this bill is because it confirms the basis of very civilised standards of conduct in employment in this country and we need more of it. This re-establishes employment rights and protections that young workers should have as of right when they walk into employment at the tender age that they go into it in the period covered by this bill. Those very basic rights are that they should have their employment rights clearly articulated and specified in a written agreement because this bill will ensure that young workers get to have that. It will ensure that they are protected against arbitrary and unfair dismissal because that is very important too and that is under threat. And it will give them protection in regards to their health and safety rights—that they will actually have some health and safety rights as well. We know that this Government does not care about that. We know it does not care about people in work having health and safety rights having their rights spelt out for them. These are small obligations to put on any employer. They are easy to meet easy to do and things that every responsible employer not only does but does willingly because they want to do it. But this Government does not understand that and does not get it. 
You see everything that this Government has done in the field of employment relations has taken this country backwards and has hurt people particularly young people. It introduced the 90-day “no rights” period—the right of an employer to treat somebody shabbily and never be held to account for it. It has introduced the obstructions to workers to either join a union or to have access to the union during work—all those sorts of things. It does not get the fact that the employment relationship is a power relationship. Even if you were looking at employment from the point of view of the free-marketeers who Government members all claim to be let them understand this: the only thing about the employment relationship is that it is one of imperfect information. It is one of imperfect information. One party has all the information; the other has very little at all. If there is one thing that every Parliament has a moral obligation to do it is to recognise that there are those in power relationships who are vulnerable and who are in a weaker position. It is the moral obligation of Parliament to step in to intervene and to say: “We will shore up one side of this relationship and make sure they have rights and protections.” 
This Government is a Government of the master and servant. Our party and the Opposition—the Green Party New Zealand First and others—are the parties of responsible modern employment relationships and responsibilities. That is why we support this bill. That is why it is important to bring integrity to employment to bring integrity to employers and to protect our young and vulnerable. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is delightful to stand up. I am actually in a jolly good mood now after my colleague Chris Auchinvole described me as “youthful”. Auchie people have not described me as that for quite a while. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Are you covered by the bill? 
SIMON O’CONNOR 
: That is right. My colleague Nick Smith raises a very good question—am I actually going to be covered by this bill the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill? As a youthful 36-year-old will this bill actually cover me and my rights or is this going to be age discrimination as we heard in our select committee today? 
Can I begin by acknowledging the sponsor of the bill Rino Tirikatene. As someone who has also put their first member’s bill before Parliament it is always quite the experience. Unfortunately in this case the bill is deeply deeply flawed. It begins with the very basic principle that you never argue from exceptions. And we have heard from everyone in the Opposition a whole series of very bizarre exceptions that might have turned up on  
Fair Go 
 that they might have seen in  
Mary Poppins 
 that they might have heard on the street and that they think came from the Victorian era to somehow justify this bill. You never argue from exceptions. 
We then heard this sort of rambling rhetoric—this rambling rhetoric—that somehow this is discrimination this is exploitation and again it is Victorian. The thing about rhetoric is that when the learned mind steps back for a second and thinks about it it does not really stack up. But they were so desperate too that the next step was to start saying “Well you know what? Actually this is like the White Paper for Vulnerable Children.” “This is about Pike River.” someone mentioned. What has the employment law for 16-year-olds and younger got to do with any of those things? It smacks of desperation. You see it does not take much to work out the absurdity of where this is going—the absurdity. What we are talking about here are young people under 16 going to school and doing those odd jobs that most of us in this House would have done and which have given us all the characters that we have today—not the characters of Charles Dickens. I realise Mr Little that you left out William Micawber—a fine character. The Labour Party could learn from the wisdom of Micawber. 
The absurdity of this bill is that we are talking about young people. These are the young people who deliver papers they deliver pamphlets they mow the lawns—like those of my Thames colleague Scott Simpson—they do babysitting they do cleaning and even I might suggest they might play music. In fact some of us were very pleased to be in the Banquet Hall earlier as we had a concert by performers from the Play it Strange Trust sponsored by my colleague Chris Tremain. They are young people with amazing talent—amazing talent—but under this piece of legislation before they could even turn up to a bar or café or anywhere to play some music they are going to have to go into full employment negotiations. They are now going to have to worry about sick leave they are going to have to worry about holiday leave and their employers are going to have to do ACC levies—all of this to deliver some music or to deliver a paper or pamphlet. These are young people who are already in school and already on holiday so let us just step back for a second. How does it look for a 14-year-old mowing the lawns playing some music in a café or delivering pamphlets to have holiday pay? How does that look? Are we now going to send them on school holidays and expect them to be paid as well? It is absolutely ridiculous and the word I would use for this is “absurd”. 
Really the flaw in this bill is actually right in the heart of it. The very fact that we have to even discuss a bill like this points to the very nature of the work itself. We are trying to protect young people around an array of work that is so simple. It is so simple. The fact that we do not need to protect it is for the very reason that at the heart of this bill are young people who do those simple basic jobs. Are we actually expecting that we are going to start paying a paper delivery boy or girl $13.50 an hour and levies and holiday pay and sick pay? Are we really expecting that? Are we really wanting to stop the creativity of our young people to play their music to mow those lawns and to develop that experience? 
I acknowledge the intent of the honourable gentleman who has put this bill forward but it is seriously flawed. The National Party stands in support of its young people. It stands in support of that entrepreneurial spirit. It stands in support of what I suspect is the experience that each and every one of us has had which is young people growing up earning a few dollars and having that chance to become the adults that we wish to be today. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. First of all I would like to acknowledge all of the contributions in this debate that have been in support of this bill the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill. I mihi to the Green Party to the New Zealand First Party and of course to my own colleagues here. Can I just say that there is a Maori whakatauki—it is the most famous whakatauki of the Maori people—and it says: “Ka pu te ruha ka hao te rangatahi.” When the fishing net gets old it is replaced by a new and younger net. I must say that I am very proud to sponsor this bill. It is my first bill in this House. This bill protects the most vulnerable our children. Just as the whakatauki says that the old net shall be cast aside that is what will be happening to this Government. It will be cast aside because the new net is coming through and that new net is here on this side of the House. 
