"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00227d325519c4494081b81c5103b5c0bd32\u0022\u003ETuesday, 8 September 2009\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00224232b7bb4da3484998edaa8f0ed3f970\u0022\u003ETuesday, 8 September 2009\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000002\u0022\u003EMr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000004\u0022\u003EPrayers.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228297265c42e34bc89d262ffcbdba8a42\u0022\u003EVisitors\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b0e1021fbb534bbe80184bfa23229d8c\u0022\u003EIndonesia\u2014Speaker, House of Representatives\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u00223116d6b1848243feb0c8831f5b89343e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223116d6b1848243feb0c8831f5b89343e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Agung Laksono Soemono, Speaker of the House of Representatives of Indonesia, is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EHon Agung Laksono Soemono, accompanied by the Deputy Speaker, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ec01d29d32e14a1b881a962cbd221da2\u0022\u003EBrazil\u2014Joint Parliamentary Delegation, National Congress\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u00225b34ddc61d6c46aea0c898ec629eb612\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225b34ddc61d6c46aea0c898ec629eb612\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have much pleasure in informing members that a joint parliamentary delegation from the National Congress of Brazil, led by Senator Heraclito Fortes, First Secretary of the Senate, is also present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed also. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022131e44aad09a465d99007a6b3f03c539\u0022\u003ESpeaker\u2019s Rulings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002245deb5cfb0934834a8f480e21623f34e\u0022\u003ESelect Committees\u2014Status of Reports and Proceedings\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u00229c0143aa55e644febee2c8727b767239\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c0143aa55e644febee2c8727b767239\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: On the Thursday before the House adjourned, members raised a number of points of order about the status of committees, their reports, and proceedings. Standing Order 180(3) makes it clear that a select committee established for a particular purpose continues in existence until the completion of that task by the presentation of its final report on it. Members raised with me Speaker\u2019s ruling 92/2. This ruling from 1892 is relevant now only in so far as it protects a committee\u2019s report once it is finally agreed. This is the report that must be presented; it cannot be revisited. Standing Order 180(3) prevails in terms of extinguishing the life of the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThe ruling recognises that a committee can reconsider a report if the final report has not been fully agreed. Committees should take great care if they intend to use the practice of agreeing a final report by \u201Cround robin\u201D or subject to certain conditions, because there is always a real possibility that it will result in uncertainty. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWhere doubt arises about the form of a committee\u2019s final report, the only way it can be resolved is by the committee. I refer members to Speaker\u2019s ruling 93/6: \u201CIf doubts arise as to what the chairperson was directed to report, the report should be deferred for the committee to meet again and clarify the position.\u201D It is a matter for the committee, not for the House. The House has no cognisance of matters before a committee until they are reported to the House by the chairperson. I refer to Speaker\u2019s ruling 87/2. The Speaker intervenes only when invited to do so by resolution of the committee. Again, I refer to Speaker\u2019s ruling 87/4. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EOnce the committee adopts its final report, the chairperson must report to the House within a reasonable time. This does not mean at once or even at the first opportunity. Indeed, it is desirable to hold back a report for a few days so that the necessary preparation can be made to print the report. A delay of about 1 week in reporting to the House is quite acceptable. I refer to Speaker\u2019s ruling 93/5. The responsibility for reporting lies with the chairperson of the committee. Another member of the committee may present a report, but only where authorised to do so by the chairperson. If a chairperson did not report within a reasonable time, the House may order the report to be presented. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EFinally, where a committee, as part of its deliberation, sets a specific deadline for receipt of amendments to a report or minority views, it has in effect agreed a closure. In doing so a committee should be careful to ensure the effect of the closure resolution is very clear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EA committee cannot require a member to submit a minority view, nor can it amend one, but one having been proposed a committee must decide whether to agree to its inclusion in the report. The setting of a closure does not presuppose that the amendments or minority views that are the subject of it will be agreed to. A committee\u2019s deliberation must include a specific resolution providing for their agreement. In agreeing to resolutions to conclude deliberation outside a committee meeting, a committee should also give careful consideration to including a resolution to deal with the situation where agreement cannot be reached. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EThe setting of a closure during a committee\u2019s deliberation is a somewhat unusual practice for select committees. Where the Standing Orders do not provide directly for committee procedure, a committee must rely on the Committee of the whole House procedure, and Standing Order 200 covers that. The effect of a closure in the Committee of the whole House is that amendments handed in at the time the closure is agreed are in the possession of the committee and may be withdrawn only by leave. I refer to Speaker\u2019s ruling 114/7. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EA minority view can be considered as if it were an amendment. Once it is received by the clerk of the committee, it becomes part of the committee\u2019s proceedings. It may be withdrawn up until the time agreed for the closure. A member wanting to withdraw a minority view after that time would need the leave of the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u00221198582a282b4be788ea0c59029f07e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221198582a282b4be788ea0c59029f07e6\u0022\u003EHon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for that very thorough ruling, which I think is very helpful on the issues that we considered on that Thursday, and we will reflect on what you have said. The one immediate question that the Opposition would raise is that you said a week is quite an acceptable period for delay, but you also said the delay of a presentation of a report to the House is not a matter for the House itself in the first instance. In the specific case that led to this ruling from you, I understand there was a delay of 2 weeks and 1 day between the committee resolving to take a course of action and the report finally being presented. I wonder at what point members can bring it to you for your intervention, once that week, which you have signalled is a reasonable period of delay, has been breached to the extent that this report was. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022bf63ddf4b6444857a448107d239fa853\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bf63ddf4b6444857a448107d239fa853\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member raises a perfectly fair point of order. This is not a well-defined area in the Standing Orders and Speakers\u2019 rulings. What is quite clear is that the chair has responsibility to report to the House, although at the end of the day, if the chair refuses for whatever reason to present to the House the report of the committee, the House can order that it be done, and the question then becomes how the House goes about ordering that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EIt seems to me that there are two possible mechanisms. The first is for a member to raise it by way of a point of order, and to seek leave that the House require the report to be presented. Of course, the danger with that procedure is that it takes only one member to dissent and then the House cannot order the report to be presented. A second, more complex procedure that would perhaps give a more certain result is for a notice of motion to be lodged, which would be a debatable motion, obviously, and which would ultimately be voted on. Then the majority of the House could order that the report be presented. There are those two mechanisms, and certainly the second of those two mechanisms, although more complicated, has the certainty of following the will of the majority of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00226a14a781c5a144d78a9944ed544bdbee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a14a781c5a144d78a9944ed544bdbee\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling, particularly in respect of the committee itself not being functus officio, which was not a point that I had made. The third way in which that problem could be resolved would be, on a point of order, for the Speaker to enforce the Standing Orders and to require that the report be produced forthwith. It does not seem to me that it is a matter where members have discretion as to whether those reports are eventually tabled; the Standing Orders require that they are. So it becomes an enforcement issue for you rather than an issue of the discretion of the House, I would suggest. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022684722a1badf4626aa778173352d8e4f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022684722a1badf4626aa778173352d8e4f\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am very happy to look further into that particular issue, but I believe that such a matter is actually in the first case one for the committee, and then, at the end of the day, it is one for the authority of the House. The Speaker can only enforce the Standing Orders, and it would be my interpretation, having looked fairly carefully at this issue, that a Speaker could require that a report be presented only where the House has set a deadline for that. Ultimately it is the House that must rule on these matters. The Speaker cannot set a deadline for that. I have looked fairly carefully at the Standing Orders and at Speakers\u2019 rulings on these issues, and that is why I have outlined the two mechanisms that I believe are available to members to ensure that a committee chair presents a report. Once the majority of the House rules on the matter, then of course the Speaker can enforce it that the report be presented by that deadline.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c04cb69f17a5490296ebdf59b8314e06\u0022\u003EQuestions for Oral Answer\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022125e4f935b434bca9c4848c4ec924ccd\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223c1addb5b9ed4e2abb0d675712990878\u0022\u003EEconomy\u2014Reports\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e7d7def506a45e5b4cf56a515ed3b89\u0022\u003E1. CRAIG FOSS (National\u2014Tukituki)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022671f74c8487e439ea879184e2753f7cc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022671f74c8487e439ea879184e2753f7cc\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E Treasury yesterday issued its monthly economic indicators for August, pointing to an improved global outlook and signs of a fragile world recovery. It suggested that unemployment would peak around 7.5 percent, compared with 8 percent in the Budget forecasts. I welcome these early signs of recovery, particularly if it helps to preserve jobs, but we have considerable work ahead of us over the next 3 to 5 years to ensure that New Zealand achieves sustainable long-term increases in productivity, and to undo the economic mismanagement of the last decade.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224041caef499842368814a5d3986afcd6\u0022\u003ECraig Foss\u003C/span\u003E: What other observations did Treasury make in its monthly economic indicators report?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1ffa9948f7241e3ba6d7247e134cd80\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Treasury noted that the composition of growth potentially based on housing and consumer spending is unlikely to unwind our economic imbalances, such as the large current account deficit and high debt levels. I agree with these observations, and particularly that we need to address these structural imbalances to achieve a truly sustainable economic recovery.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a4e0fe4f51c41348aab3a5e3b6137c2\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: In light of his previous answer, and given reports that a potential recovery would be on the back of a return to growth in the housing market and an increase in domestic spending, does he stand by his comment: \u201CMany of the people who are losing their jobs today are the unfortunate victims of policy that built economic growth on borrowed money \u2026\u201D; if so, is this the kind of recovery he planned?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1e3dc5cbf1143128c2a45703705abb7\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: I agree with that member that too many people\u2019s jobs were based on borrowing and consumption. That is precisely why I made the point that we need to work towards a sustainable recovery based on exports and investment, because that will lead to sustainable jobs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a5dcb73a9954e9ebc6bfc0c2622dd51\u0022\u003ECraig Foss\u003C/span\u003E: What would be the consequences of allowing the imbalances to continue unabated?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022032470a059814e5b8f39f3694963d13c\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: As I said in answer to the previous question, we are looking for a sustainable recovery rather than one that could pick up on the back of housing and consumption but then peter out as people found that, for instance, the cost of servicing their large household debts was growing on them, and they could not afford to go spending or to bid up house prices. The challenge for New Zealand will be to rebalance the economy towards exports and investments, and that is going to take some time because the imbalances have been a good decade in building up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022523d24ec66ff412485b96144f977de67\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: In light of Treasury\u2019s indications that the economy is beginning to recover, when can those currently unemployed expect to find a job, and when can New Zealanders expect to see the resumption of contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, the reinstitution of research and development tax credits, or further KiwiSaver incentives?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022532630f2cf4d4a2a9310579e194ebe5e\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: Fortunately New Zealanders are finding jobs every week, and if the member looks at the unemployment flows he will see that for every two people coming on to the dole, one person is going off it. In respect of the Superannuation Fund contributions, we have said we would contribute again to the fund when we actually have surpluses to contribute. On current forecasts, that is 10 years away.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d3bc900d5ee4ba1adbc6af8ba376e9e\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: In light of the value of the $20 billion tourism industry to the New Zealand economy, does the Minister believe that allowing for mining in national parks like Mount Aspiring, home of the Routeburn, or in internationally recognised Ramsar sites such as the Awarua Waituna Wetland in Southland, would be good for a tourism industry based on a \u201C100% Pure New Zealand\u201D\u2014\u201Cclean, green\u201D brand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c23aaeb24f9c4e8bae3b5ff06dbcfeb2\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: In the first place, the Government is doing a stocktake rather than actually digging mines. Secondly, I am sure that that member was as supportive as she could have been of the Pike River mine, which is an excellent example of the exploitation of a mining resource on the conservation estate. As I recall, that occurred while she was part of the governing coalition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226b2dd13ec49d4ddd96251dd772378f9d\u0022\u003ESAS\u2014Deployment to Afghanistan\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223457a9ea5ada4d19a5477eda1af17162\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: What advice did he personally receive from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade before recommitting SAS troops to Afghanistan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u00220d0724f996bd4ccaa2d5233496f99b82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220d0724f996bd4ccaa2d5233496f99b82\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, along with a number of other departments, provided advice in the preparation of material for Ministers making the decision on whether to redeploy the SAS to Afghanistan. I was one of those Ministers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022376aa34039e84e58803f9aa6b5e9aca4\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: Was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, John Allen, correct in stating on Q\u002BA on Television New Zealand on Sunday that \u201Cwe didn\u2019t advise the Government to send the SAS to Afghanistan\u201D; if so, what was the advice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232ad6883c9c449589b954f6faf019bc7\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Allen was quite correct: no specific view was ever provided to me by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on whether to redeploy the SAS. That decision was left to Ministers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224728defea8fd438c9924e848c760a069\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: What heed did the Prime Minister pay to the warnings given to him surrounding the deployment of combat forces, such as the inadvertent killing of civilians\u2014like the death of 95 civilians near Kunduz just last week\u2014which has led to the growing alienation of Afghan people from the international forces there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022218446cbdf3c4c27b61731c63f2a6d9d\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Part of the advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was clear. It was frank advice on the security situation in Afghanistan and the importance of the role New Zealand could play in stabilising Afghanistan. The previous Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defence had this to say: \u201CSecurity and stability in Afghanistan will be not be restored by peacekeeping and development assistance alone.\u201D That was from Phil Goff, who thought it was right to deploy the SAS three times when he was in Government; in Opposition, he does not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220df06bfb12954f6b86bdcf8622ca1ba0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Before I take the honourable member\u2019s supplementary question, let me say the question specifically asked whether any advice was received on issues to do with the safety of civilians, and the Prime Minister did not\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e9cf4518355480db7f63b68f7c9df31\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: That was my point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239b2344c7e5649a6b7832d27a26a477f\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002225943eaff28d485b82edd6144e3caeff\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: It is not a point of order. I have just pointed out to the Prime Minister that, in fact, I listened very carefully and the advice\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022906c1c9eadbf43deb1e0304f94c76f07\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: The advice was frank on the security situation; it was not specific to civilians; it was just generalised advice about security.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ddba134ef9304d5ab9e6163f9322ba3e\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: What advice was given to him in respect of whether most Taliban combatants were local groups operating independent of any international influence, and to what extent the Taliban was under the influence of al-Qaeda?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221fb008d24645441fad82279b8e92d8c8\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I do not recall any specific advice in relation to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f792c1a657d540ed9d2932923e7f87da\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Government be following Australia\u2019s example of openness and accountability in telling us which Afghan provinces our SAS unit will be operating in; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7439af68ef346c184d1bebc5179a6bf\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It is not my practice, nor was it the practice of the previous Government, to discuss the operational details of the SAS deployments. I may at an appropriate time make a statement about its whereabouts, but I do not intend to do that at this time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f3ca826d316645889a7e7fa6f6ee4f16\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: In his earlier answers, was the Prime Minister telling us that he made the decision to deploy SAS troops to Afghanistan without any information as to whether what was happening in Afghanistan today was relevant to international terrorism and as to whether there was a growing alienation of Afghan people against the presence of international troops?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002219cade0c35854d6e9fe68f801f6c0e55\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: No. What I said earlier was that a range of advice was provided to me about the security situation in Afghanistan. Advice was also provided not just by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade but by my departments, the intelligence departments, and by the Ministry of Defence on a range of areas. In the end the decision on whether to deploy SAS troops to Afghanistan was made by the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221993c3e0b855473696fee9247ebf6f3f\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister prepared to see New Zealand lives put at risk to defend a regime that is known to be endemically corrupt, that is widely suspected of huge electoral fraud in the recent election, that is working today in conjunction with warlords known to have committed gross human rights abuses, and is known to be linked to criminal groups involved in drug trafficking; if so, why did he make the decision to recommit SAS troops?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d43977b577d7492cb9364b0995d54b4b\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Let me try to answer at least one or two parts of that rather rambling question by the Leader of the Opposition. First, we are responding to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022292e66e8e0db4783b9e16d5f4d656667\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Who are the \u201Callegators\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ff5dce2c1b84bdfa4675dd7554ae1c7\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I think it is a bit like Afghanistan in the Labour caucus at the moment. But putting that to one side, New Zealand responded to a call from the International Security Assistance Force to help out in Afghanistan. Of course New Zealand could have not responded to that call and so could have a lot of countries around the world. But what is the alternative? The alternative is to return to a Taliban-led Government that was oppressive and that cared not one jot about women. I suspect that if that Government were to be returned to Afghanistan the same Labour Party currently arguing about our desires to try to put some security back into Afghanistan would be arguing from completely the other corner.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210607b18e00748ad875333208f3caba6\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: Why did the Prime Minister favour the redeployment of SAS troops to Afghanistan, given all the problems that have emerged in the last couple of years, which led the previous Labour Government not to redeploy the SAS, and why did he agree to withdraw from Bamian the provincial reconstruction team, which is regarded as a model by others in that country and has the support of local people?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e42ed1285cd84d848eabb4bffc63faf2\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Maybe it is useful for me to remind Mr Goff of his own words about the SAS. This is what he said when\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d7f690b52a24c02a8164454cf55d5a0\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There will be silence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266ace0c4ead74c2d9a08031fbd11a8b3\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straightforward question. I indicated in that question that a number of things had changed in the last 3 years, and clearly, from the start of the Prime Minister\u2019s response, he was going nowhere near actually trying to address the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278b8ee53ab324702986dc504d26a2105\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: With respect, the Leader of the Opposition did ask why the Government had departed from the views of the previous Labour Government in respect of the deployment of troops. I think that the Prime Minister was answering that part of the question in what appeared to be a fairly direct response.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae6fbe0d8e324bfa908daa24dd25b6c9\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Let me remind Mr Goff, because it may be useful, of what he said when the SAS was deployed under his leadership.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022745ba7b25ce24c8487393e8960c04c27\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: What year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220cf42d7f169b41a080bda5b5e0798a80\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry, my little chipmunks, I do not know, but I will get the year and come back to you. Anyway, this is what Phil Goff said when he deployed the SAS to Afghanistan. He said that their presence, together with other international forces, had been \u201Ccritical both to constrain the influence of al-Qaeda and Taliban elements and to allow nation-building and reconstruction to take place.\u201D Nothing has changed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e32106010be84da8a8a87ae25d6491dd\u0022\u003EHon Phil Goff\u003C/span\u003E: Why has the Prime Minister ignored all the advice that was given to the previous Labour Government and that in the last 3 years of the Labour Government led that Government to decide that it was no longer appropriate to send combat troops to Afghanistan and that we should assist in other ways, such as the provincial reconstruction team, which was far more effective?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002217ef83e56377472ab429453766c625bd\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: Because International Security Assistance Force nations were asked to make a contribution\u2014 \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d5d54c1a8504c75b81d9691ec1a3698\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I apologise to the Prime Minister for interrupting for a moment, but there was a fair bit of exchange during the previous supplementary question. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a pretty straightforward and serious question, and his own colleagues do not help elicit an answer by a lot of interjecting, because they invite the Prime Minister to respond to the interjections. If they want to hear an answer to the question, I suggest they ease off a bit.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c87c1d445724bb4a5af5970c3a3817a\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: It is a very simple position. New Zealand has over 150 people in Bamian as part of an international effort trying to stabilise Afghanistan so that one day all of us can leave Afghanistan. What the Leader of the Opposition said is quite correct: at the moment the situation in Afghanistan is getting more dangerous, and it is getting worse. The Government acknowledges that. We have only one of two options. One is that we lend our shoulder to the wheel, as other countries have, to try to stabilise the position and basically make sure that the Taliban is restrained, or we decide to leave our troops in the reconstruction unit in Bamian, in which case they will be in a worse position. I for one can assure the Leader of the Opposition that if ever I am the Leader of the Opposition I will not be arguing that I would do something completely different if I were in Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5eac82675a44ea6b35d88abb33cdfa7\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a section from the Commonwealth of Australia parliamentary debates on 28 February 2007, where the Australian defence Minister explains the deployment of Australian special forces in Oruzgan province.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022738ed2d57d8e4fab8aefeb7680b1d8a1\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document is there any objection? There is no objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222a0306f2c1104c2b8ac8701ec53697ac\u0022\u003ELegal Aid\u2014Review\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295573fe3903e4e09a6499df0aad52a00\u0022\u003ECHESTER BORROWS (National\u2014Whanganui)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made regarding legal aid?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022 data-id=\u0022e7f1f469f7e94da3bc6f6d9e763a77ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e7f1f469f7e94da3bc6f6d9e763a77ef\u0022\u003EHon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E On 1 September I announced the release of the discussion paper Improving the Legal Aid System. The discussion paper is the first stage in a fundamental review of the legal aid system led by Dame Margaret Bazley. The purpose of the review is to consider how the system can best be structured so that it delivers effective services to those who need them most, in a way that is cost-effective and sustainable. Dame Margaret Bazley will provide me with a final report from the review in November.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225f1453f8-c44e-4ce6-b699-64d600322276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225cfb74a7c31d49008de51eab42a9062d\u0022\u003EChester Borrows\u003C/span\u003E: How can the public have their say on the future of the legal aid system?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002284873e4b168941c4b73f6612112f03fc\u0022\u003EHon SIMON POWER\u003C/span\u003E: Public submissions on the discussion paper are open until 9 October. I note that in a press release the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel indicated they would be making a submission on the discussion document. I look forward to receiving that. I encourage members of the public in particular, as well as members of the profession, to read the discussion paper, which can be found on the Ministry of Justice\u2019s website. They should all make a submission, if possible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a2db00c9ae24b13ad6f8f7bc9177011\u0022\u003EHon Lianne Dalziel\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister disappointed in the lack of opportunity for expanding the Public Defence Service that this paper presents, in light of his public endorsement of the service; and will the Government consider the expansion of the service beyond the very limited suggestion in the discussion document, where it is limited to improving standards where there are particular problems?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc547fe81ba044d6871f041284323b8e\u0022\u003EHon SIMON POWER\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am not disappointed at all with the discussion document. As the member knows, the Budget itself announced an expansion in the Public Defence Service. I am on the record as saying I am very impressed with it, and I am sure it will have a role.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022839ab3abf19d4682b7fab3f6ea1be4b9\u0022\u003ERahui Katene\u003C/span\u003E: What progress has been made to co-locate advice and information services with other social services in order to address the underlying problems that the discussion document says are being faced by M\u0101ori and Pacific peoples, and by other groups of people at risk of social exclusion?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af363649005a47f48f591e282e2c27fd\u0022\u003EHon SIMON POWER\u003C/span\u003E: Well, although we await Dame Margaret\u2019s final report on the issue of the proposed future shape of the legal aid system, including whether that system should be integrated with other social services, I can say on first hearing the suggestion that it is something I would be prepared to have a look at.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bc00fc1599d84fadbff27c4774f57865\u0022\u003EChild, Youth and Family\u2014Increasing Workloads for Regional Staff\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c9feab2473547ad9ff53d8c6bd47751\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader\u2014Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports, if any, has she received on the effect increasing workloads would have on regional Child, Youth and Family staff?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u00221e2814f578ed43d7889244b6ae850db5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e2814f578ed43d7889244b6ae850db5\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police)\u003C/span\u003E on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The restructure that Child, Youth and Family has recently undertaken will put at least 52 more social workers on the front line. This restructure was designed to enable staff to deal with any increase in workload.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4065f8f28d24eb7b21e643e73b6f254\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Minister\u2019s response to the report that the Kait\u0101ia office of the Ministry of Social Development lacks resources, and that staff were ordered not to tell her of their woes when she visited them recently? If staff are not allowed to talk to her, and if reports to her have to be sanitised, how can she really know what pressures the staff are facing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e69ca5501334211aca8a5adf135c712\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: I am sure the Minister would be very pleased to hear from that member about any reports like that. If the member really was genuine in her concern, she would have advised the Minister of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cfbf26349404450f8a5b02818a187667\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree with the Kait\u0101ia Ministry of Social Development management that the relationship between her and regional offices is \u201Ca relationship between a master and a servant\u2014that is, the servant knows their place\u201D? As the master, how does she hear the voices of her servants if they are to be muzzled?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be49f2c455b8453b9f9bff1bf311d4a7\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Things must have changed since Labour was in Government, because the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development, not the Minister, is the employer of the staff in the regional office. Obviously, it was much more political under the Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c31f2bec217a46d6b5b08a2d4d092c62\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister or her staff given a directive to Ministry of Social Development staff not to meet with Opposition MPs so they can hear the pressures staff are facing? This\u2014combined with her refusal to provide information, her obstruction of Official Information Act requests, and her refusal to provide answers to questions in a timely manner\u2014shows a Government that is arrogant and fast getting out of touch with New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d961e24a91e740a9a1d858d58239ed43\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: The former member of Parliament for Clevedon, now the MP for Papakura, waited 6 long years when Labour was in Government to be allowed to go to the Ministry of Social Development buildings in Papakura, because of directives from the member and her ilk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4a88dfe8d404a56a87db1ecb521c6f4\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a letter of complaint from me to Paula Bennett, written because she failed to provide answers in a timely manner to 84 written questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3b06573e42d45a3af33d22d4ea201bb\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table a letter from the member. Is there any objection? There is no objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd32d703d24647d3b69762c5ac59f6ad\u0022\u003EJohn Boscawen\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister confident that the workload of Child, Youth and Family staff will be reduced, given the Prime Minister\u2019s absolute assurance that parents will not find themselves under a full investigation from Child, Youth and Family staff for lightly smacking their children?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b944fcbe99a4cfa8162c15683ca1180\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: The member is as concerned about child abuse as, I am sure, every member of the House is. It is obvious that Child, Youth and Family must consider any reports it receives and consider whether to investigate them further. What I might consider to be a bashing, someone else might consider to be a light smack. It is important that Child, Youth and Family takes a very sensible approach to the matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e3006cd668bd4d54b8ed07e9ab81a039\u0022\u003ESafety in the Home Campaign\u2014Accident and Injury Data\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E5. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) on behalf of \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285cac01448154ca5b4c9dd843e14d2ff\u0022\u003EMICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National)\u003C/span\u003E  to the Minister for ACC: What accident and injury data has led the Accident Compensation Corporation this week to run a high-profile campaign on improving safety in the home?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022e6eae806fbee45319950f4bb8e8c361e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e6eae806fbee45319950f4bb8e8c361e\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC):\u003C/span\u003E There are two worrying trends in home injury data. First, 573 New Zealanders died in accidents in the home last year. That is more than the 375 killed in road accidents and the 123 killed in workplace accidents combined. The campaign is intended to raise awareness of home injuries, because public discussion tends to focus on those accidents on the road and in the workplace. The second worrying trend is the 36 percent increase in the last 2 years in the cost of people injured in the home, which now exceeds $640 million per year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f99bcf9e-1ad4-4ed4-9a97-1cccb5b1e11a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e09544a35c5f4d96875f3bc10416db83\u0022\u003EDr Jackie Blue\u003C/span\u003E: What are the implications of these sharp increases in accident compensation costs for accidents in the home for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and for levy payers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b251d5430934a5a890e6ae2455cfbbd\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Home accidents are paid through the earners levy, which is currently $1.70 per $100 of earnings. This increase and other increases across the scheme are putting huge pressure on the current levy. Although we can push out the full funding date to try to constrain levy increases in the work and motor vehicle accounts, that has very little effect on the earners account. Earners levy increases are inevitable, but the Government is doing everything possible to try to constrain costs. The campaign we are running is part of a broad strategy to better manage the scheme\u2019s costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263c089d7626d46899fad001b81d06cdf\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: How can the victims of sexual abuse receiving treatment through the scheme have any confidence that the Government is properly looking after their interests, given the conflicting statements made last sitting week, when, firstly, the Hon Pansy Wong confirmed on 25 August that there were new clinical guidelines\u2014saying, indeed, this is a new guideline\u2014and a day later the Hon Nick Smith said that no final decisions have yet been made?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227da4ab32c1384c7b906aa61aa236d8ef\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I am surprised by the linkage the member makes between home injuries and the issue of sexual offending.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215408066408040408b61e47b4b8a148b\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Where does most sexual abuse occur?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002209f30ea787864eb083b4fd522a475c9d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, they are different categories, and properly so. It is a sensitive area. The Government has said that the clinical guidelines for dealing with such sensitive claims will be addressed by clinicians, not by politicians.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3bbfc43836045f88ed51dfa719ba826\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: How can the Minister maintain his assertion that no final decisions have been made, when ACC is already advertising for the triage clinical psychologist who will be \u201Cleading and coordinating the new triage process for sensitive claims\u201D, and will the Minister or his staff be making an urgent telephone to the corporation after question time today to find out what really is happening?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022566efb3eb9a5450da84b389945ec4534\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I say to the member that, no, I will not. I note that the change in dealing with sensitive claims was launched by none other than Steve Maharey, now of Massey University, when he was a Labour Party member of Parliament. Frankly, I am surprised at members opposite stooping to the level of using sensitive sexual claims as an area in which to play politics. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b497d0afe0c64c83a0ebe1e2b3878ee9\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a copy of the ACC advertisement for the triage clinical psychologist for the sensitive claims project, which the Minister said has not started yet. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b689b5a4be5642a0a6162df054d56b29\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. [Interruption] The dilemma is that I had actually said there was no objection, prior to the Minister saying he did object. Therefore I had ruled on the matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289eefcd91e0c41c1a5aaba33016cf6b1\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason I objected is that the member in seeking the leave made an incorrect assertion at the end. That was the reason for the objection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022749000b89ba04302a0120f4b2607e778\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We do not need to pursue this matter any further. I have dealt with it. The document can be tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a9f5e0823fc5453e9299f8e025d26597\u0022\u003EHealth Care\u2014Policy\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c80c7dfcfe6d49bd95959140caffd50e\u0022\u003EHon RUTH DYSON (Labour\u2014Port Hills)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022b518d914cc644fe29246c8b683418804\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b518d914cc644fe29246c8b683418804\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):\u003C/span\u003E Despite the fact that this Government inherited $160 million worth of unfunded services to fill, and that $150 million was quietly stripped from Vote Health just before the election, yes, I do stand by that policy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c79dc732b915479b827d3df773857c8a\u0022\u003EHon Ruth Dyson\u003C/span\u003E: How can the people of New Zealand trust anything the Minister says, when he initially and categorically stated in the House that he had no involvement in the review of the health sector by Government insider Murray Horn, and then later that same afternoon he corrected that answer and tabled the four drafts of the same report he had commented on?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2bdfbdb6ab54e3fa3c87671a6013c2b\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: I think members of the public can take it quite clearly that I have had ongoing and appropriate discussions with the group over the 6 months, as any responsible Minister would. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223322c92b67224c0b9971b5b6a87605d8\u0022\u003EHon Ruth Dyson\u003C/span\u003E: How can the people of New Zealand trust anything the Minister says when he initially declared that he had no involvement at all in the review of the health sector by Government insider Murray Horn, and then he had to further correct his faulty memory because he had had dinner with the Horn review group to discuss the report?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf1a040d9d5e47f89fcbb131116d5e58\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: The member\u2019s claims that she makes in her question would not stand up to any scrutiny. The fact is that I had quite responsible, ongoing discussions with the group over a 6-month period. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c62edbe3e30405ebdfbd151c432d793\u0022\u003EDr Paul Hutchison\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister tell the House who was on the ministerial review group that delivered the comprehensive report on improving the performance and quality of the public health service?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f15814dc619c476fa13a01ce74025dea\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: The ministerial review group included some of the leading clinicians and managers in the New Zealand public health sector. The Director-General of Health, Stephen McKernan; Southland District Health Board Chief Medical Officer, Dr Pim Allen; general practitioner and former New Zealand Medical Association president, Dr Tom Marshall; former medical officer of health in Auckland and elected member of the Auckland District Health Board, Dr Virginia Hope; Hutt Valley District Health Board chief executive, Mr Chai Chuah; former public health nurse and executive, Sally Webb; and Hauora Taranaki Primary Health Organisation chief executive, Hayden Wano joined Dr Horn on that group. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002275a05f96-2474-4c90-a6ea-cf7b5798e03e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b070b30867ca4d0e8278eaf9d4c89854\u0022\u003EHon Ruth Dyson\u003C/span\u003E: How can the people of New Zealand trust anything the Minister says when, after forgetting all those things about the Horn report, he has now asked for an additional 20 working days under the Official Information Act to compile all the input he had into this so-called independent review?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d9eb0ed222764fe68d2d2042f5bb41a7\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: The public of New Zealand would understand that that member has a record of misrepresenting facts and information. She stood up in the House and showed a table that indicated cuts to services, and then she found out that it was actually extra money that was going into services. She is the member who stood up in the House and said that people are waiting longer, but if she had used the up-to-date information it would have showed that people were waiting for shorter periods of time. People cannot believe that member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ed453c2e07540758cbb6bc81153350e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I ask members to forgive me, but I cannot hear what on earth is being called.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225edd6deb9f634b08be442875ada979fc\u0022\u003EHon Pete Hodgson\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have wanted to raise a point of order about the Minister of Health on this matter on a number of occasions, and now will do so. My point of order is whether it is orderly to respond to a questioner by doubting the veracity of the question and the questioner generally. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe5d057f6e9c4303a6410f6e50110bdc\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: A point of order is being heard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00229c0eba1d-17a6-44e2-a9b3-2e2535339570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ee5be8cbe61b4d2090e5e2150c744269\u0022\u003EHon Pete Hodgson\u003C/span\u003E: In this particular case, the question was whether a report into which the Minister had claimed he had no input could be believed when he took an extra 20 working days to tell us what that input was. That was the question; it was clearly political. But the response from the Minister\u2014it has happened in the past and I am sure it will happen in the future\u2014has been to say that he does not know whether he can trust that member\u2019s word, and he then goes on to deliver a small homily on that. Sooner or later I think that will become disorderly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c809462c44094fbfa0256fdcb6f81d02\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I appreciate the point the honourable member has raised and were the question exactly what the member had claimed the question to be, then I might have treated the matter differently. But if the member reflects on the question asked by the Hon Ruth Dyson, he will see that it was a very political question about how the public can trust anything this Minister says. Under that kind of provocation in a question I cannot help the questioner if the Minister launches back with some information that may question whether people can trust the questioner. The point raised by the honourable member certainly might, under normal circumstances, have some merit but I think he chose the wrong question under which to raise it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3872ba9469242ddb653ab76af63076c\u0022\u003ETe Ururoa Flavell\u003C/span\u003E: T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora t\u0101tou. What efforts have been undertaken to involve M\u0101ori health providers in considering changes to the health system, and what has been their reaction?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228bb117da7e264498a87e3006d09e87aa\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: I attended a meeting in Taup\u014D on Friday afternoon with well over 200 M\u0101ori health providers and social service providers there. It was a meeting with the Hon Tariana Turia, and we talked about the involvement that M\u0101ori can have in taking the next steps forward in improving primary health care services in New Zealand. There were well over 200 providers present. I think there is a lot of interest in developing Wh\u0101nau Ora, which is the new and improved way that we can provide better services for individuals and families in M\u0101ori communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c894a3d815e14624a4ae85fe7cea3eee\u0022\u003EBuilding Sector\u2014Improvement of Quality and Reduction of Bureaucracy\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022527e0add39e04519a671dfce7de02bc5\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National\u2014West Coast - Tasman)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is he doing to improve building quality and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022 data-id=\u0022700a107abd4e4f8e93753fc1dbf05970\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022700a107abd4e4f8e93753fc1dbf05970\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction):\u003C/span\u003E On 27 August I announced two major initiatives. The first was a release of the terms of reference for a review of the Building Act 2004, and the second was quite substantial changes to the licensed building practitioner regime.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf5b541770c04b1097745cb9b05101b7\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Labour policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b44c140f9c848f9a455b0701b0ddee2\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON\u003C/span\u003E: No, they were not Labour policy, I say to Mr Jones. They were quite increased enhancements on original policy. Both of these initiatives will try to address a sector that is currently drowning in red tape and dying from over-regulation and bureaucracy. They will try to enhance quality and take away all the additional costs that the sector has been suffering from for a long time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002280b70d1ac2bf4d389adc6598512c4929\u0022\u003EChris Auchinvole\u003C/span\u003E: What has been the response to these announcements?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a11ce4e-9fb3-4738-b0be-5a9f81d975da\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ed7486a47904702a22fe38a8b73b9ca\u0022\u003EHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON\u003C/span\u003E: I have to say it is an unusual experience for me, but for the first time in relation to any announcement I have ever made over the many, many years I have been an MP or a Minister, no statement has been made by anybody in opposition to these announcements. The Certified Builders Association thinks this move is wonderful and said that this will be a really good step towards reducing red tape and bureaucracy. The Chief Executive Officer of the Registered Master Builders Federation, Warwick Quinn, said that this was a fantastic step forward in addressing issues that have been holding the industry back. Even John Gray, the President of the Home Owners and Buyers Association, said that this was the building blocks towards improving the standards in the industry that were long overdue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00223fbc30f021124d8fba1e88e37f02bb15\u0022\u003EPolice, Minister\u2014Line by Line Review Approval\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f289049f1d474b12a3fb3d3c3b2ece4c\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Police: Did she approve the line by line report of 3 February 2009, prepared for her by the New Zealand Police and entitled \u201CValue for Money and Budget 09: Line by Line Review\u201D, for submission to the Minister of Finance?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u002243c68fa1e03e49ac97e379836f282426\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243c68fa1e03e49ac97e379836f282426\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E Yes. All departments were required to conduct a line by line review of their expenditure to find savings that could be put into front-line services. The New Zealand Police line by line review yielded $14.2 million for the 2009-10 year, comprising $5.5 million in actual savings made by Police National Headquarters, and $8.7 million from returning funding from the previous year for depreciation of assets, because the assets had yet to be built. As the member should know, the New Zealand Police saved $5.5 million in its line by line review but received $182.5 million in Budget 2009 to increase the number of police. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261b58b63ecd84951addc29b16a6513d3\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Why did she allow a report to be submitted during the Budget process that included a proposal to make savings through \u201Cthe rationalisation of housing and station numbers\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220060778373541a89558999e316de419\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Actually, it is not my practice to stop the police from making suggestions, and I have said to them that I want them to put forward ideas, even ideas that I do not agree with, because the Government does not want to hold the police back and politicise them, which the previous Labour Government did. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022badb0a39-849c-462a-b32f-77fc017c9fc2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246e91bbc2198436f82c5e58c73569364\u0022\u003ESimon Bridges\u003C/span\u003E: Has she received any other reports on reviews undertaken by the police?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226507382b03b14bf0ae47606e61bab5d2\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes. I have received a report from the New Zealand Police advising that its property portfolio was reviewed in 2001, in 2006, and twice in 2007. During that time, under the previous Government\u2019s watch, 37 police properties were sold. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222107deedb28b4c6fa74b0f0f18cec97a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: 37!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac3a001310ba4d479dd569066f118761\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, 37. The police property portfolio is worth $665 million. It is expected to be regularly reviewed, but 37 were sold under Labour\u2019s watch. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246b6021b579a41dda159fb0be7d2e48a\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Why was the section of the report\u2014specifically paragraph 30\u2014that discussed \u201Ckey areas that are likely to be considered\u201D during the second phase of the police line by line review, including the property portfolio and the vehicle fleet, deliberately omitted when the paper was released on to the Treasury website?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca99f4cc843e43568d59e4b560b3ff3e\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: I am not in charge of Treasury; the member should be asking me about the police. In fact, the member is now confused and upset because the police have released all the documents he wanted. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254b18c14edda4213b0523131a41981bc\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The dilemma is that the question was very specific. The document has the Minister\u2019s signature. The document that was subsequently released by the police under the Official Information Act has all the information in it. The document that the Minister submitted for Treasury to publish had direct omissions pertaining to this point. The Minister is responsible for it; it is not a matter of Treasury being responsible for it. She signed the paper, she submitted it to Treasury, and she took out the particular elements that were omitted and not published on the Treasury website. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bb8bb83a8db4722a62caea7526257ef\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I believe that the Minister, from what I heard, answered the question quite accurately. The paper being referred to, I understand, was published on the Treasury website, and the Minister pointed out that she was not the responsible Minister for what Treasury might publish on a website. The paper that she has released as Minister of Police, I gather, contains all the information. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224005e9b43a4445dda2980b34d3c24abc\u0022\u003EDavid Garrett\u003C/span\u003E: Will the figure budgeted for crime investigations cited in the 3 February report, referred to in the primary question, be reduced as a result of the Prime Minister\u2019s direction that the police not pursue trifling incidents of child smacking; if not, why not? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221dbc45e7b5bf4d48bf3a10713554a5cd\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: I cannot imagine so, because, unfortunately, people still commit crimes, and we expect a very good service from the New Zealand Police for the public. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229712202382f44815ad5293016045c4b5\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister, now that this review of police property has been exposed publicly after she had kept it off the Treasury website, and therefore secret, for 7 months, guarantee that no operational police stations\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b99b97b0b69946bbbb6fff4ddeaf473d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am being very liberal on the kind of question I allow, but the Standing Orders are very specific that members should not make allegations in asking questions, at all, and especially when a Minister has pointed out that something is not her responsibility. For the member then, in asking a question, to allege that the Minister had kept something off the Treasury website is clearly not consistent with the Standing Orders. I invite the member to rephrase his question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260b0c33eda444137bed2a4cdcf6df32e\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister, now that this review of police property has been exposed publicly after being unavailable for 7 months, guarantee that no operational police stations or operational police houses will be closed or sold under this Government? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3b3acb3665549198b9584faa090306e\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: Both the Prime Minister and I have made it perfectly plain that police stations will not be sold under this Government. In fact, we are actually opening another one on Friday. I say to that member, who keeps popping up, that 37 police properties, including police houses, were sold under the previous Labour Government. That member was, in fact, a member of Cabinet when that happened. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bcd4779a19e1412da12f6b313e3fa789\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is an article in which the Prime Minister is reported as refusing to rule out the selling of police houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a8415856a3e4a1fb3e89b78f0b9c722\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Where is this article from? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf22c1a391274f528cd2b7f3a259e4b0\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: It is a news media article; it is from the Dominion Post. [Interruption] Well, they do not like it, of course. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac4bd4c826ed4fb6a186b4e40fa46e53\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There will be no further comment like that, and there will be no interjection. Leave is sought to table a press clipping. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is. [Interruption] Sorry, there is no objection. [Interruption] I hear there is objection. I beg your pardon: there is objection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3e98ab86e054bd5b96d7ee1f29ef70d\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is exactly the same\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4ad7ffc53c04814b097d2785c202139\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, this is different, because I heard conflicting voices. If there is objection, I must take it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa87d7f75c5b4978adc3a16096ba6bfe\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Police report on its line by line review that was recently released under the Official Information Act that reveals proposals to close police stations and houses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7bf9d4ba2f44b628d073eb7a3d0815a\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cab7a20be1e4b0e969204cbf2153462\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take a bit of counsel on this. I think the document is incorrectly described, but tabling it will sort that out. It will show that the member is quite wrong in what he is claiming. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227595aadace3e43c8b67842babe72922b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member has the right to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241b5d94098674d1f911ae3d91c314984\u0022\u003EHon Rodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Speaking to the point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc28f23073924eedb84a17a0151debf7\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will not hear further on this issue. These are not valid points of order. I caution the member that when describing a document he should give the greatest emphasis to detailing where the document is from, rather than trying to summarise its contents, because that will tend to lead to disorder. This is a release under the Official Information Act on the line by line review. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a3c600f0468c41298ef79d6b88e12fc0\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table the same document, but the version that was published on the Treasury website, where the references to rationalisation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edfe703f702f45d58445b00e184b3ad9\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member has described the document. Again, we get back into this practice of tabling documents that are readily available to the House. If it is on the Treasury website, it is readily available to the House. The reason the member seeks to table it is to try to make a political point. I have to put the leave the member has sought, but\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226645cf2256ea4b0d8292b2e1920c4d08\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, you have given a commentary on my motives. I do not believe that is appropriate. Secondly, the reason the document is being tabled is that there are two versions of it, one of which is the total document, one of which has omissions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e38fc6fc3054a33ac26bc01ff2a6226\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I hear the member perfectly well, and it is perfectly obvious to everyone that that is what the member is doing. Leave is sought to table a document that was published on the Treasury website. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227fb7de5b30e049ce83da1674185458c4\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a speech from the previous Minister of Police, Annette King, in July 2008, in which it was noted that 34-plus police stations had been opened or refurbished under the Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002285bff20cabf942bca356e0717e70082e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022638bdfd3bed14dfa9d02075b05ea7d97\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a list of the 37 police properties sold under the Labour Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245749face70a4d2a98de8f1e68d1cd44\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fa175a79a9649f482f55633c649eda4\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Stations? Houses?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bee6bb090f244d6a85672fb99a7fe45e\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Can I inquire as to the source of the document.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283a4167431174eff8a5aaf248ee09eee\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: It is from the New Zealand Police to me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b446a06e61474242aa53f20df1e2df21\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002245e77b9cd5014cdf8788ffcc55c0eea3\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220d8434a8707a4fff88b2d6c3080702ad\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have not recognised the member. Leave is sought to table that document.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0c5c9d4acd1406a97f18d983da3fbe4\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Before the leave is given\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022993858ef8d734bc381ba261950bb2984\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member wants to speak to the point of order. I am not sure what issue of order he seeks my assistance with, because he can refuse leave very easily.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221eb83f618a8e42a486faa1350897c524\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I may not wish to refuse leave. I seek further advice from the Minister as to the nature of the document, because in the past blank pieces of paper with no letterhead from departments, particularly the New Zealand Police, have been tabled as some sort of official document. I would simply like clarification. Is it an official document with a letterhead that has been signed by somebody as a briefing paper to the Minister?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268571c34d93c49b791cdd0566b4c1568\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Will the document be an official document, prepared by officials?