What did we hear from the line-up of speakers? We heard a line-up of the most mean-spirited Victorian era Dickensian—out of Dickens’ books—speakers. Mr Auchinvole even put on the accent with a bit of flair. It is very sad because firstly they did not even read the bill. This bill has nothing to do with domestic chores. That is specifically excluded. So Mr Simpson you and your 16-year-old who is mowing your lawns—I am sure he has hustled you because if you cannot read the bill that 16-year-old is definitely hustling you Mr Simpson. There is no absurdity about this bill. This bill is standing up for our young children. They are up and down the country. We know it. Every day we go back to our homes we look in the letterbox and there is that flotsam and jetsam that detritus all that junk mail that gets into our letterboxes. That material is delivered by your nieces your nephews mokopuna children tamariki up and down the country and there are hundreds of them. 
This is a significant bill because it does really make a difference and it will make a difference to the lives of working young people. I am talking about 9 10 11 and 12-year-olds all the way up to 16-year-olds right up and down the length and breadth of this country. They do need protection because as vulnerable independent contractors they have no rights. They do not have rights to sick leave. What does the single mother do when her child the deliverer has to go out and deliver hundreds of pamphlets and that child is off-colour and cannot go out? What does the single mother do? Does she go out with her other children to go and do the delivery work? Does she say to her child “Harden up son or daughter. You will have to go out there and do that work.”? There needs to be protection for our young people. Parents know; that is why parents are very unhappy and they are complaining up and down the country. 
We do need to protect our young people so I am very proud to have brought this bill to the House. It is a most worthy bill. It is there to protect our young people our young workers up and down the country. I would like to thank those who have supported me on this bill. I commend it to the House and I encourage you all to vote for it. Kia ora ano tatou. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Protection of Young Workers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill 
First Reading 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. This relatively simple bill has a relatively simple purpose and that is to ensure that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund invests its money taxpayers’ money in a way that both is sustainable but also in particular takes into account climate change. It does this by amending the Act that governs the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which is the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 by essentially adding another guiding principle if you like to the investments of the fund. Currently the fund has three guiding principles the third of which is about avoiding prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community and essentially we add a fourth guiding principle to that which is that the fund would need to consider sustainability and in particular climate change when making its investments. 
Now is a particularly apposite time to be considering a bill around climate change. Even as we sit here tonight in Doha the world is assembled at the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to consider what kinds of actions we can take as a global community to deal with climate change. I do not think anyone is particularly optimistic about the outcomes of those meetings unfortunately but it certainly does not prevent us in New Zealand and elsewhere from taking the actions that we can in order to address climate change. This bill is one part of doing that. 
The science around climate change continues to get more alarming as time progresses and I want to touch on a little bit of that science and a little bit of what is happening globally at the moment because what we are now experiencing are the early stages of human-caused climate change. Of course the Earth has warmed and cooled many times over past millennia but the warming that we are experiencing now is warming that has been caused by the release of greenhouse gases which we as a human species have been responsible for. It is I think remarkable to live in a time when the Arctic ice sheet is disappearing. We now have opened up the sea routes across the North Pole because the Arctic ice has reached its lowest level on record. As the planet has warmed the Arctic ice is melting further and further each summer—not only in its area but also in its thickness. We are seeing sea level rise of about 2 to 3 millimetres a year but the projections are for the rate of sea level rise to increase quite dramatically. As we have seen the melting of glaciers now we are starting to see very significant melting on the Greenland ice sheet and of course melting in Antarctica. Those great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica as they melt will change literally the maps of the world as they cause very large levels of sea level rise. 
Beyond that we have seen the very graphic example of what more extreme weather events look like with “Superstorm Sandy”—or Hurricane Sandy however you want to describe it—which happened of course in the lead-up to the US presidential elections. That storm alone is estimated to have cost around US$50 billion. We probably will not know for some time the real cause of that storm. The scientific community has come out very clearly to say that storms of this nature are more likely and will increase in their intensity and their frequency as a result of climate change. That is the kind of thing that we have loosed upon the world. It is one of the reasons why the global reinsurance industry—the people who insure the insurance companies—is so deeply alarmed about the current science and evidence around climate change. 
We are also seeing the beginnings of the acidification of the oceans. As the level of carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere it increases the level of carbonic acid in the oceans and we are seeing the acidification of those oceans with the result that we are seeing the early stages whereby sea animals and crustaceans—and particularly snails which cannot form their shells in such an acidic environment—are struggling to form shells. So we are seeing a fundamental change in the nature of the oceans themselves as we start to make those oceans more acidic. 
The World Bank recently released a report in the lead-up to the conference on climate change where it basically said that as a result of the existing projection on greenhouse emissions we are heading for 4 degrees of warming within a generation by 2100. There are people born today who will live to 2100. The people in this Chamber are very unlikely to live to 2100 but people are being born today who will live to 2100. The World Bank is very clear that as a result of our current trajectory we are looking at 4 degrees or more of warming by 2100. What that means is a very radical change in the world as we know it. It means we will have far more extreme weather events like “Superstorm Sandy”. It means we will have far more floods and extreme weather events and more droughts. We will have very significant sea level rise. Sea level rise is very important for a civilisation like ours which has built its major centres within a few metres of the existing sea level. Of course we never imagined when we built those great cities and civilisations that we would see significant sea level rise in the near future yet that is exactly what we are giving ourselves as a result of uncontrolled climate change. And that is of course exactly where we are heading. 
The World Bank also raised the alarm around food shortages. As climate change gets under way and the climate is destabilised what we are seeing is that the existing agricultural production systems which are designed to cope with the relatively stable climate we have had for 12000 years since the last Ice Age and the food production systems that we have developed which are adapted to that relatively stable climate will no longer function as well. So we are expecting very significant food shortages because of course this climate disruption is coming alongside a very large increase in human population. The World Meteorological Organization has also issued its own report and made its own warnings about climate change and I just want to quote it. The World Meteorological Organization said “Climate change is taking place before our eyes and will continue to do so as a result of the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which have risen constantly and again reached new records”. We are living in extraordinary times when all of our leading international and scientific bodies are telling us that we need to take action to reduce greenhouse emissions. Carbon dioxide levels have hit new records—around 390 parts per million—and we have seen methane levels start to increase again for reasons that are actually a little bit uncertain. Nitrous oxide levels are growing again as well. Nitrous oxide of course has a warming potential 300 times that of carbon dioxide. 
This bill aims to address that to some small degree by implementing responsible investment provisions around climate change on the Superannuation Fund. It will ensure that our taxes are invested in a way that does not damage our environment or prejudice our future through climate change. It says to the Superannuation Fund “Invest our taxes responsibly.” It is also about a broader principle of trying to make capital more expensive for those businesses causing harm and to make capital cheaper and more available for those that are doing good. 
There has been a very interesting move internationally amongst responsible investors. The Alliance of Institutional Investors representing US$22.5 trillion in assets has called on Governments to take action on climate change. We have also seen that the International Energy Agency has said that renewables could be the second-biggest power source by 2015. Last year renewable energy investments reached US$257 billion a rise of 17 percent on the years before. So we are seeing some change in investment in renewables and to save ourselves. But we know that the science is very clear that we are not doing enough. 
We have the ability through this bill to have a small influence on our own future and the future of Planet Earth by directing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to invest our taxes in a way that actually supports our future rather than a way that undermines our future. The Superannuation Fund already does this to a small degree under its current Act but we believe that it could do more than that. The purpose of this bill is to accelerate the Superannuation Fund’s current slow moves to invest in a much more responsible way. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill is one of those typical Green bills that sounds very worthy on the surface but the moment you stop and think about it you realise that it is actually pretty daft and silly. You see it is going to be a bill that is bad for investment policy but it is also bad climate change policy and I want to work through those issues. You see what this bill would do is say to the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation that it has to invest its billions of dollars in a climate change - friendly way and the big question that it leaves wide open is what in the heck that actually means. 
Is it going to be proper for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to invest in New Zealand’s all-important dairy industry? We all know that 48 percent of New Zealand’s emissions actually come from farm animals. We also know from a recent report that has come out in the United Kingdom that it is far more efficient to produce meat and dairy products in New Zealand than to do it overseas from a climate change point of view. So what real signal do we actually give to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as to whether it should or whether it should not invest in major industries in New Zealand like the meat and dairy industry? And I ask whether the member in charge of this bill Dr Russel Norman is really saying that any climate change impact on any industry should prohibit the New Zealand Superannuation Fund from investing because every single human activity does have some impact. It could be eliminating investment in infrastructure and in the transport sector. It could eliminate investment in the fertiliser business. Even many industries that we think might be on the surface green might have some climate change impact. For instance it is very true that New Zealand’s all-important tourism industry actually depends on overseas travellers coming a great distance which does impact on climate change. So all it does is create a great deal of fuzziness and confusion about the Superannuation Fund. 
The second challenge I have got for the Greens is this: if you really believe that the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation should have to take into account worthiness why do we not go into other areas? For instance I think most members of this House would say that it is good for business to invest in research and development. So why do we not put it to the guardians of the fund that it should invest only in companies that are meeting the Government’s targets of increasing research and development expenditure? Or for instance I think most of us here would accept that we need to improve the number of women who are directors of businesses and who hold senior roles. So why do we not put it to the Superannuation Fund that it invest only in businesses where there is a certain proportion of women directors and women involved in senior positions? What about in terms of workplace safety? Why do we not put extra requirements on the Superannuation Fund to say that it should invest only in funds that have got extraordinarily good records around workplace safety? 
That too would be worthy but all of those measures would be flawed for this very reason. The objective of the Superannuation Fund is for those guardians to do the very best with those investment funds to secure superannuation for future New Zealanders and the standards that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund should meet should be no different than the standard that applies to any private superannuation fund or any other investment. If the Government wants tougher workplace safety standards it should apply it not just to investments from the Superannuation Fund but to investments across the board. If the Government wants to pass some rules about increased research and development expenditure about more women participating as directors or about any of those other worthy goals there is no justification for saying that investments from the Superannuation Fund should have to meet some sort of different standard to any other investment and that is where the bill is flawed. 
But I also want to say around climate change policy that this Government is very proud of its record in the area of climate change policy because we are making real progress. The member is a Green and I respect those members’ view that the Government needs to put a greater weight on reducing emissions. If they want to run an argument that we should have a higher price for carbon there would be a trade-off. There would be a cost in jobs and in terms of the cost of living for New Zealand families of that measure but that would be a rational approach to reducing emissions. A higher carbon price would not just impact on the decisions that are made by the New Zealand Superannuation Fund but would of course apply across the board. That would be a rational perspective rather than the piecemeal and silly approach in this bill. 
I do want to put on record the many initiatives that this Government has taken around climate change because they are so often overlooked by members opposite. Let us look in terms of renewables. Everybody accepts that one of the areas where New Zealand has gone backwards has been that too much of our electricity has been produced by thermal electricity. In fact in the period from 1990 to 2008 we saw a consistent increase in the amount of electricity that was being produced in New Zealand thermally. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Nothing wrong with renewable geothermal. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is a previous Minister of Energy Mr Mallard. In each and every year since we have been the Government the proportion of renewable power that New Zealand has produced has increased and that is a trend of which we are proud. 
In the course of this Government we have had 180000 homes insulated. Is that not a sensible climate change policy which this Government has adopted and advanced? 
Let us look at an area like trees. We all accept that trees have an impact on climate change—it is actually about 30 percent of the global impacts. During the course of the last term of the previous Government we saw New Zealand lose 40000 hectares of trees. Contrast that with the record of this Government. In our first 3 years in Government we have actually seen the forest estate grow by 30000 trees. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What’s going to happen now Nick that you’ve taken the credits away? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us take the overall numbers—I say to Mr Charles Chauvel—and when it comes to climate change should the test not be what New Zealand’s net emissions are doing? Have we have met our Kyoto Protocol obligations? I am proud of the fact and we are only a few weeks out from the end that New Zealand has met its climate change obligations. Actually we have exceeded them by a significant mark and that is something of which this Government is proud. 
I would also note that in contrast to the years under Labour—remember that Labour campaigned on New Zealand being the first carbon-neutral country in the world? Look I acknowledge that the Green Party and the Labour Party are better on climate change rhetoric than anybody I know. They are really good on the promise; the problem is that they are hopeless on the delivery. They promised a carbon-neutral New Zealand and emissions went up by 26 percent. They went up every single year under the Clark Government. And do you know what the latest reports tabled in this Parliament last month show? They show that in the years 2009-10 the last 2 years that we have got figures for New Zealand’s net emissions have been coming down. How many congratulations messages have you heard the Green Party give this Government on being the first Government in more than a decade that has actually had New Zealand’s net emissions come down? 
Finally I want to conclude on the superb job in the international negotiations that the Minister for Climate Change Issues Tim Groser is doing not just in Doha but consistently. He has had more influence over international negotiations than any New Zealander in the last 20 years. I have been party to some of those and have seen Tim Groser do his work. Tim Groser’s basic message is right on the money and it is this: all of the growth in emissions over the next 20 to 50 years is in developing countries. That is where the big growth is. So for members opposite to be preoccupied on the 15 percent of emissions coming from developed countries is to completely miss the challenge. 