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223b14bfc1d2f64e5399f3df6a44aa718e\u0022\u003EHon JUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: I cannot recall whether it has a letterhead, but it came from the New Zealand Police. Actually, I take great objection on behalf of the police\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df1000bedf8d431d889e989a9bf94f7d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, we will not have a debate by way of points of order. It is my fault for allowing this in the first place. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a97660c8fd804899b3bab42a0d5b4ceb\u0022\u003ESenior Citizens\u2014Government Awareness of Issues\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a744a9a7-a2e8-401b-abfb-aec22a3818c8\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d6a229d0c99438f8cd53668429336e0\u0022\u003EKATRINA SHANKS (National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for Senior Citizens: What is the Government doing to be kept informed on issues that affect older New Zealanders?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f435f9b910e4898912aecdbd9ce6d5d\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Becoming one!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022 data-id=\u0022576c55a268a149ce9489d84d4a71df33\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022576c55a268a149ce9489d84d4a71df33\u0022\u003EHon JOHN CARTER (Minister for Senior Citizens):\u003C/span\u003E Apart from reaching the age, as the Minister for Senior Citizens I meet regularly with national organisations that advocate for and represent older people, such as Grey Power and Age Concern New Zealand. This engagement allows me to keep up to date with issues of national importance for older people. I am also fortunate to have a group of 50 people called Volunteer Community Co-ordinators, who live from Cape Reinga to the Bluff and who keep me informed on issues that affect their communities. Not only do they provide me with the opinions of older people but also they contribute to the development of policy and services that impact on senior citizens. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a744a9a7-a2e8-401b-abfb-aec22a3818c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227cbcb9ca86404928888d8cd6238b047f\u0022\u003EKatrina Shanks\u003C/span\u003E: How does this information and policy advice assist the Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221720d7c30f074069bca8dbf0cf53ce90\u0022\u003EHon JOHN CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: Volunteer Community Co-ordinators recently helped the Ministry of Social Development redevelop the department\u2019s forms that older people most frequently use, and told us how it would like the ministry to deliver services to older people. However, Volunteer Community Co-ordinators is not limited to its work with the Ministry of Social Development. For example, it recently prepared a submission to Pharmac\u2019s consumer advisory committee on its review of its terms of reference, which the Minister of Health was very pleased to acknowledge. It also works with local district councils to promote positive ageing, and is heavily involved in planning the International Day of Older Persons.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002285b17c65e2c349d8a041c10cfac47414\u0022\u003ENational Land Transport Programme\u2014Priorities\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f6a8d64af514e4c87ee5ca9df38b962\u0022\u003EHon DARREN HUGHES (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Transport: How many, if any, projects have had their priority downgraded in the recently announced National Land Transport Programme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022 data-id=\u0022813751ae2c884d8dbf974bf9790eb0f1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022813751ae2c884d8dbf974bf9790eb0f1\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport):\u003C/span\u003E This is the first time a 3-year National Land Transport Programme has been prepared. It is therefore not possible to say that any project has been downgraded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225709d1a17ba64764a8b12864a5ec065e\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Tararua district not getting its upgrade of the Pah\u012Batua track, even though it is a regional priority that ratepayers have spent $4 million preparing for and is the only alternative to the often-closed Manawat\u016B Gorge road, particularly when transporting critically ill patients from Dannevirke and Pah\u012Batua to Palmerston North Hospital?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226641fc655a29405380ce84b4a63069d3\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: The New Zealand Transport Agency is charged with prioritising a huge range of projects across the country. If the member has a specific concern about a specific project, then if he contacts me directly I will be happy to find out the situation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d7f04f6a358440182ed9b1b0bef2d7d\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister has prioritised the route to the Port of Tauranga as being important for economic growth, then why has Rotorua\u2019s eastern arterial highway, which has similar economic value according to the Bay of Plenty Regional Transport Committee, been left off the list?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227062c5257d4a472196ac6e4db7940567\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: The regional transport committee prepares a set of projects and the New Zealand Transport Agency is charged with providing a national priority. In relation to the Rotorua eastern arterial highway, I can advise the member that currently the New Zealand Transport Agency is completing an exercise to reconcile the information based on the assessment to date in relation to that project, and also that the agency is meeting with Rotorua District Council staff in regard to a Rotorua transport strategy later this calendar year. There may quite possibly be progress on this project later in this calendar year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226e1ead03-bf7f-496a-a02f-ce52859c58c1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edc7aa3ceb8d492a9175293a120a69d6\u0022\u003EHekia Parata\u003C/span\u003E: What investments does the National Land Transport Plan make in State highways and local roading, and how will these investments contribute to New Zealand\u2019s economic growth and productivity?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022614070886ec04118af5681f4cf7fc696\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: The 2009-12 National Land Transport Plan makes an $8.7 billion investment in New Zealand\u2019s land transport, which is the largest ever. This includes investment of $4.6 billion in the State highway network, $1.9 billion in local roads, and just under $1 billion in key urban public transport networks. This funding will help advance many projects. Some that spring to mind include the K\u014Dp\u016B Bridge, Victoria Park, the western ring route, P\u016Bhoi to Wellsford, the Waikato Expressway, the Tauranga Eastern Link, and the Christchurch Southern Motorway, all of which, when completed, will greatly benefit economic growth and productivity as this Government works to secure a brighter future for all New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d5bbcf6ee65407ebb50d9f1197387ab\u0022\u003EMoana Mackey\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister confirm that he has pulled the funding for the Wainui cycleway in Gisborne because it does not meet his Government\u2019s criterion of contributing to economic growth; if so, why do cycleways that the Prime Minister announces contribute to economic growth, but this cycleway, which has had 4 years of planning and development and was due to be started next month, does not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224a244152-977c-48d2-bf53-4f3a369a27a9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0285c2c23fa4a70bb4ee632c9b616c8\u0022\u003EHon STEVEN JOYCE\u003C/span\u003E: I have, of course, done no such thing. It is the New Zealand Transport Agency\u2019s responsibility to prioritise projects around the country, and it does prioritise them according to contributions to economic growth, strategic fit, and a number of other criteria. Again I repeat for members present that this is the largest programme ever, and a huge number of projects have been prioritised for funding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022babf8bc3137741b4a2fa848a1412c69e\u0022\u003EMinisterial Accommodation\u2014Proposed Allowances\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226faed314bf2e48ffaaa051aa86c757cb\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader\u2014Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services: Can he confirm that under his proposed new rules Government Ministers will be given a lump sum of up to $37,500 a year to pay for accommodation in Wellington, and will Ministers be able to pocket any of the public money they do not spend?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022 data-id=\u00221b416b73d49b440ebbfa721070dbda20\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b416b73d49b440ebbfa721070dbda20\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for Ministerial Services):\u003C/span\u003E In respect of the first part of the question, yes, but the member should note that the payment is expected to cover all the costs associated with ministerial accommodation, such as rent, power, and other expenses. In relation to the second part of her question, the member should note that the advice I received from Ministerial Services is that the average value of the current provision for ministerial accommodation is $48,295 per annum, so the scenario that she proposes is most unlikely as the new rates do not, in most cases, cover the full costs.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a44d2a59a919449db76d83474053960a\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister guarantee to the House and to the public that none of his Ministers will pocket the extra money provided in the lump-sum payment that they do not use on their accommodation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022339ab65b514048e2962da078b93081a8\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: No more so than I can guarantee that that member, who is bulk funded for $14,700 for other costs, does not pocket some of that. [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022166a7b44ba9740308a60d69b0fd27caf\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am calling Metiria Turei; please show some courtesy to a colleague.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225472820d36ea4666b824586a3f839cca\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister then support a full review, an independent review, of Ministers\u2019 and MPs\u2019 allowances, including the $14,000 MPs\u2019 expenses allowance\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ee624d2ea7c480e9d2b82c9939c032a\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Order!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a977ea6c260d4e049ab19767234724b4\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014including the unlimited Ministers\u2019 credit card allowance\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022030c56627b52408ba8b2f5847a0bb73b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member must have seen that I am on my feet, and she kept going on and ignored me. She cannot ask the Prime Minister about matters to do with members\u2019 allowances, because they are not matters the Prime Minister is responsible for; they are matters to do with the Parliamentary Service, and the Prime Minister is not responsible for them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022049c5ef9d402426dae6658a6beee27ba\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree with you on that, but the Prime Minister, in response to the supplementary question from Metiria Turei, brought that specific matter to the House\u2019s attention by saying he could not comment or could not guarantee anything regarding members of Parliament\u2019s allowances. At the point that he brought that material into the question time it became debatable, and I think her question is within order because of the Prime Minister\u2019s answer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b66c304e83484f34aba6f361ecb42993\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have to confess that that is a very good point of order from the Hon Darren Hughes. I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee speak to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e4f0447f7f084d7e9f7204b96fee3d85\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Speaker, I do not think that you can rule suddenly that because an answer refers to something that is outside someone\u2019s responsibility, it makes that person responsible for it. Ministers routinely answer questions about justice matters, where they will use examples of situations that clearly they have no responsibility for but that serve to articulate the utter hypocrisy of the\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213f3d75bf10c4c1186b0e3a8cd1c10e9\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I do not need to hear further on this; I think that has given me time. I thank the honourable member. His point of order was very good until the last bit, which was unhelpful. He will not carry on down that vein any further. In respect of this matter, an interesting issue was raised by the Hon Darren Hughes. Had the Prime Minister raised matters that were not specifically related to the primary question, then it would have expanded the area that he could be questioned on, but the Hon Gerry Brownlee is quite right in saying it does not extend the matters the Prime Minister can be questioned on to areas outside the Prime Minister\u2019s responsibility. One cannot question a Minister or the Prime Minister on areas outside their responsibility. It was a very interesting point of order, but I must rule, as I did previously, that the questions must relate to the Prime Minister\u2019s area of responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259ec93e680aa43ee8db22dfc1d9d6613\u0022\u003EJeanette Fitzsimons\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a slightly different point of order. The question did not ask whether the Prime Minister would initiate a review, which he clearly cannot do as it is outside his area of responsibility. It asked whether he would support one. The Parliamentary Service Commission is made up of representatives from political parties; therefore in the Prime Minister\u2019s capacity as the leader of a political party he would be in a position to support such a review if a review were initiated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222df31adcefb14d44a105e6eec5ccf104\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, no\u2014a nice try, but the Prime Minister cannot be questioned on matters to do with his leadership of any political party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210a88c35b98f4e8ca6c3dd8bdbae15c9\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister know that low-income workers need to prove evidence of their actual housing costs in order to receive a supplement through Working for Families; is it not reasonable that his Ministers do the same?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266f7054456024a3296315da6134346f6\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: No, I do not think that it is, for this reason: if the member wants to go and fully read the report\u2014I am not sure whether she has\u2014she will find that the best people to conduct this review were those in the Ministerial Services, who had at their disposal all the information. I think that by any measure the report is very fair and balanced, and lays out the information. If the member goes to option 4, she will see that that option, which is broadly the option we have adopted, quite clearly points out that the current administration costs are $220,000. The administration costs under option 4 would be cut to a maximum of $90,000, and potentially to less than that. So we have looked to try to put in place a system that will be the least administratively expensive. Ministers are being given $37,500, and they are free to pay rent, free to buy a house, and free to take a number of options as to how they house themselves. In the end, that option will be administratively the simplest, cleanest, and cheapest way of doing that. The member will know, because I am sure that she has looked closely at this issue, that the $14,700 each of us gets as a member of Parliament could also be, if we wanted it to be, a claims system. But that would require an army of bureaucrats to go and look at every single invoice. All I can tell the member is that if we look at the average here, we can see that the sum of $48,250 will go down to $37,500, and that the vast bulk of Ministers will lose on this deal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce941addcff34c63b7f7ef3233970836\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has once again raised the issue of MPs, as opposed to Ministers, and their allowances and housing costs. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on the extent to which a supplementary question of mine, which included a reference to MPs\u2019 expenses and allowances, and the content of that question could be out of order, given that that matter has been raised twice now by the Minister himself\u2014a matter for which he has no responsibility.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1247df8b93a44f58f2ae95830b60d42\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I think that it is a very simple matter. The Prime Minister, in trying to be helpful to the questioner, used an example that he believed the questioner might be familiar with. It was similar: a simple payment being made versus a claims system being used. The use of that as a helpful example does not mean that the Prime Minister has expanded the area where the member can question him. The member cannot question the Prime Minister over matters to do with members\u2019 allowances. If she wants to raise questions about that she can see the Speaker, but she cannot do that through oral questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5fbdbcbd10f4644888c0bb12759dc0c\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: If the Prime Minister is using as an excuse for lump-sum payments that can be pocketed the cost of dealing with receipts for actual costs from Ministers, does he then agree that low-income workers who currently need to prove their actual costs would benefit, and the Government itself would benefit, from the savings in those administration costs if they too were provided with a lump-sum payment that they too could pocket as a supplement to Working for Families, just like the system he is proposing for his Ministers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226df8266ad7c9477fbcbe44fe83c65f89\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I will let the Prime Minister judge his responsibility there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d39272c2c4074d6286fb7f17850ca944\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: I have a deal for the member. She should ask what the average is for the housing supplement paid to low-income New Zealanders. She should then go and poll those people collectively to ask them whether they are prepared to accept a 25 percent reduction in what they receive, on average, in return for no administration costs, and see the response that she gets.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c45355cc761345fe9c2d5da302ac5cc9\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Why does the Prime Minister\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e2d076176a19463682952eaf3e0f7377\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have called Metiria Turei. I apologise to the honourable member, but I ask the front-benchers to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b84c828c25b04cc4adc74c589ae474be\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Why does the Prime Minister not stop making excuses for the whitewash review that he has conducted after issues around ministerial housing allowances were raised, after this disclosure of MPs\u2019 expenses, and simply agree to a proper independent review of all ministerial and MPs\u2019 allowances\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229cd07a051b9444d4a26c3c20d6af6013\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have already made it clear that the honourable member cannot question the Prime Minister about MPs\u2019 expenses. If the member persists in that, I will sit her down and cease her questioning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222182b348bcd244f7b61ac52cd77a8b9b\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Why does the Prime Minister not simply support an independent review of all relevant allowances by an independent body at arm\u2019s length from Ministerial Services, so that the public can gain some confidence that the rules by which Ministers are using their allowances are clear and transparent and that Ministers are not pocketing public money that they are not entitled to?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aee09c0450eb4b9abbb8ad66be000176\u0022\u003EHon JOHN KEY\u003C/span\u003E: All I can say to the member is, firstly, I sought a review in relation to ministerial housing. The status quo was a cost to the Crown of $2.377 million. By the way, that was the status quo that that member, when the Greens gave some support to the previous Labour Government, thought was OK. Secondly, this Government has taken some action and has, essentially, asked Ministers to reduce their spending by 25 percent. From the way that I look at it, that is a hang of a lot more than any other Government has ever done.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ac74f59157b84cd8af6ec3e644540e06\u0022\u003EMining\u2014Prohibition in National Parks\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e4081aae2264c4ab91741695d8bfaa9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Conservation: What input did he have to possible changes to the mining prohibition in national parks currently provided by schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991, prior to the Minister for Energy and Resources\u2019 announcement during his address to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 2009 on 26 August 2009?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022136da8c4-afc7-483e-a39c-c66812f71774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e53aaee1e2a440f7b6b776cecdd46ca9\u0022\u003EHon KATE WILKINSON (Acting Minister of Conservation)\u003C/span\u003E: He had considerable input.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222316ab23921f43d0aa21ec9a36c36a5e\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware that virtually all Department of Conservation land outside of national parks is not subject to a mining prohibition; and why did he not advocate for the continued protection of national parks?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022136da8c4-afc7-483e-a39c-c66812f71774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278655bf04ad9441fb120a22aa754923d\u0022\u003EHon KATE WILKINSON\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister is doing a great job in advocating for conservation, but advocating for conservation actually means taking account of the bigger picture, not merely opposing everything. We are looking at a balanced approach to balance our environmental responsibilities with economic opportunities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d5cf60e3cd54232b74fa59544536d1d\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Why has the Government not even ruled out the mining of coal and lignite in national parks?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022136da8c4-afc7-483e-a39c-c66812f71774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c9c578f417a4209b1b4ff8698a6d908\u0022\u003EHon KATE WILKINSON\u003C/span\u003E: There is a review at the moment. Until the outcome of that review is known we will not be making decisions. I note that even the Hon Chris Carter agrees with our position in that he had to consider the environmental and wildlife effects as well as \u201Cthe economic benefits that flow from the efficient development and use of New Zealand\u2019s coal resources.\u201D We look forward to his supporting our review as well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228318deeb62d844b989e01478aa94d2ca\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Given that the Minister has already adjusted the boundary of the Oteake Conservation Park to exclude the main stem of the river so as to facilitate the mining of lignite, why did he think it proper to label his critics as being hysterical?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022136da8c4-afc7-483e-a39c-c66812f71774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db10f9df9eef4b5ab433ec3ff6fbb68b\u0022\u003EHon KATE WILKINSON\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister was making the very fair point that we all need to keep some perspective about the matter in hand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227cd467d1c37c481a9cc32322d01fae0c\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a Waikato Times article of 29 August in which the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Tim Groser, said his critics were emotional and accused them\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227be2bd26f53418a952d84e2065cc455\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table a press clipping from 29 August. Is there any objection to it being tabled? Yes, there is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cdacad5acd64412bba63699e09b016a6\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a list of the 270 protected conservation places currently listed in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224b296867cfd4a4cade0be1ea20753a1\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table part of an Act. Is there any\u2014[Interruption] I have to seek leave. I would just ask members, though, to\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b15143f53780494a93bf2fd791d7299d\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies; maybe I misdescribed it. It is not part of an Act; it is a list of the places that are protected under schedule 4, but those places are not listed in the Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291c277787de44ff49d55189136a4e8ba\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I beg the honourable member\u2019s pardon. Leave is sought to table a document\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bf52ad27dfe5438fbc733164e1793640\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Verify the document.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0b5f4f3a68e4d67b080b51b220811fb\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Members are asking me to find out where the document is from. If it is not part of the Act, where is it from?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022adc42318793c41818d9f0c67dd970681\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: The list is a generated list, I understand, from the Parliamentary Library, of all the places\u2014of which there are 270\u2014described in the categories in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022280218770efc43d88a1b7cec69f5b283\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I say to honourable members that a point of order was being heard. It seems the document comes from the Parliamentary Library. It is a list of places covered by that part of the Act. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002287458afe227b4d5ab70897c42c96437e\u0022\u003EUrgent Debates Declined\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226dc32418120044ac9e0c8b64113c4347\u0022\u003ESAS\u2014Deployment to Afghanistan\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ca39b59fe046449ba2d78128084dd22c\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Police\u2014Review of Property Portfolio\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u00223f0425c26cee4ee6bef55566ee591d8f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f0425c26cee4ee6bef55566ee591d8f\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 media reports of a decision by Cabinet not to accept the advice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the issue of deploying Special Air Service personnel to Afghanistan. The decision to recommit SAS personnel was made last month and the House held a debate on the decision on 18 August. For there now to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of importance, or a new development in an existing situation of sufficient importance in itself, to warrant a debate being held. An urgent debate cannot be granted on the basis of media speculation. I am not persuaded that the matter warrants the House again setting aside its business. The application is therefore declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI have also received a letter from the Hon Clayton Cosgrove seeking to debate the review of the New Zealand Police property portfolio. The review may well be a case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility, but the member has provided no authenticating material. That in itself is sufficient ground to decline an application; I refer the member to Speaker\u2019s ruling 170/5. In addition, the setting up of a review rarely justifies an urgent debate. When a review is reported, there may be exceptional circumstances that will justify a debate, but even then this is not always the case; I refer to Speaker\u2019s ruling 177/1. The application is therefore also declined.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c4bbf98496434a169ab9bb47b7c65c5d\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f1d483ca13a148d68309477279c6634d\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00226442e82a057e48dfa6eac13733179448\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226442e82a057e48dfa6eac13733179448\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, the second reading and remaining stages of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, the introduction and first reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill, and the second reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EThe first bill that we intend to deal with under urgency today is the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, and that is because of the commercial sensitivity that could exist around the issue of the guarantee of retail deposits in New Zealand. This provision has been widely supported in the past as being good for the economy in these difficult times, and it is important that the legislation is passed through the House in a continuum so that commercial interests may be best protected through this mechanism. The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is a measure that is very much awaited by many people in New Zealand who have projects that may well contribute to economic growth. Therefore, having the legislation in place well and truly before 1 October is a good idea. The Biosecurity Amendment Bill, to be introduced today, has similar aspects to it. It is important that we get that bill referred to a select committee for due consideration promptly. We want to make progress on the Student Loan Scheme (Repayment Bonus) Bill, because this is the time of year when many young people are planning their futures, and they need to know exactly how that loan regime will be put in place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EI also say that it is not widely known that the House sits for only 17 hours a week. When we take out question time, the general debate, and, quite often, the overrun of question time, or special debates such as were requested today, we get to the situation whereby between now and Christmas the scheduled sitting days available to the House are such that we have just 115-odd hours available for the passing of legislation. That means that from time to time the Government needs to seek extended hours, which is exactly what is being sought here through the provision of urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221518828d02584ead84083482608ee747\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002249c4e67b27bc476dbe33f363defc2885\u0022\u003ECrown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002211d78fa89a9948a681f41327a2804f17\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022313d6f2307fc4e7bb64124ee3453e561\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022313d6f2307fc4e7bb64124ee3453e561\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill be now read a first time. I am sure the House will recall the circumstances of October last year, when we faced a financial crisis on a scale not seen in New Zealand since, probably, the Great Depression. Despite the fact that New Zealand\u2019s financial system was relatively sound because it had avoided many of the risky practices that triggered the financial crisis associated with the collapse of Lehman Brothers last year, we are part of an interconnected world and were unable, therefore, to avoid the impact of a global meltdown in confidence in the financial system. One of the immediate challenges for New Zealand at the time was that the access to overseas markets that had traditionally and consistently funded our borrowing needs dried up. We were put in the position of relying on our own savings more than we had done for many years, and, as has often been remarked upon in the House, those savings are not significant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe Australian Government decided at very short notice to guarantee retail deposits\u2014that is, deposits made by members of the public and by banks\u2014and it did so alongside many other countries. The global process was started by Ireland. There was a considerable risk that New Zealand\u2019s financial institutions could lose some of their domestic deposit base to Australia. The actions taken by the Irish Government triggered a whole raft of guarantees from Governments around the globe for precisely these reasons. At the time, the New Zealand Parliament had been dissolved for the 2008 general election, and the Government of the day established the existing guarantees scheme using the powers available to the Minister of Finance under the Public Finance Act 1989. This scheme provided assurance to depositors in New Zealand financial institutions during a period of great uncertainty and at a time when New Zealanders had seen pictures on TV of bank runs in the UK. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EIt is good that the world\u2019s economic and financial outlook is improving slowly and that the risks facing New Zealand\u2019s financial system are abating. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the sense of crisis has passed. There is still a long way to go before all the consequences of the financial meltdown work their way through. We have not returned to the benign environment that existed before the global financial meltdown. Economies are fragile and asset markets can at best be said to be stabilising, but there are some asset markets where that is still not the case. The case to continue offering a Crown guarantee is finely balanced. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe introduction of this bill recognises that non-bank deposit taking institutions are a significant feature of New Zealand\u2019s financial system. One has only to witness the pain that has occurred for the many New Zealanders who lost deposits invested in finance companies. The country needs a non-bank finance sector that will lend to the small business that wants to buy a ditch digger. Loss of confidence in financial institutions would severely undermine the recovery that we look forward to, and we cannot afford to take that risk at this time. We need certainty for financial institutions that provide vital funding, and savers want certainty that investments are safe. However, the Government recognises that guarantees can encourage unwarranted risk-taking among financial institutions and that guaranteeing deposits carries an ongoing economic cost. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe Government has faced the issue of how to exit the scheme with the least cost to the economy and to taxpayers, who have to pay up when a financial institution covered by the guarantee goes under, and to balance this with the least disruption to the finance sector. We consider that extending the scheme from 12 October 2010 until 31 December 2011 on tighter terms is the appropriate trade-off to address the issue, while still providing adequate certainty to the financial sector and those who rely on it. Accordingly, the Government has introduced the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill under urgency to extend the Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme in order to provide certainty as soon as possible and to avoid undue disruption to the country\u2019s financial system. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022a684e661e66546ee9f0ed12e9b59af43\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a684e661e66546ee9f0ed12e9b59af43\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I wish to indicate from the outset that Labour will be supporting this urgent legislation, the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. I will provide an outline of the reasons why, and, particularly in the Committee stage of the debate, we will provide some of the second-tier arguments that surround this issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe Minister of Finance is absolutely right in his recounting of the history of the retail and wholesale guarantee schemes. Members of the House will recall with some trepidation the dark days of September and October 2008. I have a very clear recollection of the then Minister of Finance, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, negotiating with the Australian Government some of the finer points of these schemes just before taking the stage to launch Labour\u2019s election campaign. Parliament, as the current Minister of Finance has said, had been prorogued and it was necessary for the Minister of Finance to use the powers available to him under the Public Finance Act to implement the schemes. Crucially, when the Labour Government did so, in consultation with the banking and non-bank finance sectors as well as with Treasury and the Reserve Bank, the then Government made clear its expectation that for major banks to participate in the very beneficial guarantees at wholesale level, they would also be expected to participate at the retail level, and so they did. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe Minister is also right in his brief summary of the options available to any Government now in considering how to wind up or scale back this protection as conditions around the world have improved. Basically, there are three options. Firstly, a Government can go cold turkey: end the scheme as it currently stands on its current date, and leave it to the financial sector to make its own adjustment. Secondly, a Government can provide an unlimited extension while regularising the legislative structure, as this instrument does, and providing a short period under controlled circumstances of further cover. That is the approach that both National and Labour have supported. Thirdly, a Government can provide the possibility of a longstanding retail deposit guarantee, which is common practice in other jurisdictions. We understand that the Government is considering further work in that area, and we support that, but we agree with the Government that to do so in haste in these circumstances would not be good process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThose are the substantive reasons why we believe this policy is appropriate. It follows, therefore, that the legislation that Parliament is being asked to consider today is also appropriate. This is framework legislation, as the Minister of Finance has said. It provides powers for the Minister and the Government to implement the type of policy; that has been said. It does not provide the explicit detail of that policy, and it does not provide the fine detail of the draft deed. We will be talking some more about those policies and the details thereof in the Committee stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe bottom line is that this bill is appropriate. Through it, the deposits of New Zealanders will be protected, and the ongoing stability of the New Zealand financial system will be assured. This bill also aligns our scheme with similar guarantees in Australia, which is sensible and should be done. We would like to see some further explicit consideration of the form of permanent deposit guarantee insurance, and we are encouraged by indications that the Government is so considering. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThis bill does not outline the eligibility policy; it merely provides the Minister with the authority to determine that eligibility. We have some concerns relating to the policy that is currently being drafted, as was set out in broad terms by the Minister a few weeks ago. The criteria requires that companies have at least a BB credit-rating to be eligible. However, some companies might not be able to obtain a sufficient credit-rating, having insufficient scale to meet the requirements of the credit-rating agencies. The transaction costs of obtaining a rating could also be disproportionately high. This could cause a further shake-out in the non-bank finance sector, resulting in further finance company losses or collapses, taking from mum and dad investors while the big banks move in to mop up the customer base. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EIt appears from the Government\u2019s announcement of policy that the major winners in all this will once again be the major Australian banks. Those banks are able to benefit from the wholesale guarantee scheme now without being obliged or persuaded to participate in the reformulated retail scheme. The Government\u2019s willingness to see the major banks opt out is yet another demonstration of its willingness to placate the big end of town at the expense of ordinary mum and dad New Zealanders and small businesses. Labour made it clear when it was in office that if big banks wanted the benefits of wholesale guarantees, then they also needed to participate in the retail guarantee scheme. National is letting them opt out. Meanwhile, the big banks are winning twice. They will pay less in fees, and they will get to grow market share at the expense of smaller institutions, some of which will, no doubt, have to rely on this guarantee, or fall over. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EWe have received assurances from Treasury. I appreciate the Minister\u2019s making his officials available to us. It has been a good exercise in bipartisan consultation, and we hope it is not the last. Treasury has briefed us that the fee changes that are proposed accurately reflect the risk faced by the Crown. On that basis we are prepared to accept that the charges for non-bank finance companies are probably proportionate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ESlightly more broadly, Labour is listening to New Zealanders\u2019 concerns about the banking system. That is why Labour, together with the Greens and the Progressive party, launched the Parliamentary Banking Inquiry last week. The inquiry is the one that the Beehive was so desperate to stop. It required National MPs to vote against their own proposal in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and then worked to shut down participation in it. I look forward to the Minister of Finance clarifying to the House whether he, his staff, or other supporters made any moves whatsoever to dissuade stakeholders from making submissions on, or from appearing at, the banking inquiry, because that is certainly the urban legend around the traps. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ENational showed once again that when the chips are down it will always side with the interests of the big end of town over the needs of hard-working Kiwi businesses and families. But National could not stop the inquiry. The inquiry received around 50 submissions and a dozen substantive oral presentations at hearings, including from Kiwibank and business groups like Federated Farmers, the Employers and Manufacturers Association, and the Manufacturers and Exporters Association. Whoever was attempting to suppress the inquiry failed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe key issues that emerged were strong evidence that consumers, businesses, and farmers are, unfortunately, being overcharged interest on short-term loans. It was also reiterated that there is a possible cross-subsidy of medium and long-term mortgages, which could contribute to a new boom-bust housing cycle that would be no good for New Zealand. There are huge issues around the growing national debt, which is now 140 percent of GDP in gross terms, resulting largely from the property loans that have been expanded through the banking system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ETo conclude, the banking inquiry is doing follow-up research and is due to report in late October. A high-quality report will be produced, following international peer review. Labour is listening to New Zealand\u2019s ongoing concerns about the banking system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ELabour will be supporting this bill. We believe that it is proper to regularise the retail deposit guarantee scheme through appropriate legislation now that Parliament is in session. We agree with the broad approach the Government\u2019s policy has foreshadowed, which is to provide a time-limited extension to the scheme, to match approximately the duration of that of our partner scheme in Australia. Further, it is appropriate to recalculate the premia that are paid by financial institutions to more closely proxy the risk faced by the taxpayer. Where we differ in substance is that the previous Government\u2019s policy was to ensure that the major banks participate in the retail scheme, as well as at the wholesale level. It is unfortunate that the Minister has already signalled to the banking sector that that policy no longer applies. We look forward to exploring in more detail the provisions of this bill and the scheme it supports at further stages of the debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022 data-id=\u0022ecdec5ab846948cebc6656e4a7fd3761\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ecdec5ab846948cebc6656e4a7fd3761\u0022\u003ECRAIG FOSS (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. Just picking up from the previous speaker, David Cunliffe, it is probably important to note that the extension to the scheme does not come into play until October next year and continues for about 14-odd months after that. The bill makes changes to the scheme\u2014it tightens up the pricing and some of the criteria\u2014and in over 1 year\u2019s time the scheme will become voluntary. That is a sign of optimism that the worst of the financial crisis and the economic upheaval of the global financial system is over. In particular, in New Zealand we have had our fair share of upheaval, problems, and tensions within the financial sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EThe bill is necessary to provide some certainty in the very uncertain environment such as we have seen over the last 2-odd years. When the Hon Bill English introduced the bill he pointed to the beginnings of the crisis and how it had impacted upon New Zealand. But the good news is that possibly\u2014just possibly\u2014there is some light at the end of the financial tunnel. Perhaps the world is emerging from this unprecedented time of economic and financial sector upheaval and recession, the likes of which we have not seen on this globe for the last 70 years\u2014since the Depression. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003ELate in 2008 the previous Government, with the full support of National, introduced and agreed to a retail deposit guarantee scheme. The two previous speakers pointed to the wholesale guarantee scheme, but that is a totally different beast from what we are talking about here and from what this particular bill addresses. I note that the Opposition will be supporting the bill, just as National supported the initial proposal way back in October 2008. I look forward to hearing the points raised by members from other parties. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EThe scheme was put together in the heat of the general election campaign, but also in the shadow of a similar scheme that was announced in Australia at around the same time. Very tense and strong negotiations were going on at the time. As we all know, decisions and policy put together under stress and pressure do not necessarily have the best and desired outcomes. A key difference between the Australian scheme and the existing New Zealand scheme is that Australia\u2019s scheme ends in late 2011, whereas currently the New Zealand scheme ends on 12 October 2010. The closeness of the Australian and New Zealand economies, the free movement of capital between our two economies, and the common stakeholders within our economies have raised many issues and placed stress on many institutions\u2014from our largest trading banks to our smallest finance companies, credit unions, and building societies. By asset size, the majority of New Zealand banks are mainly Australian owned, but it is necessary to note that they are all incorporated here in New Zealand. They are essentially stand-alone entities under the guidance of the New Zealand Reserve Bank, although most of their shareholders are in Australia. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EThe bill is necessary to put the New Zealand financial system on a relatively level playing field with the one that the Australian institutions operate. As the industry has begun to repair its balance sheets, as it has begun to address some of its longer-term funding issues, and as it has begun to start to match the maturities of its asset and liabilities books, stress has come into play, and the wall of funding maturities, if you like, particularly for non-bank deposit takers within New Zealand as at October next year, has raised a lot of issues and a lot of tension. The bill goes some way to addressing those issues, but it is more reflective and considered regarding the extension, because of its voluntary nature. That is of benefit not only to the Crown and the taxpayer but to the institutions themselves, remembering that in the normal market prior to the financial crisis there was no deposit guarantee scheme or wholesale guarantee scheme. In a normal market these institutions will hedge, and insure their own risk, but with systemic events like we have had recently we need the Crown to intervene for a short period in order to address such issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EThe scheme is voluntary. If the economy\u2014or at least the financial system\u2014and the ability of New Zealand institutions to raise funds come post-October next year are a lot better than they have been and are now, as far as the taxpayer is concerned it would be good if those institutions felt they did not need a retail deposit guarantee scheme, because the market itself would show the confidence in those institutions to not require such a scheme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EI will pick up on a point made by the previous speaker. It is the retail deposits that are insured under the current scheme and the extended, although tighter, scheme proposed; it is not the institutions themselves that are insured, nor their shareholders. There seems to be a bit of miscomprehension about that. New Zealand deposits that are placed with financial institutions within New Zealand are insured under the current scheme, and if the institutions themselves take up this extension under the new scheme, that is what will be insured. We are looking after the deposits of New Zealanders and New Zealand institutions, not the shareholders of those institutions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EI will raise a quick point. Yes, underlying this, there will be a better reflection on the price of any credit-type insurance of deposit guarantees, and better risk management for both the depositors and, of course, the New Zealand taxpayer. A glance at the recent Budget and papers around it shows that about $120 billion worth of potential deposits are guaranteed under the current set of accounts. So, for the sake of the taxpayer and for the sake of the institutions, if we are able to reduce that down to some kind of normality, it will be all the better for all concerned. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u0022f09b81c42fcb4f29a3f4a5341cbee113\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f09b81c42fcb4f29a3f4a5341cbee113\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E As my colleague David Cunliffe said, Labour will be supporting the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, but I will make a couple of points. The previous speaker said that deposits were being guaranteed, and that is correct. But he made an assertion that companies would not benefit\u2014that their share price or shareholders would not benefit from such a guarantee. Well, I take issue with that. Of course they will. A Government guarantee around deposits generates far more stability in the nature and commercial stability of that company because, by its very nature, there is a Government guarantee on those deposits. Therefore it is more likely to attract shareholder support because of that stability. If there was no Government guarantee, then it is open slather across the market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EBut I note a couple points. The bill does not outline the eligibility policy; it merely provides for the Minister to have the authority to determine that eligibility. We have some difficulty and concerns around that, in that the criteria relating to this policy, as it is currently being drafted, requires companies to have at least a BB credit-rating to be eligible. The difficulty, however, is that some companies may not be able to obtain a sufficient credit-rating, as they have insufficient scale to meet the requirements of the credit-rating agencies. Ultimately that may cause a shake-out in the non-banking sector, resulting in potential further finance company collapses or losses, and no one would wish that on Kiwi consumers, of course. No one is willing it to happen; I think there is goodwill across both sides of the House. But the point should be made that it could result in further finance company collapses and losses for mum and dad investors, while the big banks move to mop up customers. If we are not careful here, we will see that the major winners of the Government\u2019s criteria as authorised by the Minister are the Aussie banks, which are able to benefit from the wholesale guarantee without being eligible to contribute to the retail scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI think the Government\u2019s willingness to see major banks opt out is yet another demonstration of the Government\u2019s willingness, in my view, to placate big business at the expense of the smaller end of town, which is the mum and dad Kiwi investor. We have just had an unofficial banking inquiry that I and other colleagues from the Green Party, the Progressive party, and the Labour Party sat on, but in which National refused to participate, in a non-parliamentary sense. National refused, in an official parliamentary sense, to acquiesce to a request for an official parliamentary select committee inquiry into banks. Given there is a feeling, perceived or otherwise, by New Zealanders that they are being hurt by higher interest rates, one wonders why, when the official cash rate drops, the drops in interest rates are not being passed on to mum and dad mortgage holders at the same rate as the official cash rate drop. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI would have thought, politics aside, that was worth an official parliamentary select committee inquiry. Well, National begged to differ, and it said no. Then, when other parties said \u201CLet\u2019s do it anyway, and give institutions, mum and dad Kiwis, and those in the financial sector a chance to have their say.\u201D, National refused to participate in that process, for its own reasons, none of which we on this side of the House can fathom. I wager that no one in New Zealand can fathom the reason either. Perhaps only the big end of town may have an answer to why National did not proceed with an inquiry. Maybe it was the fact that National is concerned only with the big end of town. National uses the rhetoric, saying that it is concerned about financial collapse, that it is concerned about the stress being put on households through added expenses during a recession, and indeed manifest through higher mortgage payments and higher interest payments. National says many correct things, but the question is whether it follows those statements with actions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EAlthough I support the guaranteeing of deposits, I say that words are words and again I cannot for the life of me understand why National would not support a basic select committee inquiry, which I think had the goodwill\u2014and still has the goodwill\u2014of almost all sides of the House, apart from National, to inquire.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225bd570d48ef44c8d819ea59fd03a2545\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: They know best.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e73caf9d72d94536b3b03116bd08f694\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E: My colleague says that National knows best\u2014maybe, maybe not. If it turned out that the perceptions of mum and dad Kiwis were not correct, that would be a good thing to shed some light on. But we are left with an inquiry that this side of the House will report on, which I think had some very, very good contributions from the likes of Kiwibank, from economists, and from other folks in the financial sector. It is interesting to note that the big end of town is a bit like the political big end of town over there, the National Government, very coincidently. The banks and National would not participate; they would not have a bar of it. We then must ask why. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI say, with caution, that I support this legislation. But I wonder whether the Government has asked the banks and commanded the highest possible price, or enough of a contribution, shall we say, from the banks, in how they act within our commerce. There are other institutions that provide very, very good financial services that, because of size, will not be able to gain the BB credit-rating that is required, and may well then be seen to be unstable because they are not covered by this guarantee. As a consequence they have flight of capital out, and therefore they could collapse. Again, who is the beneficiary of that? The big end of town that National supports will then have the ability to mop up what is left after the dust and shrapnel have settled. The losers, of course, are the mum and dad investors who are caught in the middle and cannot participate. I say to National members that we support the legislation, but I ask them to reflect on that. Maybe they will give us a reason today as to why they could not bring themselves to cross the political threshold\u2014at no cost to themselves, we believe, but who knows, maybe there was\u2014and participate in, but not necessarily support the outcomes of, a non-partisan banking inquiry. If they had all the answers, they could ask the institutions, probe the institutions, probe the great minds and economists in New Zealand, and debate with them and tease out the issues that pertain to this debate. But it was left to colleagues in the Green Party, the Progressive party, and the Labour Party to have that discussion, and I think the participation was very, very profitable. I think people saw it as a goodwill exercise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b3600b51f87457289396d280925b67b\u0022\u003EPeseta Sam Lotu-Iiga\u003C/span\u003E: Good on ya.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257c5efe8753c42b1a1718df5b0eb98cd\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E: The councillor and member of Parliament on the other side of the House says \u201CGood on ya.\u201D I am not sure whether the Auckland City Council or the taxpayer is clipping the ticket at the moment as he double-dips over there. I thank the member for the compliment, but saying \u201CGood on ya.\u201D does not do anything to meet the issues and alleviate the problems that people in the market place are feeling, because of the behaviour of some banks. It is a simple question to ask\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a86777be175e4bb0b873d8ac4e91472d\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Sit down now!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022453ae9889b864bcd99004bd32895f0c7\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E\u2014even for that member\u2019s limited capacity. Why are banks not passing on those interest rates with the swiftness of their Australian counterparts? I leave that question, sadly, unanswered, because that member and his ilk would not participate in an inquiry. It is sad, I think, that when we have these odd moments of non-partisanship or bipartisanship\u2014or \u201Ctripartisanship\u201D if we include the ACT Party\u2014certain parties, the tired old ones over there, revert to type and draw the shades across, drop the trapdoor, and say no. The losers in that, of course, are the people who would like the questions answered. They are the mum and dad Kiwis with the big mortgages.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022 data-id=\u0022e8da191b12a245cfac9e87b9e79a1b4d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e8da191b12a245cfac9e87b9e79a1b4d\u0022\u003EDr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I stand to speak on behalf of the Green Party. The Green Party will be supporting the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. We think that it is a very sensible thing to have a time-limited extension of the retail deposit guarantee scheme; in fact, it is essential. It is essential to maintain confidence in the banking sector. Over time, I hope we can see the end of this scheme, and I am sure that we will. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe framework for this whole bill and the current situation we find ourselves in is the international financial crisis, which put the New Zealand banking sector, along with the entire global banking sector, in the position where the taxpayer had to come to the rescue of the banks. All around the world taxpayers had to come to the rescue of the banking and financial sector for the simple reason that the banks and the financial sector were too big to fail. It was simply impossible for us to contemplate having a major failure in the New Zealand banking sector, because the impact of that on the New Zealand economy would have been very, very significant and very negative. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWe had little choice, I believe, but to introduce the retail deposit guarantee scheme when it was introduced in the lead-up to the election and, over time, to slowly wean ourselves off it. This legislation is a step in that direction and I think it is good. However, I think we need to look a little more broadly. Although this is a fine thing to do, it is really a band-aid to deal with a larger problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EOne of the interesting things that came out of the banking inquiry was that we need to have a broader discussion and debate about the banking sector in New Zealand and about monetary policy. For me, one of the key things that came out of the discussion was that it is all very well to have bills like this in order to maintain the stability of the banking system in a crisis, but the overall stability of the banking system in New Zealand and the New Zealand economy has much larger problems than something that a short-term retail deposit guarantee scheme can fix up. That really cuts to the chase about monetary policy and the impact of monetary policy on the New Zealand economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWe have relied on the official cash rate as our tool for monetary policy for many years now\u2014for a couple of decades\u2014and I think that now, in the midst of a global economic crisis, surely is the time when we have the space to rethink whether relying on the official cash rate as our only mechanism for monetary policy is sufficient.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003ETo look at that matter we have to look at the problems that we have got ourselves into with the official cash rate. One of the key issues that has developed is that as the official cash rate has gone up, we have attracted large amounts of capital into New Zealand. Foreign capital has flooded into New Zealand via the banking sector and has then been passed on to the housing market. It has been drawn into New Zealand because our relative interest rates have been much higher than in other places. It made a lot of sense for overseas investors to send their billions of dollars to New Zealand, because it was a safe place where they could get a good rate of return. However, the impact on New Zealand was that the banks simply passed that money on to what they thought was the safest way to get a good return on their money, which was the housing sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe housing asset bubble has been one of the key problems for the New Zealand economy, and in the long run it is one of the key challenges for the New Zealand banking system, as well. The asset inflation in the housing market presents a long-term structural problem to the New Zealand economy, in a number of ways. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe fact that all this hot money was coming into New Zealand means that we have an overvalued exchange rate. The overvalued exchange rate has meant that the New Zealand tradable sector has been in recession now for 5 years. It is one of the key contributing factors. The overvalued exchange rate driven by the high official cash rate and high relative interest rates has meant that the tradable sector in New Zealand has suffered. New Zealand manufacturers try to compete with imports and it is harder for New Zealand exporters trying to compete overseas. That has been one of the key impacts, and, as a small trading nation, New Zealand cannot afford to have a long-term recession in our tradable sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe second part of it is that as the money has come in, our level of overseas debt has now got to a very high level. Our net international investment position is now minus 100 percent of GDP. We are second only to Iceland in the OECD in terms of our net international investment position. That is not sustainable. We are adding billions and billions of dollars in overseas debt, year after year, and in the long run that will undermine the New Zealand banking sector if we do not address our overseas indebtedness. The interest payments alone on our debt are greater now than our trade surplus. We had a very small trade surplus in the last quarter, but largely we have had a trade deficit. We are borrowing money to pay the interest payments on our overseas debt. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EAnother part of it is that as the housing sector received more and more money through the banks, which was borrowed from overseas and drawn in by the high official cash rate, we had inflation driven by the housing sector. People felt wealthier and they spent more money, because the value of their housing kept going up and up. We had inflation. The official cash rate was meant to be dealing with inflation, but, in fact, it was encouraging inflation, until it reached such a high point that it crushed the whole economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EHigh interest rates had a detrimental effect on the productive sector of the economy. It was difficult for businesses to borrow money, because they had the high interest rates that the Reserve Bank was trying to use to crush inflation. All of these things together had a very negative impact on the New Zealand economy and, ultimately, a very negative impact on the stability of the New Zealand banking system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWe need to say that the official cash rate by itself does not work to maintain the stability of the New Zealand banking system. It does not suit the New Zealand economy in the long run to rely on this tool, so we have to look at some alternatives, and we need to put those alternatives on the table. Some of those alternatives are around trying to control the demand for investment properties\u2014that is, a capital gains tax, excluding the family home. We have to start having a serious discussion about that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWe also have to look at ring-fencing the losses on investment properties. Whether that is done through loss attributing qualifying companies or other forms, we need to ring-fence those losses. We need to target the demand for investment properties in order to try to keep control of the housing sector. We must remember that median house prices doubled between 2002 and 2007. That rate is not sustainable. It was funded by borrowed money that we now have to pay back as a nation. On the other side of housing, we need to make sure that we have more of a supply of housing, particularly social housing and affordable housing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EIn terms of maintaining the stability of the banking system\u2014which this bill is trying to address, but we need other mechanisms as well\u2014we need to look at increasing reserve ratios for bank lending into the housing market. We need to target the problem directly. It is very difficult for the Reserve Bank to suppress inflation across the whole economy by trying to use official cash rates and interest rates when the key driver of that inflation is the housing market. We know that the tools are available for us to address that situation. One of the tools is that for every dollar that banks loan into the housing market, we can insist that they leave a certain percentage on deposit at the Reserve Bank or held in reserve by the bank. Effectively, that makes it harder for the banks to loan more and more money into the housing market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EIf we want to target the source of inflation, then rather than crush the entire productive sector of the economy and make it hard for every business in the country, we should target the source of the problem, which is what is coming out of the housing sector. The housing sector has remained flat now for some time and it looks like it will continue to move sideways, but if there is any indication that we are going back to another housing asset bubble, then the Government has a responsibility to act quickly to deal with that. We know the ways to do that. We have the tools available, but we have to expand our imagination beyond the official cash rate. By itself, it is simply not enough. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWe have a range of tools that we can use to address one of the key drivers of inflation in our economy\u2014which is what is coming out of the housing sector\u2014without destroying the entire tradable sector and without destroying the entire productive sector of the New Zealand economy. We need to make it easy to be a manufacturer in New Zealand. If we are serious about stabilising our economy, which is out of control, then we have to make it easy to be a manufacturer in our country. We have out-of-control levels of debt, which is a major problem, and eventually that will impact on the banking sector. We can only stabilise the economy if we have the courage to face up to one of the key problems in the New Zealand economy right now and a key problem over a number of years\u2014that is, the funnelling of billions and billions of dollars of borrowed money from overseas into the housing market.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EAlthough I commend the Government for introducing this bill, which the Greens will support, I say the Government needs to think beyond current monetary policy. It is a pity the Government was not involved in the banking inquiry, because some of the debate actually happened there. It is the debate that our country needs to have if it is to right itself economically and if it is to have a prosperous and sustainable future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc53464ab7944474aa146cc01ea13706\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc53464ab7944474aa146cc01ea13706\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to stand on behalf of the ACT Party to take a call on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. The ACT Party, it would seem, is the only party that is prepared to stand up and represent those 87 percent of people who voted No in the last referendum. ACT is the \u201C87 Percent Party\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a41d0c05293c4d6d9c2fda5ec31a0cbb\u0022\u003EHon Tariana Turia\u003C/span\u003E: What has that got to do with the bill?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df5a8486ae104f879ee3a62ec057d7b8\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: It has a lot to do with it, because we have heard comments this afternoon about \u201Clistening\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI have been listening very carefully to the debate, and the first comments I would like to debunk are the comments of Clayton Cosgrove. In fact, Clayton Cosgrove, Russel Norman, and David Cunliffe talked about the banking inquiry, but had Clayton Cosgrove been a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, had he taken a closer interest in its deliberations and the issues the select committee had been discussing, and had he read some of the press releases of his own finance spokesperson, Mr Cunliffe, then he would have heard that the only concern was the rate of interest on floating loans. There was no argument whatsoever that the cost of borrowing long term was in any way outside the normal margins that banks should charge; the only argument ever, if there was an argument, was the concern about margins on floating rates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EIn evidence the committee was told that had the Government just left things as they were, had it waited and continued to apply pressure to the banks, that issue may well have been addressed in the course of normal market operations. We saw evidence of that last week when one of the big Australian banks moved to reduce its margins by 40 percent on floating rates. Mr Cosgrove has turned up at Parliament and talked as though he has some knowledge of the banking inquiry and what it was required to achieve, but the reduction in floating rate margins would have been achieved without the Opposition\u2019s so-called banking inquiry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI listened with great interest to the speakers prior to me\u2014the Hon Bill English, the Hon David Cunliffe, Craig Foss, Clayton Cosgrove, and Russel Norman. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022204fb23179a34f64b5e55c0b24ca5bce\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: Quite a list!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259bd924709e74badb7008b5bb5ad9a8a\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: What a list! There is one thing that those people have in common, and I wonder whether members can think what it is. I will tell them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d567535013b94c3f9cdfa1ffc90e0265\u0022\u003ECraig Foss\u003C/span\u003E: I have nothing in common with Clayton Cosgrove.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225d9487f8b0fd47b3b0327d026dcc79d2\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: The member does have something in common with Mr Cosgrove because the member\u2014like Mr Cosgrove, Mr English, Mr Cunliffe, and Mr Norman\u2014came to Parliament and achieved fewer votes in the general election than did constituents who voted No in his Tukituki electorate in respect of the referendum. Mr Foss may smile but that is a very serious issue. The last five speakers stood for electorates and received fewer votes than the number of their constituents who voted No in the last referendum. The members in this Parliament may not like hearing that fact, but let me say to them and to members on all sides of the House that they will continue to hear that comment from the ACT Party, because the ACT Party is prepared to stand up and speak for the 87 percent who voted No. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c536f9b2a97460b96bdb0d593efea15\u0022\u003EHon Tariana Turia\u003C/span\u003E: Ask the right question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246723c9b9e6a4df081fdd9c690f3d3e0\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: There were 87 percent of them. [Interruption] I am hearing interjections from the Hon Tariana Turia, and I give the member credit because she is just one of 14 MPs in this House who received more votes in her constituency than had constituents vote No in the recent referendum. She is just one of 14 members. We have 122 members in this House and 108 received fewer votes in the general election than had constituents who voted No. Of those 14, four are M\u0101ori Party MPs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003ELet us look at some of the things Mr Cosgrove said. He was frustrated by the fact that the National Party would not participate in the Opposition\u2019s shadow banking inquiry. He thought that, politics aside, they would have listened to the people. He could not understand why National would not support an inquiry. Well, I cannot understand why Mr Cosgrove and his colleagues will not listen to that 87 percent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003ELast night I held a public meeting in Mount Roskill, and I deliberately chose Mount Roskill because that is the electorate of the Leader of the Opposition. Like those five previous speakers, whom I have mentioned, Mr Goff also scored fewer votes in the 2008 general election than the No votes in the referendum. But if Mr Cosgrove wants to lecture this House on the subject of listening, I will give him an opportunity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225009e38600b64944a52026731361c3a2\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: Are you campaigning already?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eff95811c7e744749bde8d74cdcd0dd7\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: I will come back to that. I intend to hold a similar meeting, to the one I held last night, in Mr Cosgrove\u2019s Waimakariri electorate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224bdef4705faf457cbbeb18b7976b85ef\u0022\u003EHon Tariana Turia\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to ask the member to stay with the bill, not to talk about hitting children.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c2816785125409198fbd6d8f8d8f0dd\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: The member makes a fair point. The member is entitled to make indirect references but he has become rather repetitious. I draw the member back to the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill and ask him to focus on that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e03ece6548fb4980b92ca6b7761cda95\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am more than happy to do that, because I have made the points I wanted to make. I might add that I intend to continue to make them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022681a31c084fe42658033a96ef1b32f90\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: When the Speaker has ruled, the member does not refer to the ruling. I invited the member to continue on the bill and that is why I offer the member that option to do so. If he does not wish to do so, then I will discontinue his presentation to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e6435b76823448ea4ae8c1ec59576cd\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I should have made myself very clear. When I said I would continue, I meant continue in the future, and in future debates, and in future sittings of the House. I certainly was not intending to challenge your ruling and I am sorry that the way I said that may have presented that opinion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI do intend to talk about the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. This scheme was introduced at a time when the world was in turmoil, as Mr English said. We had seen the collapse of Lehman Brothers, we had seen the collapse of a number of major international banks, and we had seen a time of financial turmoil like nothing in living memory; certainly, for most members of this House, and I think Mr English referred to the fact, it is like nothing since the 1930s Depression. Clearly, action was required, and that action followed immediately after the action of the Australian Government. Of course, the Australian Government and other Governments followed the initial action by the Irish Government. There is no way that the previous Labour Government had the option of not pursuing what was happening around the world, and following those actions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EOne of the issues that overhung the market for financial deposits in recent months is how the country actually moves away from this deposit guarantee scheme\u2014how it trades out of it. A system is being presented in the bill that enables the guarantee to be extended. It will be on tighter terms, and the fees and charges made by the taxpayer will be market-driven. Sadly, there will be losses. I expect there will be losses. Smaller companies will not be able to meet the requirement for a BB grading. They, I suspect, will be forced to call in the receivers. Their depositors who have loans that would otherwise be in default prior to October next year can be paid out in full. But undoubtedly those companies will also have depositors who have advanced those deposit-taking companies\u2019 funds beyond October 2010, and those funds will not be guaranteed. Clearly they will not be paid out by the taxpayer, so there will be losses for those bondholders. The Government is damned if it does and damned if it does not. If it simply decides to suspend the scheme and not allow it to continue beyond October next year, I suspect many more finance companies will go into receivership, and the cost to the Crown will be even greater. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI commented earlier on speeches made by Mr Cunliffe and Mr Cosgrove on the banking inquiry. They used this opportunity to talk about the evidence submitted to the banking inquiry. One of the reasons this bill was needed was the worldwide collapse of confidence. We also had a collapse of confidence in our own market. Earlier this year I called for an inquiry at Commerce Committee level into finance company collapses, and I am very pleased to say that last month the Commerce Committee chairperson, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, announced that the committee would be having an inquiry. I am very grateful to the National members of that committee, and to the M\u0101ori Party member of the committee, for their support. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022 data-id=\u002234e8c16246584136af4725b0ab3af729\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002234e8c16246584136af4725b0ab3af729\u0022\u003EHon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader\u2014M\u0101ori Party):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. T\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tou katoa. This is a very good time to be introducing certainty into any discussion about the retail deposit guarantee scheme. In the space of 24 hours, three surveys have been released that provide us with confidence about the possible scenarios in which the proposed legislation will be received. The first survey is the New Zealand Roy Morgan consumer confidence rating survey. This survey shows that confidence has risen to its highest level in early September since March 2008, which was the first quarter in which New Zealand entered its recession. One of the clearest indicators of confidence arising from the Roy Morgan survey was the finding that 43 percent of the respondents said they thought that now was a great time to buy major household items. That is an increase of 6 percent from the previous survey.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThe next survey was from UMR Research, which has been following public attitudes on the global crisis. It found that 61 percent of people were concerned about the impact of the crisis on New Zealand\u2019s economy. That may still sound significant\u2014and it is, at the very least, cautious\u2014but it is also a big gap, compared with the figure of 72 percent of those questioned 2 months earlier. Another dramatic finding from UMR Research was that the numbers of New Zealanders who believed that the crisis had impacted adversely on standards of living had fallen from 54 percent in June to 48 percent in August, which is the lowest level of concern since October 2008.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThe third in the line, but in no way the least, was a survey conducted by a parenting website of over 500 families. In that survey one-third of families had changed their dinner habits as a result of the economic downturn. The website\u2019s online community revealed that there was considerable synergy around participants\u2019 desire to save money in an economic downturn. So ways of old suddenly turned gold, and people began bulk buying when items were on special, and freezing supplies for future use, particularly meat. Name brands were being overlooked in preference for the plain-packaged model, fish and some premium cuts of meat were making it to the table less frequently, and bargains were filling the supermarket trolleys as shoppers planned around catalogue-advertised specials. These may not appear to be \u201Cbreaking news\u201D findings, but they demonstrate the fundamental change that many households have taken on in their attempts to introduce certainty.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EIn this context, then, the M\u0101ori Party is pleased to welcome the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, which at its very essence is about creating certainty and stability in the banking and finance sector. Many New Zealanders will breathe a collective sigh of relief in learning about this deposit guarantee scheme, and about a bill that would probably better be described as the \u201Cabout time\u201D bill. New Zealand individuals, businesses, and investors will be saying that it is about time they can benefit from a form of insurance that basically ensures continuing depositor confidence in New Zealand, given international financial market turbulence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EWe are all aware that markets are hungry for certainty, given the circumstances of the downturn. The concern has been about the future of the guarantee, and it is simple enough to understand why: a scheme that guarantees approximately $128 billion of deposits and approximately 3.5 million deposit accounts is a sizable investment, by anyone\u2019s estimation. The legislation we are addressing today and will be addressing under urgency is about ensuring that the whole Parliament is accountable for the decision to extend the scheme and to better manage Crown risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThe focus of this bill, then, is to extend the scheme by 14 months until 31 December 2011. The legislation has been described as being more or less the transition path back to normality. Normality, we assume, will be when we actually exit from this scheme to exist in a normal business environment, with all the attendant risks. A permanent guarantees scheme is not desirable, because it underprices risk and leads to increased risk-taking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EWhat this bill does is put in place a vital stopgap measure to help maintain confidence in New Zealand\u2019s financial institutions. The measure bears a direct relationship to the collapse of several major banks in the United Kingdom, United States, Ireland, and other countries. As banks collapsed, Governments were called on to bail out those institutions, in an effort to create a sense of global comfort about the health of the financial system. As we all know, however, the collapse of those major banking institutions had a ripple effect in terms of setting up other concerns that other banks may also collapse. This was domino territory, given the possibility that the original banking collapse would provoke further collapses and, in turn, depositors would cease depositing or even try to withdraw their deposits en masse before their own banks collapsed. The effect was such that the volatility in one area could have sent more banks under and further destabilised the financial system. In many ways, we had little alternative but to also play our part in creating stability in our own financial institutions, and even though our banking system had been seen as stable up until that point, there was always the fear that as the rest of the world adopted retail deposit schemes to provide a type of insurance for depositors, if we did not also introduce such a scheme depositors might withdraw from our shores to invest in a country that did have a guarantee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EWe welcome this extension to the retail deposit guarantee scheme. We think it balances the imperative for certainty for investors in financial institutions, while taking into account the impact for taxpayers, and we will therefore support the bill. But it would be remiss of us not to table two significant concerns. The first is that it was entirely unsatisfactory that it was not until this morning that we had actually laid our eyes on this bill. It appears unfathomable that such a significant investment in financial stability was presented to Parliament at the eleventh hour.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c2dfe169-d946-4f87-8d43-0bcdb7d8bebc\u0022\u003EThe second concern emerges from the fact that part of the new terms and conditions will mean that depositors will need to reapply to the scheme. Roll over is not automatic, and it is voluntary. However, details of the terms and conditions of eligibility will not be released until next week. Knowledge of the details in sufficient time to consider, let alone consult, our constituency is a principle that we take very seriously when we look at any legislation that comes before the House. It was therefore very disappointing to be prevented from taking on a full and robust process in regard to this extension of the retail deposit guarantee. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022 data-id=\u0022f8e8e3ba644344b9a8ee245cb4cbc8ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f8e8e3ba644344b9a8ee245cb4cbc8ee\u0022\u003EAMY ADAMS (National\u2014Selwyn):\u003C/span\u003E The discussion on this bill this afternoon takes us back to the period in the second half of 2008 when, amongst other things, we had the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which is now really hitting home when we see the extent of the debts involved. We are looking at over US$613 billion, which is nearly NZ$900 billion of debt by what was assumed to be one of the safest and largest financial institutions. In some ways that was the catalyst that drove the world to understand that it was facing an economic typhoon. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EThe sense of crisis and, indeed, panic really started to pick up momentum and Governments had to act, and act quickly, to ensure that they were not all caught up in this particular set of circumstances. At that time our own Parliament had been dissolved for the general election. We were between Parliaments. The last Government acted under the Public Finance Act, and it used the powers in that Act to ensure that retail and wholesale guarantees were put in place, to ensure that confidence could be maintained in our banking system, which the National Party certainly supported. It was the necessary thing to do and it was in line with what other countries in the world were doing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003ENow it is time to look at that scheme, with its expiry looming in October of next year. I say \u201Clooming\u201D because although that is still more than a year off, in financial terms, and looking at retail deposits, this is exactly the sort of time when people are planning long-term deposits in institutions. In fact, the period between now and then is quite a short term. So we find ourselves in a situation where it is a matter of some urgency to address the date when that deposit scheme will end\u2014and whether it will end\u2014and to put in place under primary legislation a properly formulated deposit scheme that can continue to ensure that we have the necessary confidence in our financial markets while we see the fragile recovery the economy is now going through continue and gain in its stability and strength. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EThis guarantee was always about, and continues to be about, providing security in a period of great uncertainty. It is not a long-term position, and I think there is clear consensus on that point. There is no view at all that a guarantee from the Government on retail deposits is a long-term position to be in. It is certainly pleasing to see consensus from across the House on the subject matter of the bill, but the question we have to turn our mind to is not whether it is appropriate to have this guarantee, but, rather, when the guarantee should end, and how it should be removed in a manner that does not undo all the good work that the scheme has done in ensuring consumer confidence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EWe have seen, particularly in the last month, and even in the last few days, some early signs of recovery in the economy, but I think it would be a very brave economist who would be prepared to stand up now and say that the troubles are all behind us. In my own view I think that the beginnings of the recovery are certainly there, but it is a fragile thing and it could be easily derailed. There is very much a need to ensure that confidence and stability in the financial markets are maintained. This scheme is no small part of that. We are talking about $120 billion of deposits guaranteed through 73 institutions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EBut more than just providing some security and peace of mind to individual depositors\u2014mum and dad depositors and small businesses alike\u2014the scheme has been important in a number of other important but perhaps less obvious ways. It encourages savings. We know that one of the big issues in our economy is that we do not save enough. Certainly, if there is not a sense of security in our financial institutions, we can be sure that saving will get worse. So that is an important part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EEqually, though, I think it is worth touching on the fact that the $120 billion that is guaranteed is not just sitting there waiting for someone to collect it. It is providing the funding and the liquidity that our businesses need to keep going through this recession. That directly leads to jobs and growth. So this is about more than simply providing a guarantee. It is about ensuring that the liquidity tap is not turned off and that our economy can keep functioning. That money is working hard for our economy while it is in those institutions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EThe other thing it does is enable us to preserve a second tier of lending institutions, which is an important part of our financial markets. Not every borrower can access first-tier bank funds, and the second tier plays an important role. Equally, I think that anyone looking at the financial situation would agree that one of the reasons New Zealand has been able to avoid the worst of the recession that other countries have seen is that we do have a stable banking and financial sector. Steps that maintain that and encourage people to continue to have faith in our banking sector are certainly important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EAs my colleague Mr Foss has already mentioned, this scheme in New Zealand mirrored what was happening in many other parts of the world, and through the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill we are now seeing the end date of our own scheme coming into line with that already in place in Australia. Of course, extending the term of the scheme does, without question, extend the period of risk. This is not something that we brush over or take lightly, but the altered terms and conditions that we will see under this new scheme, which will take effect immediately the old scheme expires, will go some way to reducing that risk. I think the point to bear in mind though is that overall the risk to our economy of not having our retail deposits guaranteed while the recovery gains momentum is a far greater risk for this country than the risk we bear through extending it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EThe final point I would like to make in this first reading contribution is just to point out that the bill, if passed, will come into force immediately it receives Royal assent, thereby creating immediate certainty into the market. As I have said, the uncertainty around when the scheme will end is already causing uncertainty in terms of long-term planning decisions. Therefore, we are aiming to give immediate certainty to that market, which will allow people to start to make long-term decisions that extend beyond October of next year. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00220ae20c631b0640cca70c0a81344cb4f4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ae20c631b0640cca70c0a81344cb4f4\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I endorse many of the comments made by the previous speaker. I would, though, like to explore one of the reasons why we need to eventually wean ourselves off guarantees such as these. They do create distortions within the finance markets. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThere is a notable exception to the guarantees that have been offered here in the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, and that relates to collective investment vehicles. Sometimes there are subtle distinctions only between collective investment vehicles and traditional savings institutions. For example, some of the group investment funds that have been traditionally run by trustee companies, and some of the unit trusts that have been mortgage-backed, whereby the money has been invested by ma and pa ordinary New Zealanders in a unit trust, through a unit trust or a group investment vehicle, have been invested in first mortgages over land. These are not any riskier than finance company investments. Indeed, they are less risky, because the owners of the funds who are investing them in unit trusts and group investment funds effectively have a trust interest in first mortgages over land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo those funds are effectively investing in something that is secured by a first mortgage, yet because of the terms of this guarantee scheme\u2014and I am not criticising it for this; I am just making an observation about the distortion it creates\u2014and the structure of that investment, they are not eligible for the guarantee. As a consequence we have seen some pressure on those sorts of funds. There has been a run on those funds caused by withdrawals from those schemes, which are safer than most finance company investments but for the guarantee. So the presence of a Crown guarantee has made a finance company investment safer than an investment that has been backed by a first mortgage. That is the sort of distortion that can be caused by guarantees of this nature. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EUnfortunately, when there is a need for these sorts of guarantees there is no way of avoiding all of the distortions at the margin, other than by increasing the scope of the scheme in a way that would involve some investments that ought not to be guaranteed. For example, if someone was investing in a share portfolio, I do not think that New Zealanders would think that the Crown should guarantee returns on that sort of investment, and that is another collective investment that one might make through a superannuation scheme, or, indeed, a unit trust or a group investment fund. So the point I am making is that guarantee schemes such as this one introduce complexity at the margin. That is impossible to avoid if we are to have a scheme, but it none the less points out that it may well be desirable to bring the scheme to an end eventually. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI also make the point that in future I think we need to be very careful about focusing only on credit ratings. Credit ratings, or high credit-ratings, are the key to the fee that is paid by an institution that is getting a guarantee. A finance company with a low credit-rating has to pay a higher fee for a guarantee. That, of course, is as it should be. For a bank with a good credit-rating, the fee that it has to pay for the guarantee is less than it would otherwise be, because the risk that the Crown is taking is less. But if we look behind that at other New Zealand - owned institutions, like some building societies and credit unions, we see that some of these organisations are quite small because we have a small economy, and that they will never have a high credit-rating. If we persist with this sort of charging mechanism, we are saying, effectively, that we prefer the interests of overseas-owned banks against the interests of smaller New Zealand - owned institutions. I suggest that that is true, because no New Zealand - owned institution can get the high credit-rating that entitles it to the lower fee structure. I think that is another distortion that this guarantee scheme throws up. I for one am very cautious about saying we should have these sorts of schemes long term, because I think they introduce distortions between participants in the finance market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe last speaker, Amy Adams, also made reference to the fact that we need to have more than just the banking sector; we need to have sources of secondary finance. Again, I agree with that. It is absolutely imperative that an economy such as New Zealand\u2019s is not reliant on just top-tier banks. It is good that we have a stable banking system, but the New Zealand system should be no more reliant on only 4 or 5 banks than would be wanted for any other jurisdiction overseas. New Zealand\u2019s reliance on the big four banks is already extreme in my view, and I would not want to have a guarantee scheme that further entrenches the advantages that the banks have, at the effective market-share cost of New Zealand - owned financial institutions. Again, it is an area where we need to take care. I do support the scheme, but a member, David Bennett, from the National Government, is shaking his head, ignoring the reality that one of New Zealand\u2019s problems is the size of the foreign-owned New Zealand banks\u2019 repatriation of profits, and the interest that they pay on their overseas loan books to overseas jurisdictions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8238432153c4c2ca19ae8b287046986\u0022\u003EDavid Bennett\u003C/span\u003E: You have no idea, mate! No idea.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f0066db97b5460b9b68ec2b8309e959\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: No idea\u2014well, actually, I do; I come from this industry. So problems arise from preferring the big end of town. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EOne of the areas that I think my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe has already mentioned is that until now the guarantee, or the ability to pick up the retail guarantee, which is the guarantee that small New Zealand investors get when they invest with a bank, was linked with the wholesale bank guarantee scheme, which is separate from the scheme that is being discussed in this bill. The wholesale guarantee scheme relates to the big loans that banks get from their overseas lenders. So if an international bank or international fund of some kind\u2014it might be a sovereign fund\u2014was lending money to, say, the Bank of New Zealand or any other bank, then the Bank of New Zealand or the other bank would have been reliant on a guarantee of those wholesale funds. The previous Government made it clear that if banks wanted to pick up the advantage of the wholesale guarantee, they needed to take up the guarantee in respect of ma and pa investors and their New Zealand investments, through the retail deposits scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWhy is that important? Well, if we do not do that, what could happen if in the worst case a bank fails\u2014and the only time the guarantee would become relevant is if a bank fails, in the case of a bank guarantee\u2014is that the overseas lender to the New Zealand banks would be effectively guaranteed by the taxpayer, and that overseas shareholder would be paid out, but the New Zealand - based retail investor would not necessarily be guaranteed, because there is no requirement now for New Zealand banks to take the retail guarantee if they take the wholesale guarantee. I would encourage the Government to look at that area again, because I think we should have consistency there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EHaving said that, I do not see any effective choice but for us to continue with the guarantee scheme at this time. I do point out the distortionary effects of it, and I do point out my concerns that, as designed, the scheme is to the effective benefit of the big end of town\u2014the big banks. It is more costly for the smaller, New Zealand institutions, and I think that should be addressed. It could be addressed through the fees structure. Let us take, for example, building societies. Building societies are generally very stable institutions; their loan portfolios are generally of first mortgages over land. They might not have the triple A rating that a bank has, but none the less their loan portfolios are probably more secure than some banks\u2019 loan portfolios. To illustrate that, I say that if a building society falls over and becomes insolvent, it effectively has loans secured over land, generally first mortgages over land, in respect of all of its advances. So the most that could be lost would be a proportion of the amount that the building society has borrowed from investors and then lent out to mortgagors. However, a bank could fail because it has lent to high multiples. Banks sometimes lend to twelve times their equity, so they could have a percentage decrease in the value of their loan portfolio that means that depositors lose all of their money rather than a fraction of it. I mention those complexities, but I am happy to support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a1144d876a3b486091216449af3c04ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a1144d876a3b486091216449af3c04ae\u0022\u003EDAVID BENNETT (National\u2014Hamilton East):\u003C/span\u003E The Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill is a reflection of the economic circumstance that New Zealand has reached at this stage of the recession, with the country coming out of the recession and many of our trading partners starting to see a glimmer of hope. Some of the requirements and Government approaches that were endorsed by this Parliament late last year now need to be revisited and looked at in the sense of taking into account the more updated economic situation that is arising at this point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003EBefore we look into that a bit more, I think it is time for a few home truths to be told to the New Zealand public, through this House, rather than have what the Labour Party has been espousing by its lines of the day. When we look at what has happened in New Zealand, and we compare ourselves with some of our major trading partners, we see that the single advantage we had over those trading partners is a stable banking system. We did not see the New Zealand Parliament having to pass legislation to buy back the banks. We saw our major trading partners\u2014apart from Australia\u2014having to do so. What saved us, and what saved our bacon to a large extent, was the four Australian banks being solid, strong, and able to look after the New Zealand economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003EThose members on the other side of the House will never admit that, because they hate to admit that those banks have been strong and stable. They will go out there and try to put to the public of New Zealand some perception that the Aussie banks ripped off the New Zealand economy, but the reality is that we would not be coming out of this recession in the way we are if it were not for the four Aussie banks. I think that Labour members need to grow up, smell the roses, and work out that this is how the banking system works. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003EIf we want to have, in a country at the bottom of the world, small banks owned by a Government that thinks it will deliver the financial system our trading country needs, then we are dreaming. We saw that in the late 1980s, when the New Zealand banking system was not able to withstand international pressure. But this time when we had international pressure we were able to withstand it. That is a big lesson for Labour members, which they have not learnt and will not admit to. That is a shame, because those members, in failing to admit that lesson, are denying the truth of the financial markets that exist in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003EThat is not to say that we do not have a robust financial system with different tiers of debt, in which other organisations can come in and take over different levels. But certainly the vast bulk of New Zealand\u2019s banking system is dominated by the four big Australian banks, which have provided the solidity for us to get through the recession. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003EThis retail deposit guarantee scheme is a reflection of the financial circumstance that we now find ourselves in, where we do not need as much regulation and support as we previously had, so we are giving banks the option of having less of that requirement or back-up. This is very much the same as has been happening in Australia, as well, and reflects the change in those economies in the last 6 months, as we have seen some green light at the end of the tunnel. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u00227e5d2a367e1a4767ad812caafb742b1b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227e5d2a367e1a4767ad812caafb742b1b\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E That was a very interesting speech, I say to Mr Bennett. I am not too sure what it was about or what it tried to prove\u2014it did not say much at all. Anyway, I rise to support the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. Let me give a little bit of background. On 12 October 2008 the then Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, announced that, using powers under the Public Finance Act, the Government was to introduce an opt-in retail deposit guarantee scheme. This was on the heels of a very similar scheme announced by the Australian Government\u2014a Labor Government\u2014I believe, the previous day. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EAt the time, Dr Cullen announced that the scheme would cover all retail deposits in participating New Zealand - registered banks and retail deposits by locals in non-bank deposit taking entities. These included building societies, credit unions, and deposit-taking finance companies. The deposit guarantee scheme did not include related party liabilities, and the initial scheme was free for institutions with total retail deposits of under $5 billion. A fee of 10 basis points per annum was levied on total deposits above $5 billion. That meant that a bank with about $20 billion in retail deposits would pay approximately $15 million in fees per annum. Quite simply, the deposit guarantee was designed to give assurance to New Zealand depositors that the New Zealand banking system remained sound. I quote Dr Cullen: \u201CWe want to ensure that ordinary New Zealanders feel that their deposits are safe in the current uncertain international financial market conditions.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThat scheme came into effect on 13 October through the delegation of authority by the Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, to the Secretary to the Treasury under section 65ZD of the Public Finance Act 1989\u2014another piece of Labour legislation, of course. As mentioned, the original retail deposit guarantee scheme was implemented under the Public Finance Act, so this legislation before the House is now appropriate in order to continue that certainty and to ensure the ongoing stability of the New Zealand banking system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe reason why the original scheme did not have its own legislation is simply that the House was not sitting at the time. However, as alluded to, the Minister of Finance has powers under the Public Finance Act to enact such a scheme as long as \u201Cit appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient in the public interest to do so.\u201D Given the overwhelming international move to provide a similar scheme, this test would appear to have been met. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThis bill will protect over $120 billion in deposits currently held by the banking and non-banking sector. Why is this important? There are a couple of very important reasons. The first is that there is another cost over and above the figure of between $625 million\u2014at the most optimistic\u2014to $1 billion, which is between about 40 percent and 70 percent of total exposure of losses incurred by hard-working New Zealanders since the first of about 30 finance companies collapsed, decimating the savings, the lives, and the well-being of many ordinary Kiwis. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EOne of the main reasons why I support this bill is that\u2014as far as we know\u2014so far, two investors who lost their savings in finance company collapses have taken their own lives, and many are on suicide watch. An Auckland man in his late 60s who lost more than $100,000 invested in Bridgecorp Finance killed himself after going into a deep depression. Suzanne Edmonds, who runs a group representing thousands of Blue Chip and Bridgecorp investors, said she knew of at least one other person in his 70s who had taken his own life and of many others who had become sick. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EIf we remember, Bridgecorp collapsed in July 2007 owing $459 million to over 14,000 secured debenture holders\u201414,000 ordinary Kiwi mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, husbands, and wives who had worked and saved for their retirement or for their children\u2019s or grandchildren\u2019s education. The vast majority were savers and not investors, only to have the impossible happen. The plague that visited and wiped the savings of earlier generations in the form of the Great Depression was now visiting their homes, and it made us all sick to the stomach as we watched and read about the horror stories\u2014some of us were much sicker than others, though. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThen there was the story in the New Zealand Herald on 16 August about Karina Williams, who has watched her parents\u2019 health deteriorate rapidly since they lost more than $200,000 in the Blue Chip collapse. The article states: \u201CWilliams said her father, Jack, 84, had a heart attack last Christmas when he and his wife, Ngaire, 72, received a Property Law Act notice that their house would be sold to pay off their debt. \u2018It\u2019s the stress that is taking its toll,\u2019 Williams said. \u2018The financial costs are becoming like a crippling cancer that\u2019s affecting these people. There\u2019s been attention drawn to the fact of the collapse of these companies but not the collapse of health inflicted because of the waiting.\u2019 Ngaire Williams said she was staying positive. Her husband was released from hospital last Friday, 11 days after suffering an aneurysm she attributes largely to stress.\u201D\u2014and that stress was caused by the collapse of that finance company. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe human cost of financial collapse has been huge. At the time, New Zealanders demanded that their Government take action, which the great Dr Cullen did, as he always did. This bill simply seeks to extend Dr Cullen\u2019s and Labour\u2019s scheme. As far as ordinary New Zealanders are concerned, the scheme works by protecting eligible depositors against default by participating institutions up to a maximum of $500,000 per depositor per institution for bank deposits, and $250,000 per depositor per institution for non-bank deposits. It should be noted that the scheme does not protect financial institutions against commercial processes such as business growth, shrinkage, mergers, take-overs, restructures, or, most important, failures. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EI am also very supportive of this scheme because it provides a high level of stability to the financial sector during fragile global economic times. As we are all aware\u2014and as the Labour, Green, and Progressive party banking inquiry confirmed\u2014the banks have been making an extraordinary profit on short-term floating interest rates. However, we all acknowledge that the cost of international finance has increased substantially since the beginning of the financial crisis. Let us say that this began or became a globally acknowledged issue with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers on 15 September 2008. Actually, did that not happen before the last election?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227acfff2a8e5d4eed86d4ce1bbbbd3192\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: It did.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224bf99bad60b2414cbf875f08e5698a45\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: It did\u2014while the National Party was still promising tax cuts because we could afford them?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b36cdddc4cc5441b82fc05e1e992578d\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b434d113705942408361ae0b5cd77da7\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, hold on a second. Mr English, according to him, was not aware of the financial crisis until after the passing of the first tax cuts and the cancelling of the second and third instalments. I wonder where he was asleep? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EBill English, the Rip Van Winkle of New Zealand politics, went to sleep at a pivotal moment in global economic history. He slept during the most important and far-reaching crisis for two generations, and then awoke and started to implement the trickle-down, or supply-side, economic theory in an attempt to fix the problem without realising that the world had moved on. He did not realise that the US, the UK, Australia, and a host of other nations had, in fact, left Friedman economic thought behind and started to implement economic measures that were actually targeted at those who needed them\u2014those on middle to low incomes\u2014instead of one-third of all tax cuts going to the top 3 percent of wage and salary earners, which is not fair. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EWe could talk about 9 long months of broken promises at length, but I digress and I apologise. If I had a dollar for every time a constituent asked me why the Government cut taxes for upper-income earners and did not give one penny to low-income earners, I would be a wealthy man. [Interruption] As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by annoyance at broken tax promises, a strong and robust banking system is the most important thing for the health of the economy. By this I mean that New Zealanders need to be able to put their money into reputable financial institutions in the knowledge that their money will not be wiped out by another tidal wave of company and institutional failures. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EOne of the reasons this is important\u2014apart from the obvious, which I previously alluded to\u2014is the ability of the financial sector to maintain or, if necessary, increase its bank deposit levels so as to be able to lend money to the business, the farming, and the private sectors. The last thing we want is for ordinary New Zealanders to lose confidence in our banking and non-banking sector, and that is why I am supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022 data-id=\u00228f5662d43965438c8bc8d2f0d81e0323\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f5662d43965438c8bc8d2f0d81e0323\u0022\u003EPESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National\u2014Maungakiekie):\u003C/span\u003E I wish to take a short call on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. A number of speakers before me have touched on the advantages of the bill around giving certainty to financial institutions and maintaining confidence in our financial system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EI will raise a couple of points that have been put forward by members opposite, particularly around the financial inquiry they held in the last month. While they have been grandstanding by setting up bogus inquiries, members of this Government have been travelling the country and talking to financial institutions; we have been actually visiting the financial institutions that are the heartbeat of our economy. We have been talking to and listening to those financial companies, and one of the biggest things on their agenda has been the extension of this deposit guarantee scheme. So we have acted. I commend the Minister of Finance for taking this bill through Parliament early in order to give our financial companies a level of certainty in terms of the extension of the deposit guarantee scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EThe scheme is about minimising the exposure of the taxpayer. Although members opposite would like to see some sort of socialised banking whereby everyone pays a fee, the way it works in reality is that there is a risk-return trade-off. Mr Parker referred to the big end of town benefiting from this bill, but it will actually benefit a number of financial institutions, such as South Canterbury Finance, which has a rating of BB\u002B and lends to a number of rural and urban customers. It will benefit them by allowing our businesses to expand and grow, particularly in the export sector, and by providing employment opportunities, which this country desperately needs. So this measure is not about supporting just the big end of town but middle-tier finance companies that are highly reliant at the moment on this deposit guarantee scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EThe bill is about protecting financial institutions, but not to the extent that those financial institutions are buffered from the commercial realities of business restructurings and business failures. It is about supporting the finance sector through this difficult time, and it is about the rough edges of the economy. We have seen a recent Treasury report that talked about a turn-round in this economy, but that turn-round has not yet eventuated. We are yet to see economic growth quarter on quarter, but we look forward optimistically to it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EI support this bill. It is a good bill. I think it addresses the uncertainty in the finance sector at the right time. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022650f9026300c4d588e7f347c565a9617\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022782c080b07a44e789870f258eb71ca7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022782c080b07a44e789870f258eb71ca7d\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill be now read a second time. Members who spoke during the first reading have covered, I think, the essence of the bill, and I welcome the broad support for it in Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI want to make just a couple of additional points as we move through the second reading. The first point is to make it clear that in passing this bill it is the Government\u2019s intention to move, over time, back to normal market conditions in our finance sector. The details of the extension of the guarantee will show that the Government is moving the pricing of the guarantee somewhere towards what market pricing would be. However, we have given an extension whereby from today there will be a bit less than 2\u00BD years until the guarantee expires around 2010 or 2011. That should be a clear signal to financial institutions that they should ready themselves for normal market conditions beyond that point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe second point I want to mention is one that is often overlooked and has occasionally been confused in commentaries and in some speeches. The previous Government, following on from the finance company collapses, passed into law a new regulatory regime for the non-bank deposit-taking institutions. That regime will come into place over the next 6 months or so. The regime involves more direct supervision by the Reserve Bank, liquidity requirements, and capital ratio requirements, as well as a requirement for credit ratings. It is quite important to understand that that process is separate from the guarantee. It will require those institutions to meet higher prudential standards than they did before. So the extension of the guarantee will raise the hurdle, but that does not occur until after October next year. Between now and then, credit unions, building societies, and finance companies will be required to meet the standards set by the non-bank deposit-taking regime. That has been the subject of extensive consultation with the industry, which was begun by the last Government and has been continued by the Reserve Bank under this Government. The sector is fully aware of what kind of requirements there will be. It has had the opportunity to discuss and, in some cases, disagree with them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EIt is important to understand that those two processes, although related, are actually separate. I expect that the challenge posed by the non-bank deposit-taking regime is more immediate than the change in the conditions of the retail deposit guarantee that we are legislating for today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022240b7504279846a5b27d90e602d52905\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022240b7504279846a5b27d90e602d52905\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I rise in support of the bill, and in so doing I draw attention to the fact that this is one of those processes that the public often say they like to see, and rarely do see, and by that I mean the major parties cooperating on issues of major importance across the House. I begin my remarks by thanking the Hon Bill English, who, when he was doing my current job\u2014that of Opposition spokesperson on finance\u2014was honourable in his cooperation with the then Minister of Finance when the first scheme was set up, before the election. We would like to acknowledge that, and we would also like to acknowledge the courtesy the Government has extended to the Opposition in briefing us on the introduction not only of the bill but of the policy. I thank the Minister and say that that has enabled us to form a more balanced view of proceedings. If I might express a hope, it is that this will not be the last time that we are able to cooperate across the House on matters of major economic importance. I think all members of the Parliament are agreed that New Zealand faces difficult times in a fragile world, and, of course, we cannot have it both ways. It cannot be the case that this is the worst of all recessions and it therefore justifies any response, and that, at the same time, a thousand flowers have now bloomed and it is all hunky-dory. It cannot be as easy as that, and we are happy to cooperate with the Government, within reason, on trying to work through some longer-term solutions that get us away from some of the cycles and roller coasters that may have made this recession more severe than it might otherwise have been. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ELet me touch briefly on a couple of the issues that have been raised in recent contributions to the debate. If I might, I will pick up where the Minister of Finance left off and thank him for raising the issue of the contemporary regulation of the non-bank finance sector, which is something I was going to cover, in any case. Three pieces of legislation were carried forward by the previous Government: the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute) Act 2008, the Financial Advisers Act 2008, and the Reserve Bank Amendment Act of 2008. They had three interlinked objectives that are relevant to the situation we now find ourselves in. The first was to register financial service providers, and the second was to register and provide rules of the game for financial advisers, who had too often been front-door salespeople for pre-packaged products from the finance industry, and not at all independent advisers acting in the interests of their clients. I say that not to besmirch any individual, but to say that there were structural problems with the way the industry was set up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EFinally, the Reserve Bank Amendment Act extended, for the first time, the prudential supervision role of the Reserve Bank into the non-bank finance sector, and, as the Minister has rightly said, in many ways that provides higher standards of supervision than are required in this framework legislation, which specifically applies to the retail guarantee scheme. That is to say that that is all work in progress; that it has transcended the change of Government, and that we all agree it is in the interests of the country, is so much the better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ELet me come on to some related issues, which I believe also require bipartisan consideration. These are some of the matters that were raised by submitters in the recent banking inquiry. Leaving aside the fact that the Government did not want the inquiry to happen, it has happened. There were a large number of submissions, and there was a very strong consensus among submitters: firstly, that the official cash rate was not working, because much of it was locked into fixed-term mortgages, so it was not able to respond quickly enough to catch the business cycle or the property cycle; and, secondly, that the official cash rate was not being fully passed through, and therefore to achieve a given amount of sterilisation of economic cycles the Reserve Bank had to have greater amounts of either upward or downward movement of it, allowing for the discounting process from the banking sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EMany submissions said that the housing bubble was big and dangerous and likely to happen again, and from that arose the question of whether the official cash rate on its own is a sufficient tool to address that, or whether it needs to work hand in hand with additional monetary policy instruments, savings policy instruments, or possibly tax instruments, which potentially could operate to create a more level playing field. These are big, important, and difficult issues, which require careful long-term thinking. Some of it may emerge from the Government\u2019s tax review working-group. We will be watching with interest as the banking inquiry reports\u2014to see what emerges from that\u2014and hope there will be an opportunity for more discussion in the national interest across the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI come back to the structural elements of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill that is before the House today. It is structural, skeletal legislation. It provides powers to the Minister of Finance, and the Minister has outlined how he plans to use them in the short term. The Minister has made it clear that it is a stepping stone towards unwinding a scheme that was brought in quite rightly by agreement to address a specific set of problems at a specific time. We are all agreed that we need a strong financial system. We are all agreed that the scheme was a good way of maintaining that, and that it makes sense to extend the scheme. It is appropriate to extend the scheme for a further year under structured conditions to match the timetable of our colleagues\u2019 scheme across the Tasman. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EWhat this says, however, is that all the finance companies\u2014the non-bank financial institutions\u2014will have to meet interest costs and they will have to get themselves rated by a credit-rating agency. A previous Labour speaker, Mr Stuart Nash, pointed out that the process of rating can be difficult, that some, due to reasons of scale rather than viability, may not qualify, and that that could perversely contribute to their falling over, to the detriment of many ordinary New Zealanders who are depositors in those schemes. We will watch with interest and care as this is implemented, to ensure that there are not any side effects that are worse than the disease that it seeks to cure\u2014the level of risk that exists in the first place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EWe have said it before, and I want to repeat it, that one area where we depart from the Government is in the treatment of the major banks in this scheme. Under the previous Government we made it clear to the banks that they would need to participate in both the wholesale and retail schemes, if they proceeded with either; that spread the risk, and it meant the Crown, the taxpayer, was better compensated for that risk. By signalling to the banking sector that it is all right for it to participate only at wholesale levels, we believe that that is narrowing the fee base, concentrating the risk in the non-bank financial sector, and thereby elevating the average level of risk on the taxpayer. We ask the Government to seriously consider that matter: whether it is not worth having a further set of conversations with the banks along the lines that it would be better if they maintained a presence in both schemes, if they remained in one. We have said it before, and I will repeat it, that in other respects it would appear that the Government is treating the non-bank finance sector with a rather sterner stick than that applied to the major banks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022 data-id=\u0022b301b27e02b8443e9c10b50dab40ea3a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b301b27e02b8443e9c10b50dab40ea3a\u0022\u003EAARON GILMORE (National):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support the second reading of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. I want to touch on a few things: the timing, the rules of engagement, and the industry acceptance. I am pleased that everybody in the House today is wide awake and listening to the debate on this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EI want to firstly touch on the timing of this bill. At the moment we are having discussions, particularly out of the US, on the so-called green shoots of economic recovery. I think the previous guarantee scheme had an expiry date of October 2010. Many people who invest, particularly those who invest in non-bank finance companies, invest for a period of about 12 months, so we are nearly getting to that period of 12 months, and between now and the end of that scheme people will start to make a decision on whether they reinvest their funds. That makes it quite an appropriate time to take the opportunity to get this revised new scheme in place to take over and extend through to December 2011. One of the reasons I look forward to that is that those green shoots by that time, having gone from being a planted seed to green shoots, should hopefully be a beautiful rose bush that we can harvest and hand out to the wonderful people of New Zealand. It has been mentioned that one of the reasons for a finishing date of a little over 12 months is to align better with our friends across the Tasman in Australia. As someone who has spent a number of years in the financial capital markets I say that it is critical, given the tight time frames and links that we have with Australia, that there is as much alignment as we can possibly get. I think that is of significant benefit to New Zealand savers and investors. However, as many speakers in the first reading and previous speakers on the second reading have mentioned, this benefit to investors and savers does come at some cost\u2014there is no free lunch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EThis scheme has been redesigned from the existing scheme; hence the reason why we have a brand new bill. The scheme grants the Minister of Finance specific powers to develop rules of engagement\u2014as I call it\u2014under which the scheme guarantee would apply. Importantly, the scheme\u2014as I mentioned\u2014comes at a cost; it will require participating companies to pay some sort of fee, as well as have what is known as a BB credit-rating. I want to spend a little bit of time on this issue of credit ratings. There is a little bit of confusion, I think, in the House today. A BB credit-rating as provided by the largest credit-rating provider in the world, a company called Standard and Poor\u2019s, actually implies an investment that is below an investment grade; a typical investment grade is commonly known as BBB-. By giving a rating of BB, Standard and Poor\u2019s implies normally that an investment is a speculative type of investment, not an investment of investment grade\u2014not a safe investment\u2014but a speculative investment with perhaps, based on normal work, a 25 percent chance of failure. That shows an interesting aspect that has not really been picked up by any previous speakers: that this guarantee cuts in at quite a relatively low level with quite a high speculative rate for investment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EThe members on the other side of the House say that the cost of getting such a grade from a credit-rating agency like Standard and Poor\u2019s is too expensive to participate in this scheme. I say to the members that this bill actually removes the compulsion to be in this scheme. It is absolutely optional for participants to take advantage of the scheme should they wish. To take up the advantage of a credit guarantee, obviously, participants have to spend some money. It is also interesting that no one has touched on the fact that the scheme is available only to participants currently in the existing scheme or to mergers or changes of companies that are in the current scheme. As far as I am aware, nearly all the participants currently in the scheme already have some form of credit rating. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EInterestingly enough, also, the cost to take up the option of the scheme is relatively low, relative to the size of some of these companies. Most of the non-bank financial institutions in New Zealand that are of any note have anywhere between $100 million and above in assets. The cost of gaining a credit rating from entities such as Standard and Poor\u2019s is somewhere in the region of about $100,000, and thereafter ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 per annum. Relative to an asset base of $100 million, it is quite a small cost for the opportunity to take advantage of this scheme. I think that most of the 19 finance companies that have collapsed in the past 2 to 6 years were small finance companies worth under $100 million in invested total assets. It just shows us that one of the reasons why that cost exists is that larger companies can pay the $100,000 and often they survive in many ways. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EI will touch on a couple of things. I had the pleasure of giving a speech recently to a group of people from the Financial Services Institute of Australasia (FINSIA). FINSIA is the leading organisation for those who are involved in the financial sector, particularly in Australia. I am proud to be a member of the organisation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251a22d5e62624569a0e2f7299691b43c\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re a member of everything.