If we are to get on top of this problem of climate change the really big challenge is to get those fast-growing developing countries to move to new technologies. That is the message that Tim Groser is vigorously arguing in Doha. It is the only long-term answer to this challenging issue and that is why New Zealand says and says absolutely correctly that the successor agreement to Kyoto has got to be one that includes not just 15 percent of emissions but all those emissions including those from countries where emissions are growing so strongly—the likes of China the likes of India and the likes of Brazil—because we will not get on top of this problem unless those countries are part of the picture. 
This Government has a very credible record on climate change. This is a warm fuzzy bill that will do nothing. It will send only confused signals to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the House should reject this bill. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Rising after Dr Nick Smith I have to put on record some of what I would think would be misrepresentations of history as to where New Zealand has got to in respect of its climate change response. It is true that New Zealand’s percentage of renewable electricity decreased following the discovery of gas in the Maui gasfield— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That was 76. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —in 1976. From then forward the percentage of New Zealand’s renewables decreased over time as New Zealand thought that gas was the answer. It was not until the last Labour Government actually removed the price cap on Maui gas that renewables became cost competitive. The price of gas had been set under the original Maui development agreement to increase every year at half the price of inflation. So for 20 years the price of gas went down at half the rate of inflation and effectively closed out just about all renewables development during that period. Removing the price cap on gas which caused the price of gas to move to the marginal cost of new gas discoveries was probably the most significant thing that was done to bring forward renewables. 
The second thing that the Labour Government did was that we then actually set a strategy in place to get New Zealand back to 90 percent renewables and we did that through the  
New Zealand Energy Strategy to 2050 
. We had about 100—not 100 about 20—different initiatives that pushed in that direction including emissions pricing including calling in consents including telling the State-owned enterprises to consent and build renewables including changing the Government policy statement from the Electricity Commission and including building grid capacity to get renewables from distant sites to market etc. and that is actually what caused the change back towards renewables going up as a percentage. So for Dr Smith to claim credit for that is wrong. 
In respect of house insulation good ideas have many parents and I think just about every party in this House has claimed credit for that. Actually some credit should go to all parties in the House for that because it is something that this country has done for a long time. In respect of the insulation of State houses it did stick in my craw recently that we had the Prime Minister claiming credit for the fact that State houses were being insulated when I recall being part of the Budget rounds when that was an initiative of Jeannette Fitzsimons who was providing confidence and supply to the Labour Government. Her price for that or you know her contribution was that she said: “I want the money spent on the insulation of State houses because once the State does that the State will be in the position to introduce a regulatory rule to make everyone do it.” Jeanette was right. It was her initiative. It was backed by the Labour Government and National had nothing to do with it except that it inherited the programme. 
 In respect of trees we did have deforestation before we had a price on carbon. Deforestation increased before that price of carbon came. The only way that we were going to stop that was through the emissions trading scheme and that is what stopped deforestation and also gave an incentive towards further planting of trees. 
The problem with Dr Smith’s analysis is first he ignores that reality; second he ignores the fact that he voted against the emissions trading scheme legislation that the Greens the Labour Party and New Zealand First between them brought into effect; and third he ignores the fact that as Brian Fallow now says the emissions trading scheme has been put into an “induced coma” because of the National Party’s tinkering with the scheme: putting a price cap on it without putting in a floor a two-for-one obligation and refusing to restrict in a proper way the infiltration of low-cost units from overseas which have then seen a collapse in the price of carbon. So the revisionist view of Dr Smith as to who is doing what in climate change policy is somewhat galling. 
Then we heard the Minister for Primary Industries and sometimes we hear the Prime Minister claiming credit for the research that is being done in respect of pastoral livestock emissions and even that is not actually an initiative of the current Government. All it has done is take things backward including in transport where the last Government increased public transport funding twelvefold and this Government instead pours ever more money into highways and relatively less into public transport. 
Dr Smith also says that you can have a tax switch that puts taxes on low-income people through GST to fund a tax cut for high-income people but you cannot have a tax switch towards the environment. That is what an increase in the price of carbon would be. It would be a tax switch not an increase in total taxes. We will be supporting this bill going to select committee. One final point—the existing Act says already that the— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to draw this debate back a little bit in the direction of the bill itself the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill which is what we are talking about. If you look at the general policy statement it is quite interesting. It singles out Exxon Mobil as the cause for this bill because apparently the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has invested $43 million in Exxon Mobil and this apparently is a bad thing. Well I do not know about other members in the House but I do not necessarily regard Exxon Mobil as evil—nor Shell BP Todd Energy or any of the other oil companies around the world. In fact I quite like the fact that I can turn up at the petrol station buy oil and put it in my car. It serves me quite well. I like to be able to drive into town. I like to be able to go on to the motorway and I quite like to go across the Newmarket Viaduct and swoop down Grafton Gully into town. It is magnificent. It is fantastic to be able to get around like that. I think cars are quite a good thing and the fact that you need petrol to make a car go is one of the great inventions of our time. I do not necessarily think it is an evil thing and I cannot see why it would be regarded as a terrible thing somehow to invest in a company that provides something that makes the world go round. 
This bill also strikes me as somewhat sinister. When you look at the reasons it quotes Exxon Mobil saying a couple of things including that it is “very difficult to determine objectively the extent to which recent climate changes might be the result of human actions.” That apparently is a reason why the New Zealand Superannuation Fund should not be investing in that company. Somehow you stop trading with people because you do not like what they say. Well that is an interesting principle and a rather strange one. I probably do not like what some of the fishermen who go and catch the snapper that I eat say to each other and I probably do not like some of their opinions but I quite like the fish. I do not use that approach when I am buying things and I do not quite see why the Superannuation Fund should follow the same approach. I wonder—it is almost that you muzzle anybody who does not say what you like as seems to be the approach of the Green Party. I do not agree with that policy at all and I will not be supporting this bill on that basis. 
What does it mean precisely when we talk about investing only in a firm that follows “environmental sustainability”? By whose definition? I imagine that if it was by Mr Norman’s definition there probably would not be any companies at all that would measure up. Nothing would be quite sustainable enough for Mr Norman. So I do not support this bill. 
But it is worth noting and Mr Smith an earlier speaker spoke very well on the National— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Dr Smith. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: Dr Smith spoke very well on the National Government’s contribution to climate change policy. I will not reiterate all of that here but I would say that when it comes to the investment policies of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund we are already practising responsible investment criteria. This bill intends only to formalise more red tape and more bureaucracy and we do not support creating bureaucratic hurdles to investment beyond some certain basic measures that we have put in place already. Our responsible investment framework which is integrated into all our investment activities I think serves us well already. This bill would take us backwards and I do not support it on that basis. Thank you very much. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill. New Zealand First will support this bill through the first reading to give it an opportunity in the light of day to see what can be drawn from it. We do have some reservations but we do feel that at least it would be an opportunity to flesh out what the sponsor of this bill is trying to achieve in terms of climate change the effects of climate change and New Zealand’s investments. 
However we do have some concerns in that obviously we do want to maximise our returns to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I myself am certainly aware of comments that were made to me a year or so ago by a person who said that New Zealand already had some significant constraints on its investments around the world because for instance it is not permitted to invest in any organisation that in any shape or form has any connections to the nuclear industry. 
Sometimes you can have very large organisations involved in all sorts of commercial activities but the mere fact that one very minor very small part of an organisation’s business—it could be infinitesimal—might be doing some nuclear science research or nuclear investigations of some manner rules it completely out in terms of being eligible to be invested in with New Zealand superannuation funds. 
I can recall this particular gentleman saying to me that New Zealand as a result often did not maximise its investments because it had to avoid putting money in some areas where there was even a sniff of any connection with nuclear development nuclear sciences nuclear research or anything of that nature. Sometimes that is not necessarily a bad thing because as we all know in many areas of medicine and many areas of science there is nuclear research required within the nuclear sciences for the particular purposes of medicines and medical research. 
But in this regard there are concerns about climate change and everyone is increasingly concerned about what is happening. However we have said in this Parliament that we do not support some of the radical notions surrounding climate change that would see New Zealand taxpayers and New Zealand companies paying a lot more money and a lot more in terms of taxes or levies to fund schemes to do with climate change environmental effects carbon taxes and all these sorts of things as a result of pollution. 
We feel that that is again a negative way of handling the situation and that New Zealand should be investing its money in actually solving the problems solving the pollution issues and solving any problems in our own backyard first. We should be taking levies or any taxes to actually put them back into coming up with the remedies here within New Zealand whether it be in our dairy industry in our manufacturing industries in our forestry industries or in our other polluting-type industries. We believe that funding should be going into that work not going into international money-go-rounds that end up with people basically making money in foreign markets out of the hard-earned earnings of New Zealand people and New Zealand companies. 
 In this regard there are some questions here about climate change in terms of as was mentioned Exxon Mobil and all these other organisations that do have an effect but equally you know the list would go on and on and on and on and where do you stop? Every major corporate around the world might have an aspect of its business that is having an effect but at the same time we are seeing more and more of these corporations acting as good socially responsible corporate organisations that are addressing the issues and trying to reduce their effects on climate change and their effects on pollution. 
So we are prepared to let this bill go through for its first reading. We will hear what the member in charge of the bill has to say hear what research the member has done and find out what the officials can put forward and then we will take it from there. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 The Government will be voting against this legislation the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill because we believe it would be irresponsible to allow it to pass into law. We are already practising the responsible investment criteria that the bill seeks to formalise and therefore this bill would mean more red tape and more bureaucracy and that would be irresponsible for New Zealanders. You see we do not support creating red tape and bureaucracy around investment or in any other area where it is unnecessary in New Zealand. Actually this Government has a very good record over the last 4 years of working through bureaucracy so that New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses can get on doing the job that they need to rather than having unnecessary Government intervention and interference. We also have responsible investment work integrated into our investment activities and I believe very clearly that responsible asset owners will exercise best practice when it comes to portfolio management across a number of sectors and areas of interest—environment social governance issues and so on. 
See the purpose of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is to meet the future requirements of New Zealanders when they retire and this bill will do nothing but tinker with that objective. What it means at the moment is no Government interference and I understand that this is a foreign concept to many members opposite. Indeed Russel Norman is the current Opposition finance spokesman. He wants to get his hands on every single part of the pie that he can. We have already heard from Mr Norman that he intends when he becomes Minister of Finance in a Green-Labour coalition to print billions of dollars—magic them out of thin air—to solve some of the challenges that we have in New Zealand at the moment around meeting our debts and balancing the economy. 
Well indeed the Governor of the Reserve Bank came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee not so many— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It has been a pretty wide debate I would have to say so I know the member will come back to the point. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Thank you Mr Speaker and I am going to continue because it has absolutely everything to do with his bill—the credibility of the member who has brought it forward and the devastating effect that legislation like this and other things that that member has been spouting up and down the country will have upon New Zealand and the New Zealand economy. So I continue. 
Mr Norman said that he wants to print billions of dollars to solve some of our problems—magic them out of thin air. Quantitative easing of course. The Governor of the Reserve Bank came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee and said that this was a desperate policy and I agree with him wholeheartedly. We have heard from Mr Norman in line with what this bill would seek to do in New Zealand that he wants to tax the most productive businesses in New Zealand out of existence. You know he hates rural New Zealand. He would love to see farmers give up— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the comments by that member that I hate rural New Zealand. It is completely untrue and I take offence at it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No look these are debating points. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Good. Thank you Mr Speaker. Most of the policies that that party of Mr Norman portrays to New Zealanders would lead a reasonable person to believe that he hates rural New Zealand and wants to see farmers— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member’s opinion that someone might hate rural New Zealand has nothing to do with this bill. I would ask that you keep him on the topic. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am the judge of that and this has been a pretty wide debate. It has been a fair debate pretty equitable— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: No it hasn’t. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am on my feet and do not interrupt when I am on my feet. I am asking the member—the member has 1 minute to go. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Thank you very much Mr Speaker. So what this member who has brought this bill before the House wants is to see the most productive part of New Zealand our farmers and our dairy farmers on welfare. Well that is not good enough for the Government. 
Finally with his bill he wants to get his hands on the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and put the future of all New Zealanders at risk. That is irresponsible and this is a very bad piece of legislation. When it comes actually to the detail of what he thinks needs to happen in this area and indeed what the Superannuation Fund is already doing it has signed up to a wide number of codes of conduct and international bodies that put integrity including environmental integrity at the heart of the way it makes decisions about their investments. A most important part of this is that it is up to it to decide what it is it does with New Zealand funds. Members opposite in coalition with the Green Party where those Green Party members will take on extremely important roles in Government in finance should keep their hands off these funds. I am very happy to say we will be voting against this legislation because it would do great harm to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and to New Zealand businesses— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I call—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am calling the Hon Shane Jones. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Before I opened my mouth Mr Speaker you were screaming “Order!”. Please assure me that it is directed to that side of the House and not to this sort of very modest individual who is about to share a thought or three. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am giving you the call. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: In the spirit of fraternal relations I stand with my colleagues to support Russel Norman’s member’s bill the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill this afternoon. Let there be no doubt about that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Notwithstanding the crap that he writes about you. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well one has to suffer the slings and arrows of coalition-building into the future—I am talking possibly about Winston Peters there but that is another matter. But I want to actually begin by directing the attention of our colleagues on the other side of the House to something that is already in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act—section 58(2)(c)—which actually requires a level of transparency in decision making to avoid a prejudicial view about our reputation internationally taking root. 