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022393ea7486b514a59b7235bf354013ad4\u0022\u003EAARON GILMORE\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely. The single most popular question I was asked about the speech I gave was what we are going to do about the retail deposit scheme. Interestingly enough that speech was about 6 weeks ago. At that time I had to dodge the question quite appropriately because it was not clear at that stage what we would or would not do. We were still in the development of the scheme as outlined in the bill. Today I am quite pleased to be able to stand here and talk on the bill and to discuss the fact that we have a scheme, which will be extended past the 2010 deadline. I am pleased, and I am sure my fellow members of FINSIA will be very pleased as well, that the scheme is being extended. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EThe bill will not in itself save us money or save our economy, but it will provide some certainty and surety to those people who want to save and invest, in particular in our non-banking sector. We have heard some economic voodoo from people on the other side of the House about what is required to right the economy, about what is wrong with the banking sector, and about the perceived failure to participate in some form of charade of a banking inquiry. People on this side of the House are blessed. We are blessed with the experience of many people from the banking sector who do not have to undertake an education about the banking sector. We have a reasonable understanding and knowledge of the banking and finance sector, and the bill we have before us today is a classic example of that understanding and knowledge. I am pleased to be part of that team. The bill is one the finance sector wants. Since the introduction of the bill has been announced a number of people in the wider sector have accepted it and been very happy for it to be introduced. It is a bill I am very pleased to speak on today. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u00224e1a51ebc582444d89905f2709665146\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224e1a51ebc582444d89905f2709665146\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E I will not take up much of the House\u2019s time because I think a lot has been said. There is cross-party support for the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, but I note\u2014as I did in the first reading debate\u2014that the Opposition has some concerns. The member Aaron Gilmore made a variety of comments about small institutions. The concern we have is that the bill does not outline the eligibility policy. That is left to the Minister and provided for under the Minister\u2019s authority to determine eligibility. The issue we have some concern about is the situation of a number of smaller institutions, which the previous speaker spoke about in his wonderful speech, which, presumably, was akin in his own mind to the Gettysburg address. Mr Gilmore is a member of everything and has done everything. Some people wonder whether he has fixed his \u201CI\u201D problem\u2014\u201CI\u2019ve done this, I\u2019ve done that, and I\u2019ve done everything.\u201D Maybe he has not. He is not concerned about the smaller institutions and companies that may not have the capacity, for instance, to meet the requirements\u2014although he thinks that all one has to do is cough up a bit of money and the rating agency will gave them a rating. Well, it is not as simple as that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EIn order to achieve a BB rating, a company or institution has to be up to the mark. I am advised that it is quite an exhaustive process. It is not like ordering a double meat burger and chips from McDonald\u2019s, as that member may be wont to do. A company or institution does not just pay money and get a rating, just as one does not just pay money and get a degree; it has to pay the money and then go through an exhaustive process. That is why those credit-rating agencies are particularly credible. A number of smaller companies and institutions have insufficient scale to meet the requirements of those credit agencies, which in itself can create instability. If they cannot meet the mark and they cannot then get that guarantee, does that become a shakeout scenario in the financial sector? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EAgain, as I said in the first reading debate, no one would wish companies and institutions to fall over and for mum and dad Kiwi investors to be left in their wake. No one is predicting that, and no one would want it. We are simply asking the question whether, if the smaller institutions and finance companies do not meet the mark, it is possible that, in a financial investment sense, there may be flight from those companies to larger institutions, thereby bringing about the potential collapse of those smaller institutions. Who will be left to mop up what is left? It is the big Aussie banks and the big end of town that National seems to be particularly concerned for. The banks are able to benefit from the wholesale guarantee without, as I understand it, being obliged to contribute to the retail scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EThe member Aaron Gilmore mentioned the banking inquiry. Mr Gilmore is the learned professional who has done everything, been a member of everything, and knows everything, by his own admission. I wish I was half as good as he thinks he is! I would have thought he would acknowledge that it is appropriate, given the public perception around banking\u2014whether that public perception be factual, misguided, or incorrect\u2014to have a bipartisan banking inquiry, as I said in the first reading debate. We had a banking inquiry. It was non-partisan for the three parties that participated in it\u2014the Greens, the Progressives, and Labour\u2014but there was a refusal by National, ACT, and a few of the others that linger around this place to even participate in an unofficial, if you like, informal inquiry, let alone a full-blown parliamentary select committee inquiry. Such an inquiry\u2014I think we all agree\u2014would have been the best option because it would carry with it the authority of Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EThe question I raised in the first reading debate\u2014and I raise it again now\u2014is why any party would object to such an inquiry unless there was something the party did not want us to know, unless there was something it did not want this House to expose, or unless it did not suit its political purpose for us to have a thorough examination of the sector of our economy called the banking and financial sector. I cannot, for the life of me, see where the politics in this particular question would be, because the truth is that Kiwis\u2014rightly or wrongly, and it could well be wrongly, I concede that\u2014hold the view en masse that they are not getting a fair go from many of the participants in the financial and banking sector. As Kiwis look across the ditch to Australia they perceive that our official cash rate reductions are not being passed through as swiftly as those of our Australian cousins. I think it was worth it to have a crack at looking at that. In fact, it would have been one of the finer moments of this Parliament if we did not play politics but just said that that is an issue New Zealanders are concerned about. In a recession the mortgage bill tends to be the biggest we face. That was a moment in Parliament when we could have dealt with something without politics and see what comes out of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EThere is now a big debate around how we deal with inflation. There is a big debate with our manufacturing sector as it struggles with the high dollar and as it struggles to export and be competitive with its counterparts in other countries. There is a huge debate about how we can continue to control inflation and how, if we choose to, we incentivise, or perhaps disincentivise, different forms of investment in the non-tradable economy as opposed to the tradable economy. I would have thought that was a simple proposition that would not have taken a lot of steam or political venom to discharge, but it appears that it was not. I think that lessens this place and some of the participants here in Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EWe support this bill. It is a measure that, as other speakers have said, will indeed reinforce stability. The question I have with this Government guarantee is that, contrary to what some people have said, the big end of town will benefit, because it has a guarantee. I think Mr Foss and others said the shareholders of the larger Aussie-owned banks will benefit. Any institution that has a guarantee has greater stability and greater confidence, which is therefore seen by those who may invest in it\u2014that is, the shareholders. Generally\u2014in my world of market economics anyway\u2014that encourages an increase in the share price as a vote of confidence in a company or bank that holds that Government guarantee. I do not think we should delude ourselves by saying that the bill will not benefit shareholders and banks. Give me a break; of course it will. But the question is whether it will have a counterbalancing effect, because the bar is very high\u2014a BB credit-rating\u2014for the non-banking institutions that may not have the scale to meet the mark. I will conclude with those points and reiterate that we support the bill with those reservations and points made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022 data-id=\u002235db5991f8d9465cb72f3563c12b59e5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235db5991f8d9465cb72f3563c12b59e5\u0022\u003EDr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. As I said in my first reading speech, the Green Party supports this bill. The Green Party supports the deposit scheme. The scheme was introduced because it was essential in order to maintain confidence in the banking sector in the middle of a global financial crisis. We support a time-limited extension of the deposit scheme, and, hopefully, a phasing out of the deposit scheme over time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EFor me, it has been most interesting in this debate to listen to members of the Government speak as if being part of the financial sector was something they were championing, and as if they should be proud to have come out of the banking sector. Well, as a matter of fact, the banking sector collapsed the global economy. That is a basic reality. Members opposite are saying that somehow the banking sector is still the master of the universe, even after taxpayers of the entire world had to put their hands in their pockets to bail out the banking sector. It seems to me extraordinary that people in the House say we should somehow worship at the feet of banking executives, when they have demonstrably proven they do not know what they are doing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThis bill is part of the bail-out in which the taxpayer had to get involved in order to save the financial sector from itself. Of course, we have gone through periods like this before. During the Depression and the postwar period the people and the Governments of the world had to intervene to stabilise the system. Once again, the people and the taxpayers of the world have had to intervene to stabilise the system, and that is exactly what this legislation will do, along with the wholesale guarantee scheme. It seems to me that if taxpayers have to intervene to save banks from bank executives, who made such a complete mess of the banking sector, then surely the quid pro quo should be that chief executive officers\u2019 salaries should not be obscene. It is obscene that in our country the chief executive officers of banks earn millions of dollars, while ordinary workers, who are the foundation of our economy, have very, very low wages. Why do ordinary workers have to pay taxes to underwrite banks while the chief executive officers of banks, who got us into the global financial crisis, earn millions and millions of dollars? That is obscene and unacceptable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWhy do banks continue to make very large profits on their interest margins? Banks lost some money because they invested in firms that turned out to be bad investments. They made poor decisions about which firms to invest in and they lost quite a lot of money, so they have had to put quite a lot of money aside. Although they have put all that money aside, however, they still make very large amounts of profits on the interest spreads\u2014the interest margins they charge people. Profits on interest are still up on last year, in spite of what members might have heard. Why do taxpayers have to pick up the pieces through legislation like this because bank executives are so useless that they made a complete mess of it? Why do taxpayers have to pick up the pieces, yet the treatment of bank staff is still appalling? We are sending jobs in the banking sector overseas. One would think that as long as the New Zealand taxpayer is underwriting and supporting the banks, the banks would keep jobs in New Zealand. But they are not: they send them overseas. One would think that as long as the banks are being underwritten by the New Zealand taxpayer, they would change some of the practices around pushing loans and money on to people who cannot afford them. Surely banks would pull back on the system they have set up to incentivise their employees\u2014pushing on them the idea that they have to sell more loans to people who cannot afford them, which is part of the reason why we are in the mess we are in\u2014because the taxpayers are underwriting this system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe other part of this issue, as I talked about a little bit in my first reading speech, is that we need some solutions to deal with the fact that we have just been through a debt-fuelled, consumption-led boom. We saw house asset prices double over the space of 2002-07, which was a completely irresponsible policy on the part of the Government at the time, in that it did not intervene and do something about it. The current Government cannot be held responsible for the ridiculous boom in housing prices, which has made housing unaffordable, but the current Government is still not changing the policy settings to do anything about it. It is all very well for Bill English to say it was a debt-fuelled, consumption-led boom\u2014I agree with him\u2014but we need to change the policy settings to do something about it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWe know the changes we need to make. We know that investment properties and the tax incentives to speculate in housing were one of the key drivers. We know that is a simple fact. Every tax adviser across the country was telling people to invest in investment properties in order to reduce their tax. We can change those rules. Those rules are within the Government\u2019s purview to change, and I encourage the Minister of Finance to follow through and do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWe also know that we can change monetary policy. If we are to maintain the stability of the banking system, not to mention the stability of the New Zealand economy, we need to change monetary policy. Relying on the official cash rate has been a bit of a disaster. All we did when we increased the official cash rate was suck foreign capital into New Zealand, which the banks then loaned on to the housing market. The safest way banks could think of to make some money was to push it into the housing market. Instead of giving it to New Zealand businesses, which could have used it productively, the banks were good only at passing on loans into the housing market, because it is easy and simple to do. Houses continue to increase in price, so the banks just loan money into the housing market. The hard thing to do is to back small to medium sized businesses in New Zealand that want to borrow money to invest in productive enterprise, so they can compete with imports and so they can export. That would be a responsible and useful thing for the banking sector to do; simply borrowing billions and billions of dollars from overseas in order to push that money into the housing market asset inflation was not in the best interest of our country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EOn one hand we say that we will give banks a bit of a hand, because we have no choice. We cannot afford to let the banks fail. They are too big to fail as they are fundamental to our economy. On the other side of the equation, we need to regulate banks in order to make them useful to us. It is useful to us for banks to loan money into the productive sector, not to put more and more money into a housing asset bubble. One of the ways we can make banks useful to us, if we have the courage to do it, is to intervene directly in terms of Reserve Bank ratios. This has been discussed in a number of places. It is a mechanism whereby for every dollar the banks put into any sector we identify as an asset bubble, such as the housing sector, the banks have to deposit a proportion with the Reserve Bank or hold it within the bank, whatever percentage that is. The effect of that mechanism is that it makes it harder for the banks to shovel foreign currency through into whatever particular asset bubble one is concerned about. In particular, the housing market has been the asset bubble. Using reserve ratios overseen by the Reserve Bank is one way to try to restrict the flow of foreign capital borrowed from overseas into the housing asset bubble, and speculation in the housing market. These tools are available if the Government has the courage to take them on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EIf the Government has the courage to do more than say that it will cut red tape, which sounds really great, or that it will try to free up the productive sector, then I ask what will it really do. If we really want to intervene in the sector, we need to reduce the level of the New Zealand dollar. One of the key things driving up the New Zealand dollar has been the official cash rate. It has kept the New Zealand dollar high. We should reduce interest rates. Again, the official cash rate has been one of the drivers of interest rates, amongst other things. In order to reduce interest rates, we need to target inflation in the housing market. The official cash rate is a very blunt instrument when we use it to try to suppress inflation right across the economy. It drives up the New Zealand dollar and it makes it difficult for New Zealand productive businesses to borrow money. It would be much more effective to target the housing market itself and then to make capital available for New Zealand business who actually need to borrow money to produce things. In the process, we would reduce the level of the New Zealand dollar and reduce interest rates to the productive sector. All of these things would make a significant difference. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThis bill is fine as it is, but we need to have a broader policy debate about monetary policy, financial instruments, and the stability of the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand banking sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cc9c47c0-4409-44ca-ad2f-498707f27d69\u0022 data-id=\u00227d5a00fe1b524e3bad532b076a779029\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc9c47c0-4409-44ca-ad2f-498707f27d69\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227d5a00fe1b524e3bad532b076a779029\u0022\u003EJONATHAN YOUNG (National\u2014New Plymouth):\u003C/span\u003E Investors and depositors still remain nervous in New Zealand, and it is at times such as this time that Governments need to act in order to bring stability. This Government has sought to protect New Zealanders through the turbulent economic times we have been through and continue to face. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc9c47c0-4409-44ca-ad2f-498707f27d69\u0022\u003ERecently, the New Zealand Herald reported that John Kidd, a McDouall Stuart analyst, had said \u201CThe Government must provide some clarity around the future of the retail deposit guarantee and soon to minimise uncertainty and avoid another looming funding crunch in the beleaguered finance company sector,\u201D. The New Zealand Herald reported further that \u201CAfter being starved of retail investor money after a string of high-profile failures in the sector, the introduction of the guarantee in October last year saw a flood of cash into finance companies. But there has been no official word on whether the scheme will be extended when it expires in October next year. Because of that, investors have been reluctant to invest further in finance companies for terms beyond the scheme\u2019s expiry date.\u201D That is a concern. It is good to note that the Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English, is responding not only to the international situation but also to the needs of the finance industry here in New Zealand, which will continue to fuel and finance our recovery out of this recession in the years ahead. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc9c47c0-4409-44ca-ad2f-498707f27d69\u0022\u003EThe Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme was instituted in October 2008 in the wake of a growing sense of uncertainty regarding deposits. As we walked in step with Australia, New Zealand also, under the previous Government, set up a retail deposit guarantee scheme. It followed other measures of the Reserve Bank to ensure liquidity at that particular time. Apart from protecting depositors, the guarantee also afforded banks and businesses with a sense of stability during those troubled times that we experienced, by ensuring investor confidence. A number of changes are coming up in this bill, which others no doubt will allude to, but some of the changes are to bring some transition back into normal business practice. This means that people or companies such as banks and other institutions that take the step into this extended scheme for a further 14 months will, at the end of that period of time, come back into normal finance and business practice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cc9c47c0-4409-44ca-ad2f-498707f27d69\u0022\u003EThank you, Mr Speaker. I am happy to commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a744a9a7-a2e8-401b-abfb-aec22a3818c8\u0022 data-id=\u0022caafa84ae6e74cde9e7e0e586b93f3c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a744a9a7-a2e8-401b-abfb-aec22a3818c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022caafa84ae6e74cde9e7e0e586b93f3c1\u0022\u003EKATRINA SHANKS (National):\u003C/span\u003E It is my pleasure to take a call tonight on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. This is an interesting bill, because it is a continuation of a scheme that we already have in place to address the issues around the confidence that our investors have with the banks that they deposit with. We know that a year ago there was real concern around the viability of many of the overseas banks and financial institutions. There was concern that investors were withdrawing their money and that they did not have any confidence in the banking system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a744a9a7-a2e8-401b-abfb-aec22a3818c8\u0022\u003EI will address the comments that Russel Norman made earlier, and to be honest, I do not quite know where to start. At the end of the day, it was the strength of our banks down here in New Zealand that helped our economy along. We did not have our banks folding. We had relatively strong banks, and the Government got in behind the banks and put in a retail deposit guarantee scheme to ensure that our investors will have confidence in the banking system in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a744a9a7-a2e8-401b-abfb-aec22a3818c8\u0022\u003EThis bill has extended the current scheme until 31 December 2011, which is an extension of another year. The current scheme was to expire on 12 October 2010. We were finding that there was a lack of confidence around the uncertainty of what would happen to these deposits, so we have continued that scheme in order to help out our economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a744a9a7-a2e8-401b-abfb-aec22a3818c8\u0022\u003EWe realised that if people do not invest in our economy, then we will not have any growth. That is what it is about. John Key\u2019s Government is about getting some bounce out of this recession, so that we can get some good solid growth. It is so that we can be leaders going forward with our very strong economy and our export markets, and we can ensure that we get cutting edge technology and cutting edge businesses. We are out there at the front end, getting our fair share of the business that we should be getting in those areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a744a9a7-a2e8-401b-abfb-aec22a3818c8\u0022\u003EIt is really interesting to find out that currently there is $120 billion worth of guaranteed deposits in total in existence, over 73 institutions. There has been a big take-up of the retail deposit guarantee scheme and this will continue. It was my pleasure to take a call on this bill this evening. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022 data-id=\u00222aa90299f4de40bf8d0a101b49a914ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222aa90299f4de40bf8d0a101b49a914ae\u0022\u003EMELISSA LEE (National):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to rise and take a short call on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. Already many members have spoken on this bill, but I want to add my tuppence worth to make a couple of points. I was trying to get to the House this afternoon to watch some of the debate that was happening and I was quite appalled. Let me start by saying what a load of hogwash from Labour! Apparently it is supporting this bill and it feels the need to blame others. Let me remind members opposite that the mass financial company failures\u2014some 30 financial institutions\u2014happened on its watch, when Labour was in Government. I ask members whether we are all glad that the 9 long years of Labour taking New Zealand around the bend and then down the gurgler of the OECD rankings are over and that we have a great Prime Minister, a fabulous Cabinet, and a caucus who are focused\u2014yes, focused\u2014on getting New Zealand back on track.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d52e59e3-2195-4c95-a654-665c11b39b63\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222a5ec1dff9954e089a17a700915a85ec\u0022\u003EHon Parekura Horomia\u003C/span\u003E: What are you talking about?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022131fd667eddb47f385a31eee054c2887\u0022\u003EMELISSA LEE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the member does not know what we are talking about because Labour was concerned about putting New Zealand down the gurgler. We are on the way up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a744a9a7-a2e8-401b-abfb-aec22a3818c8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226431f1eff9f4bbb82e15e676b6408ee\u0022\u003EKatrina Shanks\u003C/span\u003E: 9 long years!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce115afc50d9444a893dd26ce28d9c79\u0022\u003EMELISSA LEE\u003C/span\u003E: That is right\u20149 long years. We are on the way back up and on track. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022\u003EIf the approval rating of our Prime Minister is any indication, the National Government is doing a sterling job\u2014a fantastic job. What percentage did the Leader of the Opposition have? I believe it was a single figure\u2014a single digit. This retail deposit guarantee scheme was a direct response to international financial market turbulence. The National Government is extending the scheme while tightening some of the conditions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022\u003ECompared to other speakers, I have no background in finance or banking. There are some hints that the concerns about the stability of the financial systems are now abating. Some countries are even announcing economic growth. For me as a mother, not a financial person or a banker, as a daughter, and as a business owner responsible for paying staff, I like to know that my deposits are safe and that I will not lose my hard-earned money and the moneys for my family and my staff members. I like to know that it is safe and that this Government is guaranteeing the deposit. It is a prop up for the country\u2019s financial system, but until we are back on track I like to know that the Government guarantees it, and the thousands of retail depositors\u2014the ma and pa depositors of this country who want a better future for themselves and their families\u2014will agree with me. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002218f9e3ea-81c5-4414-af48-d6bb843a9227\u0022\u003EThe new scheme starts on 13 October 2010 when the current scheme ends, which is the day before, and it continues until 31 December 2011. The planned extension will maintain confidence and help both the depositors and institutions to adjust back to a more normal business environment. What a fantastic thing that will be. New Zealand will be back on track. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u0022f1ef0446c683422698b08b084f475b41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f1ef0446c683422698b08b084f475b41\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak in support of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, as I did in the first reading, for a number of reasons. I was interested to hear Melissa Lee emphasise this Government for the whole of her speech, and how this Government is responsible for guaranteeing the deposits of ordinary New Zealanders. Ms Lee has a very short memory. In fact, Dr Michael Cullen instigated this bill under urgency. Dr Michael Cullen was one of the great Labour politicians who believe in listening to the people. He understood that hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars had been lost by New Zealanders due to the collapse of financial institutions. He went around the country with people like Phil Goff, Annette King, and Maryan Street, and they spoke to constituents around their electorates. They realised, after hearing the stories about people losing their life-savings, that something simply needed to be done. So I tell Melissa Lee that the National Government did not do this; it was a Labour Government measure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThis bill is going through under urgency at the moment because the National Government did not get off its chuff and sort this thing out. The current retail guarantee expires in about 4 weeks. It was set up for 1 year. We are debating this bill under urgency so that the extension of the scheme will be in place and will give a high level of stability to the mum and dad savers who rely on their savings for their retirement. We all know that the Government will cut superannuation and raise GST. Bill English\u2019s Tax Working Group has said that it thinks it would be a great idea to raise GST to 15 percent, maybe 17 percent, or even 20 percent. It wants to do that so it can drop the top tax rates from 38 percent and 33 percent down to 30 percent. How will that help the vast majority of the people of New Zealand? How will that help superannuitants? That is why Dr Cullen brought this deposit guarantee scheme in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThere is a fundamental difference between the groups of people who were losing the money they had invested: there are savers and there are investors. Savers are the people who had put their hard-earned savings\u2014which they had built up over 30, 40, 50, 60 or many, many years of working hard and paying their taxes\u2014into these funds, only to see their savings wiped out. Savers do not necessarily price risk like investors do. Investors are professionals who understand risk, or are supposed to, and therefore invest appropriately. They understand that risk equals return, whereas savers\u2014mum and dad investors who lost all their money in the financial sector\u2014were not pricing risk; they were putting their money away ready for their retirement, for their children\u2019s education, or for their grandchildren\u2019s education. As I alluded to in some of the examples I gave earlier, we are seeing the downside of the collapse of the financial sector in terms of the increase in ill health and decrease in the well-being of a huge cohort of New Zealanders. I spoke of at least two people who had committed suicide because they had lost their life-savings. I spoke of the tremendous hardship and mental anguish of those New Zealanders. Melissa Lee smiles, but I do not think the issue is particularly funny or worth smiling about. Many, many Kiwis have suffered, and this deposit guarantee scheme will alleviate a lot of the anguish and harm caused to many people who have their money invested at this time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EI support this bill for two reasons. First, it is about ordinary New Zealanders, whom members opposite tend not to understand. I cannot believe that when we are talking about New Zealanders who have committed suicide because they have lost their life-savings, we see some members opposite smiling and clapping. Quite frankly, that is one of the saddest things I can imagine. I read about it in the New Zealand Herald and I thought: \u201CGoodness me! Imagine if that had been my parents.\u201D Let us imagine that it had been our parents who had lost their life-savings after paying taxes for 50 years. Imagine them seeing their life-savings suddenly wiped out and being told to sell their family home to pay their debts to those blokes who are living the high life in Sydney. I do not think that is fair. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EDr Cullen did what all good Labour politicians do: he remedied the problem. He came up with this retail deposit guarantee scheme, which said that the Government of New Zealand would guarantee the deposits made by good, hard-working, ordinary New Zealanders. He put this scheme in place in the space of 24 hours. How do I know this? I was at a Taradale branch meeting. Michael Cullen was one of those MPs who go to every branch meeting in his or her electorate. My God, they were great meetings! We heard Dr Cullen, the then Minister of Finance and also Deputy Prime Minister, talk about what was going on. Once, for the first time since I had been in Hawke\u2019s Bay, Michael Cullen sent an apology to that meeting. We thought that something serious must be going down, because Michael Cullen always attended those meetings, just like every good Labour Cabinet Minister. We woke up the next day to find out that he had been working for the last 48 hours, without sleep, with his Australian counterpart, the legislators, and the Secretary to the Treasury to come up with a scheme that he could take to ordinary New Zealanders and tell them not to worry. They could sleep easy because he guaranteed that, if any of these finance companies collapsed, people would not lose their money. He went back and, as Minister of Finance, said that the Labour Government would guarantee that people would not lose their money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThat scheme put in place the fundamental philosophies of social democracy. The fundamental philosophies of social democracy are to look after ordinary Kiwis who have saved hard, who have paid their taxes, and who have saved for a rainy day. That is what Dr Cullen did, and I think it was fantastic. Now we are debating this bill, which will extend that scheme. I really support the bill and I commend Mr English for understanding the value of it. But I think Mr English sees just the financial side of things as opposed to the hardship faced by ordinary New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe second reason I support the bill is that it shores up the banking system. I was at the banking inquiry and it was very interesting. I take my hat off to the chief executive of Kiwibank. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c148821a6ce41389ae14855845be1bf\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: One of your mates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ed7ad9b917b49ef804042004cd21d30\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: I do not think the chief executive of Kiwibank is one of my mates, but he came along to the banking inquiry. He stood up and said that he was there because he was accountable to the people of New Zealand. I was talking to one of the bigwigs at Westpac before this inquiry was held, and I asked him to come along to the inquiry. I told him that if he had nothing to hide, he should come along and tell us what he is doing, and dispel the perception that the big banks are ripping Kiwis off. He said: \u201CCobber, I probably should come along and tell them what we\u2019re doing.\u201D I said that that would be fantastic. I told him that if he could see his way there it would be the best piece of public relations his bank could possibly do. But he could not. Kiwibank fronted up because it is a bank that is owned by Kiwis and is for Kiwis. I applaud Kiwibank. I applaud the other people who had the guts to put in submissions, stump up with the figures, and actually say that for short-term floating mortgage rates the banks are rorting ordinary New Zealanders. That is what the inquiry heard from a number of people, including Bernard Hickey. Someone said to me that Bernard Hickey was coming along and that he was a friend of the banks. I said that Bernard Hickey himself admitted this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe reason why short-term floating interest rates on mortgages were the terms of the inquiry was that Mr English had said that he would support an inquiry. Suddenly, after a weekend of beers with his mates, or some phone calls\u2014we do not know what happened\u2014he withdrew his support. He had already stated in the press that the banks needed to stump up and bear some of the pain, that the banks needed to come on board, and that the banks needed to face up to ordinary New Zealanders. But suddenly the rhetoric changed. He said he was not supporting a banking inquiry. To tell the truth, I felt quite sorry for Mr Foss, the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. He does a good job; I take my hat off to him. He was put in a very difficult situation, because the Minister of Finance had said that the Government would support this inquiry. Mr Foss went to the select committee and said that he thought they could get it through. Then suddenly Mr Foss had to go along and say that he did not support the inquiry, at all. We asked Mr Foss what had happened and who had been talking to him. He said that no one had been and that he had just made that decision himself. We said that we thought his Minister of Finance had made that decision. So poor Mr Foss was put in the unenviable position of having to go against what he believed in. I know that Mr Foss wanted this banking inquiry. In fact, it is a shame that Mr Foss himself did not put forward a submission, because I know that the submission would have read like every other submission that we heard\u2014that is, that the banks are not treating New Zealanders the way they should be treating them. It is a shame that Mr Foss did not come along to the inquiry, but we can have these conversations off the record. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EGetting back to the bill, I say that one of the reasons why it is important, which has been alluded to, is that\u2014let us face facts\u2014we need a strong banking sector in this country. The Australian banks, which basically have about 80 percent of our market, are some of the most profitable banks in the world. I accept the fact that we need profitable banks, but they are some of the most profitable in the world.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022 data-id=\u0022d7c6dde5be3a481c87de5d7dc05a478c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d7c6dde5be3a481c87de5d7dc05a478c\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E I am happy to speak on the second reading of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. I am pleased that the Government has decided to introduce this bill and to deal with the issue in a legislative way. However, I am deeply concerned about the bill being dealt with through all of its stages here in Parliament under urgency. The reason that I am concerned about that is that there is no opportunity for any of the institutions that will be affected by this bill to have any public input into it by way of submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The select committee does not have the opportunity to give detailed consideration to all of the elements of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI am also quite concerned to pick the bill up off the Table of the House, as I come in here this evening, and find that the regulatory impact statement is not set out in full in the bill. It is, in fact, to be found on the Treasury website, if I want to go and read it. That is what I will have to do now over the tea break. Giving this speech at one end of the tea break obviously gives me an opportunity to comment on it when I return. But the problem I have is that that means the legislation will not get the degree of scrutiny that it deserves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229460e67e1fc646fba2f15551ec470e00\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for the opportunity to continue my contribution on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. When the House rose for the dinner adjournment, I was making the point that the bill, which I had just picked up off the Table of the House, included a comment in the regulatory impact statement that it was not, in fact, the regulatory impact statement. It was only the executive summary of the regulatory impact statement. We are directed to the Treasury website in order to find the full regulatory impact statement\u2014all 25 pages of it. There was a very interesting comment that I found right at the very beginning of the regulatory impact statement, in the executive summary. It said: \u201CGiven the time imperative, implementation is to be through urgent legislation for some or all of the stages with a limited select committee process.\u201D Where is the limited select process? That is what I want to know. There is a reason why the executive summary of the regulatory impact statement says there was to be a limited selected committee process, and that is that there has been no public consultation on this bill whatsoever. That is a serious issue when we are talking about something that will obviously have an impact on a significant number of individuals, particularly those who invest currently in institutions that will no longer qualify for coverage under the Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EWhen consultation is talked about in the regulatory impact statement, which has been generally hidden from public view because it has been tucked away on the Treasury website instead of included in the bill itself, the statement says: \u201CThe decision was made not to consult proactively on the proposals with the public. This is due to: officials already having a reasonable amount of information about stakeholder views from regular interactions (Summarised in Annex 3); desirability to make an announcement soon, limiting the time available for any consultation; a period of consultation would make timing significantly worse and may not make us any better informed;\u201D\u2014that is a Treasury line, if ever I heard one\u2014\u201Ccommercial sensitivity of the policy decision; concern that public consultation would create further uncertainty in the market. The proposed course of action is temporary.\u201D Well, so was the original course of action, which was not subject to legislation at all. In the recommendation it says: \u201CFor these same reasons, we recommend the some or all of the stages of legislation to enact these changes, be passed under urgency with support from key support and opposition parties. There could also be a limited (one-two day) select committee process.\u201D But no select committee process is being allowed for at all. I am a little bit nervous about that, because I think it is important that we have the opportunity not simply to receive public submissions, but actually to receive a full briefing from officials to our key spokespeople on legislation of such major significance. I think it is a very unfortunate approach that the Government has decided to take with this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EDo we, in essence, support the legislation? Yes, of course we do. We were the Government that introduced the Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme in the first place. Are there issues around some of the detail of it? Yes, there are, and I think of the question I raised immediately preceding the resumption of debate about those individuals who currently have investments in institutions that will choose not to continue with the scheme and those that will be unable to continue with the scheme due to the new requirements of the scheme. They will have some concern about how the changes might impact on the decision they have made to reinvest, knowing that the guarantee was there in the first place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EIt is important that we have a guarantee scheme in place, but not so much because our banks need any protection from the circumstances that we saw occurring in the rest of the world. In fact, I think our banks were better placed than many, and the reason they were better placed was that we had much better regulatory oversight and prudential supervision from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand than many other jurisdictions. Much of the talk that we hear from overseas about regulators now beefing up the rules is about actions that New Zealand does not have to take, because New Zealand has had beefed-up rules in those areas for a long time. Where there has been a disadvantage, I guess, to investors in the New Zealand marketplace, is in the non-bank deposit-taking sector, and we have seen the fall of many finance companies over several years. We have seen regulatory frameworks now put in place to address concerns around non-bank deposit-taking organisations and financial advisers as well, and that is an important step for us to take. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EWith three bills passed last year before the general election, of course we are in a much better position to go forward. The problem, though, is that, before that legislation is fully effective, certain actions need to be taken. Considerable work is going on at the moment in the financial advisers sector, and the Reserve Bank is working very closely with the non-bank deposit-taking sector in order to put in place the rules that will be needed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe reason New Zealand had to have a deposit guarantee scheme is simply the fact that we are in a situation where money can be transferred out of our country across what are now called e-borders. They are not physical borders. That could have been done in an instant. As a result, if we did not match what was occurring in other jurisdictions with deposit guarantee schemes, we would have risked essentially a run on perfectly healthy, well-regulated institutions, because a guarantee would have been seen by those perhaps less sophisticated in that regard to offer a better deal than the situation in New Zealand. That is obviously why we needed to have it. It was not so much to protect investors in New Zealand banks, but to protect New Zealand banks from investors\u2019 flight of capital, as it were, to a more protected market where a deposit guarantee scheme was operating. In Australia they have a different set of rules from us, and theirs operate for a further year. That is why we support the Government moving to match Australia in respect of the timing of this initiative. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EWhen we get to the Committee stage I think we will have to do some pretty serious and detailed analysis to substitute for the kind of briefing that we would have got in the 1 to 2 day select committee hearing that Treasury recommended parliamentarians should receive. As a result, I hope that the Minister, when he takes the chair, will be in a position to give us the kind of response that we will be looking for as we go through this recommended change in some considerable detail. With those caveats on the table, I reiterate our support for the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, and regret that we have not had the opportunity to consider it in more detail. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u0022231c7569b9724626b97eff090aaceefe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022231c7569b9724626b97eff090aaceefe\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E It is a privilege to speak on the second reading of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. What I say tonight I say in the public interest. The basis of a financial system is confidence and trust. The reason that this measure was initially introduced last year was a total fall in confidence in the world banking system, not just in New Zealand but throughout the world. We saw that manifest itself in the failure of many finance companies. Reference was made this afternoon to, I think, some 16 finance companies. Well, over 30 finance companies went into receivership or a moratorium. I have spoken at length on this subject over the last 6 months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003ETonight I would like to talk about one specific finance company, and about the issue of confidence and trust\u2014trust in the financial system. Mr Cunliffe, in his first reading speech, talked about the banking inquiry that the Opposition organised. He referred to the front page of the New Zealand Herald business section of 15 July, calling on the Government to support that inquiry. It is interesting that on that same page of the business section, tucked down in the bottom left-hand corner, there was an article about a company called Strategic Finance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002259dc7eaeb2b8469799f5dc1ddff963a0\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s the headline?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022646e5ca4974348b182bd5b15a9e95f5f\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: The headline is \u201CStrategic warns of $98m loss\u201D. The article is about a finance company that presented a proposal for a moratorium to its investors last December, and it set out a case for those investors to support that moratorium. Its base forecast\u2014its base case\u2014was that its investors would be repaid in full and would get a full repayment of interest. So they were to get 100c in the dollar of principal, plus interest. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003ESome 7 months after that moratorium was put in place, Strategic Finance told the market that it was now anticipating that it would lose $98 million, but it still believed it could meet its commitments. But it did say that its accounts were subject to final audit and that the loss could well change when the audit certificates were completed. Just over a week ago Strategic Finance announced that in fact its loss was some $175 million. To put that into context, I understand that the deposit holders\u2014the holders of debentures; the creditors\u2014of Strategic Finance are owed some $400 million. So since last December, Strategic Finance has been telling its investors, its creditors, that its financial position has declined by some $175 million\u2014by roughly 40 percent of its loan book. I wonder how New Zealand investors can have confidence in investing in such companies, which is important. The Minister of Finance said this afternoon that it is important that New Zealand has a strong non-bank sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003ELet me tell members what concerns me even more about the Strategic Finance situation. There was an article in the Sunday Star-Times as recently as Sunday of this week referring to Strategic Finance and the Nelson investor John Lacey. One of the issues that Mr Lacey raises is the salaries being paid to the directors of Strategic Finance. I believe that the chief executive is quoted as receiving something like $500,000, and a number of other staff as receiving salaries of in excess of $200,000. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI wish that was the worst of it, but I have been told in recent times that the situation is actually a lot worse than that. Strategic Finance lends on first mortgages and on second mortgages, but I am told that in its lending it has preferred creditors. If one likes, the second mortgage is broken into two parts\u2014Part A and Part B\u2014and those people who fund the top part of the second mortgage are, in essence, preferred creditors. These people might be called friends of Strategic Finance, who have advanced money in the knowledge that they have a prior charge over other bondholders. I am reliably told that these so-called preferred creditors have been receiving an interest rate of 17 percent up until very recently. At a time when the general creditors have been receiving nothing and are losing their capital, a group of creditors is achieving a 17 percent return. That money is being paid at the expense of mum and dad investors. Essentially, those investors know that the company they lent money to invests in first and second mortgages, but I believe it is not clear to them that in the case of a second mortgage they actually rank behind a preferred creditor. In effect, mum and dad investors are lending on a third mortgage. I wonder how many of the people who invested in Strategic Finance were aware that on some of their loans they were essentially lending as third mortgage creditors. I wonder whether they would have voted for the moratorium if they had realised that they had that level of prior charge. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI am told that there may well be shareholders, and certainly directors or people associated with directors, who hold a privileged position as preferred creditors. I have looked through the Strategic Finance prospectus. It talks about prior charges to the Bank of Scotland International. There may well be evidence in the accounts that points to those prior charges; I have not been able to find it yet. I would have thought that had that been the case, perhaps someone in the media might have disclosed it. I may be wrong, but I cannot find it. It concerns me also that when the bondholders go along to an extraordinary meeting to vote on a moratorium, they do not realise that there is a group of people who vote equally with them but who have a preferred status. Why would the people who have that preferred status not vote for the moratorium, if the moratorium is to cement their preferred status, and to keep the company trading so that they may get a higher return than the average mum and dad investor? I believe that the mums and dads who voted at that Strategic Finance moratorium meeting did not have a chance, because they were a lower class of creditor. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EIt saddens me a great deal that many thousands of New Zealanders\u2014mums and dads; a lot of elderly people\u2014have lost money in finance companies. Some of those finance companies have been very well run, but a lot of them have not. The Hon Lianne Dalziel talked about the protections that the current Government is putting in place and the protections that the previous Government put in place. I know that there will be an inquiry at the Commerce Committee level into the practices of finance companies. But we will not address the real problem until we address the issue of confidence and trust. If what I have been told is true, and I have no reason to believe that it is not, I wonder how those people who invested in Strategic Finance can have the confidence and the trust to deal with other companies in the future. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00224ec76c68460f4a26baa648cfdd717e3e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ec76c68460f4a26baa648cfdd717e3e\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. Before addressing the bill in particular, I will add to some of the comments made by Mr Boscawen. I hope the inquiry being undertaken into finance companies looks at some of the related party transactions of some of the finance companies. I will be interested to see what the inquiry finds in relation to any of the personnel who were involved in those transactions, which were effectively fraudulent related party transactions whereby finance companies were getting money off people, then lending it to themselves in other guises in high-risk ventures, sometimes with limited liability, so that if the loan could not be repaid by the corporate borrower that was related to them, there was no recourse to the personal covenant of the person who was behind the company. If it transpires that that was a pattern of behaviour, and it further transpires that the individuals who were involved were some of the individuals who were involved in similar transactions in the last crash in the late 1980s, then I would suggest that some of our regulatory agencies like the Serious Fraud Office should take a close look at themselves and see whether they did their duty during that period. It is all very well to be wise with the benefit of hindsight, but some of those agencies had a duty to be looking into those issues before they were obvious to everyone. So I agree with some of the things that Mr Boscawen was saying. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EBut having said that, I point out that we also need to be careful that we do not tar everyone with the same brush, because just as there were some irresponsible finance companies, there were also some reasonable finance companies that acted responsibly. It is a truism that no financial institution can withstand a run on the fund. That is true of a finance company; it is also true of a bank. I think banks, in the fallout from the international financial crisis, have at times been a little bit cute in pretending that they have been immune from the effects of a run on the bank, and in pretending that people would not have had their money at risk in banks. Although it is true that that money might not have been as at risk in a bank as it might have been in some finance companies, it is also true that, were it not for the Government guarantees that were provided at both the wholesale and retail levels, there could have been a run on the banks. Those banks could no more have withstood that than a finance company could have withstood a run. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003ESo it was necessary for the prior Government to intervene and to provide some certainty to lenders and to depositors in banks and in other non-bank financial institutions to ensure that they did not get so frightened that they all withdrew their money at once. That would have caused the demise of the banks and the finance sector, it would have caused a loss to all of the depositors, but it would have also caused the wheels of commerce to grind to a halt, to the detriment of the economy in a wider sense and not just to the detriment of those who had invested in deposits in those banks and finance companies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EHaving said that, I return to the issue of the distortions caused by guarantee schemes such as this. I note that one of the objectives contained in the general policy statement in this bill that the Government has introduced is to minimise economic distortions and to ensure in the credit markets that we have properly priced risk\u2014what it calls \u201Cwell-priced credit markets\u201D. It is a sad reality that whenever we have a guarantee scheme like this, we have distortions. There are distortions in the market that are unavoidable. One of the distortions we have here is that collective investment schemes are not eligible to have a guarantee, despite the fact that the nature of the underlying transaction is very similar to other schemes that are not collective investment schemes. These are essentially deposits made by people in things like unit trusts or group investment funds. The money is invested by people in the fund and then invested by the fund in mortgages, often first mortgages over land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThose sorts of credit instruments are more secure than a finance company investment, because a finance company investment is generally a first or second-rating debenture stock, which often gives a second-tier interest in securities behind other creditors, whereas some of these group investment funds and unit trusts, which are backed by first-level mortgages, give the investor a trust interest in the mortgage. If we look through the paper, we see that they are effectively obtaining a first-mortgage interest to secure their deposit. There is nothing that is more secure than that. It is possible to have a widespread depression in credit markets, and people who invest in first mortgage - based securities will suffer a loss if the value of those securities decreases but they will never suffer a total loss. We are finding in some of the finance companies, though, that, if we have a second-ranked security, our security interest ranks behind the first debenture holder, and therefore a depositor can be without any effective security and lose all of his or her money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIf we look at those two comparisons\u2014the mortgage-backed security compared with the finance company investment\u2014we would say that the mortgage-backed security is a lot less risky. Yet, because we have to have boundaries to a guarantee scheme like this, the mortgage-backed security gets no guarantee; it cannot avail itself of the guarantee provisions of this scheme, but the finance company can. We are causing a distortion in the market there; when we have had a run on mortgage-backed funds, and because people cannot avail themselves of the Government guarantee, they understandably say: \u201CWell, I will put my money where I can get the Government guarantee. Even though a first mortgage might be better than an investment in a finance company facility, I will put my money with the finance company rather than with the mortgage-backed investment, which is not covered by the guarantee.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI mention that in some detail because it shows the sorts of distortions that are unavoidable if we have a Crown guarantee such as this. It points to why we should be trying to get beyond these Crown guarantees and get out of the market eventually, because in my opinion we want to have a sound secondary market and not be reliant only on banks. There are a number of reasons why that is important. One reason relates to the fact that the major banks in New Zealand are all overseas-owned. So the profits they earn are generally repatriated overseas and are lost to our economy. Indeed, a large part of New Zealand\u2019s current account deficit now is the invisibles\u2014both the interest we pay on the overseas loan-lines that are re-lent by banks in New Zealand and also the profit margins they earn on those loan portfolios that are currently repatriated overseas. It is desirable that we have a set of regulatory affairs in New Zealand that enables our New Zealand - based financial institutions to grow. They ought to be competitive in the New Zealand market, and they ought not to have competitive disadvantage as a consequence of regulatory policy settings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EIf we look at the fees to be charged to those who avail themselves of the retail deposit guarantee scheme, we see that different rates will be charged according to the different risk that is perceived. The risk is lowest for those that have the highest credit-rating. So if a finance company has a triple A rating, then the rate charged for the guarantee will be 15 basis points, or 0.15 percent per annum. But if a finance company has only a B rating, then the rate will be 1.5 percent, or 150 basis points. People might think that that makes sense for finance companies, but if they look at what is happening in respect of banks and building societies\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c18ef11430b48b88996938eb712a9b5\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There is far too much noise coming from the Government benches. I am having difficulty hearing the speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002249c25f1f660e400da8921409d11bdcd3\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014they will see that there is quite a range there, too. The reality is that the only institutions that are big enough to get the high rating used by the rating agencies\u2014up around double A, or better\u2014are the very largest of financial institutions. Again, we are preferring the very largest of financial institutions, which happen to be overseas-owned banks, over some very important New Zealand institutions, like smaller building societies. I would like to see some consideration being given to changing that fee structure, because I really do not think that it is in New Zealand\u2019s long-term interest that we are giving more competitive advantage to the largest banks and disadvantaging our building societies. Thank you; overall, though, I support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022279018b0508348f6ad607733ddd1167f\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002297a62e40bdc645f9a20947d8da1595b6\u0022\u003EPart 1  Preliminary provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022 data-id=\u0022c49f016d8b8f4d9884e7903794274ddf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c49f016d8b8f4d9884e7903794274ddf\u0022\u003ECRAIG FOSS (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak to Part 1 of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. This is obviously the Committee stage, and questions have been raised by one or two previous speakers about why there will be no select committee process for this bill. I will quickly touch on that first\u2014because, as you will note, Mr Chairman, Part 1 is quite a small part. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EQuite simply, this bill potentially has commercial impact on the equity, the share price, and the debt price not only of New Zealand institutions but of institutions around the world, particularly the parent institutions of some of the banks in New Zealand. I ask members to imagine the bill going through our normal select committee process, with submitters arguing about what the various ratings and costings should be. I can understand why someone would like that process, but this bill is quite particular, and we do note that when the guarantee scheme was first initiated, according to the underlying rules and regulations here, it did not go through any select committee process. It was brought in under urgent circumstances by the previous administration, as speakers have noted during the first and second readings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003ESo it seems somewhat unusual that something that is more of a voluntary extension supposedly needs to go through a select committee process. The imperative is that the markets are closed, at least in New Zealand, but members may notice that some debt prices moved around quite substantially when the media discussed whether the deposit guarantee scheme would be extended. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EAnother point is that a previous speaker thought that the current scheme ends in about 4 weeks\u2019 time. In fact, it ends on 12 October 2010, so it ends in 4 weeks and 1 year. That might seem a minor matter, but it is essential to what is being implemented here. Again, this is an extension of about 14 months in about 13 months\u2019 time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EAgain, I know we are in Committee, but I note that the scheme was brought in to ensure liquidity in the market. Liquidity was needed to keep money moving around, to keep loans, and to keep the velocity of money in the economy happening, because, as we recall, it was frozen at the time, and there was no liquidity out there whatsoever. That was the imperative reason why the scheme was brought in, and, interestingly, this now addresses the difference between the Australian scheme of about 3 years at the time and the New Zealand scheme of 2 years. But it recognises that things have changed, and that the risks to the taxpayer and the institutions themselves, hopefully, will have played out somewhat. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EAgain, a previous speaker seemed to miss the point that the scheme is voluntary for larger banks. So they are getting no subsidy whatsoever, and, in fact, the charges for them, released by the Minister 2 weeks or so ago, were higher than what they are currently paying under the existing deposit guarantee scheme. So they will be making a rational economic decision as to whether they are included in the extended scheme. Hopefully, at that time, as far as the taxpayer is concerned, the larger banks will not be in the scheme, because they feel no need to be. Hopefully, liquidity will be back in the system and things will be moving towards normality. If that was the case, the underlying contingent liability on the books of $120 billion would probably move down to something like $30 billion. From the taxpayer\u2019s point of view that is not a bad deal. I note that members opposite are voting for the bill, and I am sure they have some issues to raise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EI have one final point in relation to Part 1. The mortgage-backed securities that the member was talking about were, allegedly, supposed to be matched books. So if the funding on the liability side, the term and the maturity of it, matched the asset side, it did not matter too much whether they had guarantees, because they had matched funding books. So they lent long and borrowed short, and therein lies the problem of much of the New Zealand financial system, which this bill, plus the changes to the non-bank deposit takers, which are coming in within the next year, will start to address. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00226e28c868d02d4ec3a2552344ec0277b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226e28c868d02d4ec3a2552344ec0277b9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to take a call in the Committee stage of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. I want to focus on two particular issues: first, the level of consultation on the bill, and, second, the costs in relation to the role of the banks. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ELet us begin with the costs, because that issue\u2014the participation or not of the banks and whether that makes a difference\u2014has been raised by several of the speakers from Labour. So far we have been discussing that in qualitative terms. We have said it would be better in principle if those banks that were benefiting from the wholesale guarantee scheme were also in the retail scheme to spread the risk and, I presume from the point of view of the fiscal system and the Crown, to ensure that there was adequate fee revenue. But we have not yet gone into the details of what that fee revenue is, so I thought it would be instructive to look at some of the numbers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EFees to date on the retail guarantee scheme, in the regulatory impact statement, are $87.4 million, which is slightly more modest than the $119 million per annum forecast in the original proposal. Here is the rub: of the $87.4 million, $81.9 million is fees from banks and only $5.5 million is fees from non-bank financial institutions. So if the banks are out, which this Government is prepared to allow, the revenue stream to the Crown collapses and, arguably, the Crown is left holding an elevated average level of risk in the face of a much reduced level of revenue offset. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe position is even worse if one looks at the interrelationship between the retail guarantee scheme and the wholesale guarantee scheme. These numbers are really quite significant if we go back to the original projections. For the wholesale guarantee scheme, overwhelmingly from the bank rather than the non-bank sector, the figures are $300 million in the 2008-09 financial year; $450 million\u2014and this is just the fees to the Crown\u2014in 2009-10; $400 million in 2010-11; and $1.15 billion between 2011-12 and 2016-17. That is a total of $2.3 billion in revenue to the Crown in fees from financial institutions for the wholesale scheme alone. It is little wonder then that the banks are perhaps keen not to participate in some of those streams at their choice, and the parent banks in Australia, we understand, are considering their options. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe point is simply that if the Government is going to allow banks to pick and choose which of the schemes they will maintain a presence in, the fee revenue to the Crown will collapse and the taxpayer will be left supporting a riskier bundle of assets. That is a significant issue and I call on the Minister of Finance to take a call to defend that and to say whether and how the remaining revenue streams will sufficiently offset the risk that the Crown is taking. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThere is another issue that has been much the subject of debate in the latter part of the first reading. It is the question raised by the Hon Lianne Dalziel about lack of consultation. Yes, it is true, as I have previously stated, that the Minister has allowed officials to brief Opposition spokespeople, and we welcome that. But as my colleague has pointed out, that is a poor substitute for a proper select committee process where interested parties, the public, and members from around the Chamber get to ask formal questions on the record of officials and to deal with the matter in submissions. We do not believe that with the existing scheme going as long as October 2010 there was a necessity to rush this bill through in urgency without at least a limited select committee process. We think that is a matter of regret. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI guess there is a growing feeling in the community that one of the hallmarks of this Government is either the refusal to consult or the setting up of processes best described as sham consultation. A couple of examples might serve to illustrate the point. The first is, of course, the Auckland legislation in several tranches. The first one, which terminates the existing territorial authorities, was rammed through under urgency with no consultation and no select committee process. It terminated the existing institutions, thereby making change a veritable fait accompli. The second issue was the subject of the M\u0101ori seats for the Auckland super-city. A special committee was set up but the Government did not even refer to the results of that select committee because it had not yet reported. The decision was made in Cabinet without reference to the report, and poor old John Carter, a decent bloke, was left presiding over a select committee that was not a real process. He, the Minister responsible for the bill\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cfe9b57131e410da7977260680478f1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will come back to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cfaadde1c67e412ba7cb1bb1ec862c3e\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: A further example of the lack of consultation is the adult and community education cuts\u2014a matter that I am sure the Government will\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c669c976b78d4f418ecbec31820e10bd\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: Can you talk about this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022904ae208fc2d4d20a268b84b44170697\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: The reason this is relevant is that this bill is yet another example of the Government dispensing with the select committee process at its behest, at its fiat, saying: \u201CThe poor little public does not need to be troubled with the details of this. We, the learned and important members of the Government benches, shall decide for the peasants and inform them when the decision is made.\u201D Unfortunately, those peasants vote; those people vote, and it is very, very important\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022603ae58e-47c4-46f9-bfc8-8355a48988ad\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1532252eed443cfb888c54a605f8fb5\u0022\u003EHon Dr Jonathan Coleman\u003C/span\u003E: Peasants\u2014like they did in the last election!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d70b3f2bb4e5401383f5c63c16930c20\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: That was a quote from the Government. I say to Mr Coleman, the electoral maestro of Mt Albert, that I would be rather careful if I were him, in this regard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI sum up the position as follows. The objectives of this bill are reasonable. The option that the Government has chosen, which is to broadly extend, under somewhat tighter circumstances, the life of the retail scheme to match that across the Tasman, is a reasonable position to take. I note that the Government is not foreclosing on the option of a permanent deposit guarantee scheme when further research has been done, and we look forward to consultation on that matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe issue is in the fine print. The regulatory impact statement was not publicly available. It is on Treasury\u2019s website, and people can go to that, but it was not publicly available with the bill. The select committee process has not happened at all, and we are doing this under urgency, for something that does not fall due until October next year. It is not clear why that has been required. The Government has not maintained, crucially, the position of the previous Government to very politely but firmly say to the banking sector that if it wants the benefits of the wholesale scheme, it should be in the retail scheme, as well. The numbers prove why that matters. Ninety percent of the revenue to the Crown that covers the Crown\u2019s risk exposure\u2014around $180 billion of risk exposure\u2014is through the banks\u2019 participation in the scheme, not the non-bank finance sector\u2019s participation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ESomething we are all agreed on is that the non-bank finance sector needs further work. Of course, it was the previous Government that brought in legislation to expand the oversight of the Reserve Bank into that sector, and we hope that the current Government will continue the work to clean up and tidy up the non-bank financial institutions. The question that we will find out from hindsight is whether the BB rating and the move to require participation on that basis will be a step too far for some. We hope that the Government will continue to work constructively with the sector and with the Opposition to iron out those speed bumps, and we look forward to working with the Government on the long-term deposit guarantee scheme if that occurs. Thank you, Mr Chairman.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022 data-id=\u00228dcf6f4dd1e64d31b60c7a8ed6b90dba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228dcf6f4dd1e64d31b60c7a8ed6b90dba\u0022\u003EAMY ADAMS (National\u2014Selwyn):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, and before I start I really have to comment on the speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat, David Cunliffe. He purported to make quite some mileage out of the fact that this bill is being passed under urgency and he purports to be quite concerned about this. That concern does not extend, obviously, to his not voting for it. To me, the fact that that member does not understand the urgency that relates to this measure, notwithstanding that we are 12 months out from the expiry date, really highlights his lack of grasp of this area. Retail deposits are not decided on the day they fall due. The retail market in deposits needs to know now what the situation will be 12 months out, and preferably 18 and 24 months out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EAnyone in the financial market understands that this matter is urgent, so we need to process this legislation quickly. Already the sector is calling out for some guidance. Already we are seeing that decisions are not being made and that investor confidence is starting to flag, because that guidance is not there. We have to process this bill as a matter of urgency, and if that member had a better grasp of financial reality and the reality of financial retail deposits, he would understand that. Clearly, he does not; none the less, his purported concern does not extend to not supporting the bill. Furthermore, I would have thought that the fact that there is unanimous support for this bill across the Chamber would tend to suggest that it is quite appropriate for it to be processed in this way. I would have thought that those members would be supporting the process, but if they want to score points, that is fine. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EThe bill is focused on ensuring depositor confidence. As I said in my first reading contribution, it is this country\u2019s stable financial system and stable banking system that has enabled us to avoid the worst part of the global recession, which the rest of the world is experiencing. We are lucky in this country that we have a relatively stable financial sector\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220da1890de1d545af8d8b45e908a613f4\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: So?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223975dcba4174c88bbbd9fcc8713aff1\u0022\u003EAMY ADAMS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and it is important that we work to maintain confidence in it. The member opposite says: \u201CSo?\u201D. It is no big deal to him whether there is stability and confidence in the market. Those members opposite could not care less, because they do not understand that side of it. We have to have a stable system and a viable banking and non-banking sector. That is what this bill does and that is why the scheme has been extended. That is why National set aside its political point-scoring when the scheme was put in place last year, and that is why National, now in Government, is acting quickly to ensure that there will be ongoing confidence in the scheme as New Zealand develops its path out of this recession. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EAs the New Zealand recovery continues to consolidate, we want to ensure that that deposit guarantee remains in place so that we do not see a loss of confidence in New Zealand and so that we do not see investors looking to move their money into Australian equivalents, which would continue to have a guarantee in place. It is important in our close trans-Tasman relationship that we work on similar terms in this market. We have always tried to benchmark ourselves to Australia to a certain extent, and there is a real risk, in my view, that if we had left the expiry date at October of next year, then we would have seen a preference for many of our investors to invest across the Tasman. As I have already mentioned, if we lose deposits in New Zealand we lose liquidity for our businesses, we lose jobs, and we lose productivity. It means mums and dads not being able to feed the kids or pay the mortgage because they have lost their jobs because the business could not get funding. There is a real social cost to not getting this right, so that is why I applaud our Government for taking urgent steps to put this legislation in place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EI turn to one particular aspect of Part 1, and that is clause 3, \u201CInterpretation\u201D, which gives us some important criteria around what the Act will do. The lawyers in the Chamber will know that the interpretation clause, which is much overlooked by laypeople, is in fact one of the most important clauses of any bill. I want to look in particular at the terms \u201Celigible entity\u201D and \u201Cdebt security\u201D. Under this bill, the Minister of Finance is able to set criteria for the eligible entities, and I think we need to be conscious of the fact that the Minister, in doing so, has to be clear that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest. I think the words \u201Cnecessary or expedient in the public interest\u201D are the key words. This whole legislation, this whole retail guarantee scheme, is about working in the public interest. As I have said, a stable banking system, the confidence of mum and dad investors, and the continuation of liquidity in our financial markets are key for New Zealand. They are key for our economy and they are central to the public interest.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022 data-id=\u0022420238d2b7884d4ab8096af3e207b096\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022420238d2b7884d4ab8096af3e207b096\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E I want to return to the issue of consultation, which I raised in the second reading debate on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. I have in front of me the 25-page regulatory impact statement, which I downloaded from Treasury\u2019s website during the dinner break and which, of course, was not included in detail in the bill, largely because it would dominate the bill, as the bill is so small. The executive summary of the regulatory impact statement is all that appears in the bill itself. I think it is important that we have a discussion about what we were actually seeking, which was something that Treasury itself recommended in the regulatory impact statement. We have just heard from the member Amy Adams that somehow we are asking for a full 6 months at a select committee, which we are not. We are simply asking for what Treasury recommended as an appropriate process, given that there has not been adequate consultation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003ELet me read paragraph 65 of the regulatory impact statement: \u201CThe proposals for policy changes to the retail DGS were developed by The Treasury and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand in consultation with the Ministry of Economic Development (including the Companies Office), and the Securities Commission. These views have been reflected in the policy development. Annex 3 provides further detail on the issues raised in consultation and how these were dealt with.\u201D These agencies developed the legislation that we have before us today. I actually believe that parliamentarians have a right to hear from those officials, to be fully briefed on all the detail, and to have an opportunity to debate some of the decisions that have been made. I am not 100 percent sure about them, and I think that when we go through the detail of this bill and get some feedback from the Minister of Finance, we will find that some issues need to be talked through a little bit more than this bill and this process allow. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe regulatory impact statement goes on to state: \u201CThe decision was made not to consult proactively on the proposals with the public. This is due to: officials already having a reasonable amount of information about stakeholder views from regular interactions (summarised in Annex 3).\u201D I have now had an opportunity to read annex 3, which I had not had when I spoke in the second reading debate. Annex 3 creates further difficulty for me because it talks about some of the feedback that the Government has, in fact, had in respect of concerns raised by both the banks and the non-bank sector. I want to highlight a couple of these concerns, and I think it is important that the Minister responds to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe first is the questions around distortions that were being created by the deposit guarantee scheme. My colleague the Hon David Parker raised those concerns in his second reading contribution. The regulatory impact statement states that \u201Cmany non-banks are finding it difficult to attract deposits after the end of the guarantee period (creating a \u2018wall\u2019 of maturity). A business grouping has expressed concerns about the distortions to financial markets created by the DGS.\u201D When the Government responds to this, Treasury says: \u201CThe extended DGS is designed to minimise economic distortions by having much more risk sensitive pricing. It is designed with a definite end date,\u201D\u2014it has gone from 2010 to 2011, so not much has changed except for the actual date; the definite end date was already there\u2014\u201Cto help reduce the risk of another wall of maturities forming before the end of the guarantee period.\u201D This means that there will be no lending after 2011 from the mezzanine finance sector. That alarms me, because essentially the Government is admitting that this bill will simply delay the problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI am not opposed to the idea of extending the deposit guarantee on the basis that it matches with that of Australia. I was also interested to see that the banks do not actually regard themselves as at any risk now from flight to Australia, which is very interesting, because that certainly was not the view at the time that the original scheme was put into place. There was a real concern that if we did not put a scheme into place\u2014with, unfortunately, the lack of sophistication in our investing market\u2014people would be persuaded to put their deposits over the Tasman in order to ensure that they were covered by a deposit guarantee. This is certainly a particular concern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u00224793cfb851994db799027b2d1a43b184\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224793cfb851994db799027b2d1a43b184\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I stand to support the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. There were two reasons for the scheme being undertaken by the Labour Government in October 2008. The one that most people have talked about was the desire to maintain liquidity at a time of immense tightness in global cash flows. I am aware that the BNZ was very close to implementing its contingency strategy on how to operate without access to foreign funds. We saw what happened when there was a rush on the funds of finance companies\u2014they collapsed. As my colleagues have spoken about, the first charge of the Labour Government was to provide a Government guarantee to depositors to ensure that there would not be a run on the funds of banks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EAs the Hon David Parker said, had there been a rush on the funds of banks similar to the rush on the funds of finance companies, the New Zealand economy would have been in grave danger of experiencing the sort of collapse we had seen overseas, in Europe and in the United States, or perhaps of being in even worse shape than that. Of course, the mess in the UK ended up costing the British Government significant amounts of money, and it was forced for all intents and purposes to nationalise large chunks of the banking sector. The whole argument about banks being too big to fail was belied by the fact that the UK Government nationalised much of the banking sector, at a huge cost. And let us not talk about the situation facing US investors.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EWe on this side of the House understand the importance of a strong banking sector. It annoys me a little bit when I hear members of the National Government standing over there preach at us as if we do not know anything about finance, we do not know anything about the economy, and we do not know anything about the banking sector. After all, the Labour Government is the only Government in two generations to lower the corporate tax rate. I would say that the small to medium business sector would say the Labour Government was the friend of small to medium businesses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240de15133ec9462d86c50c7103513aa2\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: That party voted against it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287879b0260634d1cbf61f0b2d7658207\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: That is dead right. Mr Coleman actually voted against dropping the corporate tax rate. It was amazing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe reason that the Labour Government introduced the scheme, and, more specifically, that Dr Michael Cullen worked all of a Sunday evening to get it up and running within 24 hours, was to shore up deposits within the banks to match what was happening in the Australian sector, and therefore to prevent a possible run on funds and a collapse of the New Zealand banking sector. We understand that. But there was also another reason that the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme was put in place, and it seems that the National members are totally ignoring it. They have not mentioned it once. I will quote Dr Cullen: \u201CThe government is offering this deposit guarantee to address the current situation of international financial market turbulence and it will be for a two-year term in the first instance. This will give time to see how well international financial markets stabilise in the months ahead.\u201D That reinforces what I was talking about\u2014shoring up the banking system. But he went on to say: \u201CThe deposit guarantee is designed to give assurance to New Zealand depositors. The New Zealand banking system remains sound. We want to ensure that ordinary New Zealanders feel that their deposits are safe in the current uncertain international financial market conditions.\u201D I think we must not forget that the other reason why the retail deposit guarantee scheme was set up was to protect ordinary New Zealanders from losing their hard-earned funds. That is one of the reasons why I support this bill. I would hate to see ordinary New Zealanders, having lost their funds in the finance companies, lose their funds in the banks. This bill is about providing confidence, not only to the international credit sector but also to ordinary mum and dad, grandma and grandpa Kiwis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EWhen it comes to the matter of urgency, I hear what the National members have said, but I just do not buy it. The National members, and more specifically Ms Amy Adams and Mr Craig Foss, say that our not enacting this bill now might have a distortionary effect on the financial markets, or, more specifically, the banking sector. So what we have here is, on one side, the rule of law and democracy, which Labour members support, where the bill would be taken through the full select committee process, versus the banking sector. What does one favour? The National Government has said it favours the banking sector. It comes before democracy, before the right of the people\u2014and it is a fundamental right of our democratic system\u2014to stand before their elected parliamentarians to present submissions on what should happen to the scheme. It is 13 months away before the scheme expires. Ms Amy Adams said we are debating the bill under urgency because people demand certainty. If it is so important\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022 data-id=\u00220e1ce012151a4c32875bb7421ab2e8e9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e1ce012151a4c32875bb7421ab2e8e9\u0022\u003EJO GOODHEW (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022bb1e24c76d38476e9bd86e40dd18fc60\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bb1e24c76d38476e9bd86e40dd18fc60\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I note that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Bill English, has yet to respond to any of the questions that have been raised by the Opposition in respect of a bill that is not going to a select committee, and that the Government sees as a very important bill, yet we already have closure motions being put forward by National members. I suggest, Mr Chairperson, that you should not listen to those closure motions for a while yet. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI have a question to ask the Minister in the chair about how he plans to get New Zealand out of these guarantees. Although the regulatory impact statement makes the point that this is necessary and that it seeks to minimise distortions in credit markets, there is no doubt that it is distortionary and there is no doubt that it inhibits the operation of parts of the market. There is no doubt that it advantages some institutions relative to others, and there is no doubt that it creates a distortion in that finance companies that are higher risk than banks are none the less guaranteed. Although the payment that they have to make for the guarantee facility might, to some extent, vary to take account of that, I suspect that we have seen a flattening of rates in New Zealand as a consequence of the ability of some finance companies to avail themselves of the Crown guarantee. I think it is important that we see a way forward when there is a plan for either a permanent guarantee scheme, which would be very difficult in my view, or we have to transition away from any guarantee scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI say to the Minister that we currently have a scheme that applies only to debt securities. Debt securities have a legislative definition that is, to a certain extent, like all definitions, a little bit arbitrary. The arbitrariness can be illustrated from the difference between something that is nominally a debt security and something that is nominally a collective investment. As I have mentioned previously, investors in mortgage-based contributory mortgages or mortgage-based group investment funds or unit trusts cannot avail themselves of this guarantee scheme. That has led, effectively, to a rush on what are very secure forms of lending. They are mortgage-backed securities and they are far less risky than finance company investments, on the whole. Yet because of the way in which there has to be a boundary around a guarantee scheme such as this one, which is found in Part 1 in the definition and is limited to debt securities, and which does not refer to participatory securities and collective investment schemes, effectively, through this definition we are limiting the guarantee to finance companies, banks, and building societies, but investments of money that are giving people a trust interest in a first mortgage are not covered by the guarantee scheme. As a consequence, that important part of the market\u2014less important in New Zealand than it is in Australia, but none the less an important part even in New Zealand\u2014is shrinking. Who is that to the relative advantage of? It is to the relative disadvantage of New Zealand because of the ownership structure of our major financial institutions. It is mainly to the advantage of the banking sector. We know that our banking sector is predominantly overseas owned. Therefore, we see further concentration of profits into the non - New Zealand - owned part of the banking sector, to the disadvantage of New Zealand - owned parts of the sector. I ask the Minister to take a call to give some understanding to the Committee as to how, when we come to the end of the extended period of the scheme, he sees New Zealand transitioning away from the scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will also talk a little bit about the proposed fee structure. It is relevant to Part 1 because the fee structure arises under the guarantee scheme and the guarantee funding facility. The terms of those facilities include fees that are charged to the recipient of the guarantee. My second question for the Minister relates to the breakdown of fees. I acknowledge that the Minister has a very difficult task and that he wants to see that the guarantee properly takes into account the relative risk of different investments. It is appropriate that riskier investments pay a higher fee for the guarantee, because it is more likely that the guarantee will be called upon. For that reason I can see why finance companies should have a higher fee charged than a stable bank, but unfortunately the metric that is chosen for the investment of fees is Standard and Poor\u2019s - type ratings. The higher ratings are available only to very large institutions. We know that the only very large institutions in New Zealand are overseas banks. All of the smaller institutions that cannot get that high AA rating by virtue of their size, including some very secure building societies, smaller institutions like some of our smaller building societies, and some of our better finance companies, will never get a very high rating. As a consequence they will always be paying a higher guarantee fee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI ask the Minister to justify how that situation is in New Zealand\u2019s interest. Although we have to have regard to relative risk, Standard and Poor\u2019s ratings\u2014which internationally have been found wanting in the last year or two, at least in some of the markets that have been rated by the agencies\u2014are a too simplistic way to look at it. We do not want to have a system that further entrenches the existing advantages of the major banks, to the detriment of the New Zealand economy, because we know that for those major banks all of their profits are repatriated overseas, except to the extent that they reinvest in expansion in their New Zealand business. There are a lot of profits, which are a large contributor to our current account deficit and we do not want to see that contribution to our current account deficit grow. It concerns me that the way in which this fee structure is proposed will further entrench the advantages of banks and disadvantage the smaller New Zealand institutions, including our smaller banks like SBS and also the Taranaki savings bank. I would like to think that the fee structure could reflect the fact that although under Standard and Poor\u2019s rating terms those entities are not seen to be as stable, in practice I think they are no more at risk than the larger banking institutions. Indeed, those larger banking institutions may well lend to higher multiples of equity than some of the smaller banks. I hope the Minister takes a call to respond to those two points.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022 data-id=\u00220e0a8e538e0a41afb79ecbdccbaf2342\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220e0a8e538e0a41afb79ecbdccbaf2342\u0022\u003ECRAIG FOSS (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022 data-id=\u0022205f60a789904c2cad5626cd93706823\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022205f60a789904c2cad5626cd93706823\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E I am disappointed that the Minister of Finance has not responded to the questions we have put to him. I think it is important that he responds. The question that I really have been looking for an answer to is why we cannot have a limited select committee process for the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. That was recommended by Treasury in the regulatory impact statement. It is not often that Treasury recommends something and the Government simply turns a blind eye to it, unless there is a reason. But we have no reason; nothing has been presented to us by any of the Government members who have been asked to get up and speak on that particular matter. For them to seek closure motions after a very short debate, and to have no response at all from the Minister, is quite strange. I am surprised because I thought this Minister was capable of responding to the questions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI will go back to the details about the consultation, which are in annex 3 of the regulatory impact statement. Banks raised their concern about the extension of the scheme, saying there was \u201Cmixed support for extending the Scheme to match the Australian scheme \u2026 Banks tend to think it is not necessary for them and risk of depositor flight to Australia is low. Finance companies\u201D\u2014surprise, surprise\u2014\u201Ctend to support extension. Some Credit Unions have chosen not to opt into the DGS because they have a relatively sticky depositor base.\u201D That is obvious. The regulatory impact statement continues: \u201CEntities operating outside of the DGS (e.g. fund managers) are concerned about the competitive disadvantage that the Crown guarantee puts them at.\u201D That is exactly the point that has been raised by the Hon David Parker and must be answered in this Committee tonight as the bill progresses under urgency. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI raise another issue that was also raised in the various engagements with stakeholders, as Treasury and the Reserve Bank have described them. A workers union and an economic thinktank\u2014they are not described by name\u2014have said that this bill is an opportunity to attach conditions on institutions\u2019 behaviour for the extension. The two particular examples that were raised with the officials were employment protection and mortgage holiday provisions. I can understand why unions and any economic thinktank worth its salt would want employment protection at a time like this, and also that mortgage holiday provisions are absolutely vital to enable some people to survive the first redundancy their family will have experienced in a lifetime. That genuine concern has been expressed to me as a constituency MP, and I am sure constituency MPs on the other side of the Chamber will know exactly what I am talking about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI will read the officials\u2019 response to that suggestion. They said: \u201CWe have assessed the idea of introducing conditions on the guarantee, but consider such conditions may undermine the objectives of the guarantee, e.g. it may stop firms downsizing, when that sort of change is necessary to ensure their future viability.\u201D That may well be in terms of the direction the Government wants to point some of the non-bank sector to, but when we are talking about the banks, I understand very well why certain unions would be pushing for a removal of the risk of outsourcing to other countries. The banking sector has seen a lot of that. If the Government is to provide this guarantee, we are talking about the taxpayers of New Zealand basically underwriting performance in this regard. It is important that we have a bit of a debate around these conditions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe mortgage holiday provisions are another issue. As I say, that issue is not even responded to by the officials, which is a bit unfortunate because we are trying to protect depositors over the period of uncertainty that has been created by the global economic environment. That is exactly what the banks would be protecting by giving a mortgage repayment holiday on favourable terms. That in itself is a protection that could be offered during this period of economic uncertainty. It is unfortunate that we have not really been given an opportunity to debate these matters. That is what a short time\u20141 or 2 days\u2014at a select committee would enable us to do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u00223a8a5b6f99f1462f9b2269df24782722\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a8a5b6f99f1462f9b2269df24782722\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I will talk about some of the clauses in the regulatory impact statement of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. I will also pose a couple of questions in the next 5 minutes to the Minister of Finance, in the hope that he will take a call and answer these questions. As has been mentioned, I think, this is a very important bill, and it has fiscal implications. It has wide-ranging investor and saver implications, and I think all of New Zealand would like to hear what the Minister of Finance has to say on those things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EAs my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe mentioned, the amount of the fees collected under the current fee structure to date is approximately $87.4 million per annum. Imagine, I ask my colleagues, how much of that $87.4 million collected in fees for the retail guarantee scheme could have gone to the adult and community education scheme. If the Government put $13 million into adult and community education, it would not be in the bother it is in at the moment. But anyway, that is another story. One thing I will elaborate on, which the regulatory impact statement talks about\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225658db256a484ca48de831fa86f6a9f9\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: A thoroughly different story.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa65c7f38f8a4dce98d5d19e0b9a3be0\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: It is another story, but it is a very important story, Mr Chairperson. One day we will talk about that. I found the regulatory impact statement on the Internet. It is not in the bill. It is not in the bill at all. If we want to know what this bill is about, we have to go to the Internet, which I do not think is a great process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241b06fe645a0450eadca9dd8e9227596\u0022\u003EHon Lianne Dalziel\u003C/span\u003E: It would be all right if we had a select committee hearing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eef989200c9e4051adf6c5eebcd5cf1b\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, we should have a select committee hearing, really, should we not? I will elaborate on a couple of points that my colleague the Hon David Parker talked about, which relate to economic distortions. I will read a couple of things in this regulatory impact statement. \u201CEconomic distortions include encouraging guaranteed depositors and deposit taking institutions to make riskier investment decisions since the gains from these riskier decisions will be accrued by the depositors and deposit taking institutions, while potential losses to depositors (of up to $1 million per depositor per institution) will be borne by the taxpayer. This is referred to as a \u2018moral hazard\u2019 problem. An example of this \u2018moral hazard\u2019 problem within the current DGS is that finance companies, which tend to be involved in higher-risk and higher-return lending, have grown their deposit books by approximately $880 million (19%) since the guarantee was introduced in October 2008. Before the guarantee, the deposit books of many finance companies were shrinking. In some cases, finance companies have used retail funding to replace their bank funding lines.\u201D I think many New Zealanders would find this rather abhorrent, considering how many ordinary Kiwis have lost their life savings through the mismanagement of depositors\u2019 money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003ELet us look at the objectives in the regulatory impact statement. \u201CThe Government seeks a stable and economically efficient financial sector that supports growth in economic activity by minimising economic distortions while not exposing the Crown (and thus, taxpayers) to undue fiscal costs or risks.\u201D I think we all agree with that. \u201CThis requires a diversity of innovative financial service providers that are prudent in their lending decisions, can adapt to changing circumstances, and investors in these institutions that understand the risks involved and can price these risks accordingly. This reduces moral hazard, ensuring well-priced credit markets. Ensuring a viable non-bank sector in the future is important to this end, particularly as it provides competitive pressures upon banks and provides services in areas not otherwise provided.\u201D This is what I talked about in my second reading speech when I discussed the differentiation between savers and investors. The vast majority of Kiwis who lost their money in finance companies were actually savers. They trusted Colin Meads, Richard Long, and all those characters\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227212c6f529494ec2a8573814715d1e82\u0022\u003EHon Lianne Dalziel\u003C/span\u003E: Sir Colin Meads. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229532471ff27b468ea5d896d1ac8d2ba4\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014sorry, Sir Colin Meads\u2014who said: \u201CInvest in this.\u201D Ma and pa, who watched Colin Meads play his 55 tests, said: \u201CHe knows what he is talking about. I will put my money\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002210ec2f4301b541d2a01361b164dc0adc\u0022\u003EAmy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: Solid as!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d428d76b3c54e45a7948f2e0dad2eca\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: Good one! They said: \u201CI will put my money in this.\u201D The savers did that. I argue that the vast majority of Kiwis who lost their money were savers, but I now contend that many people who put their money in finance companies\u2014we are talking about $880 million worth of funds that have been invested, which is an increase of 19 percent\u2014are actually investors. They are not putting their money in there to save; they are putting their money there because they know it is under a Government guarantee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EI want to know how the Government and the Minister of Finance believe that the Government will be able to extricate itself from the situation it has found itself in, without a further run on non-bank funds, like we saw with the collapse of the finance sector. It could be that once the Government guarantee is over, people will pull their money out, because it is a risky investment, and they will put it back into a bank. That is a big concern, and it invites the question: will we be back here in a year again debating under urgency an amendment to the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Act called the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Amendment Bill of 2010?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u00220658e4a226464ffd8e0a85caab9573b1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220658e4a226464ffd8e0a85caab9573b1\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E There have been a couple of questions. Firstly, there has been the question of why the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill is going through the House in this form. There is a simple reason for that. It is the need for maximum certainty, particularly in respect of listed entities and any institutions that may be under financial pressure currently. A judgment was made, and I do not pretend that it is any more than a judgment, that the process we are using is the best way to ensure that certainty. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EWith regard to consultation, through the mechanism of the Reserve Bank consultation with non-bank deposit takers over the new regulatory structure\u2014actually, there was a significant discussion with the sector about this particular issue over time\u2014it became quite apparent that with only a bit more than a year to go until the end of the existing guarantee, it was quite important for the Government to move with some speed to create certainty. Members might see in the regulatory impact statement a graph that shows the build-up of deposits against the end date of the guarantee. That was clearly going to become a pressure of instability in the sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EOn balance, the Government made the judgment that it should get on with making a decision about the extension of the guarantee, and to execute that extension as quickly as is reasonable. The Government appreciates the support of Parliament in doing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00227e0dac626f7d4bd7aa8300d200f5be7b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227e0dac626f7d4bd7aa8300d200f5be7b\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I will take the opportunity to respond to a couple of things the Minister said, and then to do a wrap on some of the macro and debt issues that are covered in Part 1 under the term \u201Cdebt security\u201D. In respect of the first matter, the Minister said in response to the Opposition that the reason we are in urgency and dispensing with any select committee process is to maximise certainty. There are two aspects of certainty. The first is in respect of timing, and the other is certainty in respect of detail. It is certainly not as adequate for Parliament to debate this under urgency with no recourse to a select committee, with no opportunity to hear the concerns of ordinary members of the public. They are the depositors, as Mr Nash said, who have, in many cases, lost their life-savings through failures in the non-bank finance sector. The questions that may be raised by the institutions themselves in public session, which may or may not be the same as they have raised in private with the Reserve Bank, deserve a fair hearing. As I said in my earlier intervention, this Government is getting a bit of a name for sham consultation processes, and it is a shame that this should be added to the list. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe Minister of Finance mentioned consultation by the Reserve Bank. The issue with that is that the public cannot see it. The public is not exposed to the arguments for and against. The process is opaque. It is behind closed doors. The public is not even fully aware of what tools the Reserve Bank has at its disposal, or the adequacy of those tools. But, having said that, the Opposition supports this bill, because on balance, notwithstanding those weaknesses, it is important that we extend the scheme under controlled circumstances to match or approximately match the Australian scheme. Otherwise, there could be a flow of funds potentially from institutions here to institutions across the Tasman that are covered by a deposit guarantee when ours are not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EOne aspect that has been debated in the Committee stage is the voluntary nature of the scheme, and in particular the de-linking of the retail from the wholesale guarantee scheme. So it is instructive on page 10 of the regulatory impact statement to see these beautifully crafted words of bureaucratise: \u201CThe economic and stability pros and cons of delinking the retail and wholesale scheme are finely balanced, including a possible variant of making it compulsory for some groups only, (e.g. banks).\u201D Well, is that not what the Opposition has been saying? If those banks, the self-touted pillars of security that the member opposite Amy Adams was keen to propound, are providing 90 percent - plus of the breadth of assets that spreads risk, and 90 percent - plus, because of their size, of the revenue streams to the Crown, is the Crown not, paradoxically, exposing itself to a higher average level of risk if it allows them to opt out? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EIn the end, it brings us to the bottom line. This first part is about debt security. The debt we are talking about is private debt. It is overwhelmingly bank debt\u201490 percent - plus bank debt. How much? New Zealand\u2019s GDP is around $140 billion to $150 billion. New Zealand\u2019s gross debt is 140 percent of our gross domestic product. That is 140 percent, in gross terms, of our gross domestic product, and it is rising at 10 percent per annum\u2014that is 150 percent of gross domestic product in current trends; a year from now 160 percent, if one rolls out 2 years. At what level does that become an unsustainable level of national debt? Compare that with the Crown\u2019s balance sheet. The Government was, perhaps rightly, concerned to ensure that it did not get out of hand. We would, too, if we were on the Treasury benches. But it is not the main game in town, nor is it the only responsibility of the Government of the day. The Government has its handle on the country\u2019s most potent economic levers. The public elects a Government to manage the country\u2019s book, not just the Government\u2019s book. Therein lay the weakness of this year\u2019s Budget. It had much to say about the Government\u2019s debt, but nothing at all to say about the country\u2019s debt, which dwarfs it at 140 percent of GDP. Yes, let us shrink it, I say to the member opposite, Craig Foss. It is 140 percent of GDP\u2014and the Government\u2019s debt is how much? In net terms it was zero. It was single-digit percents, post-crash.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022 data-id=\u002297a847ac307943319f2b1c90a5f97ae6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002297a847ac307943319f2b1c90a5f97ae6\u0022\u003EAARON GILMORE (National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e8d91b1b3d9f44bebf2dedd35ac60e83\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000584\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226e508f1db5484cd687964f8424f521d4\u0022\u003EPart 2  Continuance of Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00222d38670e1e6940118e2dc08ef53bdcfa\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d38670e1e6940118e2dc08ef53bdcfa\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E Part 2 of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill provides for the powers that allow the Minister to specify types of entities and criteria. It will allow the Minister of Finance to give a guarantee according to those criteria. It requires the Crown to assume creditors\u2019 rights and sets out the responsibilities of payment in respect of guarantees. This is the meat in terms of the operations of the bill, and in that regard it is appropriate for us to turn to the relevant assessment in the regulatory impact statement of the extension options. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThree broad options were considered. One was a continuation of the status quo, which we have described as the cold turkey option. It is the option that the scheme will terminate in October 2010. As one member opposite rightly pointed out, the reason for having an early decision\u2014although we believe the process should not have been as truncated as this\u2014is to allow institutions to manage their books. The data is that about one-third to 40 percent of the debt is for a period shorter than 1 year in duration. About another third is for a period of between 1 year and 2 years, and that third is now within the window of the closure of the current scheme. So it is appropriate that we are considering now the future of the scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe arguments in favour of allowing the scheme to go cold turkey at that point were that we would remove so-called distortions from the market, whereby the risk to investors is masked because of the guarantee scheme\u2014that the lame were covered as much as the only partly lame. The argument was put up that by having banks and non-bank institutions with different credit-ratings put together\u2014albeit at slightly different interest rates\u2014the risk and the return were blended, and that that was opaque to the market. So that was the first argument. The second argument for going cold turkey was that it was the fastest way to reduce the exposure to risk of the Crown. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EIf the Government is to be believed when it says the recession is over, then it would seem sensible for it, following its own philosophy, to allow the banking sector to adjust to the new post-recession era by removing these guarantees altogether. However, it has decided not to do that. The reasons for extending the scheme by one year are, firstly, to roughly match the timing of the extension to the duration of the Australian scheme, thereby preventing a flow of funds from New Zealand institutions to those across the Ditch, and, secondly, to ease the sector into a post-guarantee era and to more gently match the withdrawal of protection to what the sector may consider to be a slow and, perhaps, fragile recovery. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EWe believe that the Government has been trying to have it both ways on the rhetoric of this recession. At the same time that the Minister of Finance has been saying the Government should never waste a good recession, and that it should prepare for privatisation and for other radical measures, like raising GST as soon as he can get the working-group to report on that\u2014let us not waste a good crisis\u2014he has also been telling us that gardens are growing, the green shoots are up, the sun is out, spring is here, and the worst has passed. Treasury has said it will be all hunky-dory, with only 7.5 percent of people unemployed. That is only double what the figure was before the election! That is only 2 people losing their job, their identity, their family\u2019s livelihood, where it was one before the election\u2014so there are serious, serious consequences. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThat was the argument for a slower return to a post-guarantee world, and, on balance, that is what the Government has gone with. We believe that it was the right decision. We believe that it is right to match our scheme with the Australian scheme, and we think it is right to give the sector some time to adjust. We also think it is fair enough to have reasonably tight criteria, so that we do not mask undue risk. Although we acknowledge that it is harder for small companies to get credit ratings, we believe that there has to be some relatively objective measure of creditworthiness. That is kind of enough of a shared zone for us to vote for the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EBut we do have major reservations, which show up in this part again, about the role of the banks. It is our considered view that it would be more secure for the Crown, in terms of the spread of risk and of less exposure to the Crown in terms of fiscal revenue streams, if the banking sector were expected to be included in both the retail and the wholesale schemes. In taking both together, the risk, while being partly masked, is bundled in a way that we believe adds more security to the system as a whole and protects the Crown from a revenue loss, because the income stream is greater. As we said in a previous intervention, the magnitude of potential loss is in the order of 95 percent bank and 5 percent non-bank. That really is a huge, huge difference. So by allowing the banks to opt out, the Government is concentrating the risk on the part of some of the smallest entities, and vastly reducing what could be described as the premiums that are paid for that insurance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EBut at the end of the day the Opposition believes that mum and dad investors need to be protected. There have been enough families ruined, and, sadly, tragically, there have been too many suicides by ordinary New Zealanders whose lifesavings have been lost due to the inappropriate management of risk and companies being caught by the international recession. We certainly want to send our condolences to any families that have been so affected. It is therefore of paramount importance to us that New Zealanders have the protection of a scheme like this throughout the duration of the recession and the early phases of whatever recovery is coming, and that is a key reason why we are supporting this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe technical complexity arises in Part 2, and my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel put very eloquently that we think more consultation here would have been appropriate. The Minister has said it was a judgment call and the Government thought it would get the bill through. The Opposition\u2019s point of view is that even a 1-week process to allow a select committee to question officials and get matters on the public record would have been very, very useful, as we look back on this experiment, if you like, in years to come. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EBut the bottom line is that there is no doubt that it is worth having a statutory power for the Minister of Finance to operate under, and it is recognised that the only reason why that did not occur prior to the last election was that Parliament had been prorogued and we were in an extraordinary situation. So no one wants to go back to the dark days of September-October. We do want to regularise this matter, and the Labour Party will be supporting this part of the bill. Thank you, Mr Chairman.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022 data-id=\u0022b41395ab06014a41835be6f36d69e443\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b41395ab06014a41835be6f36d69e443\u0022\u003EPESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National\u2014Maungakiekie):\u003C/span\u003E I acknowledge the previous speaker, the Hon David Cunliffe\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253dbdd796c6a47e9a7723e290bf32c1c\u0022\u003ECraig Foss\u003C/span\u003E: The \u201CPrince of Ponsonby\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5baac51784b4789a1638092598c6544\u0022\u003EPESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014the \u201CPrince of Ponsonby\u201D, of course\u2014and the points he raised about aligning our laws with those of our partner, Australia. The Minister of Finance alluded to the reason we are pushing this bill through under urgency. There is a sense of urgency out in the financial industry. When one goes out into the industry\u2014and does not hold bogus inquiries in Parliament\u2014one realises that finance companies are hurting. It is true that 95 percent of the market is banks and 5 percent is non-banks, but by making that statement my learned colleague ignores the important role that non-bank finance companies play within the finance market in New Zealand, particularly for those in rural areas and for those who are not able to access capital from the big banks. Those non-bank finance companies play a crucial role for those people, and that is why this legislation is critical to the continuation of that role. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EThe transition, as Mr Cunliffe alluded to, will be a slow one. The deadline will be will be December 2011. That date dovetails well with the timing of the next election, given that the action of the previous Government, in October 2008, to put in place the original scheme was done with a little bit of haste over one weekend, as Mr Nash mentioned. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EI turn back to the bill. One of the important clauses is clause 6(2), which states: \u201CThe minister may give the guarantee on any terms and conditions that the Minister thinks fit.\u201D That discretion is important, given that the criteria for the Minister to grant it will be a public-interest test. What was also referred to was the fact that people have lost their lives. I have to say that it is really poor taste to mention such people within the realms of the discussion of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EIt is poor taste because families have suffered, and to use it for political grandstanding and political capital is just a bit out of line. But that is OK, because a finance company inquiry is being conducted by the Commerce Committee, and I applaud the members who have pushed for it, particularly my colleague John Boscawen, and the chair of the Commerce Committee, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who has steered a good course in respect of the terms of reference for the inquiry. It will cover a number of aspects, which some people have alluded to tonight. Some people have referred to the nature of moratoria and a corporate trustee model, and all that work will be reviewed in due course under the terms of reference for that inquiry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003ESo this bill is about the creditworthiness of the finance companies\u2014we will not touch on the banks. It is important that finance companies are creditworthy, and to say that a company that has, say, a B or a BB credit-rating is a company that is of high creditworthiness. Obviously some members across the aisle will misunderstand the rating system, because those types of companies are non-investment grade. They carry higher risks than the banking sector, and, appropriately, they should be priced for carrying that risk. I concur with the Minister and my colleagues in supporting this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u002269a1a7a0066f4d5ebbcf8b7e52cb2943\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269a1a7a0066f4d5ebbcf8b7e52cb2943\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I will make one point with regard to Sam\u2019s speech because he may have got the wrong end of the stick. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab2c9457de5b42f08e47eb189f76d496\u0022\u003EMoana Mackey\u003C/span\u003E: Probably; I think he is on council time at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f2301e681e3402a96eb353a4688ea20\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: That is all right. I brought up the fact that people were suffering. The reason I brought up that fact is that Michael Cullen\u2014the previous Minister of Finance, who put the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill into place\u2014said that one of the main reasons that the previous Government did this, aside from shoring up the financial sector, was to guarantee ordinary New Zealanders would not be put under the financial and emotional stress that they had been put under due to the collapse of 40-odd finance companies over the preceding 2 years or so. The financial and emotional hardship of ordinary New Zealanders was not brought up in the debate to make a political point, at all; it was quite the opposite. It was brought up to say there are two sides to this bill: there is the fiscal or financial side and there is the social side. The social side is just as important as the financial side. So I correct Sam on that: there was no disrespect whatsoever; it was brought up to emphasise two points. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EI make another point: when the Minister of Finance stood up to take a call on Part 1, I was very hopeful that he would answer two questions that the Labour team had posed to him earlier in the Committee stage. The first was how the Government was going to extract itself from this scheme without once again inherently damaging the non-bank centre through a run on deposits by investors in so-called high-risk funds, which are currently under guarantee. As mentioned, the majority of people who I believe are new investors in financial companies\u2014the $880 million worth of new funds in the finance companies\u2014are investors, not savers. I have a real concern that, once this scheme runs out, people will withdraw their funds from the non-bank sector and therefore create another financial tsunami, which may affect the finance companies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe second question that I had hoped the Minister would answer is how long the Government will continue with this guarantee. If we look at the regulatory impact statement again, we see that it states: \u201CStability is aided to the extent that moral hazard is reduced, thus decreasing the likelihood of more failure in the long run through imprudent lending.\u201D I suppose my concern is that once the market, investors, and savers\u2014and banks, for that matter\u2014become used to such a scheme, then extracting ourselves from the scheme will become incredibly difficult. In fact, we may find\u2014and this is a risk\u2014that overseas lenders will demand that such a scheme remains in place, otherwise the cost of overseas funds will skyrocket, having an adverse effect upon homeowners, the farming sector, and the business sector, as overseas lenders price risk accordingly. At the moment the international sector prices risk by looking at the risk of funds falling over. At the moment there is no risk that any funds in any institution that is in the Government guarantee scheme will fall over. How will we extract ourselves from this scheme without the risk premium on overseas funds increasing? I know we are talking about depositors here, but it still has implications across the whole banking sector. Unfortunately for the vast majority of New Zealanders, for the Labour Opposition, and, I am sure, for the Minister\u2019s frustrated National colleagues, he did not talk about this issue, at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EAnother thing that came up in the regulatory impact statement was the statement\u2014and this surprised me\u2014\u201CLetting the DGS cease in October 2010 would avoid the direct costs associated with the Treasury continuing to operate the DGS for an additional period, but forgo the fees currently collected.\u201D The reason I found that slightly surprising was that the fees are there to mitigate risk to a certain extent, but not to a great extent. I hope Treasury is not varying the scheme simply because it can collect a whole lot of money. There are many reasons for this scheme, and one of the very, very small reasons is the money it can collect. But, as mentioned, Treasury has collected over $80 million from this so far. Maybe it should give $13 million back to the adult and community education sector\u2014only $13 million! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThat is OK; let us look at Part 2, which contains some other clauses we can talk about that, for retail depositors, are just as important as the adult and community sector is to those who are taking night classes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022 data-id=\u0022f55b248579d64c709f261dd4ae932088\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f55b248579d64c709f261dd4ae932088\u0022\u003EDAVID BENNETT (National\u2014Hamilton East):\u003C/span\u003E In regard to Part 2 of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, I will touch on a point that the previous speaker made. The previous speaker from the Labour Party was talking about a so-called risk premium. Basically he was saying that international investors will require the New Zealand Government to maintain the scheme, and that to get out of the scheme would be very expensive for our Government and our country. Well, that shows the level of knowledge of the financial system that the Labour members have. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe Labour members do need an inquiry, so that they can learn what is going on in the financial system. Maybe it should not have been an inquiry. Maybe it should have been an educational trip for the Labour members. Even better than that, maybe they needed to create a forum where they could discuss things, come up with a policy agenda, and write up a series of reports to file amongst the Labour Party so that they could be framed and members could say that they are some of the great leaders of the Labour Party, like Michael Cullen. He was known for doing a series of reports so that Labour members could be comfortable with some paper behind them. Unless they have paper behind them, Labour members do not care. They do not understand\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f8de57c9b004f8d96778f0612a7a984\u0022\u003EStuart Nash\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are debating, if I am correct\u2014and correct me if I am wrong\u2014Part 2 of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, and so far all I have heard is Mr Bennett talk to those beside him. He keeps looking in their direction, but I have not heard one word at all about Part 2 of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c757668ded34221bc84c829982fc618\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I think the point is well made, but I could have directed it to some of the member\u2019s colleagues at odd times, as well. By and large they have been very good, but there have been blemishes. I ask Mr Bennett to debate Part 2. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c6cb2433f48439c8a45fb6a5afa19b9\u0022\u003EDAVID BENNETT\u003C/span\u003E: I think that is fine leadership from our Committee Chair, who has shown a good understanding of what both parties have been saying. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003EIn going back to the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, I point out that the previous speaker talked about a risk premium. Let us put it this way. If anybody had any idea of the financial system, especially the Australasian financial system, he or she would understand that in Australia and New Zealand the banks are trying to get out of retail deposit guarantee schemes. The banks in both New Zealand and Australia are in a situation now where they believe they have weathered the worst of the storm, and therefore they do not think they need this kind of legislation. That is the reality of the situation. The Labour members needed that banking inquiry so that someone could tell them that, but most other people would have found that information if they had been aware of the market and taken due diligence, rather than having to argue it through the debate on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme as we have tonight. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003EWhen we look at Part 2, we see that it essentially goes to the heart of the matter. It talks about what the bill entails in the sense of the Minister\u2019s ability to specify the types of entity and criteria, the Minister\u2019s ability to give a guarantee, recovery of money, the assumption of creditors\u2019 rights, and payments in respect of the guarantee. The heart of this legislation is in Part 2. It contains the components that we have been talking about in regard to the Minister of Finance and the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003EWhat has happened in the financial situation in New Zealand in the last few months, and the situation is reflected by our Australian neighbour, is that due to the stability afforded to the financial system in this region through the Australian banks performing extremely well, the need for this guarantee scheme has, in essence, waned. This legislation is a very good sign for the New Zealand economy, because it shows that we do not need the props of that guarantee scheme as much as we did 9 to 12 months ago. It shows the incredible stewardship of the economy by this Government, which has managed to make the right decisions through its budgetary process, and has continued through that process to give New Zealand and international investors a sense of security about the financial leadership of New Zealand and the security of our financial markets and our banking system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaf79431-1033-44f1-a633-22633da52c0d\u0022\u003EIt is a good sign for New Zealand that we are able to do this. The Labour members are voting for it because they know it is a good sign. They should be applauding the National Government for making this good sign a reality within such a short period of time. But they cannot bring themselves to do that, and they have to hide behind banking inquiries and suchlike to try to console themselves about their financial woes. The guarantee scheme was started by the previous Government at the end of its political term, but it was a bit of a rush job, and it was done only because the Australians did it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022 data-id=\u00223072c0e447024c65b95920c7b672758a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223072c0e447024c65b95920c7b672758a\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E I have been looking at the questions and answers that Treasury has released on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, and the concern I have is that they do not resolve one of the question marks I have over the whole thing. We have been talking about how urgent this legislation is, and how it must be dealt with under urgency. We are told on the Treasury website that there needs to be certainty so that people can act with certainty as soon as possible: \u201CWe want to give depositors and institutions certainty as soon as possible. Approvals for institutions to participate in the extended scheme are expected to begin from late September to early October this year.\u201D So obviously this legislation is passed now, and by the end of the month or early next month we are into applications for approvals being lodged by institutions who want to participate in the extended scheme. The advice then states that details of institutions participating in the extended Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme will be published on the Treasury website. Essentially this is an answer to a question that a depositor or investor might be asking, such as: \u201CWhere do I find out if my deposits and investments are guaranteed now? How and when will I know if the Crown guarantee still covers my deposits after the scheme is extended?\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EOne would imagine that we are rushing under urgency because there will be a relatively short period of time when applications for the extensions will be made, so that everyone can know whether their particular institution will be in the scheme. In fact, Amy Adams told the Committee that we had to deal with the bill under urgency because we were so stupid on this side of the Chamber that we did not realise that people made decisions a year in advance. But guess when applications for extensions close? If an institution does not have a credit rating yet, when is the latest that it can apply for the extended scheme? When do members think that might be? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e1062db0718a4b27a5ebb740791d7c1a\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: Who are you looking at? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6e9742ca4e94b83a617ae32f9362193\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL\u003C/span\u003E: I am running a little thing over here. Applications for extension to the scheme should be made by 12 October 2010! So the legislation does not have to be passed immediately at all. In fact, there is not the certainty for people who are currently\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2238ddb9214418abe65b4b326e395a3\u0022\u003EAaron Gilmore\u003C/span\u003E: Read the rules for the non-banking sector.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002271502d97fa764b369d63d39179b4296b\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: The member wrote them!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200829d3ec0654dc7929cb6407b75e8c4\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL\u003C/span\u003E: I think that he actually invented the finance sector. We never had a single finance company in this country until Aaron Gilmore thought of it! It is unbelievable. What that man has not contributed to his nation is not worth speaking about, but there we go. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe point I make is that it is all very well for the Government to say that this bill has to be introduced and passed urgently so that there is certainty, but in actual fact the real sector that wants this is not the banks\u2014the banks do not want it all\u2014it is the finance companies and the people who are making decisions as to whether they are going to reinvest in finance companies. They want to know when that will be, and that is what the wind-down, as the Government has described it, is all about. But they do not have to decide whether they are going into this until 12 October 2010.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EMembers opposite have said that the pricing of risk around the cost of entering this extension has been more appropriately aligned by the reference to the BB rating. I think that the members who have made those comments do not know how the current system is priced. There are two price ranges, one leading up to the BB rating and one for those who have improved to the BB rating and beyond. So to tie it back to the BB rating\u2014and I agree with the Government that it is the bare minimum in respect of extending the deposit guarantee scheme\u2014with the introduction of the requirements to have credit ratings under the new non-bank deposit taking legislation makes good sense. But I think members opposite are assuming that there was nothing in the previous scheme that tried to encourage these non-bank deposit taking entities to move to a credit-rating situation before they were legally required to do so in order to be registered under the Reserve Bank legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI think that the Minister should respond to these questions, but if nobody else wants to have a chat about this I will continue. It is a serious issue that I would like the Minister to respond to, because everything hangs on the fact that we are not having any element of select committee input. Even the officials briefing for 1 to 2 days that Treasury recommended should happen is not happening, and the reason we were given was that this all had to be done so urgently. We have just shown that the one sector that is relying on this measure more than any other sector does not have to have its application in until 12 October 2010. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe second thing I wanted to focus on again comes from the regulatory impact statement. I have to say that finding out that the regulatory impact statement was not in the bill and having to go and download it over the tea break was not helpful. There is an issue in relation to the changes that the Government will make to the conditions around the guarantee, and the Minister may like to take the opportunity to address this. I have read the changes that Treasury is now recommending through the regulatory impact statement, and I assume that they have been signed off by Cabinet, but it is difficult to tell. Paragraph 63 of the regulatory impact statement talks about \u201CMore active management levers:\u201D and \u201CRedefining trigger events for default so institutions entering statutory management would not necessarily be in default.\u201D and I think that is an interesting expansion of the scheme. It also refers to the \u201CChange of control authorisation requirement;\u201D and that is essentially looking at the risk of a buyer entering the market with the aim of using the guarantee to rapidly build a deposit book and perhaps not meeting other conditions that the Reserve Bank or Treasury would want to impose. I think that those three matters are serious issues, and they are worthy of debate and consideration. We have seen them included in the regulatory impact statement, and it is assumed that they will represent, or already represent, Government policy, although one can never be sure. They were certainly not mentioned in the questions and answers that I referred to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EBut the questions that were raised by the unions and by the economic thinktank that are referred to in annex 3 about the other conditions around employment protection and mortgage holiday provisions simply have not been included in the regulatory impact statement other than to say: \u201CWe have assessed the idea of introducing conditions on the guarantee, but consider such conditions may undermine the objectives of the guarantee, e.g. it may stop firms downsizing, when that sort of change is necessary to ensure their future viability.\u201D Again it is very much targeted to the finance company sector, not to the banks, yet I am sure that it is the banks or the banking unions that are looking for some security for their banking officers, who are facing contracting out to overseas placements. I think that the Minister ought to respond to this. Because we have not had the opportunity to debate these issues with officials during a select committee process, we missed the opportunity to ask ourselves whether it would be worthwhile from a public perspective to say that while we are giving this protection to investors, we will also give this protection to those who have borrowed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe mortgage holiday provisions are clearly designed\u2014from the promotion of those who brought them to the attention of the officials\u2014to help people through a difficult situation in a difficult economic climate. I think that the public would find a lot of this kind of proposal much more satisfactory if they could see that there was a benefit that went beyond what they were prepared to meet the cost of, or meet the risk of, whereas the mortgage holiday provisions really do not represent a significant risk to the banks and would be a huge sign of goodwill at a difficult time, especially with so many people facing redundancy. These redundancies are affecting families that have never experienced redundancy in their lifetime. Because these issues have been raised in the regulatory impact statement, which was not tabled in the House but in fact hidden on the Treasury website, I think it would be worthwhile to have some dialogue around these issues, because they are conditions whereby I think it would be a ripe opportunity for a bit of a win-win. The public would see some broader benefit being brought to bear and at the same time it would provide for confidence between our two markets. I would like the Minister to respond to the fact that in the regulatory impact statement the banks say that they see no risk\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022 data-id=\u00226a1bfc655733412998dad728d0706b3d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226a1bfc655733412998dad728d0706b3d\u0022\u003EJO GOODHEW (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002248d9e7fe-3603-456c-bd32-c8d6177395fb\u0022 data-id=\u0022dc0f8c47f20545038260586c7737acf7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248d9e7fe-3603-456c-bd32-c8d6177395fb\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dc0f8c47f20545038260586c7737acf7\u0022\u003ERAYMOND HUO (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Part 2 contains the main seven clauses of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. Clause 5 enables the Minister of Finance to set the eligibility criteria for the extended scheme. This clause is very flexible and broad. However, it does not provide the eligibility criteria. Actually, the entire bill does not outline the eligibility policy; it merely provides the Minister with the authority to determine eligibility. Based on the broad terms indicated by the Minister at the end of August, the key eligibility criteria are likely to be that applicants must be in the current scheme\u2014except for new banks and merged entities, at the Crown\u2019s discretion\u2014and they must have a BB credit-rating or above. Collective investment schemes will not be eligible for the extended scheme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248d9e7fe-3603-456c-bd32-c8d6177395fb\u0022\u003ELabour members have some concerns about this policy. The first concerns the requirement that companies have at least a BB credit-rating in order to be eligible. The problem is that some companies might not be able to obtain a sufficient credit-rating, having insufficient scale to meet the requirements of the credit-rating agencies. Secondly, it could cause a shake-out in the non-bank sector, resulting in further finance company collapses and further losses for mum and dad investors, while the big banks move in to mop up customers. Thirdly, the banks are able to benefit from the wholesale guarantee, without being obliged to contribute to the retail deposit scheme. To that extent, it is fair to suggest that big banks may win twice. They pay less in fees and they get a greater degree of the market share at the expense of smaller institutions, which will no longer be able to rely on the guarantee and will fall over.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248d9e7fe-3603-456c-bd32-c8d6177395fb\u0022\u003EMy having said that, we should remind ourselves that the above policy, which has caused us such concern, has added to the whole range of policy settings that shelter the internal economy at the expense of the traded economy. I was involved in the public hearing of submissions to the multi-party banking inquiry last week. For me, listening to the submitters across the board expanded my horizons. Let me quote what was said by Mr John Walley, who was representing the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association. It is relevant to what we are talking about regarding the bill: \u201CBanks have grown faster than the surrounding economy, indicating wealth transfers from the traded economy to the non-traded economy.\u201D Therefore, \u201Cthe \u2018must-trade\u2019 imperative must be at the forefront of our policy design if greater investment, and consequently higher growth and productivity in the export sector, and ultimately our entire economy, is to be anticipated.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002248d9e7fe-3603-456c-bd32-c8d6177395fb\u0022\u003E It is worth noting that in 2008 the banks made consistent growth over time of around $3.2 billion\u2014more than the entire NZX50 less the banks. I quote again: \u201CWe doubt this is either healthy or sustainable for our economy.\u201D Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022 data-id=\u00224d1da2ab48ad443c9808c2cc7fe4d793\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224d1da2ab48ad443c9808c2cc7fe4d793\u0022\u003ECRAIG FOSS (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7f5372b8c8e497c9b49227d5ea6c211\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: The question is that the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u002283e156d0b54b4aac9331997f9c526bac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002283e156d0b54b4aac9331997f9c526bac\u0022\u003EHon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have been on Part 2 for only a little over 30 minutes. It is the substantial part of the bill. It is a bill that the Opposition has not seen, it being introduced under urgency. There are other Opposition speakers; Mr Chauvel has just arrived, and wants to speak on this part. I think that for a bill that has not been seen by the Opposition and that has not been to a select committee, to accept the second Government motion of closure on the main bulk of the bill after a little over 30 minutes of debate is disappointing. I wonder whether you would consider accepting a few more calls, given that we are debating this bill under urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8d3629e00fe4c75ac2ce6d77fb0c34c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I do not need any assistance. There have been nine calls. I try to be as fair as possible. There is not a great degree of divergence of views on this part. I have not been persuaded by a great wealth of new information to accept more calls. I have listened very carefully to the debate. I have made the choice that I will take the closure at this point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223f71b2a7c44c48d8916fc9d75da5dccb\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000640\u0022\u003EPart 2 agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002292e5f809c01d442793c0f1aefaec960f\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u00223520cd514a074a50991523ba87168468\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223520cd514a074a50991523ba87168468\u0022\u003EHon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have now come to the title and commencement clauses of this bill. I think it is pretty fair to say we were disappointed by the shutting-down of the debate on Part 2 after such a short time, on a bill that we have seen only today and that did not go to a select committee, when other Opposition speakers wanted to take a call on it. You have been in the Chair all evening, Mr Chairperson, and you have sat through debate on Part 1 and Part 2, so you have heard a lot of the debate. Because you have heard Part 1, which influenced the debate on Part 2, I wonder what factors you are looking for here. This debate will be the only scrutiny this bill will get, and the bill is an important economic instrument. The Opposition wants to have an understanding of where you are coming from.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291d5a83e78cc499db15903f7a749905a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: When a bill has not gone to a select committee, there is a convention that the debate on clauses 1 and 2 can be slightly extended. Given that, as Chair, I have to make some decisions about relevancy, new material, repetition, and all of that, in the same way as before. But I say again that when a bill has not been to a select committee, there is a convention that the debate on the title and commencement date can be somewhat extended. But the debate must still be relevant to the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u002217a1376ff48b4427b57607c85bfc77d6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217a1376ff48b4427b57607c85bfc77d6\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E Debate on the commencement and title\u2014by convention, as you have said, Mr Chairperson\u2014is an opportunity for a relatively broad-ranging discussion of the key themes of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI will start with the commencement clause. The commencement date of the bill is 31 December 2011, which is the date the existing guarantee scheme continues until. That carries on from the earlier date of 12 October 2010. We have said that the decision to extend this commencement date to cover a period similar to the Australian legislation is appropriate because it avoids the risk of the flow of funds to Australian institutions. We have also said we think that the amount of time spent scrutinising the bill has been inappropriate. There has been no select committee consideration, and the time in the House has been under urgency. That time will be half a day, and it will be all New Zealanders will hear. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EMany thousands of New Zealanders will be worried about their funds. As my colleague Lianne Dalziel has said, people want to know whether their fund is covered. They might want the opportunity to look it up on the Treasury website. Of course, they will not find the answer, because this bill is only framework legislation. It does not even vest the whole policy; that has to be promulgated by the Minister through the Gazette and regulations. The public does not have an opportunity to see how this scheme affects them. We know that for many investors, particularly those who have been burnt in the finance company collapses, this can be a matter of huge personal consequence. So the commencement date matters, and it matters because there really was time\u2014and I think the Minister of Finance alluded to this when he took a call at the end of the debate on Part 1\u2014if we had been pushed, to have a contracted select committee process. It is a disservice to the public that that process was not allowed, and I invite the Minister to take a further call. Perhaps he would be willing to change his mind at this point and allow a further process of some kind, perhaps some further consultation with the public, before he promulgates his regulations under the Gazette. That might be a compromise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EWith respect, Mr Chairperson, I say that if the rest of the Part 2 debate had been allowed, we would have touched on the fact that the Minister has not taken any calls since Part 1. He has not taken a single call to defend the two key issues: why we are leaving the banks out; and, when the non-banks are in, why we are setting the threshold at BB. BB is an uncomfortable middle ground in some ways, is it not? For many, particularly smaller, finance companies, the cost and difficulty of process of going to a rating agency and getting a rating would be prohibitive. Some will not make the BB cut. I am not saying that the Minister is wrong to have signalled BB, but how would the public know? The Minister has not deigned to take a call and defend that key issue. The public deserves to know from the Minister why the rating is BB. Why not BB\u002B, BB-, or BBB? It is sub-investment grade, but it is only just below. I ask the Minister whether that is the rationale. The public would like to know, because people will be worried about their own schemes and where they fall on the rating scale. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bd4fd6ab92bf41f5900e5c575630d9d4\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: He\u2019s good at schemes!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce1e32be5522424d99590b2ed167efd2\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: He is good at schemes, as my colleague has said. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EAnother thing the public will want to know is why the maximum threshold was set at $500,000 per institution deposit or $250,000 per non-bank institution deposit. Why bring it down from $1 million, which was the previous institution limit? Why contract that? To be fair to the Minister, I say that there may be an argument about weaning the public and the finance sector off the guarantees, but, again, it would be proper for the Minister to take a call to explain the logic. This is his policy. He signalled it a week ago, but he has not been subject to parliamentary debate on the very heart of this issue. It is appropriate that he takes a call, because this bill is the framework bill that gives the Minister the power from Parliament to the executive to promulgate those or any other regulations to manifest his policy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224345fcbac5f449338e79d43ef2dd967c\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s important enough for urgency!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022159e7138337b4d37a18b72408ca44073\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: If it is important enough for urgency, it is important enough for the Minister to say to the public of New Zealand why the figure is $500,000 and not $1 million, why the rating is BB and not BBB, and why he is doing it this way with no select committee process and not giving the public an opportunity to talk. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe Minister is not hugely known for wanting participatory public processes. There was an earlier comment that he was desperate to shut down the parliamentary banking inquiry. The poor old National members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee had proposed an item of business to hear from the finance and banking sector around the more narrow issue of the pass-through of official cash rate cuts into retail short-term rates. They put up the motion and then, if hearsay is to be believed, a week later, under pressure from the Minister, they voted against their own motion, leaving the public to wonder what on earth was going on and what could be the motivation for that backflip. The public believes that somehow the Minister roared like a lion in Parliament about protecting the public from voracious banks. But then, after a couple of phone calls from the chairman, he rolled over and forced his own MPs to stymie the banking inquiry. His office has been flat out on the phone. We have not been able to get a phone line into the Minister\u2019s office for the last 3 weeks. The staff were on the phone the whole time trying to stop banks and finance institutions from turning up at the inquiry. Well, tough luck. They missed out: there were 50 submissions and a dozen very substantive briefings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EWhat did we learn? We learnt, first, that banks have been, after all is said and done, inappropriately failing to pass through cuts to the official cash rate. It is hard to put an exact number on it but it is between 0.5 percent and 1 percent of somebody else\u2019s money. Mr Boscawen will take note because he is very strong on those issues, and good on him. It is 0.5 percent to 1 percent of someone else\u2019s money with no reasonable explanation in the data, despite some acknowledged increases in costs\u2014but not enough to count. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EEven more important\u2014and this is where it comes back to the coverage of this bill\u2014we are unearthing terrible difficulties with the impact of the official cash rate on the monetary system, because every time it is raised, hot money is sucked in, which expands credit and lifts demand, and has the exact opposite impact of what we wanted it to do, which was to cool off the housing bubble. It leaves us with an underlying problem that the Minister, we hope, will address in some way when his Tax Working Group reports, and that problem is what we do about preventing the next housing bubble. The commencement and title of this bill are about debt securities, and in Part 2 we heard that the total volume of debt securities is now 140 percent of New Zealand\u2019s GDP, rising at 10 percent per annum, with 90 percent of it funnelled through the banks into the property sector. That is where the money that this bill will cover goes. The point is, is it good for anybody? Is it good for our manufacturers? No. Is it good for our exporters? No. Is it good for the real economy? No. New Zealand will not pay its way in the world by speculating real estate. It cannot be done. We have a trade deficit, and we have a current account deficit of which two-thirds to three-quarters is the bleed from the banking sector of offshore repatriation of profits. How big are the profits? They are bigger than the profits the entire NZX50 makes. That is how big the problem is. That is the context within which this bill fits: a financial system that is fundamentally misaligned to the needs of New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EWhat is the Government doing to address it? Why does the Minister not take a call? If he will not address this bill, he should tell us what his plans are to address that misalignment. New Zealand\u2019s future depends on getting capital to people who make things, build things, sell things, and export things so that we can earn our way in the world. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022555b5a31312f48ada2b32a34c658186c\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a pity you didn\u2019t understand that for 9 years. Where were you when we needed you?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa356599f08c42ca91fdb97e92d3283d\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: Now the Government benches are getting excited because we are getting a bit close to the truth. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EBudget 2009 was an idea-free zone. What was the Minister doing for 9 long years in Opposition, if he came into Government without a clue what to do and had no new ideas in his first Budget? Not one. Oh, sorry, I missed one: to suspend superannuation payments for a decade. That was it. His solution to the recession was to ruin superannuation. Nobody in New Zealand believes that this Government can maintain entitlements without pre-funding superannuation. It has wrecked it for a decade. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EA member points to the bill. If we had had more time on Part 2, we would not be having such a broad-ranging debate on the title, would we? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022 data-id=\u00222ec49040cf394bdb97bf1b16cfbaf41c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222ec49040cf394bdb97bf1b16cfbaf41c\u0022\u003ECHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chairman\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c107ad0afebb4f94a337d609c58a736d\u0022\u003ECraig Foss\u003C/span\u003E: Turn that tie down, member!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ad94a31efe7461daa7b9e1fd57665db\u0022\u003ECHARLES CHAUVEL\u003C/span\u003E: I am glad that members opposite, particularly Mr Foss, enjoy my tie, and long may that enjoyment last. This bill is about promoting financial stability and confidence in the banking system. As the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the last year or so of the last Parliament, I was very proud to have contributed to that aim, along with one or two members opposite, in serving on that committee. I take a moment to remind members that Labour had actually established a work stream in this area to support some really active, quality regulation networks, to establish an environment that supported business growth and innovation, and ensure that New Zealand was a good place to invest and do business. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003EIn particular, I recall three pieces of legislation that we saw through the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and those were the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008, the Financial Advisers Act 2008, and the Reserve Bank Amendment Act 2008. The main requirements arising from that legislation, as many who are present in the Chamber tonight will know, were the registration of all financial service providers; to provide a means of identifying and monitoring financial service providers; to introduce prudential supervision by the Reserve Bank of non-bank deposit takers; to introduce regulation by the Securities Commission of financial advisers; to encourage professionalism and public confidence in the sector; and to provide for comprehensive consumer dispute resolution and redress mechanisms. They were important measures. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003EMy colleague and friend David Cunliffe has just spoken about the banking inquiry, which was another measure that was spearheaded by Labour to really try to build some confidence in the system. I think it is fair to say that that inquiry demonstrates that Labour really is listening to New Zealanders\u2019 concerns about the banking system in a fundamental way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b200c44b72e4871841aa2d8529681f5\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: Is this what you learnt on the bus trip?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d1549b78217345a983ac4d6843b055c3\u0022\u003ECHARLES CHAUVEL\u003C/span\u003E: That is why that inquiry was launched, along with the support of the Greens and the Progressive party, so that we could take a good look, I say to Mr Quinn, at what was really going on in our banking system onshore. The inquiry was one that, as Mr Cunliffe said, the Beehive was absolutely desperate to stop. It required National MPs, including Mr Foss over there, to vote against their own motion at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It tried to shut down participation at that inquiry. I would like to join with Mr Cunliffe and ask the Minister of Finance to take a call and assure the Committee that neither he nor his staff or supporters made any calls to try to shut down that inquiry. But we will not hear from him. We know that. We have heard only one call on Part 1 so far. Never mind that this legislation is not being referred to a select committee and being put through the sort of scrutiny it should have. Just like in the banking inquiry, National has shown that when the chips are down it will always side with the interests of the big banks over the needs of hard-working Kiwis and working families, as well as small businesses that are starved of capital and made to pay ridiculous amounts of interest for that capital.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003EThe inquiry received around 50 submissions, and a dozen substantive oral presentations of hearings, including those from Kiwibank and business groups like Federated Farmers, the Employers and Manufacturers Association, and the Manufacturers and Exporters Association. National\u2019s attempt to suppress that inquiry absolutely failed. The key issues that emerged in that inquiry, and will not be addressed at all by this legislation, included strong evidence that consumers, businesses, and farmers have been overcharged by interest on short-term loans. There is a cross-subsidy between medium and long-term mortgages contributing to a new housing cycle that will be disastrous for this economy, and there are huge issues around the growing national debt. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003ENow 140 percent of GDP resulting largely from property loans channelled through the banking system was evidence that the Finance and Expenditure Committee also heard in its inquiry into the monetary system last year, and this Parliament still does not do anything about it in this legislation, or otherwise. It will be good to see the team from that banking inquiry doing follow-up research to report in late October. I think a high-quality report will no doubt be produced following some international peer review. That is the sort of quality process we will see from that review.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u0022c8287a027ac64ddba6d7a3b9040675d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c8287a027ac64ddba6d7a3b9040675d5\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I will just comment on a couple of questions that have been raised. One has been the issue of reducing the coverage per depositor. Like a number of the other measures, this needs to be seen in the context of the Government making it clear that the changes in the deposit guarantee scheme signal clearly a reversion to normal market conditions at some time in the future. It is entirely reasonable that alongside increasing the pricing of the guarantee, the Government has moved to reduce the cap on the deposits that it covers. As the regulatory impact statement points out, this has the effect of reducing the Crown contingent liability and, of course, reducing somewhat the fiscal cost of a future default event. It also has the effect that some of the smaller institutions that may be dependent on a few large deposits will have their circumstances altered. That is why we have reduced the coverage\u2014because the deposit guarantee scheme is transiting towards normal market conditions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ESomeone raised the issue of the BB ratings and the cost to small institutions of getting those ratings. That is not a function of the guarantee. The fact that non-bank deposit taking institutions will need to get a credit rating is a product of the new regulations that are coming through consequent on legislation that was actually passed last year. So the guarantee itself does not cause these institutions to get a credit rating; they have to do that in the next 6 months, anyway. In October next year the extended guarantee will pick up and use those credit ratings for the purposes that Parliament intended them for\u2014that is, to signal to investors with more clarity the trade-off between risk and return in relation to putting deposits or other investments into these institutions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022 data-id=\u002261ac9048ed26404a9fad03c0dbec1122\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002261ac9048ed26404a9fad03c0dbec1122\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E I want to focus on the fact that the statement that the Minister of Finance made in announcing the extension to the retail deposit guarantee included a list of all the changes that will take effect after 12 October 2010: the fees to be paid will be changed to reflect the institution\u2019s risk profile, eligible bank deposits will be covered up to a maximum of $500,000 per depositor per institution, eligible non-bank deposits will be covered up to a maximum of $250,000 per depositor per institution, and deposit-taking institutions with a credit rating of BB or higher can apply to participate in the extended scheme. Then it stated that collective investment schemes will not be eligible for the new scheme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI have looked through the regulatory impact statement and I cannot find a detailed analysis of why the decision was made that collective schemes will not be eligible for the new scheme. Under the existing scheme, collective investment schemes such as portfolio investment entities, unit trusts, and superannuation schemes are able to claim on the guarantee, provided that they invest exclusively in New Zealand Government securities, or debt securities issued by institutions covered by the Crown guarantee; they do not increase their investments in guaranteed institutions that are not registered banks beyond the level that existed as at 12 October 2008; and their rules ensure that any money paid under the guarantee will be distributed only to retail members. I thought those were a relatively tight set of criteria.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI did not download the number of schemes that have been approved, but on 25 August, when the extension was first announced, I had a look at the website and I seem to recall that a number of portfolio investment entities had been accepted and were guaranteed under the existing scheme. I would really like to understand the thinking behind the decision to leave out collective investment schemes altogether. There is not even the opt-in option any more but simply a decision that they will not be eligible. What was the thinking behind that decision? I am relatively sure that some of those schemes are currently under the guarantee. I think those institutions themselves would be somewhat concerned that there is not the detailed analysis that there is of some of the other examples that I have already used in my contribution to the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EIt is quite a serious issue, because, as some of my colleagues have raised, the real risk is having too great an influence on investment decisions and distorting the market, as it were, in this whole area. I have been making the comment for a number of years now that we cannot get rid of risk, and that there will always be risk in this financial area, because otherwise there is no return. Then we introduced the retail deposit guarantee scheme, which somewhat diminished the argument I was always making. But the scheme is only a temporary measure and it is for an extreme situation. So it does raise for me the question of why it was decided that collective investment schemes would be left out. Has there been consultation with the operators of the different schemes? And what has been the response? I have looked through all of the issues raised in annex 3 and there does not appear to be any specific reference to collective investment schemes. I may be wrong. If the Minister would like to take a call on that, it would be very useful.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u00220022107b317640d59e77f06b937cfc2c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220022107b317640d59e77f06b937cfc2c\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E The member raised a reasonable issue. Retaining the collective investment schemes, as the regulatory impact statement points out, would not cause particular issues. There are reasons to exclude them. The investments in collective investment schemes are not actually deposits, and only a limited range of collective investment schemes are covered under the existing scheme. Like the other decisions that have been made in the detail of the scheme, in each case where there is some judgment to be made, the Government has made a judgment in favour of moving towards tighter and more limited coverage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908dbf588689ff34b49aa5cbf401eeabf88000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d76d441a518646d7aa810dab4bdff693\u0022\u003ETuesday, 8 September 2009\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c254afa1e7aa44dc91b7c6378362a74b\u0022\u003E(continued on Wednesday, 9 September 2009)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002258919d37ab8a48268fad64c4a336bc4a\u0022\u003ECrown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ad36495b77fe417fb4a2e47885e1a4bb\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000005\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002222d6451b44e34ba3bbf0799c70fd0c42\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2 (continued)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u00226fed6ee514dd4544b45db1fa05636e97\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226fed6ee514dd4544b45db1fa05636e97\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E I am delighted to again speak in this debate on clauses 1 and 2, the title and commencement. I note with interest that we are privileged to have the Minister of Defence, the Hon Wayne Mapp, in the chair. He has assured me this morning that, unlike the Minister of Finance, he will be available for exhaustive questioning, commentary, and analysis on this very important bill. I know that my whip may not appreciate this, but I am very happy to yield to the Minister if he would pick up where last night\u2019s debate left off and answer the myriad of questions that the Opposition put up on what is a very important bill, which, I have to say, has the support of the Labour Party and, I believe, most, if not all, parties here. It is a very, very important bill. We are here under urgency because of the nature of this bill, and I see that the Leader of the House is here and that the reinforcements have arrived. The Minister of Defence is in the chair and the 25 pound howitzer is in the Chamber as well. So a military connotation is taking over this debate\u2014the blunderbuss is on the way! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI just reiterate a number of the questions that colleagues put up last night in this debate, because we are under urgency. This is an important bill, but we fail to see the Minister of Finance\u2014but I am sure this Minister in the chair, Wayne Mapp, will be equal to the challenge\u2014taking up and responding to a number of important questions that the Opposition raised.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288e4e80f7ee9489bade01c66fc2f6a4d\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: We did\u2014last night!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5523743d63c406b9e0b857b823e01bc\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E: The member said that, yes, he did. Well, she is right that last night, at about 3 minutes to 10, he took, I think, the longest call he has taken in the whole debate. He got up and answered a couple of questions. Of course, I would have thought that this deposit guarantee scheme would be very close to the Minister of Finance\u2019s heart, not just because it is the responsible thing to do, which, of course, we did when we were in Government. At its very essence this bill guarantees the deposits of Kiwi investors, as we know. We put money in the bank and the Government provides a deposit to agencies that have a BB rating, and those deposits for deposit holders are secure. If it was the case, for instance, that someone was renting a property and getting maybe 700 bucks a week per house\u2014as the Minister of Finance was\u2014I am sure that the Minister of Finance as the Minister in the chair would be very, very much in support of this bill, which would guarantee his $700 a week deposit in a bank or financial entity that had a BB rating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022545fe5a2093d444ea68d2fd3500f83e8\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Even in a time of restraint.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291fd7581dabb42c39f6f4b2c8b9b905c\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E: Even in a time of restraint, my colleague says. I think that anybody who has discretionary income of around 700 bucks a week\u2014perhaps on rent on a property\u2014would be absolutely in need of a commitment from the Government of the day to guarantee that $700 per week deposit. I think that is imperative, and it is interesting that the Minister of Finance, of course, is sponsoring this bill. I would never accuse the Minister of Finance of having some pecuniary interest in this bill, because that would be unparliamentary and it would not be appropriate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208883db6096a4fb4ae03f16654eef024\u0022\u003EHon Lianne Dalziel\u003C/span\u003E: And he would declare it, anyway.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f87b8b35117423585b1d98b92385909\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E: And he would declare it, anyway, as my colleague says. I just note that those people who are in the privileged position of renting out their own properties, perhaps, and gaining rents in the order of 700 bucks a week will sleep easy in their beds tonight as we pass this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI ask the Minister in the chair, Dr Mapp, the Minister of Defence, who has kindly parachuted into the Chamber, whether he will answer some of the questions. Of course, some of the questions pertain to why the criteria and the eligibility for the BB rating are in the hands of the Minister of Finance and not put in statute. We have asked repeatedly why that is and whether there is a risk that smaller financial institutions cannot meet the BB rating. Mr Gilmore, who has been there, done that, climbed the mountain, done everything, and qualified for everything, said that it is easy for a financial institution to get a BB rating, and that one just sort of pays the money and people rock up\u2014just like when he got his qualification at university; he paid his fees and they handed it out to him. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EWell, to get a BB rating from a financial agency, especially if one is a smaller financial institution, requires a high level of commitment and cost. It is not just a matter, as I said yesterday, of people rocking up to McDonald\u2019s and saying they will have the double meat hamburger and chips, paying the money, and getting it. For a lot of these financial institutions it is a huge commitment, and the question is, of course, whether there will be a flight of capital if those institutions do not meet that BB rating. I said yesterday that no one wishes that on anyone\u2014no one is predicting it and no one is wishing it\u2014it is a question we are asking, and I ask that question of the Minister of Defence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022 data-id=\u0022f11d808018fc496cb9c1b8c9f5e81662\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f11d808018fc496cb9c1b8c9f5e81662\u0022\u003EJO GOODHEW (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c602868517f74c389e8fb063129146b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c602868517f74c389e8fb063129146b5\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I am awaiting a response from the Minister in the chair. I have made this point in the first and second reading debates on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, and I make it now in the debate on the title clause of the bill, about how we propose to transition out of the deposit guarantee scheme, given the distortions that it causes in the financial markets. I repeat my concern, because the current Minister in the chair, Dr Mapp, is not the Minister who was there last night. I raise with Dr Mapp the issue that is touched upon in the regulatory impact statement: the distortion that is caused between different classes of investments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe bill says one of its objectives is to minimise those distortions. That is tantamount to an admission that it creates them. The regulatory impact statement itself highlights one of the distortions that have been caused, and that is in the finance company sector. Because some of the risk that is normally faced by depositors in finance companies is being taken away by the Crown guarantee, the amount deposited into finance companies has increased quite substantially, against a prior trend where, because of perceived risk, the amount deposited in that sector was decreasing. That is one distortion that we have caused; we have had an increase in finance company deposits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EA related but different distortion is that we have seen a flight of funds away from safer investments than traditional finance companies, such as investments in mortgage trusts. Mortgage trusts are where people invest their money in a trust vehicle. It can be a group investment fund or a unit trust under the Unit Trusts Act, and in some cases it can be a contributory mortgage. But in all those three cases, the investor is effectively investing in a first mortgage over land. The nature of investors\u2019 security is a debt security; they are owed money. It is not nominally a debt security within the definition of the Securities Act, but it is very similar to other debt securities in that investors invest a dollar amount, it is secured\u2014in this case, over land\u2014and their right to repayment is the right to repayment of the capital they are investing plus the interest that they get. Effectively that is the interest paid by the mortgagors under the mortgages. That is a far more secure sort of investment than a finance company investment, yet it is not covered by this guarantee scheme. So one of the distortions we have seen under this financial guarantee is increased money going into the more risky end of the market\u2014the finance companies\u2014and we have seen a run on the funds invested in the mortgage trusts. They have been serious runs on funds. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe in this Committee all know that one of the two primary reasons that we have this legislation is to ensure liquidity and protect against runs on funds. Without this guarantee scheme, effectively there were concerns that there would be runs on financial institutions. We were already seeing that occur in the finance company sector, and that contagion could easily have spread to the banks. Confidence is all in financial institutions, and no financial institution can easily withstand a run on its funds. All those institutions anticipate having reasonably secure deposit books. We have a distortion being created, and we have not yet heard from the Minister about how he plans to exit from the scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThrough this legislation we have some new rules. A minimum credit rating of BB is required for anyone to participate in the retail deposit scheme, and that will in itself cut off some of the smaller financial institutions. That causes another distortion that we are creating here: we are preferring large institutions over small institutions by virtue of the nature of this guarantee. Again, I have a problem with that, because I think that in New Zealand we are overly reliant on a small number of very large institutions. Hyman Minsky, a now deceased American economist, has had recent accolades for his prediction of some of the things that went wrong in the recent financial crisis around the world. He believed that financial institutions, rather than being self-correcting and essentially levelling, would always participate in riskier and riskier behaviour the longer the period of stability was, and he was right about that. One of his other theories was that financial institutions should reflect the size of the economy. He believed that a small economy that had a lot of small businesses should have a large number of smaller financial intermediaries, rather than being reliant on a small number of large intermediaries. This legislation goes in the other way from that, because it gives preference to the interests of the big end of town.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022 data-id=\u0022162d854039694f43a2a9f0f0989e9ba3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022162d854039694f43a2a9f0f0989e9ba3\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E I want to pick up the point that my colleague David Parker was referring to and come back to the detailed regulatory impact statement, which is to be found only on the Treasury website. I repeat how disturbing I find it that the detailed analysis that this statement contains is not available to the general public by way of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill, which is the normal place to find the full regulatory impact statement. I think that is an undesirable course of action. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI refer to a couple of matters that are in the statement. I would like the Minister of Finance to take a call to explain them. One of the matters is directly related to an issue that we were debating last night around collective investment schemes. First of all, paragraph 26 of the regulatory impact statement states that \u201CBlanket retail deposit guarantees are generally undesirable because of the economic distortions they create.\u201D That is exactly the point that my colleague the Hon David Parker was making. \u201CEconomic distortions include encouraging guaranteed depositors and deposit taking institutions to make riskier investment decisions since gains are privatized and losses are socialised.\u201D This is from Treasury, which actually gets the problem that we face when we privatise the gains but socialise the losses. This has a huge distortionary impact on the market and is described as a moral hazard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI come to paragraph 43, which states: \u201CThere is a significant degree of uncertainty associated with what could happen if the current DGS is left to expire on October 2010. This reflects uncertainty about whether and how quickly the economy will recover over the next 18 months, whether financial markets will continue to stabilize, and what will happen to asset prices. It also reflects uncertainty about the position of entities in the scheme, the extent of likely contagion resulting from the failure of any entities in the scheme, and the extent of any possible deposit flight to Australian guaranteed banks due to the mismatch of guarantee periods. The impact will also depend in a large part on depositor sentiment, which is very difficult to predict.\u201D In the report the officials say that the banks do not think there is any risk of this flight to Australian guaranteed banks. I have to ask the Minister why we are doing this. I honestly think that some larger contribution to the debate could have been made if we had had a couple of days at the select committee, where we could have debated the detail with officials. I am not saying that we are opposed to it; in principle, we are not, and we support the passage of the bill. But we think that it is an important issue that the Minister should respond to in some detail. The strongest argument for this change is in order to match with Australia, yet the very reason why we would match with Australia is not regarded by the banks as a priority in the decision making in this area. In fact, according to the regulatory impact statement, the banks do not support the extension of this scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003ELast night I was asking the Minister in the chair\u2014who was the Minister of Finance, Bill English\u2014about collective investment schemes. I said to him that these were not dealt with in detail in the regulatory impact statement. He referred me to page 20. Page 20 is one of the annexes to the regulatory impact statement. So, yes, the collective investment schemes are dealt with in this particular part of the statement. But I advise the House that the detail there does not answer the question that I raise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003ELet me again read into the record what the regulatory impact statement says: \u201CRemoving this limited category of CISs from the extended DGS\u2019s coverage would be consistent with the core coverage of the DGS.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EIt would also reduce one of the boundary issues that has arisen between CISs and other institutions (such as mortgage trusts)\u201D\u2014 this was the point that my colleague the Hon David Parker was making\u2014\u201Cwith similar legal structures (but different investment approaches) that are not covered by the present DGS, and result in slightly reduced administration costs associated with managing separate deeds of guarantee. There may be some shifting of investors from CISs to guaranteed deposits, but this would be minimal.\u201D What is that based on? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022 data-id=\u00224cd7fa6b623a47138e650e8f61a1ce41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224cd7fa6b623a47138e650e8f61a1ce41\u0022\u003ECRAIG FOSS (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022 data-id=\u00221e77e79644bf4feabc6ac4df0b1ec95d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221e77e79644bf4feabc6ac4df0b1ec95d\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E The point I am making is about the claim that there may be some shifting of investors from collective investment schemes to guaranteed deposits, but that this would be minimal. What is that claim based on? What have the officials based that advice on? How much shifting is classified as minimal? Why are we again allowing a potential risk to our collective investment schemes, the portfolio investment entities that are all registered there at the moment, when we do not what the risk is? The statement says the risk would be minimal, but how do we know? What is the basis for it? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe statement says: \u201CRetaining CISs in an extended DGS would not cause any particular issues, other than potentially raising again the boundary issues with non-guaranteed schemes. The extended DGS proposes excluding CISs, in order to assist with moving toward tighter and more limited coverage.\u201D Well, that goes against the whole theory of the extension, which is to allow for an orderly transition out of the scheme. I have this terrible fear we are delaying the inevitable, because it will not be the case that all finance companies that are currently in the scheme will be able to opt into this scheme with the BB rating requirement that will be in place from October next year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI think we are entitled to ask these questions in this Chamber when debating a bill that has been introduced under urgency, a bill that we did not see until it was laid on the Table of the House. We have been denied the opportunity for a select committee hearing, which Treasury officials themselves recommended take place for 1 to 2 days, and which would enable us to ask these questions and have a proper discussion about it. I think we have been denied the opportunity to properly scrutinise this legislation. As my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe has said on many occasions, this is only framework legislation. It will allow the Minister to extend the scheme on whatever conditions are negotiated or agreed with Cabinet. I think Parliament ought to have a greater say over this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThis week is Financial Awareness Week. I am almost speechless at the way the Government celebrates the fact that a lot of investors in this country have absolutely no idea of the level of risk they are taking with their hard-earned money. The Commerce Committee is undertaking an inquiry into certain elements relating to the collapse of the finance companies. Why? Because there are gaps and, clearly, a lack of understanding of risk. The other thing we have seen is that finance companies that have failed have, almost without exception, underpriced the level of risk in order to disguise from their potential investors the level of risk they were taking with their hard-earned money. This scheme is almost saying they are off the hook for another year before they have to face up to the reality of the market in this situation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI have some really serious concerns about the quality of the debate around this important matter. We have seen this debate deliberately shut down on many occasions so far. The Minister of Finance has taken about three calls in the entire Committee stage of this bill, and they have been very short calls, pointing me to annex 2 of the regulatory impact statement on page 20, for example, on the collective investment scheme, and basically reading out a paragraph from the regulatory impact statement. That is not the sort of quality discussion that one would expect to occur in such an important debate. I am very disappointed in the way the Government has chosen to treat this particular issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EAs I say, the Opposition is not opposed to the concept of extending the scheme. But I think we ought to have a much clearer exposition from the Government as to why the extension is a year long, why conditions have been attached to the extension, and why collective investment schemes are excluded from the ability to renew their coverage under the deposit guarantee scheme when the new one comes in. The Minister has not even discussed the issues around the content of the agreement.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u0022e773e616a88d4e57b3abe43a96232f8e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e773e616a88d4e57b3abe43a96232f8e\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I will back up a lot of what my colleagues have said around the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. Labour supports it for a number of important reasons. The first of three main reasons relates to the fact that, at the time the retail deposit guarantee scheme was set up by the Labour Government, the world was going through a period of intense financial crisis. I mentioned that the BNZ was literally days away from putting in place its crisis management strategy plan for operating a major financial institution without the ability to raise overseas funds. That was done on a Sunday evening. I think Dr Cullen worked for 48 hours flat without sleep to get it implemented, and I think it was done a day after the Australians announced their scheme. It came in at pretty much the same time. The reason for that, as has been outlined, is that there was a belief that if the Australians had set up such a scheme and New Zealand had not, then there may be a run on funds from New Zealand banks across the Tasman, therefore necessitating the collapse of the New Zealand banking sector. We all know that would have been a complete and utter disaster for our economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EFirst and foremost, the measure was undertaken to shore up the financial sector. That was vitally important. The second reason why we support this bill\u2014and it relates to a lot of Part 2\u2014is that a social cost is involved. It is disappointing, because I do not think the National Government has once mentioned the social benefit of this scheme.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0326fa01fce48ea89a0fa2802eaa7a1\u0022\u003EAmy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I mentioned it twice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce362e46221f4007860b48260c4dc484\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: Ms Adams has mentioned it. Well done. That member did it once. That must be once out of about 30 calls. Mind you, members opposite have stopped taking calls, to shut down this debate. But the social aspect of this is quite significant. Dr Cullen and the Labour Government made it very clear that one of the major reasons Labour was implementing this retail deposit guarantee scheme was to prevent a further deterioration in confidence in our financial sector in addition to that which existed because of the collapse of around 30-odd finance companies. It was 30 or 40; the number escapes me. It is incredible that so many New Zealanders lost so much money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EDavid Parker and Lianne Dalziel talked at length about the distortions a retail guarantee scheme puts in place, and that is what I will lead into at the moment. The banks are now debating their continued participation in this scheme. There is a huge difference between now and a year ago due to the nature of the crisis. Global liquidity has freed up to a certain extent. To be part of the scheme, banks had to pay money, so they are now undertaking a cost-benefit analysis around it. The concern I have relates to the non-bank sector. In respect of retail companies, we saw a lot of savers versus investors. There is a very important distinction there. Savers are those people who are putting their money away and who have paid taxes all their lives. They have put their money away for their retirement, for their children\u2019s education, or for their grandchildren\u2019s education, for whatever reason. But they squirreled away money in those companies, and they have lost it. They have nothing to go back to. I firmly believe they did not price risk. As mentioned, this week is actually financial literacy week. I firmly believe New Zealanders have very much a DIY attitude to their financial management, which is not the right way to go about it. When they see icons like Sir Colin Meads stand up and say that an investment is as solid as houses, or as solid as the proverbial\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022007ab239931d46358dd5e61f38877b80\u0022\u003EHon Lianne Dalziel\u003C/span\u003E: He said: \u201CSolid as.\u201D And he is Sir Colin Meads.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022589b9cff1b3a4e32841e36f2b207932b\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry; Sir Colin Meads. He said it was \u201Csolid as\u201D, and many New Zealanders believed him without pricing risk, without going through the disclosure statements, and they lost their money. I believe that the shift towards finance companies has gone from savers to investors. Investors understand that their funds are guaranteed under the current scheme. Evidence of that is $880 million in deposits put into finance companies since the scheme was implemented. That is an increase of 19 percent in funds in a sector in which the deposits had begun to shrink. They had absolutely begun to shrink. My one major concern is that investors are now the main contributors to finance companies. What will happen when the scheme runs out? There are two options\u2014two things might happen. Investors, who are probably in a better position to price risk, will say that investment in a finance company has now\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00224f9cde9d1e31461593a7cde25dda9388\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224f9cde9d1e31461593a7cde25dda9388\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I appreciate the opportunity to take a quick call on this discussion on the bill\u2019s title and commencement. I will pick up on a couple of themes that my colleagues have raised. My colleague Lianne Dalziel has rightly raised the issue of process and the lack of consultation, and she was very effective in that regard. I also realise that we have had some important discussion by the Hon Lianne Dalziel and the Hon David Parker around collective investment vehicles and the fact that they are excluded from the coverage of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe Labour caucus has had particular concern about the status of bonus bonds. Many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders have bonus bonds. They are an important part of investment for many small investors\u2014rational or otherwise. Bonus bonds are excluded because they are a form of collective investment vehicle. The analysis of the bill is that 70 percent of the underlying securities are covered through various means by the intended legislation. But none the less we considered introducing an amendment to specifically list them. However, we decided that it would do too much damage to the structure of the coverage, and we moved away from an amendment. But I say particularly to bonus-bond holders that the Labour Opposition has specifically considered their case.