For that side of the House to insist that Mr Norman’s contribution is No. 1 ultra vires the Act and No. 2 likely to undermine the viability of the fund or its profitability shows the characteristically showy but shallow level of information that those members actually use when talking about the Cullen fund. We had a figure from Madame Tussaud’s wax museum Dr Nick Smith coming and lecturing us about this bill being designed to ruin the country’s reputation in terms of climate change. On that point I have to agree with the colleagues from the Green Party. That is not being done by this bill. That level of opprobrium settling upon the fine reputation of Aotearoa has been manufactured by that side of the House and worsened by the behaviour of the Government’s officials overseas who are so embarrassed that they cannot even look straight in the eye of their confrères from other negotiating teams. So it has got nothing to do with this bill. The worsening of our reputation in relation to climate change is a deliberate policy direction being pursued by the current Government which it is entitled to do as a part of what it thinks is the optimum mix of policies for the country but we know that as a consequence of those policies the costs will fall on the most vulnerable. 
So let me come back to the bill. It is not unreasonable that the Cullen fund focuses on those areas that are not actually going to worsen the country’s reputation or create negative externalities that will not be picked up by the businesses that are running the enterprises that the Cullen fund is investing in. It may actually overrun slightly. I understand that Annette King the redoubtable member for out at Miramar way—closely related to certain other members on the other side of the House—today opened a gas station owned by the Cullen fund. So there has to be some balance. 
The Cullen fund currently does have investments in areas where perhaps— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Half of it. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Fifty percent. Fifty percent—not unlike the vote capture we will enjoy in 2 years’ time. I like that figure—I like that figure. I am not talking about my biological make up of 50-20-25—no. We are talking about why this piece of legislation will actually enhance the reputation of the Cullen fund. It is not going to throttle and undermine the work of the guardians. It is just going to direct them to ensure that the investments do not reward those kinds of industries that are slowly but surely choking the transition of not only the fund and the nation but also in many respects many of the developed countries. The Cullen fund guardians were encouraged by the Government to move towards 50 percent of the capital being invested in domestic industries—indigenous industries. That has been an abject failure. It could be that that is what the Government fears. It says one thing but actually delivers another. 
I think the alarmist rhetoric coming from the other side of the House which is reflective unfortunately of the loud but vacuous minds that are conceiving it should not worry about Mr Norman being the Minister of Finance. That decision will be made by higher forces—higher forces. No those decisions will be made by the colleagues here and that lies well after the next election. Coming back to the Cullen fund it is a fine fund and is reflective of the very innovative approach that this side of the House took to the art of government. Thank you very much. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak on this excellent member’s bill the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill introduced by my colleague Dr Russel Norman. Climate change is as we all know the greatest challenge facing human well-being. That is our well-being. That is the well-being of New Zealand families and of New Zealand businesses as well as the well-being of people across the world. Climate change is real. We know it is caused by certain activities that humans have engaged in just over the past few centuries.  
Bloomberg Businessweek 
—not well-known for its extreme environmentalism—had on its cover page the week after Hurricane Sandy: “It’s Global Warming Stupid.” It is not a left-wing conspiracy. It is a well-understood result of digging up millions of years of stored fossil energy and burning it in a short period of time. 
We in the Green Party live in the real world unlike the Government members. We understand that the world is changing and we understand that we have to deal with this change. Climate change is not only a challenge; it is also an opportunity. It is an opportunity to do things smarter and this bill is a good example of doing things smarter. As we heard from my colleague this bill is going to in a very small way support investment in clean industries which are the growth industries of this century by directing the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to consider environmental sustainability and climate change when making its investments. But it is not only that that is the right thing to do if we want to preserve human well-being; it is also a smarter financial bet. If you accept that climate change is real then it is obvious that humans are going to have to do something about it and that sooner or later fossil fuel industries will be in decline. It is clean industries that will replace them. It makes more sense if one is investing for the long term for the future to put our money in those industries that are going to be successful in our lifetimes. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: If the member is right of course it will happen. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER 
: I know that the member the Hon Steven Joyce does not live in the real world and is not really aware of what is happening. The thing is that climate change is arguably the biggest market failure. Because markets can only consider short-term profitability it is the role of Governments—democratically elected Governments—to step in and give some long-term playing rules rules of engagement so that we can make smarter investments. Smarter investments will allow us to thrive in the future and are actually not only better for the planet but better for humans better for our economic activity and better for those who are going to be drawing down from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in the future. 
According to the Government we cannot afford to prepare for climate change. We cannot afford to take the steps through rational economic instruments like a meaningful price on carbon which would help our economy transition to a smart green footing. But the reality is that we cannot afford not to prepare for climate change. It is the reality. It does not matter whether there are a number of developing countries that have not yet signed up to reduction targets because the reality is that New Zealand’s per capita emissions are the fifth worst in the world. If we are going to survive and thrive in the clean green economy of the future we need to start taking steps now and that requires Government leadership. Unfortunately we do not see any leadership of this sort from the Government. We see just a denial of reality and a continuation of the same failed policies of the last century which will not help us to be successful in the future. It is a real shame that the Government is not going to support what is actually quite a logical bill introduced by my colleague tonight. I am really sorry to see that. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I think the comments of the last speaker Julie Anne Genter and her predecessor Dr Norman make it quite clear that this Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill comprising essentially one page with an operative paragraph is an exercise in theatre not substance. The last speaker did not issue one word in the way of comment on the bill. 
The point of the bill is this: it is brought to this House by that economic wizard who would have us engage in qualitative easing. 
Hon Members 
: Quantitative. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Quantitative easing. What a nonsense that is for this economy when we have an interest rate of 2.6 percent. If the Reserve Bank wants to kick the economy along the governor has got room to move. You would bring in quantitative easing as the Americans are doing only when your discount rate is zero when your interest rate is zero. We are not in that space. So the ideas that were brought to Parliament by the co-leader of the Green Party on quantitative easing and on this bill are both thoroughly misguided. 
We are already practising the responsible investment criteria that this bill would like to see formalised. What this bill would do is give us more red tape and more bureaucracy and it would stymie the job that is clearly spelt out for directors of companies and institutions. We do not as a party believe at all in supporting or creating bureaucratic hurdles to investment which this bill would do. 
 Our responsible investment work is integrated into all investment activities. For example understanding social and governance issues is a really important part of our risk assessment and is a due diligence that is required by directors and trustees on prospective individual investments. On this side of the House we are inclined to think that responsible asset owners who exercise best-practice portfolio management will already have a concern for environmental social and governance issues. 
As Nick Smith pointed out earlier this Government has introduced a huge number of things to support climate change. Contrary to what I heard the co-leader of the Green Party saying the other day New Zealand has not left the Kyoto Protocol. We are still a full member. We are simply aligning ourselves with the developed economies in terms of pursuing future climate change measures that the whole world will come to accept—that 193 countries of the globe will sign up to. 
If we go to the purpose of this fund we can see that its obligation or purpose is to meet future New Zealand superannuation payments. In fulfilling this purpose the board has to invest the fund in a manner consistent with two objectives. The first is prudent commercial management of the fund and that is a primary objective because it influences the ability of the fund to fulfil its purpose: to pay money to superannuitants. The second purpose that the directors have to follow or the second objective for directors is recognition that the fund is owned by the Crown and the Crown bears the financial and reputational risks resulting from the activities of the fund. This is a secondary objective related to the manner in which the first objective paying money to superannuitants is achieved. 
Our responsible investment work programme is closely aligned to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. This is an internationally accepted benchmark for how institutional investors should manage environmental social and governance issues. 
As I said at the outset this is an exercise in Green theatre. It is not an exercise in substance. It is not even a smart idea. I intend personally to vote against this bill along with colleagues here in the National Government. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Members opposite might be sort of slightly surprised to learn that there are parts of the comments that have been made by John Hayes that I actually agree with. My view is that although I will support the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill it is one of those 60:40 things because I think as the member said it is a matter of theatre rather than having a bill that has real substance to it. It is opportunistic. It is worth having the discussion but actually if we are doing ethical investment if we are going to extend ethical investment I think it is worth looking at a lot more issues than just climate change. I think the bill would have got more support if in fact it had been more extensive. 
Section 58(2)(c) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 the governing legislation already requires the fund to manage its investments so as to avoid “prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community.” So for members opposite to say “Forget about ethical investment.” as they have been saying is absolutely wrong. We already have some criteria. My view is that those criteria are not tight enough. I think those criteria along with some of the questions as to the shape of the investments the balance in New Zealand and the balance towards New Zealand - owned and some of the higher-risk businesses could be given more of an opportunity. Certainly New Zealanders deserve to see the very good analysis that has been done by the Superannuation Fund. My view is that that should be shared much more widely than it currently is and that would help us get some depth—some better depth—in our investment. 
National promised in 2008 that 40 percent of the Superannuation Fund would be invested in New Zealand. That is another one of its broken promises. Four years later I think it has just got over the 20 percent mark. It has made almost no progress at all. 
I am very proud of the Cullen fund. I think it has been something that has had very good returns and a very good investment policy. The teams that have sat behind it—along with ACC actually—have done some of the best investment analysis work that has been done in New Zealand. But as I say I think it is a pity that that work is not more widely shared. There are a lot of other funds—smaller funds—that would be able to follow the teams’ direction especially in regard to in New Zealand normally unlisted investments. And even in some of the smaller investment companies the quality of the analysis that is publicly available is not very good. 
In conclusion I say to Russel Norman that we support this bill but it is a pity that a bit more work was not done on it to make it something that really went to the question of ethical investment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Dr Russel Norman 5 minutes in reply. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It was clear during this debate that there is not a lot of knowledge about responsible investment particularly on the Government side of the House. The Norwegian pension fund which is one of the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the world—over US$500 billion under management—has some of the strongest responsible investment guidelines of any of the sovereign wealth funds by far actually and has been a very successful fund. So when the Government says “Oh well we cannot have responsible investment guidelines; it’ll destroy the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.” that is just because it does not really know what is going on in the world and there are a lot of things happening in the world. 
The National Government which on the one hand is arguing that responsible investment will destroy the Cullen fund on the other hand argues that it already has responsible investment guidelines so we do not really need this bill. But it cannot have it both ways. So it is not a consistent position that the Government has taken because there is not really a logical argument there which I think is pretty sad. 
The Government also argues that we cannot have standards or red tape as it calls it. This of course is the National Party that brought us the leaky homes disaster—a $20 billion leaky homes disaster because National weakened the rules around housing. It is also National that has brought us a lot of dead miners because it wanted to weaken the rules around the regulation of health and safety legislation at work. So it seems to me that although the National Party consistently opposes standards—consistently opposes standards—none the less standards are important. 
The Green Party believes that standards matter so for that reason we have no problem with adding a fourth dimension to the current guidelines that are in the bill. I think Shane Jones actually hit the nail on the head because Shane Jones in what I thought was a very good speech said that the investment fund already has a kind of responsible investment guideline when it talks about avoiding prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community. So there is already a relatively weak responsible investment guideline and what we are trying to do is strengthen it up particularly around sustainability and climate change. I think that is a worthwhile thing to achieve and I thank Labour New Zealand First and of course the Greens and Mana for supporting this proposal. 
I think really when it comes down to it climate change is one of the most difficult issues that we have to deal with as a species. It is difficult because it requires action now for future gain. Most of the gain is not going to be for us here now; it is going to be for those in the future. It requires collective global action and that is a very difficult thing to coordinate and those two things make it extremely difficult for our species to deal with climate change and to make the kinds of changes we need. It requires challenging existing vested interests—vested interests that can have a very strong voice today—in order to advance the interests of those who are yet to be born. So it is a really difficult problem because we have very powerful vested interests and we have heard them speak one after another from the National Party today. We have those powerful vested interests who have a one-vote majority in this Parliament and who are against taking action on climate change and that makes it very difficult when you have those powerful vested interests today. 
It also requires an understanding of science. I think that clearly—and we have seen it again tonight and we have seen it often from the National Party members who have opposed taking action on climate change over a very long time—they think it is very difficult. It is very difficult for a lot of people to get their heads around the science. So when you put all of those problems together you can see why as a species we have had so much trouble dealing with this problem of climate change. But the reality is that if we read the science and if we read the reports from the international organisations what comes through very clearly is that we need to take action today in order to avoid out-of-control climate change which will have a dramatic impact on people who are being born today. We are seeing just the very beginning of it today. 
So although I think it very likely this bill will not get the numbers in this House today there are enough of us who are determined to do something so that over time we will make progress because if we do not make progress on this critical issue it will be our children and our children’s children and to some degree even us who will suffer as a result. I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill. This bill clarifies a point of contract law that is currently vague. Its purpose is simply to clarify the legal position on the time at which a contract is formed if the acceptance of the offer is sent by some form of electronic communication. The bill recognises the need for contractual transactions to join the electronic age. 
The general rule of contract formation is that a contract is formed at the time an acceptance of the offer is communicated to the offerer. So when someone says: “Yes I accept the offer.” or the offerer and the acceptor shake hands then the deal is done. However an exception to the rule was created for acceptances by post. This goes back to the case of  
Adams v Lindsell 
 of 1818. I might trespass on the time of the House to explain the details of that case. The case involved two parties to the sale of some wool. On 2 September 1818 the defendants wrote to the plaintiffs offering to sell them certain fleeces and required an answer in the course of post. The defendants misdirected the letter so that the plaintiffs did not receive it until 5 September. The plaintiffs posted their acceptance on the same day but it was not received until 9 September. Meanwhile on 8 September the defendants not having received an answer by 7 September as they expected sold the wool to somebody else. 
The defendants argued that there could not be a binding contract until the answer was actually received and that until then they were free to sell the wool to somebody else. The judge said that if that was true it would be impossible to complete any contracts through the post because if the defendants were not bound by their offer until the answer was received then the plaintiffs would not be bound until they had received word and it would go on and on indefinitely. And so it was decided that when the offeree placed his acceptance in the post there was a fictional meeting of minds that concluded that the offer was done and gave effect to the acceptance. That idea was tidied further into what is now referred to as the postal acceptance rule in the 1892 case  
Henthorn v Fraser 
 where the court determined the precise timing of the acceptance—that is the moment when the letter of acceptance was posted. 
That longstanding rule as to postal acceptances in  
Adams v Lindsell  
is not appropriate for electronic transactions. This has already been recognised by the courts in relation to acceptance of contractual offers by telex as far back as 1955 and  
Entores Ltd v Miles Far East Corporation 
 which treated the communication being as with the telephone simultaneous. So the contract was formed when the offeree said yes. The facts in that case involved a London-based trading company sending an offer by telex for the purchase of copper cathodes from a company based in Amsterdam. 
There is no clear authority on acceptance by way of email. This bill will serve to clarify the law. The position with telex differs from emails. Communication by telex is generally acknowledged at each end the sending machine and receiving machine. With email it is not known to the sender that an email has been received unless confirmation is received from the recipient. This postal acceptance rule was based on the policy that the post office was an assured means of communication and acted as a form of agent for transmission provided there was proof of posting. Emails are delivered by a variety of servers and there is not the same assurance that an email once put into the ether will be delivered. Proof that an email has been posted is also difficult because it is not a simple matter of obtaining a receipt for a registered letter. 
This bill provides in my view an appropriate way to deal with the email acceptances by providing that an offer can be accepted by electronic communication and is deemed to be accepted at the time of receipt by the offerer— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What does receipt mean? 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: —that is when it arrives in the offerer’s in-box. You can know when that is. 
 So why is this important? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why doesn’t the bill say that? 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: Well that is something that the select committee can look at when we get down to it. 
So why is this important? Well on its own this bill is not going to bring about the brighter future to which we all aspire and to which this Government is so committed but it is a small and useful addition to the latter’s work. Clear and predictable laws governing commerce are some of the foundations of the success of the modern economy upon which our prosperity depends. Clarity and certainty lead to confidence and confidence leads to greater investment. So our laws need consistently to be maintained and adapted to respond to changing technology. This bill tidies up one small area of uncertainty and will go some way to increasing the flow of business. Given the prevalence of electronic communications in society today including email smartphones and social media it is useful that the current Act be amended to cover such areas. 
It is worth digressing briefly to fit this bill into the broader context of a Government committed to operating online in the 21st century. As part of the National-led Government’s determination to make the public services work better for taxpayers businesses and consumers we have set a target that an average of 70 percent of New Zealanders’ most common transactions with Government will be completed in a digital environment by 2017 up from 24 percent currently. Ten transactions the House may be interested to know are being used to measure progress towards a 70 percent uptake of online services. These include the renewal of adult passports applying for visas applying for financial assistance through the Ministry of Social Development filing tax returns paying fines paying vehicle licensing SmartGate for air travellers and booking Department of Conservation assets. 
Likewise this bill is all the more relevant as the Government rolls out its investment in ultra-fast broadband which will revolutionise the way many businesses schools health care providers and communities operate. It will help overcome the tyranny of distance from the rest of the world. This Government has committed $1.5 billion to plug New Zealand into the world through ultra-fast broadband and our Rural Broadband Initiative. That wool merchant and his customer  
Adams v Lindsell 
 doing their business more than two centuries ago could not have imagined the modern world where contracts can be formed instantly between traders in London and Auckland. But the fundamentals of business have not changed in that trading is amongst the most natural activities of humanity. It is a civilising activity because at bottom it is about making an arrangement from which both parties benefit and most of all trade flourishes when there is a shared understanding of the rules. I trust this bill will go some way to add to that shared understanding and on that basis I commend it to the House. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The normal practice for the Labour Party when there is a member’s bill that is well drafted and heading in a general direction that the Labour Party approves of is to send it off to a select committee. But this bill the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill is a bill that is very badly drafted. It is an area that the Government should be dealing with and it is a relatively minor area and would almost certainly slip through statutes amendment legislation or commerce law reform legislation. When it is left to a member like this Paul Goldsmith to draft a bill what do we end up with? We end up with a bill that does not even achieve what it is meant to on the face of it. 
The really important point—the issue that the bill is designed to remedy—is the lack of definition of “receipt” when it comes to electronic transactions. This bill does not remedy it. We would not mind if the member had done it and got it wrong. If he had said it was received by a server or it was in an in-box or it was in an in-box and it was open—if he had picked something and defined “receipt” as that—well then we could have had a discussion about it at the select committee and we could have heard the evidence and worked out whether that was the right thing or not. But this member brings a bill to the House that does not even pick one of the alternatives. He did not even look at the essence of the question that he was meant to be answering in bringing in this legislation before he put his name on it. Do you know— 
Chris Hipkins 
: He knew Paul Quinn. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no Paul Quinn is an intellectual giant—an intellectual giant—in comparison with Paul Goldsmith. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)