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b06c67bff55c4ffe802c4244ac34744b\u0022\u003ECraig Foss\u003C/span\u003E: Declare your interest. How many bonus bonds do you have?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da1912dad58d4c32b98a5406a093a5d1\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: The member will be pleased to know that I have no particular investments in New Zealand whatsoever, in order to avoid just those questions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI will touch on a very serious theme, which my colleague David Parker raised\u2014that is, the concentration of risk. There are two aspects. The first is the concentration of risk in entities that are equal to or greater than a BB rating. That will cut from the market those smaller institutions that cannot make a BB rating. We welcome the Minister back into the Chamber. Many of those investment holders will move to larger institutions, primarily the banks. The big banks will increase market share at the expense of small companies. Big banks already hold 95 percent total market share, as reflected in the premium stream. That is the first aspect; that is one side.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe second aspect of concentration of risk is the source of the funds. Ten years ago, about the time I entered Parliament, inbound foreign investment to New Zealand came roughly equally from five sources\u2014Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Asia, and all others. Now 80 percent of it\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022478b67808ab244bcad13933cc06bcce2\u0022\u003EHon Lianne Dalziel\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I thought the Standing Orders require the Minister responsible for the bill to be in the chair when he or she is in the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c1c4fec1a45d4644be99e4bf97afa27c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: I call on the Hon David Cunliffe to continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0c1d4f8ed5240b4b79c930f9215c367\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you. We welcome the Minister to the chair. He has checked his numbers this morning and found they are still there, which is good. It must be a trying time for his camp, but we wish him well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ETen years ago investment was from five sources; now 80 percent of it comes from one source: Australia. That situation has pros and cons. The pros are that we are fortunate that the Australian banking system is the soundest in the world. A large share of the world\u2019s triple A rating banks reside in Australia. That is a good thing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3bc64010a1b441198fe5e3695ec776e\u0022\u003ECraig Foss\u003C/span\u003E: Most sound.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220965d389c4a4fb9a4b070c4b4089f6c\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: The Australian banking system is the most sound in the world, as my colleague says, which is to be welcomed. I am not going on a roo hunt here, but I am worried about strategic concentration of risk, wherever that risk came from. When one has all one\u2019s eggs in one basket, one becomes rather more dependent on the basket. The fact is that when 80 percent of our inbound foreign direct investment comes from one country, we run the risk of what they call in economics the marginal market phenomenon. They are much more important to us than we are to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EIn the banking inquiry a very interesting fact came to light, which was that approaching 30 percent of the book debt of the four big banks in Australia is now denominated in New Zealand dollars or New Zealand securities. It is the old phrase that when one owes the bank $100, one has a problem, and when one owes it $100 million, the bank has a problem. Surprise, surprise! Australia is starting to worry about the systemic risk of its investments in New Zealand. That is why in the last 2 weeks we have had the call from Australia, from Ralph Norris, to merge our regulators and to have the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority take over financial supervision in New Zealand, and we have had John Key fly the kite of a common currency. Make no mistake: when the Prime Minister says that we want to adopt someone else\u2019s currency, he is not doing it by accident. He did not wake up one morning with a rush of blood to the head.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022 data-id=\u00227054c4b0c01a468cb9906b4542eed857\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227054c4b0c01a468cb9906b4542eed857\u0022\u003EAMY ADAMS (National\u2014Selwyn):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002251082f2d1a9f48e3a08d9cf61ab37c30\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000057\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000058\u0022\u003EClause 2 agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000059\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000060\u0022\u003EBill reported without amendment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000061\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002271605ef3d9184078851c6d39de922a68\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u00229179e51a890d451dbb6c681634da706f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229179e51a890d451dbb6c681634da706f\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill be now read a third time. We have had a reasonably wide-ranging debate on the bill, and that was always likely to be the case, despite the fact that the bill does not have a lot of the detail of the scheme in it. The Committee stage gave members the opportunity to work through most of the substantial issues that had been considered in bringing the policy together. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe Opposition, in the spirit of cooperation around this particular issue that we have followed for the last 12 months or so, raised a number of quite reasonable points. I will respond in a very general way. A lot of the points that members of the Opposition made had merit. The Government made judgments on issues to do with coverage, pricing, and product exclusions based on the principle that we want to move back to normal market conditions in a reasonable time. I thank members for the quality of that debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI will just remind the House of the general principles that are driving this bill. First, we want to ensure that depositor confidence promotes system-wide financial stability. One of the advantages the New Zealand economy has enjoyed over the last 12 months is that it has retained financial stability. In part that is to do with the fact that, although they were vulnerable, our Australian banks were in good shape when the financial crisis came along. That was partly because of actions taken by the previous Government in installing the guarantees to ensure that confidence in their stability was maintained, and partly because the wide range of tools that the Reserve Bank supplied to the financial system enabled it to get through the period of crisis into a period, now, of relative stability. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe second principle driving this legislation is the need to minimise economic distortions and ensure well-priced credit markets. There is no doubt that the guarantee does create some distortions, and an obvious one is the fact that deposits into our non-bank deposit taking sector actually grew or have grown during the time of the guarantee. I think anyone would say that in the absence of the guarantee that might not have happened. We need to reflect on the fact that one of the reasons for the financial crisis was mispriced credit risk. That is why it is important that in responding to the financial crisis we do not perpetuate for longer than necessary distortions in credit pricing. It is really important that we revert to normal market conditions, where people who are making deposits and making investments are facing a realistic trade-off of risk and return. That is another principle behind the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe third principle is the need to do our best to ensure a viable non-bank sector in the future. A number of speakers through the Committee stage stressed a point that I think is important about how the four Australian banks dominate our financial intermediation. A large number of businesses and activities in New Zealand are not the natural customers of those banks, and therefore the non-bank sector is important. One of the principles is to ensure that the non-bank sector consolidates and rationalises itself in a way that means at the end of the guarantee we have places where people can go to borrow money for their ditch digger, truck, or other business need that a bank will not necessarily respond to. I would keep in mind, though, that because of that demand, it is likely that other players will come into the non-bank market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EFinally, we want to manage the Crown\u2019s exposure in terms of fiscal costs. Any institution that fails under this guarantee imposes a cost on taxpayers, and taxpayers deserve their interest in these institutions to be looked after with due care. That has ruled out options such as unilaterally or quickly withdrawing the guarantee in a way that could put taxpayers in the position of paying out hundreds of millions of dollars to institutions that fail. Those are the same hundreds of millions of dollars that we need to run our health services, police force, and schools, so we are keen to ensure that the Crown and the taxpayer enjoy the potential benefits of an uplift in the economy, where asset prices stabilise, where confidence grows, and where there is a realistic opportunity that these guarantees will not be realised. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022cc8b367148f24167959c7758f8aeb898\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cc8b367148f24167959c7758f8aeb898\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E It will come as no surprise to the public if I reiterate that Labour will be supporting this bill. We do so because we believe, firstly, that it is appropriate for us to have framework legislation that provides powers to the Minister to bring down policy in this area, and to regularise what was necessarily done by emergency or reserve powers under the Public Finance Act after Parliament was prorogued just before the last election. The process we are going through is broadly appropriate; therefore, we support it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EIt is right, as has been said by the Minister of Finance, who has just resumed his seat, that this has been a wide-ranging debate. It is right for two reasons. Firstly, as my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel has been at pains to point out, unfortunately there has been no select committee process, which I think is both unfortunate in itself and becoming a hallmark of this Government\u2014that it considers that the standard safeguards of democracy are somehow pliable or dispensable. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EWe have a regret that in consultation on this bill we did not perhaps make even clearer our concern that there should be an opportunity to more formally question officials, and to give members of the sector and of the public the opportunity to raise their issues, because although the Reserve Bank and Treasury have been talking to the institutions, that is far from the public view. So I guess we go into this third reading debate with an enduring sense of having missed something important along the way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI want to firstly recap briefly the Minister of Finance\u2019s summary of the justification for the bill, because I think he has encapsulated quite well the rationale. In recalling from our first reading debate, the broad scheme of this was that there were three options. Having got the scheme in place, we could go cold turkey and let it expire at the end of next year, we could have a limited extension with limitations around risk and distortion\u2014which is what the Government has chosen to do\u2014or we could transition gradually to a permanent deposit guarantee scheme, which would have some enduring advantages for deposit holders. That is something we believe that the Government, rightly, still has in consideration. We commend that work, and we look forward to a good bipartisan discussion on it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EWithin that the Minister has reiterated three rationales for taking the middle course. We think the middle course is the right course, but we have some questions about the nature of the rationale. The first one was system stability. Of course, system stability is important, and the Minister was kind enough to acknowledge that it was supported by the original retail and wholesale guarantee schemes that the then Labour Government put in place. I reiterate by acknowledging that it is also being supported by the strong presence of the very stable Australian banking system in New Zealand\u2014and that is to be welcomed. It was not caught up in the derivatives-driven mess of Wall Street in the northern hemisphere, and it does provide some of the largest share of triple A rated banks in the world. We are fortunate that our system does not suffer from financial stability risk. Where we part company with the Government on this point, however, is that an acknowledgment of overall stability should not be an excuse to turn a blind eye to second-tier risks and longer-term issues that will be of strategic importance to this economy down the track. Our responsibility is to provide not only for stability today but also for sovereignty tomorrow. It is in those issues that we believe a level of concern is shared by many New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe minimisation of distortion is important and we agree that part of the seeds of the bursting of the global finance bubble was in the masking of risk, through other instruments than we are considering today\u2014things like real estate - backed securities, collateralised debt obligations, and derivatives, which are a different story and not about this issue. But we agree that it is prudent to have some limitation around risk. The line has been drawn here at a credit rating of BB. We believe that there are arguments on both sides of the House. My colleague David Parker has been eloquent in setting out the pros and cons of that line and the fallout for members of the non-bank finance sector that by very issue of scale, as opposed to inherent portfolio risk, are either too small or cannot stand the transaction cost of getting rated. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe Minister responded that they have to anyway, for other reasons down the track. That does not change the fact that there will be fallout from that market, in addition to the fallout that has already occurred, and from that we will see a further concentration of that market. That is where we think the Government is on the weakest ground. We would like to have further discussion to help it out on this. The Minister said: \u201Censure a viable non-bank market\u201D. That is where we believe most of the risk is here. At the end of the Committee stage debate we were coming on to the issue of concentration of risk, not only by type\u201495 percent, in major banks\u2014but also concentration by source of funds, about 80 percent from Australia into our market, and by sector largely into real estate, largely fuelling the housing bubble.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThere are some huge issues there for Parliament, the Government, and Opposition to work together on in the public good to, first, avoid a further housing bubble and collapse, and, second, to avoid us becoming pawns in somebody else\u2019s banking game and to ensure that New Zealand has a diversity of sources of funds from many different lenders. We must do that so that we are insured against the marginal market problem\u2014that is, when you are a very small borrower from a very big person and that person does not need you. Of course, the irony is that latterly we are starting to see the emergence of a different issue in that Australia is looking at New Zealand and saying: \u201CGoodness me! You\u2019re about, or coming up to, a third of our risk pool, and you might be riskier than some of our onshore assets. We\u2019d like to take a closer look at your regulation.\u201D Australia might ask the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to oversee our financial system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EIt is there that we come, whether we like it or not, to longer-term questions of sovereignty. Those are the issues that, in addition to the pass through of interest rates, the parliamentary banking inquiry uncovered in the last several weeks, and we believe, on our side of the House, that that was an extremely worthwhile exercise. We had 50-odd submissions, despite the work of the Beehive to shut the inquiry down\u2014and I hate to be so harsh but there is no other way to put it. The Beehive tried to roll its own members to vote against the inquiry taking place, after the members had proposed a very worthwhile exercise in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. That was our first preference and where it should have happened. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI really want to thank the Green Party and the Progressive party for working very cooperatively in inviting all other parties in Parliament, but where was the M\u0101ori Party? It purports to represent people who have interests similar to Labour\u2019s own people\u2014the ordinary folk of New Zealand. We would have welcomed the M\u0101ori Party being there. Where was the ACT Party? It has clear views about financial regulation and speaks a lot of sense from time to time. It would have made a contribution. But oh no! The word went out from the Beehive: \u201CThou shalt not play.\u201D And the word went out from the Beehive to the boardrooms of the banking sector, and they stayed away\u2014some of them. Some of them, like Kiwibank in particular, and groups like Federated Farmers, the Manufacturers and Exporters Association, the Productive Economy Council\u2014and even the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern), goodness me\u2014had the courage of their convictions and said: \u201CWhether you like it or not, these issues affect our members.\u201D I commend them for coming along to the inquiry, and I am confident that with the further research that is going on, we will have a very substantive contribution to make to the ongoing debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, and coming back to the substance of this bill, this is framework legislation. It provides the power for the Minister to bring down by regulation, through the Gazette, the policy that he has announced in the last couple of weeks\u2014that is, to extend by 1 year the retail deposit guarantee scheme. In so doing we can understand that that is the middle option between three, and broadly we support both the process and the strategic option shown. But significant issues have arisen in this debate around the lack of consultation, the lack of public disclosure of issues, the concentration of risk, the fallout for the non-bank finance sector, the risks around the exclusion of collective investment vehicles, and, as the Opposition has been at pains to point out, the error, in our view, of allowing the major banks to opt out, when they represent 90 to 95 percent of the coverage, 90 to 95 percent of the revenue stream to the Government by way of premiums for this retail deposit scheme. The beneficiaries of the wholesale deposit scheme should be in the retail deposit scheme. That, in our view, was a strategic error. It will result in cherry-picking and it will result in a concentration of risk.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022 data-id=\u002200af0124d1724757839e40f1d8d9c32e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002200af0124d1724757839e40f1d8d9c32e\u0022\u003ECRAIG FOSS (National\u2014Tukituki):\u003C/span\u003E I am glad the House is finally on the third reading of the very good Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. First of all, I acknowledge the support across the House for the bill, and the contributions of members, particularly those of the Hon Lianne Dalziel in the Committee stage. She talked about the regulatory impact statement and raised some very good questions in and around it. I acknowledge also some of the questions of some of her colleagues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EOne point that kept being raised was why the bill was not referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I note again that the original decision made by the previous administration to bring in the retail deposit guarantee in the first instance did not ever go before the select committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f0e0e81aa934ed9a833404da5b02c15\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: Parliament was prorogued.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251c5202966954e27aed1371b1ba6ec4d\u0022\u003ECRAIG FOSS\u003C/span\u003E: It was an election period.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b247f7ffb76466f94fcc79372a3eb61\u0022\u003EHon Lianne Dalziel\u003C/span\u003E: Parliament was not sitting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022266b91db0f404319987b66d1a8b47f02\u0022\u003ECRAIG FOSS\u003C/span\u003E: That is quite correct, but, even after that, it did not go before the select committee when the new Parliament was confirmed. But there were plenty of opportunities for members opposite to ask the finance Ministers and Treasury at various stages, as part of reviews, about this particular question. In fact, many members did ask about it at the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EAlso, there are market sensitivities around this type of bill. I refer to equity prices and debt prices, and to whether an extension of the guarantee is assured, particularly for the lower-tiered and lower-rated institutions, which many members opposite say they are concerned about. Providing certainty as far out as possible is the best thing. I struggle to see why some members cannot see that. After the Royal assent\u2014let us say that occurs on 15 or 16 September\u2014any institution can voluntarily join and, basically, have the deposit guarantee for another year, subject to terms and conditions, and that will allow them to do term funding. As many members will have noticed, there is a wall of funding maturity occurring in October next year, and this bill starts to address that issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EThere is one thing I cannot let go. The previous speaker talked about risk, as did many speakers on the other side of the House. Under the previous Government, the most wealth-destroying regime in New Zealand\u2019s history, about $9 billion to $12 billion was wiped off the Crown\u2019s balance sheet. Members opposite should not get up, prophesy, and dictate to us about risk, when their track record is not very flash. The losses included $7 billion to $9 billion from superannuation, $2 billion to $3 billion from accident compensation, about $1 billion from the National Provident Fund, and $1 billion from the railways. Those members should not get up and talk about risk and risk management. Well, I guess they can, but they should declare what their track record is. Under the previous Minister of Commerce, depositors in various finance companies lost about $1 billion. That is not the individual\u2019s fault; of course it is not. Those members should not get up and dictate to the House about risk and risk management, when their track record is very, very shabby. I do not imagine that the previous Government\u2019s track record of risk management will ever be repeated for a long, long time. Certainly, in the history of this country it had never been seen before. About $8 billion to $10 billion was wiped off under the previous Government\u2019s watch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EA couple of points were raised during the Committee stage. Members opposite talked about the exit strategy\u2014how institutions will transition out of the new extension. They seem to forget that it is voluntary. How will institutions transition out? I go back to the original scheme. It would have stopped on 12 October 2010; it would have stopped, cold turkey, on 12 October 2010. Look at the funding maturity occurring in early October 2010. The scheme was to have gone cold turkey then. If this bill is not passed\u2014hopefully, it will be\u2014the scheme will stop, cold turkey. Liquidators and receivers will be in there by the dozen, simply because of the inability of the institutions to get themselves out of the current funding and liquidity trough. Members get up to ask questions about the transition phase, but this measure is the transition phase out of the existing rules. It is quite simple. It is prudential, it is common sense, it better prices the risk, and it is voluntary. I know that is a point the previous speaker has issues with, but it is voluntary. From the point of view of the Government, of the Crown accounts, this measure is a very good option. If the recession continues and/or worsens, it is there; it is virtually the status quo. If the economy improves, then the downside for taxpayers, who have underwritten all these liabilities, is very much diminished, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. In that context it is a very, very good transitional measure out for the taxpayers of New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EAnother speaker on the other side of the House seemed confused about what is insured. It is retail deposits under $1 million that are insured under the current scheme. Yes, the limit is going down to $500,000, but it is not the shareholders\u2019 equity that is insured. Yes, the scheme helps institutions, but it is not their equity that is insured. If we want to test that, we should look at the share prices of institutions, both in this country and in Australia, since the scheme came in and see whether they have gone up or down. Share prices have actually plummeted. Again, the shareholders\u2019 equity in those institutions, the asset valuations, are not insured; they have nothing to do with this scheme. It is deposit insurance only.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EMr Norman spoke yesterday and Mr Cunliffe picked up some of his points, as well; I guess Mr Norman will give another speech in a minute. Their solution seems to be to nationalise everything, to internalise all banking, thereby forgetting that New Zealand owes $130 billion to the rest of the world, and forgetting that in 2000 it was about half that amount. Those members are trying to forget the last few years of history. If we take the content of some of those speeches to their logical extreme, they think that if we fix the exchange rate, somehow fix interest rates, and bring in reserve asset ratios\u2014from the book of Muldoon\u2014then everything will be fine! It just does not seem\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ca9d224c3c84da99192ca31802f74f1\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: The Reserve Bank\u2019s doing it; it\u2019s called Basel II.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ac717d4ce4b43ffb1c0ea2f14fb07a0\u0022\u003ECRAIG FOSS\u003C/span\u003E: I note that the member who is interrupting has another solution, which is to potentially increase the tax rates on portfolio investment entities. He was quoted in the National Business Review about that recently. Is that a solution or not? I do not know; I am quite happy for the member to clarify that. I am sure I saw an article about it in the National Business Review recently.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EQuite frankly, given the track record of the previous administration, and the track record of many of the speakers opposite who had ministerial warrants or were associated with the finance part of the previous administration, for them to get up and dictate and preach about risk and risk management is very, very hollow indeed. The numbers do not stack up. I appreciate and agree with their concerns about the vulnerability of the New Zealand financial system, but when they start talking about our losing our sovereignty to Australia, and things like that, I look at the fact that we are continuing discussions that started under the previous administration. Discussions relating to the back office and the regulatory regime involving the Australasian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Treasury discussions, and ministerial discussions are all continuing. Those members should take pride in the fact that they started to try to coordinate the back-office and regulatory arrangements with Australia. Much of the legislation that came in under the previous Minister of Commerce in terms of non-bank deposit takers looked at what happens over in Australia. Members should take pride in that, rather than scaring the horses about something that just does not exist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022659f6556-09a1-4ead-bc52-05cbdb4eaab8\u0022\u003EThis is very, very good legislation. It is a transition out of a very awkward situation that all members acknowledge. I for one hope this country does not ever get into a situation where such a guarantee in such unusual circumstances is needed again.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022141367264cdf4732979004cef0e25283\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022141367264cdf4732979004cef0e25283\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Before addressing the bill it behoves me to respond to some of the comments made by the member who has just resumed his seat, the chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, National\u2019s Craig Foss. I would have thought that that revisionist view of history was beneath him. It is plain that when the last Labour Government took office Government debt was 39 percent of GDP. When we left office it was 17 percent of GDP. Net debt was virtually nil\u2014for the first time in New Zealand\u2019s history, I understand. So, far from leaving the books in a poor state, we left them in a very good state. During the period of our tenure New Zealand\u2019s growth rate was higher, on average, than that of Australia, the United States, Europe, and Japan. So on the growth front we did better, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EDuring the period of the Labour Government we built up savings to fund the future bulge in superannuation. We established what is colloquially called the Cullen fund\u2014the New Zealand Superannuation Fund\u2014which now has over $10 billion of savings in it to go towards superannuation in the future\u2014contributions to which, of course, have been suspended by the current National Government, which is another example of its mismanagement of the economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EMr Foss\u2019 contribution and criticism needs to also be reflected upon in the context of the fact that the Opposition is supporting this bill. I am afraid that Mr Foss, having served that up, will have to take a little bit back. The reality is that we expect judgment to be shown by the Government and judgment to be shown by the Minister of Finance. When he makes those sorts of accusations against us, I am afraid he will find it coming flying back, because the headline of today\u2019s paper shows that his Government is a Government without ethics\u2014\u201CFresh housing woes for English\u201D. Mr English was trying to line his own pocket, and he showed terrible misjudgement in his personal dealings in respect of something that was going to privately profit him. So the member should not come here and lecture us about ethics when there is that sort of thing on the front page, with the Minister in charge of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI want to return to the topic, which is the financial stability that is ensured through this retail deposit guarantee scheme. Mr Foss misrepresented my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe\u2019s comments about this being compulsory or voluntary. We have never suggested that it ought to be compulsory. The point he was making is that if an institution is going to pick up the wholesale guarantee, it should pick up the retail one as well. Otherwise we are saying that we need the guarantee for the big fellas who are lending to New Zealand from offshore hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, but ma and pa investors who are only investing $1,000 don\u2019t get the benefit of the guarantee. That is the point the Hon David Cunliffe was making, and it should not be misrepresented by Government members. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAnother own goal by Mr Foss was that he said the prior instrument was introduced without a select committee. Of course it was; Parliament was not sitting. Parliament had risen for the last election, so it could not go to a select committee. In response to that little faux pas, Craig Foss said, off the cuff: \u201COh, well, of course, it could have gone to a select committee straight after the election.\u201D He is right, but National was the Government by then, so how that was the Labour Party\u2019s fault, I am not quite sure. I think that is 3 nil so far to the Labour Party; they were all own goals by Craig Foss. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI return to one of the other issues that my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe touched upon, because it is a concern both he and I share. It relates to overall financial stability and the size of our financial institutions. I want to place on record, as the Hon David Cunliffe did, that we are fortunate to have a stable banking sector, in no small part because of the strong major Australian banks. I am not criticising them as entities, but their interests do not necessarily always coincide with New Zealand\u2019s interests. I am concerned that the fee structure and the limits to the ambit of the scheme are set out in a way which, again, prefers the big end of town. The major banks have a lower fee structure because, by virtue of their size and the scale of their businesses, they are more likely to get a high credit rating than a smaller financial institution. One of New Zealand\u2019s problems is the concentration of our finance sector in four main banking institutions. That is a long-term problem for New Zealand in terms of both the effect it has on New Zealand credit markets and the effect it has on our current account deficit through the repatriation of profits of those banks, the combined profit of which is bigger\u2014and correct me if I am wrong, Mr Cunliffe\u2014than the total profit of the rest of the New Zealand stock exchange put together. That is an enormous issue. The profits, in total, of the four big banks are more than the whole of the New Zealand stock exchange. Further cementing the advantages that those main banks have over smaller New Zealand competitors is not good policy, because it further entrenches that advantage and will see them grow their market share further. That is one of the distortions that is extended by this guarantee scheme. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EWe support the scheme because we do not see that there is presently a better option. We concede that we need a retail guarantee scheme, and we think it should be compulsory for those who have bought into the wholesale scheme, but otherwise it should be voluntary. But we think that the fee structure is in some ways wrong, in that a large Australian institution gets a lower fee structure than a New Zealand building society, despite the fact that the risk profile of a New Zealand building society is quite low. I think that that is a problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI am quite attracted to some of the writings of Hyman Minsky, an American economist who died about 10 years ago. He predicted some of the difficulties we have seen in financial markets around the world. There were two main parts to his theory. The first was that the longer the period of financial stability, the more risk taking we see on the part of financial enterprises. That is true. They forget the last cleanout, they chase a higher market share, and they want to justify the huge bonuses the chief executives get, so they embark upon more and more risky transactions. They try and get around existing regulations by doing transactions that are off-balance-sheet in terms of the regulator. He said that that means there would be a constant update of regulatory oversight, and he was right. That is one of the problems we have seen internationally. It allowed a lot of those large financial institutions to engage in transactions that were outside the regulatory package that related to their equity requirements, and therefore they were able to embark upon very risky transactions while pretending that they were low-risk institutions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe second part of Hyman Minsky\u2019s theory, which I think is also sound, is that financial enterprises ought to be of a size that reflects the size of the actors in the economy. He said that we ought not to be reliant on one, two, three, four, or five large institutions to an undue extent; we ought to have a healthy, competitive array of financial institutions, and they need to be in the bank and the non-bank sector. One problem this guarantee scheme causes is that some of the non-bank scheme is hampered. One of the reasons this ought to, in my view, have had a little bit more scrutiny is that, although the regulatory impact statement says that one of the problems has been to encourage more risk-taking investment\u2014because it has encouraged people to think that investing in finance companies is low risk because of the presence of the Government guarantee\u2014we have not had information as to what the deleterious effect has been on other parts of the non-bank sector. I know that many hundreds of millions of dollars\u2014if not billions; I do not have the information and I cannot get it because there is no select committee process\u2014worth of funds have fled from other parts of the non-bank sector that are not covered by the guarantee scheme. Rather than encouraging the spread of financial institutions and the growth of a range of financial institutions, including in the non-bank sector, the guarantee scheme has the effect of concentrating the size and the market advantage of our existing major participants, and that is not good. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI think that is a real issue for New Zealand for the future. It is an issue not just related to the current account deficit, but also to the control of the economy, economic sovereignty, and the proper functioning and efficiency of credit markets. We need more smaller institutions. Having said that, the Labour Party supports this legislation as being necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022 data-id=\u00222a3ea4dfbbfc41f1b6c54aad0ba022da\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222a3ea4dfbbfc41f1b6c54aad0ba022da\u0022\u003EDr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I stand to speak on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We think that it is essential to maintain long-term stability in the financial sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe only reason we are here today is because of the global financial crisis. The only reason we have to deal with this bill is because the \u201Cmasters of the universe\u201D, as they like to call themselves, just collapsed the global economy. The reason taxpayers have to underwrite the banking sector, both in wholesale and retail, and the reason taxpayers have to underwrite the global financial system is that the people who were running it collapsed it through mismanagement, poor management, and genuine greed. They collapsed the global financial system and, hence, collapsed the global economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EIn New Zealand we have a particular problem. Our problem is not the same as the problems that are found elsewhere in the world. Fundamentally, our problems revolve around the distortions that are present in the tax system and in the economic system that encourage investment in property rather than in the productive sector. That is the fundamental problem we have; it is quite different to some of the problems elsewhere in the world. New Zealand has a very specific problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003ESome of the evidence we received during the bank inquiry underlined that problem. I want to point to a few statistics around it. Over the last 9 months\u2014during 2009\u2014the banks have loaned another $3 billion into the housing market, which takes it up to around $165 billion. At the same time, lending by banks to businesses slumped by about $3 billion. Over the last 9 months of this year, lending into the housing market increased by $3 billion while lending to businesses decreased by $3 billion. To me, this epitomises the problem that we have. We have a banking system that is accustomed to and is entirely comfortable with loaning into the housing market. It is what it does well. But we do not have a banking and financial sector that is good at supporting New Zealand businesses. It is not as easy to loan to a productive enterprise working in the tradable sector as it is to loan on housing. The banks do not do it. In fact, over the course of the last 9 months of this year they have taken $3 billion out of New Zealand businesses and loaned another $3 billion into the housing sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe incentives around the financial system are wrong: we are incentivising investment into the non-productive part of our economy. The cost of that is enormous. The social cost is enormous. Housing is tremendously expensive in our country, and it is now very difficult for people to get into the housing market. Housing consumes a vast amount of people\u2019s income: they have to pay their mortgages and their rent. We have set up incentives that are not good for the New Zealand tradable sector or the New Zealand productive sector, and that, at the same time, inflate the housing market. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EIf we look at what those incentives are, we see that the incentives around the tax system, in particular, encourage investment in property. The reason is that by investing in property one can offset the losses on those investment properties against one\u2019s taxable income. One of the most commonly used mechanisms to do that is the loss attributing qualifying company. Losses on loss attributing qualifying companies increased from $750 million in 2003 to $2.3 billion in 2008. We have set up a system that is encouraging people to invest in investment properties, and use the losses on those investment properties, quite lawfully, to effectively offset their income tax, so the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab. People are doing it and banks are loaning into the housing market. We have a tax system that encourages the banks to loan money to people so that they can buy investment properties. They can then offset the losses on those investment properties against their tax. We have established a stupid incentive scheme. It is bad for the New Zealand productive sector. It is bad for the New Zealand tradable sector. In the long run, it is extremely dangerous to the New Zealand financial system to lock up billions and billions of dollars into an overinflated housing market. We have set up a bad system. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EIf we want in the long run to guarantee the stability of the financial sector, which this bill is ostensibly designed to do, and if we are serious about doing that, we need to address those underlying incentives. The Greens have been criticised because we want to change the tax incentives around housing and investment property, but I ask what the alternatives are. We currently have a series of incentives that encourage speculation in housing. We should change those incentives. We know what is involved. We know that we can introduce a capital gains tax, excluding the family home. We know that we can ring-fence the losses on investment properties. These policy measures are available to the Government if it has the courage to do what is in the long-term interests of New Zealand\u2014what the Government knows is in the long-term interests of New Zealand. It is worried about short-term political risk because it has a short-term approach, I guess. But one has to look at the long-term interests of the New Zealand economy. We cannot continue to throw all of our money into housing while businesses are starved of the money they need to make investments to support productive enterprise in our country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe tradable sector is under pressure constantly because the Reserve Bank tries to control inflation by increasing interest rates. The Reserve Bank should be cutting the official cash rate tomorrow. One of the concerns of the Reserve Bank\u2014and why it may not cut the official cash rate\u2014is what will happen to the housing market. If interest rates are low, then the housing market will start to bubble again, and it knows that is a problem for inflation. Why do we not have additional tools to target the housing market so the Reserve Bank can cut the official cash rate, make capital available to businesses, and, at the same time, target the asset bubble in housing so that more inflation does not come out of the housing market? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWe can adopt those tools; this Parliament can adopt those tools. It would be good for New Zealand businesses. It would be good for New Zealand households in the long run to have stable housing prices. We just have to have the courage to say to people that we know they have made legal investments in investment properties, and we totally understand why they did it, but the long-term interests of our country means we have to make the decision to ring-fence those losses and move away from that system we set up. It is in our children\u2019s interests, so that they can have affordable housing. It is in the interests of our children as well, so that they do not inherit a massive overseas debt that is being used to fund speculation in the housing market. We are handing over to the next generation a net international investment position of negative 100 percent of GDP. That is what we are passing on to the next generation. We have the choice to change direction. We have dramatically increased the level of overseas debt in order to fund housing speculation. We have housing speculation because of the tax rules. We can change the tax rules. It is within the power of this Parliament to act in the long-term interests of the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand people and change the rules. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EI call particularly on Government members to embrace their responsibility. Over the course of however long their term of Government is, they will never be in a more popular, stronger position than they are now. We can all read the polls. The Government is in a very popular, strong position. Government members should use that popularity and strength to do what they know is the right thing for the New Zealand economy. Even though they know some political risk is associated with it, in the long run they know it is the right thing to do. We all know it is the right thing to do. We cannot continue to borrow to pay the interest on previous borrowings. That is the route to destitution. A country that continues to borrow to pay the interest on previous borrowings is destined to have an economic crisis. We all know that. The Minister of Finance says it every day. We have the opportunity in this House to make the changes that we all know need to be made. I call on the Government to do the responsible thing and make the changes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003ETouching very briefly on affecting reserve ratios, it is true, as Mr Foss says, that in some ways it is an old-fashioned idea, but we have a specific problem. We need to look at reserve ratios, particularly loaning into the housing market. If it is a way to try to constrain the flood of foreign capital that is being channelled by the banks into the housing market, I think we should consider it. We have a major problem. We should not put things off the table just because they have been done before, and are associated with a former National Prime Minister. We should consider all options, because we now have a major problem. In order to protect our sovereignty, housing affordability for future New Zealanders, and the productive sector of the New Zealand economy we need to look at all of these measures in order to control that housing asset inflation so that we can get on and assist the tradable and productive sectors. This bill is part of that, and we will support it, but we need to go beyond the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022 data-id=\u00221b0c30cd0839470fa899c9c3525cc687\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221b0c30cd0839470fa899c9c3525cc687\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I start by addressing some of the issues raised by the Opposition about the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. Opposition members talked about the growth in the finance company sector as a result of the guarantee that was introduced last year. They said deposits into the finance company sector had been declining, but, following the introduction of the Government guarantee last year, those deposits had taken a turn and were now going upwards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EThe first point is that we need to acknowledge that it is good to have a very strong secondary market beyond the banks in the non-banking sector, and, to use the words of the Minister of Finance, to have someone to fund the diggers and the trucks. I ask Opposition members why they would not expect deposits to grow. Of course we would expect them to grow. Since the guarantee was put in place 12 months ago, for a 2-year term, anyone lending to a finance company was basically lending to the Government. People were lending to the Government for a period of up to 2 years; as long as their deposit did not go beyond, I think, 14 October 2010, they were lending to the Government. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EThe guarantee that was put in place did not actually cost most finance companies anything, because the guarantee was priced on a figure that was based on a margin over a company\u2019s loan book at the date, plus a 15 percent margin. If a finance company owed its depositors and equity holders $100 million and had invested $100 million, it was able to get the benefit of a Government guarantee for free, as long as its loan book did not exceed $115 million\u2014so, the base loan at the date the guarantee was introduced, plus a 15 percent margin. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI thought that the Hon Lianne Dalziel gave a very interesting commentary on this bill, and I accept her concern that it was introduced at a very late stage. The Labour Opposition has a genuine reason for expressing disappointment that it was not given copies of the bill earlier. But Lianne Dalziel talked about privatising the gains and socialising the losses. It was the guarantee put in place by the previous Labour Government that privatised the gains and socialised the losses, because although there was a need for a guarantee and although it was put in place because of international circumstances, it could have been priced entirely differently from how it has been. It would have been quite possible to put a pricing structure in place that had the finance companies paying for the benefit of what they got. In essence, the previous Labour Government gave a free gift to the owners of those finance companies. It was the Labour Government that ensured the gains were privatised. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI say that because within a day of the guarantee being put in place on that Sunday, on the Monday, I had emails inviting me to invest in various institutions. I was told the investments would meet the requirements of the Government guarantee, and I could invest in a particular institution and earn an interest rate of 7, 8, or 9 percent\u2014and many people did. The finance companies were flooded with money, and that is why we had a growth in deposits. Those companies would have moved to drop their interest rates had they needed to pay the full price of the Government guarantee. So of course there were distortions, and those distortions were generated because of the structure that was put in place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222647f6132ca94bc780a10501b483f99e\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: So were you against our guarantee? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228d76b2ff0614cbda791c81f9794ffbc\u0022\u003EJOHN BOSCAWEN\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am not against the Government guarantee, I say to Mr Cosgrove. What I am concerned about is the way that it was priced. If there was any reason to privatise the gains and socialise the losses, it arose from the way that the previous Labour Government priced the guarantee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003ELet me move on. The Hon Lianne Dalziel made the very good point that a lot of investors have absolutely no idea of the risks they are taking. I want to come back to an issue that I raised in this House last night, and to talk about one particular finance company. That company is Strategic Finance. That company went into a moratorium. It had its bondholders, its note holders, and its debenture-holders vote for a moratorium on 22 December, 3 days before Christmas last year. The company owes roughly $400 million to its debenture-holders and its creditors. On 15 July this year, Strategic Finance announced that it anticipated making a loss of $98 million, and that was reported in the New Zealand Herald. But the report went on to say that the loss might be bigger than that, as the company was still discussing its accounts and was yet to finalise them with its auditors. Strategic Finance stated rather surprisingly: \u201CIt is the Board\u2019s assessment that the provisional full year results have no impact on the forecast repayment of 100 cents in the dollar of principal and all interest to depositors, debentureholders or the prior ranking BOS International (Australia) facility.\u201D It announced what amounted to a loss of a quarter of its loan book, but it said that would have no impact. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003ETen days ago, Strategic Finance said the accounts were out, the auditors had signed the accounts, and it now looked as though the loss was $180 million. That is double the earlier anticipated loss. The company owned up to its investors and said it will not be able to pay out 100 percent of their invested funds to them. It said it looks as though the amount will be from 85 percent to 93 percent. If ever there was an example of investors slowly being let down, then this was it. On 22 December voting for a moratorium was held, where investors were promised that the base-case projection was that there would be full repayment of principal and interest. In July of this year they lost a quarter of their investment, and by the end of August they had lost half of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EBut the situation is worse than that. There is at least one transaction\u2014there may be more, but I have been advised of one\u2014where the money lent by Strategic Finance on a second mortgage was in two tiers. There was a priority second mortgage, and then the regular second mortgage. Part of that advance has been lent from funds raised from a privileged group of people who have prior rights to repayment of their money over other contributors to that second mortgage. That group of people also have prior rights to payment of their interest, so they have priority as to security and interest. I understand that some of the people who contributed to the top part of that second mortgage were still being paid an interest rate of 17 percent up until quite recently. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EThe tragedy of it is that the mums and dads, the people who do not comprehend the risk they are taking, the people whom Lianne Dalziel referred to when she said that such investors had absolutely no idea of the risk they were taking\u2014all those people\u2014rank in the bottom half of that second mortgage. Essentially, it is a third mortgage. The first mortgage is to the Bank of Scotland International, as the moratorium refers to; the second mortgage is to a priority group of people; and the rest is to the mums and dads, who will get what is left. When markets move down and a company says property values are dropping, I ask, who misses out? It is always the people at the bottom. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EI am very concerned that regular mums and dads, the investors in Strategic Finance, will get far less than 85c in the dollar. I say this because the trustee of Strategic Finance, Perpetual Trust Ltd, is now in the gun. It has to make a decision as to whether it moves to put Strategic Finance in receivership. If it chooses to continue with the moratorium, I believe that matter needs to go to a court. I believe Parliament needs to pass legislation to provide that a company cannot simply go for a roll over of its moratorium. There has to be accountability. Independent experts have to take a closer look at the projections, because, surprisingly, in the year to June 2008 Strategic Finance paid a dividend to its shareholders, yet 13 months later it said it had lost $200 million. Clearly, had those losses been known at the time, no dividend would have been paid. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002277ec6495-df45-43ac-aaa1-a03b5dd4c128\u0022\u003EThis area concerns me a great deal, because different classes of creditors voted on that moratorium proposal. People with priority rights would clearly have voted for a moratorium, because they would have voted to protect their own interests. I come back to the point that regular mum and dad investors\u2014many thousands of them lost their life savings\u2014in many cases did not understand the true risk that they were taking. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022 data-id=\u0022787a01db58df407293213a8ae9a84b40\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022787a01db58df407293213a8ae9a84b40\u0022\u003EAMY ADAMS (National\u2014Selwyn):\u003C/span\u003E It is a great pleasure to take a call in the third reading debate on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. I have sat in this House and listened to the entire debate on this bill. It has been very interesting, and there have been some very worthwhile contributions from all sides of the House. It certainly is good to see support from across the House on this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EObviously, in effect we are continuing the scheme that was put in place by the previous Labour Government in October last year while Parliament was dissolved for the election period. At that time the scheme put in place was to expire in October next year, but it is now very apparent that a longer-term transition is needed, so now we see primary legislation before the House to put in place a new scheme. But the reality is that it is very much akin to continuing the existing position, whereby retail deposits and bank and non-bank lenders can be guaranteed by the Crown. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EIn the debate there has been a very wide range of contributions, and some very big-picture analysis of the economy, risk, the banking sector, what went wrong, who is to blame, and where we should go from here. All these things have their place, but I am taking a short call to go back to the fundamental operation of the bill. Really it is about investor confidence and the stability of our sector. I think it is worth reiterating the point that my friend Mr Foss made so well in his speech when he said the bill is not about guaranteeing the banks or ensuring that they do not lose money. It is about ensuring mum and dad investors, those people who have put money into the banks, can have confidence that their money will be there when they come to get it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EThat confidence is important. It is important not only to look after the hard-earned money they have worked hard to save, but also to ensure that liquidity stays in our system, because those same deposits are then turned around and lent out to businesses and homeowners. Dr Norman talked about the difficulty for businesses in borrowing money. I am sure that is right, particularly at the moment. But if we do not have deposits, the banks will not lend. It is a pretty simple equation. That is why this system is so important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EIn this bill we have a system that ensures that any or all debt securities, as defined in the Securities Act, in an eligible entity can be guaranteed by the Crown. But\u2014and it is an important \u201Cbut\u201D\u2014that is only if the Minister believes it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to do so. I make that point, and I made it during an earlier contribution, because, even if the eligibility criteria are met, it is still up to the Minister\u2019s discretion to determine whether granting any particular guarantee is in the public interest. That is the overriding test here. It is not about what the institutions want and not about whether they want to be able to put it on their website; it is about whether it is in the public interest for that particular entity to be guaranteed and for those particular debt securities to be guaranteed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003EWe have a system that has a number of safeguards in place. It really makes it clear that the principle consideration in this entire system is the public interest. As I said, the public interest is about protecting the funds of the mum and dad investors, but also about the stability of our system. That stability has been more important in the last 12 months than ever before. If ever we have had to wonder about the stability of our banking system, now we know, first, that we have a fairly good system compared with the rest of the world, and, second, that that is crucial. It is crucial to New Zealand\u2019s ability to weather the worst of the storm and to come out of it, I will not say \u201Cuntouched\u201D, because certainly a lot of people have been hurt terribly in this recession, but in a considerably better position than we might otherwise have been. The bill is a good bill. I commend it to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u0022f3a87669bd37487abc636c15fdc0587d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f3a87669bd37487abc636c15fdc0587d\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E I, like a previous speaker, Amy Adams, have spent a fair amount of time listening to the debate on the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. It is correct to say that the Opposition is supporting the bill. The previous Labour Government brought in the initial guarantee scheme in October 2008. High priority has to be given to the security of investments and to the stability of financial institutions within an economy. That is a bedrock principle. The Opposition, though, in supporting the legislation, has raised a number of questions. If we look at the history of the initial guarantee scheme, which the previous speaker said rightly was put in place on the eve of the last election, we see that the overseas funding\u2014the wholesale area of banking\u2014was provided with a guarantee. Without legislation or regulation, the then Labour Government negotiated with the banks to ensure that those guarantees extended to the retail sector and to mum and dad Kiwis. There is always a lot of criticism over regulation and legislation. Ironically, this was an instance where negotiation occurred in extremely turbulent and volatile times and on the eve of an election. The banks, after discussion and agreement, actively participated in that retail space, and mum and dad investors had their deposits guaranteed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EThe argument that we make here is about the question of what would have happened if the banks had not agreed to participate in that retail space. Who knows? I suspect, as we have said in this debate, that it would have been unacceptable\u2014and it should be unacceptable today\u2014that banks are given a cast-iron Government guarantee without the Government requiring a reasonable price. By that I mean that banks participate in the retail end of the market. The Government has guaranteed, quite properly, for overseas interests and overseas financial markets that provide equity and funding to our banking institutions that if the bank goes belly up, then those international funds are guaranteed. Why is that? As I have said, those guarantees are necessary in times such as we live in now to ensure that the money\u2014if you like, the lifeblood\u2014flows through the veins of the financial institutions in respect of liquidity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EWhat is missing, therefore, is a price for that Government commitment. I disagree with Mr Gilmore when he says this scheme will not benefit the shareholders of the banks. For goodness\u2019 sake, as a man who purports to be the resident genius of this Parliament in the commercial and in every other non-academic and academic area, does he not realise\u2014[Interruption] Suddenly the National members are awake. Does Mr Gilmore not realise that any time a Government\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b9d5edbac5245be9c555cca6dc0bc21\u0022\u003EAmy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s very hard to stay awake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228db616c917d34d5c96ef3adf72914bf8\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E: National members chirp away when it comes to giving a wee bit of stick, but they do not chirp away when it comes to guaranteeing and supporting the average mum and dad Kiwi investor.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d765248b02b6461495dee6c9e030613e\u0022\u003EAmy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s what this bill is doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244cee97750744095bb52a996a622f272\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E: Oh no! Bill English, as the Minister in the chair, sat there silent, as if he were dead. He might be dead politically after today\u2019s headline, let me put it that way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003ENational members are very chirpy when it comes to having a bit of a dig, but when it comes to actually supporting mum and dad investors there is a deathly silence. Any time a Government gives a guarantee to a business or financial institution, that is a huge point of differentiation from any other participant in the market. If I am an investor and a bank has a cast-iron guarantee of the Crown behind it, of course I will invest in it before anything else. I could not lose, could I? Why would I not invest in a bank that has a Government guarantee? I would be in a no-lose situation. Mr Gilmore should whip back to Canterbury University and to the remedial class for the MBA programme in the economics department, dust off the textbooks, and have another go. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EThe problem in this debate is that the National members have reverted to type. They have backed the big end of town, but when it comes to mum and dad investors they have not required a high price from the banks, which is that they participate in the retail end of the market. We managed to do that not through legislation, regulation, red tape, or bureaucracy, but through partnership and negotiation. We put it on the banks. If they had not participated in the retail end of the market we may have had to look at other, more formal mechanisms. But we got their agreement to do it and, as a result, mum and dad Kiwi investors had their deposits guaranteed. International financial agencies\u2014lenders to our banks\u2014had their investment guaranteed, and, like our Australian cousins, we averted massive volatility, instability, and lack of confidence in our financial sector. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EThen we come to the progression of this scheme. As I say, we support the bill, but we raised yesterday and we raise again today the question of why the Government would not go to the banks and even attempt to negotiate their agreement to participate in the retail end of the market. What is the cost? The Government would not even get the banks in a room, as we did, and say that if it was going to put the taxpayers\u2019 money on the line to back them, they had to come to the party and back their deposit holders, the mum and dad Kiwi investors. The Government could not be bothered. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI raise that issue again because no one wishes for volatility and instability that could tip over a financial entity, as we have seen in the past, and put mum and dad Kiwi investments at risk. Nobody would wish that; nobody wants that. I accept that that is not the intent of the Government, or of this side of the House. But the problem still exists. Why does the Government give the big end of town a gilt-edged guarantee and not give the small end of town\u2014perhaps some of the young folks who are in our schools and who deposit money every day or every week through their school account\u2014a guarantee at the retail end of the market? I say again to Mr Gilmore that any financial entity that has a Government guarantee\u2014[Interruption] The voice has gone up an octave. Any agency that gets a financial guarantee has a differentiation point in the market. An investor cannot lose, so will back that agency. The share price will go up as a result. That is the point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI also make the point to the Government members that in respect of the eligibility criteria the Minister, as we know, has the authority to determine eligibility. The height bar for that eligibility is centred round the BB credit rating. Again I say to Mr Gilmore, who takes this view, that in order\u2014[Interruption] The voice has gone up an octave again; I am not sure which member it is. For smaller financial organisations, achieving a BB rating is not a matter of simply paying the money and filling out the form. These agencies\u2019 own financial and professional reputations are on the line, so they do not give out credit ratings just because financial organisations pay their fee. I am sure that the member, being the learned expert he is\u2014far more so than me\u2014will give us a dissertation on the intricate aspects of gaining a high BB credit rating. But putting the detail aside, we know that there is a cost. That cost can be marginalised, if you will, by a large financial institution, but a substantial cost is visited upon a small financial institution. There are huge responsibilities, which is as it should be, involved in gaining that credit rating. If smaller financial institutions cannot gain that rating, then the question is whether there will be flight in terms of investment. No one would wish this to occur, but it is worth posing the question of whether there would be flight in terms of investment from those smaller institutions, which would therefore create instability and the situation where they could fall over and where mum and dad Kiwi investors\u2019 money would be in jeopardy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EMembers on this side of the House support the bill, but we also put on record that we are concerned about the small end of town. Government members are concerned about the big end of town, and that is all they are concerned about.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022 data-id=\u002263a0a15b425e4268a323ad29a74382ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002263a0a15b425e4268a323ad29a74382ae\u0022\u003EPESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National\u2014Maungakiekie):\u003C/span\u003E I acknowledge the earlier speakers who have contributed to this debate. A number of issues have been raised and a number of questions have been asked. I acknowledge those who have made a contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003ERather than talking about the wider issues of the financial industry, we are talking today about the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill. As many members stated earlier, the scheme was put together last October with a degree of haste by the previous Government in its waning days. It was one of its last acts\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022657a5f350aa34a34be068e4e4f0d2678\u0022\u003EAmy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: 8\u00BD years, wasn\u2019t it, of waning?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e4079c671df488bbbd83031b9b32f05\u0022\u003EPESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014yes\u2014in Government. We stand to support the scheme. The scheme is about giving confidence, certainty, and stability to an important industry in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EI will touch on the views held by members opposite about the role of Australian banks in this country. From the diatribe that has come from some members across the Chamber, it would seem that Australian banks are big, nasty, evil institutions, but they are not. I put it to members that without the investment in this country from the four Australian banks, our economy and our businesses would not be as well funded as they are today. We have a long way to go in terms of funding and access to capital, but to paint the large Australian banks as evil institutions is, I think, a little bit rich coming from members across the Chamber. It is about our accessing capital in this day and age\u2014the electronic age, the Internet age\u2014when we can access capital from around the world.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EOne speaker referred to 80 percent of the flow of funds coming from Australia. Yes, it would be positive if that flow of funds was diversified around the world, but it is not, and that is the situation we find ourselves in. Our economy is inextricably linked with the Australian economy. We heard a number of points raised about the way that we align ourselves with Australia, and the way that we harmonise not just our financial industry but also a number of industries across our country with those of our Australian brothers and sisters. It is a positive to work with our Australian counterparts, and a ministerial delegation went across the Ditch in the last couple of weeks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EAnother point that was raised by my colleagues across the Chamber was distortions. Yes, there are distortions from this scheme being in place. There will always be distortions where there is any form of Government intervention in an industry. But to say that larger institutions gain the most benefit from this particular scheme because they have better credit ratings is to misunderstand the nature of credit ratings. The only financial institution that holds a triple A credit rating is not a US institution; it is a Dutch institution called Rabobank. Rabobank, as many members will know, is not the largest bank in the world. In fact, it is not even the largest bank in the Netherlands, where it is based. It is a bank that has a quality book, and that is what determines, ultimately, the credit rating it receives. Size and scale have nothing to do with the nature of one\u2019s credit rating.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EIt is about jobs, growth, and exports, and Labour members have to admit that exports have declined, year on year, for the last 5 years. I do not know how those members can complain about some of the moves that this Government is putting in place. It is about jobs, it is about growth, and it is about exports, and the scheme will go a long way to alleviating some of those problems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EFinally, the bill provides a transition away from the scheme. By December 2011 the scheme will expire. It is our hope, and it is certainly the hope of many across this country, that the economic recession will have subsided by that time. It is our hope that this type of scheme will not be required, and that the banks and the financial institutions will be able to go out into the markets, raise capital, and offer capital for our businesses to grow and expand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219bcf2ff-a193-4361-9072-813a4e36683c\u0022\u003EIn brief, I support the bill. I think it has much credibility in terms of bringing stability and confidence, and the right amount of investment in our financial institutions. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022 data-id=\u00227fd6cf025926447fb7f62bae9b0a8d8f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227fd6cf025926447fb7f62bae9b0a8d8f\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E I want to express some concern about the quality of the debate, and I do so reluctantly, having listened to the contribution from Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, the honourable member and councillor, who has just resumed his seat. The reason I am a little concerned about the quality of the debate is the way that this Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill is being dealt with. It is being dealt with under urgency, and I believe that bills such as this one should not be dealt with as a matter of course under urgency. There is a serious issue about legislation not having the quality of scrutiny that the public would expect in the circumstances. As my colleagues have said repeatedly, the Opposition is not in opposition to the bill as a matter of principle. The underlying desire to ensure financial stability at this time is obviously a desire that we support. But Treasury officials recommended that referring the bill to a select committee for 1 to 2 days would not be a problem, and they said that it would enhance what they considered to be a flaw in their consultation process because they were not able to have the degree of consultation that they would expect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI will say why referring the bill to a select committee for 1 or 2 days would not have made any difference. One reason is that it would not have held the bill up for a time of any great moment, and we still would have had the legislation in place 1 year before the expiry of the current guarantee scheme. We could have still met the timetable that the Government has set for the implementation of this legislation, so it was not an argument about the amount of time the bill would have spent before a select committee. Nobody on this side of the House suggested that it should go there for the normal 6 months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe advantage of sending it to a select committee is that members of the committee get to test assumptions. All of the decisions that the Government is making in this respect are based on assumptions that have been proposed by officials from both the Reserve Bank and Treasury, and it would be really helpful to the Opposition for us to be able to test those assumptions, to push back on some of them, and to have some serious debate about these serious financial issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe second reason is that we can work through the analysis that lies behind the advice. How are our assumptions formed? They are based on analysis that has been undertaken. I have some issues with some of the analysis that we have been presented with in the regulatory impact statement, but I will come to those in a minute. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe third reason why select committee processes are important, even if they are truncated, is that we can get answers about the balance between what the regulatory impact statement itself says was a line call between the status quo and the extension of the scheme, especially when the banks do not favour the extension according to the regulatory impact statement. These are serious matters, and they are reasons why, with a short period of reference to a select committee, we could have dealt with this bill through its remaining stages next week, also under urgency, and there would have been less opposition from the Opposition to the process. As I say, we are generally on board with the underlying principles. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThis brings me to the regulatory impact statement. I do not recall seeing such an extensive regulatory impact statement. Of course, those who know me will know that I tend to bang on about the quality of regulatory impact statements. Since we have had a Minister for Regulatory Reform the quality has actually gone down, but this regulatory impact statement stands out. It is the best regulatory impact statement I have ever seen, but it is not written in the bill. It is not included in the bill. All they did was put the executive summary in the bill and then publish the regulatory impact statement on the Treasury website. So, of course, I downloaded that over the dinner break yesterday\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222cd00823d0854fe3a60242c42013b576\u0022\u003EHon Simon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Of course you did!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267bf3fa9c1f644dda551a6f372d7a911\u0022\u003EHon LIANNE DALZIEL\u003C/span\u003E: Of course I did, because I like doing things like reading regulatory impact statements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EBut the thing that really upsets me is that the regulatory impact statement shows all of the reasons why we should have had a select committee process to work through all of the issues that it raises, and I want to go through those. I know that the Minister in whose name this bill sits, the Hon Bill English, is very famous for using the phrase \u201CThe devil is in the detail.\u201D I have found by going through the regulatory impact statement that the devil is indeed in the detail, some of which has not yet been determined. I wonder whether this is in fact going to be the last bill we see from the Hon Bill English before he resigns his portfolio, which I suspect will be very, very soon. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe regulatory impact statement raises the following issues: first of all, on page 4, we get the reason why the decision needs to be made now. The reason the decision needs to be made now is to \u201CProvide greater certainty to investors, and enable them to make sensible reinvestment decisions.\u201D When does the application have to be lodged by? It has to be lodged by 12 October next year, so the whole idea that this has suddenly got to be done a year out does not make sense when entities get a whole year to apply. It simply does not make sense. When we look further on in the report, we see something very interesting: most large entities already have credit ratings, so I would say that those that want to opt in are going to opt in relatively quickly. Entities in the process of getting a credit rating will not have certainty until they have received their rating, since the credit rating of BB or above is a requirement to be eligible for the extended deposit guarantee scheme. Under the new prudential requirements for non-bank deposit-taking institutions, credit ratings are required by 1 March 2010 for entities with liabilities greater than $20 million dollars. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EWhy not link the application to the close-off date for the non-bank deposit takers\u2019 credit rating requirements of the new prudential supervision arrangements? I do not understand why that is the case. That is why reference to a select committee would have enabled these questions to be asked and answered. So to say that the depositors will have the assurance they need is just nonsense, because we know that the assurance is in relation to the finance companies. Entities in the finance company sector do not get to do this until they have got the BB rating. The ones that are in the scheme at the moment do not all have BB ratings, therefore there is a period of time of uncertainty that does not link to this urgency we are seeing here today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe second point that the regulatory impact statement raises is the question of economic distortion. The point is raised in paragraph 26 on page 5 of the report, and I think that it really does identify the line call that the officials made when they made the recommendation to the Government: \u201CAllowing the DGS to lapse\u201D\u2014which is on October 2010, obviously\u2014\u201Cavoids the additional period of economic distortion.\u201D We have all agreed that economic distortion happens when we have a retail deposit guarantee scheme. \u201CMoreover, the DGS ceasing in October 2010 would avoid the possibility of firms using the longer DGS period to imprudently grow their retail deposit books, increasing the Crown\u2019s exposure.\u201D Actually, that is what this is about. It is about the Crown\u2019s exposure to the risk of failure, and the view that this would all collapse around the October 2010 deadline. We do get it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI guess that the real motive for the change is certainly spelt out on page 8: \u201CIf the DGS ceasing in October 2010 resulted in concentration of defaults in the lead up to the end of the guarantee period, then that could also lead to assets being realized over a short period, depressing asset prices and reducing recovery rates and so increasing the net costs to the Crown of the default event.\u201D That is perfectly obvious in the discussion documents, but we have not had this debate in the House. We have not had the opportunity to get that exchange happening that we would have had at a select committee hearing, which is my point. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EThe final element contained within the report is the option beyond the status quo, which is essentially to extend the deposit guarantee scheme under tighter terms. That is what the Government has been trying to say, but not saying very well. It is about easing the process out of the market so that we can return to a period where the entire sector is operating in a guarantee-free environment. We do get that, but I think it is really important for the House to remember that when we are dealing with issues of such substance, we really ought to have officials in front of the members of a committee so that there can be that exchange. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EOn that note, and as many of my colleagues have said, I say we are supporting the passage of the bill. Other considerations could have been taken up in the way the scheme is being developed, but I would like to hope that because this is framework legislation and the detail is still to be worked out, the Government will extend the cooperation we have extended both ways on a lot of finance company issues to engage with us on some of the detail about how the scheme might progress into the future. I will certainly be pleased to see the bill pass its final stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022 data-id=\u0022ff03d384084b4f4f8d730b1a4a0306bf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ff03d384084b4f4f8d730b1a4a0306bf\u0022\u003EAARON GILMORE (National):\u003C/span\u003E That was Lianne Dalziel, the previous Minister of Commerce in the Labour Government that oversaw a large number of finance companies lose, I think, about a billion dollars during the time of her reign. But I think I heard more validity and understanding of the finance sector regulations in that last speech than I did in her speeches in her entire time as Minister of Commerce. Some very good points were raised by the previous Minister of Commerce in that last speech. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EI will raise a couple of issues, including why this legislation is going through under urgency. It is pretty simple: the financial sector is unbelievably sensitive to information about changing a regulation. The financial sector is one where people have a good understanding of what goes on, and when we look at what has occurred we see that even Treasury\u2014in its great regulatory impact statement that Lianne Dalziel, the member over there, was speaking about\u2014talked about the need for urgency for this legislation. The finance sector needs certainty and surety in relation to this legislation being passed. Even the regulatory impact statement goes into some detail about the need for urgency. The previous scheme, which this scheme is replacing, was implemented urgently without any select committee process. Giving a number of days for a select committee process would only drag this legislative process out and remove the certainty the finance sector needs for such legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EI will touch a little on credit ratings. There have been a number of statements about credit ratings, and a bit of misunderstanding about what a credit rating is: what is in, what is out, and how people get one. I suffered here from statements from a member on the other side of the House who criticised my understanding of credit ratings. I will say two things. The first is that on 1 March 2010 all non-bank deposit lenders with assets of over $20 million will be required to have a credit rating\u2014all of them. That is existing law. Secondly, the reality is that, yes, for about $100,000 anybody can get a credit rating. Apart from that, people do not know what credit rating they might get until they go through a process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dc6c0f88-e781-476d-bca1-d1bf9b69302b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261c8ef5069da459c921bf1d2312f98d4\u0022\u003EAmy Adams\u003C/span\u003E: Like a box of chocolates.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230710d0decac42c4a1c8f37ab04598c0\u0022\u003EAARON GILMORE\u003C/span\u003E: Like a box of chocolates. When one goes through the process one might get A, AAA, B, BBB, or C, but one does not know until one goes through the process. There are very well defined guidelines and rules about what credit ratings are given to what entities, given their financial strength. That is well-known public information: to get the grade one has to go through a process that will cost about $100,000. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EWe also heard an outcry from the other side of the House about why we need to guarantee the banks. We believe that this regulation is needed to lubricate the wheels of industry. Lubricating the wheels of industry is very important. We heard from the Greens earlier today. Those members do not want to lubricate the wheels. They want to put a grinding halt on them and throw some sand in the wheels of industry. They want to control everything under the sun. What that says is that we would have no lending at all. I would look forward to that situation under that member\u2019s control. I do not think many members on this side of the House would want to be in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EWe also heard about the lack of consultation on this bill. Again, the grand regulatory impact statement stated that the Reserve Bank and Treasury have had large amounts of consultation with many players in the industry: finance companies, banks, and everyone else in between. I think it is remiss to ignore that consultation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EI want to talk about one more aspect, and that is the issue of the fees. That is linked to the issue of the credit rating. Obviously, the fee scheme we have here is risk-based. If one is riskier to the taxpayer the users will pay more. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EThe final aspect that I want to touch on is the aspect around whom this guarantee covers. It does not cover the banks and it does not cover the finance companies; it covers the people who give their money to the banks and to the finance sector. I think that is a good thing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fbe3f87c-849c-4eee-84cc-119edeb1a681\u0022\u003EAs the final National member to speak on this bill, I think I have outlined that there are a number of good aspects to it. Hopefully, it will be passed, and will give confidence to the finance sector. I think that is a good thing for New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022 data-id=\u002299415a17812847b2802c15c4fe2fff63\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002299415a17812847b2802c15c4fe2fff63\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme Bill in its third reading. It appears that there will be two things that will expire in October 2011\u2014the Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme, and, by the look of things, the National Government. Bring that on! As has been previously alluded to, the Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme was urgently put into place by the Labour Government for a number of social and financial reasons. The main financial reason, however, was to create a level of global confidence in the New Zealand banking sector through the provision of Crown guarantees, thereby allowing the level of liquidity required to allow New Zealand - domiciled banks to operate. Put more simply, the scheme allowed our banks to continue to borrow money when there was a risk that they could not. That risk was not good. Australia had instigated a similar scheme just the day before, I believe, and if New Zealand - domiciled banks were to be able to gain access to a very tight pool of global funds, the scheme was imperative. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EMembers will remember at the time\u2014a year ago\u2014global financial institutions and household names like Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Bank of America, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had either failed or were in the process of failing. They were huge institutions with enough leverage to cause the type of credit crunch that the world was beginning to experience. At this point we were not sure what depositors in New Zealand would do. Would they do what they had previously done to the finance companies\u2014namely, start a run on deposits caused by a crisis of confidence leading to a sector-wide collapse and near extinction? The scheme came into effect on 13 October 2008 and was to last for 2 years. Hence the reason we are in this House today debating the passage of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EAs I mentioned, and many of the Labour speakers have mentioned it, I have some concerns over the urgency nature of this bill, because I believe it favours the rule of money over the right of the people to have their say through the select committee process, which is a fundamental principle of our democracy. Of course, the dire and urgent circumstances under which the first Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme was implemented are markedly different from the state of the current global financial sector today. The reason the original scheme did not have its own legislation is simply that the House had been dissolved in the countdown to the general election, and, therefore, technically there was no ability to take this through the legislative route, but, most important, in October 2008 the world\u2019s financial system was in meltdown, and decisive action was required. That is why it was done in 24 hours and implementation was immediate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe times have changed. If nothing else, we now know the state of the global economic situation and this knowledge has allowed Governments around the world to put in place packages that have alleviated the worst of the effects of the global meltdown. That knowledge has allowed prudent banks, including those operating in the New Zealand market, to rethink their fundamental philosophies around the pricing of risk and the management of growth. That has allowed them to develop strategies that are in line with the state of the market as we now know it. Actually, we are now at the point where the large banks are currently analysing the cost versus the benefit of their participation in the retail deposit guarantee scheme. There is a price for participation. For example, a bank with $20 billion in retail deposits would pay around $15 million in fees per annum. That is more than the Government has cut from adult and community education in the Budget, which means that, for example, in Napier no high school will be running night classes in 2010. So the 6,000 students who took those classes in Hawke\u2019s Bay will not have the opportunity to upskill, socialise, or improve themselves personally or professionally. Our people in our communities are the worse for it. But that is another story. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThe reason that I bring up the change in circumstances is that this bill need not have been forced through under urgency. It could have had a very tight reporting-back time. As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, assuming that the bill had come to that committee, I would have been most interested in hearing submissions from all affected parties, especially submissions for the major banks\u2014except that the major banks are averse to presenting submissions. That is the irony of this bill. The major Australian banks have done very well out of this scheme, as have the New Zealand economy and New Zealand depositors. Do not get me wrong; I understand the value to the New Zealand economy of the big Australian banks. But the irony of this bill is that the banks have taken advantage of the scheme, but they have refused to appear before a banking inquiry to alleviate the fears and dispel the rumours about the current state of the banking industry and the way they are treating ordinary Kiwis in terms of the amount they are charging on short-term floating mortgage rates. I spoke to one of the bigwigs of one of these large banks and asked him why he did not just come along to the inquiry just to show and prove to Kiwis that in fact the banks are not ripping off ordinary New Zealanders, to dispel that rumour and dispel that perception. He said: \u201CCobber, you are probably right.\u201D, but it did not change the bank\u2019s stance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EAnyway, as I was saying, the true urgency has actually now disappeared from this scheme. It has another 13 months to run in its current form, and, therefore, there is enough time to follow the proper course for passing legislation. The Minister of Finance told us yesterday that he made a call due to the need for certainty. I accept the fact that financial markets operate optimally in an environment of certainty, but I would contend that we could still have afforded certainty 13 months out. I also ask, if this bill was important enough to rush through under urgency, why it was not on the Order Paper 6 months ago when we were debating the secondhand-car dealer bill or other legislation that, although important, perhaps did not have the same national interest as this Crown retail deposit guarantee scheme does. After all, this bill will protect over $120 billion in deposits currently held by the banking and non-banking sector. Did Gerry forget to put it on the Order Paper? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EThat Minister of Finance, coincidentally, was also the Minister of Finance during the last crisis of the 20th century. Most economic commentators and historians have concluded that he handled that crisis pretty badly. Coincidentally, he is still trying to implement 20th century stimulus packages, when the rest of the world has left Friedman behind and started limiting economic measures to those targeted at people who need them\u2014those on low and middle incomes\u2014instead of a third of all tax cuts going to the top 3 percent of wage and salary earners. Do members know that if a person earns under $40,000 that person receives nothing from the Government tax cuts? In Hawke\u2019s Bay that is around 75 percent of the population who receive not a penny in tax cuts from Mr English and the National Government. Anyway, I digress. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a028389c6c50443fa1e1f9dc699d5bbd\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: How much did Labour give in 9 years? They put their tax up for 9 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab23b48c053d490db352f56f2b315fa4\u0022\u003ESTUART NASH\u003C/span\u003E: That is very interesting, because I would say that the Labour Government was, in fact, the only Government in two generations that cut the corporate tax rate. And do you know what? Nick Smith voted against it. Nick Smith voted against a cut to the corporate tax rate. Goodness me! Anyway, I digress.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EAlong with all my colleagues, I support the substance, intention, and philosophy of this bill, but I reiterate my grave concern about the lack of any sort of transparent consultation with the wider community. In my view, meetings with Treasury and the Reserve Bank do not constitute wide consultation with the affected participants that make up the bank sector and non-bank sector, in all its many and varied permutations. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bbded2ec-ac25-4a73-a380-3f4d87693084\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022deee075c6aa6425292ed70f0a050f44d\u0022\u003EResource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225b5b798931c74093be455548ce061744\u0022\u003EProcedure\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u00227736739847334840a21920172828b6f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227736739847334840a21920172828b6f7\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E In accordance with agreement reached by the whips, I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to be a 5-hour debate, with members having an unlimited number of speeches of 5 minutes each, and for the provisions of the bill to be put at the conclusion of the 5-hour debate as one question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224933d514936a4db69861adbb4aac9918\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Before I put the leave, the notice in front of me states that it is a 4-hour debate. Has it changed to 5 hours?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa3a310b99a54d56b308e7dbadb83938\u0022\u003EHon GERRY BROWNLEE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df0d66a856b2478e9cb8695a5b6ac548\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002243991192fb3146d2967f2f282bb45e8c\u0022\u003ESecond Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022038c22d5b30b454e8e45ba967b5bcad7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022038c22d5b30b454e8e45ba967b5bcad7\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I would first like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered 840 submissions on this huge bill. The select committee did a good job on what is a very complex area of law, and in a tight time frame. The House should acknowledge the huge number of submissions received and heard by the committee, the long hours it worked, and the considered way that it dealt with a number of very contentious issues.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe bill was developed with the assistance of the Resource Management Technical Advisory Group, led by practitioner Alan Dormer, which I appointed last December. I thank that group for its hard yards, I thank the expert panel that was appointed by the committee for its assistance, and I thank the officials whose work on drafting the bill was done to a pretty challenging timetable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis Government was elected on a platform of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, and specifically on a programme to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act. Our focus has been on reducing the costs, reducing the delays, and reducing the uncertainties of the Act without compromising its underlying environmental integrity. This bill is about addressing the vexatious, frivolous, and anti-competitive objections that can add tens of thousands of dollars to the costs of ratepayers and consent applicants. This bill is about getting a single-step process in place to enable major infrastructure projects to get consent in a more timely way. We want to consign to history the notion that it takes longer to get a resource consent for a piece of infrastructure than it takes to actually build it. This bill is also about speeding up resource consent processing for smaller projects. I do not think there is a member of this House who would not know of a resource management horror story in his or her electorate. The Government wants to give council officials much more discretion when the effects of a resource consent are minor. We want to simplify the decision making, but we also want to hold the councils to account for processing consents in a timely way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe bill is also about improving the separation of powers that operate within the Act. Politicians, nationally and locally, make rules and laws, but it is for the courts and for independent commissioners to make decisions on individual consents. That is why, under this bill, applicants and objectors are being given the choice of having independent commissioners, and it is why Ministers in future will not be able, as we have seen occur in relation to restricted coastal activities, to overrule decisions made by independent commissioners or the Environment Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe bill also tackles the arcane bureaucracy of blanket tree protection rules whereby people have to apply for a resource consent to do none other than trim their own tree. The 5,000 consents in this area cannot be justified. I am sure that in the Committee stage we will debate those provisions some more, but I say that an underlying principle is that before a council restricts what homeowners can do with their own trees, the council should consult them and go through a process of listing those trees, or groups of trees, in a district plan or schedule.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe bill is also about improving the plan-making process, because anyone who works in the area of the Resource Management Act knows that it is only as good as the quality of the local plans. The bill also strengthens compliance with the Resource Management Act by upping the penalties for those who breach the Act. It provides that the Crown can be prosecuted like anybody else, and it provides for a wider range of enforcement measures.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI want to note a number of the changes that were made by the Local Government and Environment Committee. First, the committee has dropped the proposal in the original bill to do away with the non-complying activity class. It is my view that our Resource Management Act has too many activity classes and that adds to its complexity, and that if we were to start afresh, we probably would not have this class. However, given that we are 18 years down the track with this Act, the select committee had to weigh up the gains of removing that activity class compared with the costs that removing it would impose on the councils. I think the committee has fairly concluded that the provision is not worth its salt.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe most challenging job for the committee was the issue of plan changes, further submissions, and appeals. The changes made by the committee reflect just how hard this area of law is. People want their say, they want their cross-submission rights, and they want their appeal rights, but they all agree that the process is too cumbersome and slow. The bill contains some useful amendments, which will improve things in this area, but we will have to give this issue further consideration as we move into the Government\u2019s second phase of reforms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI particularly commend the committee for its work on timely resource consent processing. After the bill was introduced I received, and the committee studied, the latest report of the Ministry for the Environment on resource consent processing. It shows that in 28 percent of cases consents are not processed on time, and, worryingly, that does not even take into account the 31 percent of consents where the councils grant themselves extensions. What is of concern is that this situation has become worse with every single survey since 2000, and that there has been a ninefold increase\u2014ninefold\u2014in the number of times when councils grant themselves extensions. The select committee\u2019s changes in requiring the councils to report on the processing of consents, providing for a nationwide system of financial penalties, and restricting the extension of consent processing times are, in my view, a very strong step forward. I am confident that these changes will result in the more efficient processing of consents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI also note the committee\u2019s caution in respect of the changes to designations and notices of requirement, and where the decision making lies. This is a complex area, and in the second phase of reforms we need to take into account the select committee\u2019s conclusions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI conclude by making two points. First, the Resource Management Act is by nature a fraught area of law. We all believe we should be able to do whatever we like on our own property, but if our neighbour wants to do anything, we expect to have a say and to be consulted. This bill is about improving the balance by reducing the bureaucracy in some of the more arcane areas while maintaining the underlying environmental integrity of the Act. This bill will make a positive difference, but it is only the first phase of the Government\u2019s changes to the Resource Management Act. We have 10 important work streams going on in water, aquaculture infrastructure, urban design, further work on the Environmental Protection Authority, and work on the interaction of the Resource Management Act with forestry, with building, with conservation, and with the Historic Places Act. As well, further work is being done on some generic issues that could not be advanced in the time frame required of this first reform bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EAgain I thank all those involved in the hard yards of progressing the bill through to this point, and I look forward to the more detailed debate in the Committee stage. I am pleased to commend the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u0022caca2ef451344796bc9930eae4f211e4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022caca2ef451344796bc9930eae4f211e4\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tou katoa. It is a rather unusual feeling I have. As a youngster in the late 1980s I was a member of the core group, reporting to Sir Geoffrey Palmer, that wrote the Resource Management Act, along with Denise Church, Kathryn Ashley-Jones, and Joan Allen. That some 20-odd years later I have the privilege of sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee to work on improvements to the legislation shows that I am growing older, but hopefully wiser. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003ELabour will support this bill, but with some important reservations. Colleagues of mine will be addressing those reservations during the Committee stage, which with flair and a bit of innovation will prove to be a very focused and, I think, entertaining debate. Firstly, let me join with the Minister in acknowledging the work that was carried out by the officials. This is a complex area, and select committees are really only as good as the quality of the advisers, consultants, etc., and the actual clerical staff of the committee. The committee was well served during that period. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThis bill deals with a number of very deep issues. The first issue is devolution. We have a system, which this bill largely keeps intact, of enabling New Zealand citizens, through the agency of both regional and local government, to influence plans, policies, and allocation decisions that are made in relation to the environment they live in. I think that spirit of fairness, deeply rooted in the Kiwi personality, means they should be allowed\u2014and the law should sanction it\u2014a whole host of rights to participate, and, indeed, to go on and appeal those decisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EAgainst that right, which is what led to some of the more creative debates in our committee, there is the fear that 50,000 statutory consents is quite excessive. It represents a cost and a burden upon ordinary citizens trying to do things with their property, upon investors, and, indeed, upon others who fear that some of the decisions that are being made are not in the best interests of either the community they live in or the environment. As a Parliament this is a debate for us. Have we got it right? Ought devolution remain the exclusive basis upon which our major resource management decisions are made, or should they be moved to a level that some might argue is more efficient? We look forward to phase two. Yes, this bill is a simplifying and streamlining initiative, but the big business I rather suspect lies in phase two. I look forward, along with my colleagues, to receiving briefings from the Minister in that regard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003ELet us turn to some of the important innovations in this bill. The bill will create an Environmental Protection Authority. We do not know what it will fully do. We know that Gary Taylor has written a paper on the issue. I am not entirely sure whether that will provide the policy basis for the Minister\u2019s new Environmental Protection Authority. We on this side of the House have not been briefed and we do not know the final functions of this authority. But there is an awareness that if it represents a more efficient way of dealing with large, resource-intensive resource management decisions, then that is not bad. The fear, however, lies in local communities feeling that their local directly elected representatives are either being circumvented or being completely written out of the script. That is the first thing I would like to point out. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003ESecondly, there was a fear, and fortunately the select committee was able to address it, that people were going to lose the ability to contest a statutory decision on the basis of merit. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, along with the rest of us, a lot of these resource management decisions are not quantitative decisions alone. They are highly emotional and they are highly expensive, and people are making decisions not just on what can be counted, but on what can be felt. It was a pleasure to find that colleagues on the other side of the House, along with ourselves, agreed that New Zealanders ought to be able to contest environmental decisions not on the basis of black-letter law alone, but on the basis of merit or, dare I say it, virtue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThat was one of the key improvements in this bill. But that in itself is a reflection of how difficult it will be for any Government to buy into a corporatist approach of environmental management that does not allow local communities to continue to have their say. My colleagues from Auckland will be amplifying that message, no doubt, when we get to the children of T\u0101ne M\u0101huta, dwindling in number in T\u0101maki-makau-rau as we speak. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThere are three elements that we did not agree with. The first is the role of the Minister of Conservation in the coastal environment. For us, it is quite a simple issue. If I, as an owner of property, learn something is happening with my property I ought to be entitled to have a say, yea or nay, as to whether the proposed usage on such property should be tolerated. That will no longer happen. Once the Minister of Conservation as the putative owner, on behalf of the nation, of the coastal environment is written out of the script, the Crown will be reduced to the role of rule maker or regulator, not proxy owner for the nation. Not surprisingly, as the people who are still working through the detritus of an earlier attempt to deal with the seabed and foreshore legislation, we see a strong ongoing role for the Crown in that regard. We will have Supplementary Order Papers in that respect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe second point is notification. The only reason notification has loomed large is that it is the trigger that allows a neighbourhood either to learn or to participate in a decision that they rightly or wrongly believe will affect their quality of life. That is a fundamental tenet about where social democracy meets resource management. For those reasons we do not feel that the bill has the mix right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe third point, and obviously I have already referred to it, is the insistence by the current Government that while it is building a super-city for Auckland it will deny Aucklanders the ability to derive their own rules and regulations as to how they deal with that aspect of the local environment called trees. This is not just about the number of permits. This is a deep issue. It has resulted in the Government\u2019s forcing its will on the neighbourhood, the citizenry, and the broader community of Auckland as to how they want to deal with trees. The Government, through this bill, is depriving the Auckland elected local government people and their advisers of the ability to do that. But more on such matters later on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EAs I have said, Labour will be agreeing with this bill, but the big unanswered questions lie in phase two. We are glad that certain things have been tossed over to phase two, not the least of which is designations. Therein lies a great debate as to where social democracy ends and economic efficiency takes over. They are legitimate, hotly contested issues and there is no better place to have these arguments than in this House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe number of submissions was extensive, but, unfortunately, a number of them were driven by fear because the Government sought to compress far too much in the 100-day initial period of its reign. Had more time been taken and had a greater amount of resource been dedicated to the technical advisory group, the committee that tidied up the bill possibly would not have been so busy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EJust before I sit, I say that we experimented with an innovation in our committee time. We secured access to four advisers. They looked at various drafts of the bill, and I think both my colleagues on the other side of the House and, dare I say, even the Minister can see that because of the collective wisdom of these people, Judge Skelton and others, the bill is a better product, is more user-friendly, and will actually achieve some of the objectives that Kiwis want, which is the ability to make decisions in the most efficient, friendly manner to the environment and to their quality of life. Kia ora t\u0101tou.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022 data-id=\u002296d757b992fb44a294c00b823db59118\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002296d757b992fb44a294c00b823db59118\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National\u2014West Coast - Tasman):\u003C/span\u003E I am honoured to speak during the second reading debate on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. As chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I would firstly like to thank my fellow committee members, who considered 840 submissions on the bill. The committee heard 339 of those submitters during 68 hours of hearings. It was an interesting, dynamic bill to have before the committee, and I am grateful to all members of the committee, particularly to those who could bring to bear their experience in earlier practice associated with the Resource Management Act. All members and all parties certainly worked very hard to get the best result, and I can honestly say I cannot recall a single partisan issue being raised throughout the weeks and months of the committee hearings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EAs stated by the Minister for the Environment, the improvements made to the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill provide a useful reminder of how much can be achieved through solid engagement by everybody in the select committee submission process. This is a significant piece of work, and very serious legislation. I would like to also acknowledge the hard-working officials, and the assistance of the expert panel mentioned by the previous speaker, Shane Jones, in delivering a finely tuned legislative amendment back to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act is the core of our legislative framework, and with it comes all the heartfelt appeal of what makes New Zealand what it is today. It reaches into property rights, values, and culture. On the whole, however, it reaches the right balance between the economy and the environment. These amendments have not altered that balance, but they have looked at the processes under the principle that the Act balances. National, on coming into power, had strong support for amending the Act. Officials, the electorate, business, and communities supported our policy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EI am pleased to say that the bill as reported back is much improved. The Local Government and Environment Committee has reversed some of the headline proposals in the bill, especially those concerning plan appeals and non-complying activities and designations, and has made it more modest and considered legislation. Even so, it delivers a substantial shake-up to the Resource Management Act regime, and we can expect more changes from the phase two reforms. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EThe bill contained a number of contentious proposals, and the select committee decided that a couple of them would result in more costs than improvements, so changes have been made. However, there are many that we considered to be appropriate. In the light of the submissions received from both business and communities, the planning process remains intact, as in the original Act. However, this means that more considered work is required in phase two of the resource management reforms. Although there are improvements to the further submission process and decision processes, there is no single silver bullet to fixing the planning process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EThe select committee recommends some useful refinements. There will be new scope for combined regional policy statements and/or plans, which will encourage greater consistency and quality in plan making. Whole-of-plan reviews will be replaced by 10-yearly rolling plan provision reviews. Councils will apply the cost-benefit disciplines intended by section 32 of the Resource Management Act, and this is a helpful change. The 2-year time limit for councils to issue their decisions on plan submissions and the ban on whole-of-plan appeals should speed up decision making, even if in reality there will be little sanction on the laggard councils or determined litigants who frame their appeals to cover almost all the plans. Councils do not have to issue decisions on each and every submission. A single decision from the council is all that is required. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EUnfortunately, the bill presented to the committee will not fix the very significant costs and delays associated with the planning processes. These are the biggest headaches of the Resource Management Act, especially in regard to issues of regional resource allocation and management, where many councils are hopelessly behind. Typically, even modest plan reviews are taking a decade or more to complete. If we put that against 10-yearly review cycle plans, then plans will be outdated even before they become operative. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EThis is not to say that real streamlining and reform in the planning process area is not possible, but the problem is multifaceted and not open to a quick or even single solution. This will be the role of phase two resource management reform. Phase two now provides an opportunity to take a more rounded look at planning processes, and inefficiencies and their causes, in order to identify truly effective solutions. The committee looks forward to the next instalment in this regard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EAnother contentious proposal that has also been dropped is the removal of non-complying activity status from the plans. The committee\u2019s decision not to proceed with the proposed repeal of the non-complying activity category should also be generally welcome. The category was a very important model in protecting investment quality plans, and can be an important shield for major infrastructure or industrial activities against the risk of more sensitive uses being established near them, which is known as the reverse sensitivity risk. If the Government was starting with the Resource Management Act legislation again, it probably would not include non-complying activity as a consent category, but we are not in that situation and the provisions should stay. The retention of non-complying activity status means that councils will retain the ability to say no if development proposals with more than minor environmental effects are contrary to the plan\u2019s objectives and policies. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EA high-pressure change that was sought by many submitters that was not made was the removal of tree protection provisions in district plans from 2012. That is disappointing, and I am sure we will hear more about that issue as the bill proceeds through the parliamentary process. I would like to spend a bit of time on this provision, clause 52 of the bill, because I think people have their perceptions and their noses too out of joint on what is being achieved. The intent of the clause that relates to the removal of blanket tree protection rules and plans is to reduce cost and time spent by the community on applying for resource consents for relatively minor matters. Of the 50,000 resource consents that are applied for every year, 5,000 are for tree trimming or removal. They are applied for because of unnecessary tree protection rules in council plans. The cost on individuals is unjustified, the approach is blunt, and the law is lazy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EThe amendment bill as reported back from the select committee has quite rightly retained the provision of clause 52. Only a few councils have sought to put in place such blanket tree protection rules, but, really, when we think about it\u2014and I look forward to discussing this in the Committee stage\u2014almost all the consents are granted, so where is the problem? Why have the consents? Many cities such as Christchurch, the garden city of New Zealand, Hamilton, and Wellington do not have the same rules; they rely on protecting those trees of significance through scheduling them in the district plan. I also note that one council where the issue is most significant, Auckland, has supported the change. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EClause 52 does not take effect for some considerable time, by which time the councils will have had time to amend district plans and put in place non-regulatory means of encouraging residents to retain vegetation on their properties. The intention of these reforms\u2014simplifying and streamlining\u2014has been achieved, and the Minister for the Environment should be pleased with that outcome. In addition, the fast track for major infrastructure projects remains largely intact, so development interest should be satisfied. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EOverall, the proposed amendments can be seen as a win for the environment and a win for major infrastructure providers. I am pleased to have been part of a process that had a Minister who was prepared to listen and a committee that was prepared to shift ground where needed. All members of the committee got involved, shoulders to the wheel, and made the best they could of the bill before us. It was innovative on the part of the committee to include a group of specialists for a final look before we reported back on the bill. That was a most worthwhile exercise. This is a much better bill than when it started out, one that will simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022f26b29ab66474add8e7ee226f0a414be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f26b29ab66474add8e7ee226f0a414be\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E As my colleague the Hon Shane Jones said, Labour is supporting the passage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, with three main reservations; I intend to focus my comments on one of those reservations, clause 52. This debate should be dedicated to the Lorax, Dr Seuss\u2019s character who spoke for the trees. Someone has to speak for the trees in this debate, because the National-ACT Government surely will not. The contributions from the other side of the House could be dedicated to Ronald Reagan, the late President of the United States, who once said \u201COnce you\u2019ve seen one tree, you\u2019ve seen them all.\u201D, and that is pretty much the philosophy demonstrated by the National Government on this issue. The first thing to say about this is that it is a heavy-handed intervention by the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3ad74423dd9439a97a39cc155042a80\u0022\u003ENikki Kaye\u003C/span\u003E: Where was your minority report on section 52?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b351c38146a443dbdc849b9fb5bcd98\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: This is very, very interesting; I tell Miss Kaye that she will keep. This intervention by the Government is taking away tools from local government. This is the Government that says local decisions should be made by local communities. Is this not all a bit nanny State? As the New Zealand Herald said this morning in its editorial: \u201CRules governing the urban environment should be left for local councils to decide. The Government is grossly overstepping its responsibilities.\u201D Labour believes that local authorities should be able to choose how they protect the trees in their communities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act provides avenues for parties to alter plans to remove general tree protection rules if the community is unhappy with the status quo. The process of developing the district plan and the normal political processes of local government are designed to give citizens the political power they need to hold their representatives accountable and to determine the rules for how their community is developed. It is a fundamental principle of the Resource Management Act to provide for localised decision-making on local issues, a principle that this Government often trots out in this House. But this clause is an unwarranted intervention and intrusion by central government, by this National-ACT Government, in the affairs of local communities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWhat is next? Will the Government write district plans for councils? Is that what is coming down the track? Clause 52 is a kind of trophy in the Government\u2019s crusade against red tape, but what confidence should it give us in the quality of the Government\u2019s regulatory reform agenda? Is this the high-water mark of the Government\u2019s commitment to smart regulation\u2014regulation that preserves a careful balance between the public interest and private property rights? Actually, it is a case of wham-bam-thank-you-ma\u2019am, and to hell with the consequences for our trees and our communities. We should be improving the quality of our regulation, not taking an axe to environmental standards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EDo not tell me it is not possible to improve the tree protection rules; it is. The Minister for the Environment, the Hon Nick Smith, rejected out of hand very sensible compromise solutions prepared by Jeanette Fitzsimons, the former co-leader of the Green Party. The irony is that the Government says it wants to cut red tape, but the effect of clause 52 is to force a council to individually list every single tree it wants to protect. It is common sense that that would require an army of tree inspectors going around the suburbs and identifying and assessing each tree. It is obvious that that would be so expensive and so impractical that it will not happen. As the New Zealand Herald said this morning, \u201Cthe procedures of individual tree protection would place far more red tape in the path of protectors than the current rules impose on felling.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EHere is the rub: the Government does not care, because that will not happen. It will be too expensive for both councils and citizens. This Government does not care. It has ignored expert opinion from the arborists, the Tree Council, and numerous organisations that submitted to the select committee. Of those who submitted to the select committee on this issue, 78 percent called for the deletion of clause 52, but this Government is not listening. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe Government wants to frame this issue as being about trusting homeowners, as the Minister just said; opponents of this provision assume negative motives of property owners and only councils value trees. What pathetic nonsense! Does the Government think that Aucklanders are fools? Everyone agrees that most property owners and most people want to protect their trees. The point of the law is to protect the sensible majority from the rogue minority. We have so many laws in place that aim to do that, so why not apply the same principle to trees? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIt is especially disappointing that this provision throws out of the window any sense that big, historic, or valuable trees are a community asset that we all have an interest in protecting. On average, we stay in our homes about 7 years. In a real sense we are all the guardians of our properties for future owners. The law recognises that\u2014that our neighbours and the wider community have an interest in big trees, even if they sit on our private property. To again quote the New Zealand Herald: \u201CIt has therefore been deemed reasonable that the property owner should need the consent of the community\u2019s representatives before destroying a feature of its skyline.\u201D It goes on to conclude: \u201CThis is hardly a frightful interference with private property rights.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ENikki Kaye, the member for Auckland Central, has been in empathy overdrive in recent weeks as she tries to convince her constituents that she really cares for the trees. She did not care enough to front up to a public meeting in Grey Lynn, where 200 people were protesting this policy by the Government. She did not care enough to front up, and nor did any of her National Party colleagues. But Nikki Kaye wrote to her constituents \u201CI do have concerns about clause 52.\u201D Well, if she has concerns, now would be a good time to hear about those concerns. She says \u201CI am currently working within Government to see what I can do to allay those concerns through legislation and policy. I will keep you updated with the outcome of these discussions.\u201D I tell Miss Kaye that now would be a very good time to front up and share with the House her concerns, and what she has been able to do about them. We want to hear Miss Kaye\u2019s concerns. This is the second reading, and I challenge Miss Kaye to cross the floor and vote with this side of the House to support amendments to clause 52. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003ENational likes to say that 90 percent of councils, including cities like Christchurch and Wellington, do not use general tree protection rules, and that there is not problem with the trees in those places. I have a question for the Minister: how many new trees have been added to the schedule in Christchurch in the last 10 years?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a209a0b2448442992ef8ccd2ed793fc\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member has asked a question\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222ebf7efb9f4849e3b86dc224d3cfcbab\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d2f22df9916c45c68310181e1effe1e3\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: To answer the question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c68d31e0cf849528705ac393a0c3dfa\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, that is a debating point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220c6444f092494e2588def8adbe350637\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I will tell that member how many trees have been added to the list in Christchurch: zero. Not a single tree has been added to the list, because it is too complicated, too onerous, and too expensive. If clause 52 goes through unamended, thousands of trees across Auckland, many of them hundreds of years old, will be at risk. Developers will be able to clear-fell private property sites with impunity. There will be no mechanism in place for them to be required to do remedial planting. Trees that were previously saved from being chopped down will be the first on the list to go. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThink about the p\u014Dhutukawa trees that fringe our coastal suburbs. What tree is more symbolic of our environment? Who will stop private property owners and developers from taking a chainsaw to those p\u014Dhutukawas to get themselves an unobstructed view? The Prime Minister said that we will not see some kind of chainsaw massacre. That is an interesting choice of words. Councils can protect trees through individual notifications. The New Zealand Herald said this morning that if the Prime Minister believes that, he is dreaming. He is, in the words of his deputy, \u201Cbouncing from cloud to cloud\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u00229ec27940824d4ae1a58d0b2da9536afe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ec27940824d4ae1a58d0b2da9536afe\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is vastly different from the bill that came before the House in February. For that difference, I thank warmly the hundreds of submitters who took the trouble to come to the Local Government and Environment Committee. For most of them it was unpaid time; the bill would be much worse without their efforts. But that cannot disguise the fact that the bill\u2019s true purpose is to remove the obstacles of public participation from the path of developers wanting to make their money at the expense of the environment and other people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act has always been about how we resolve the conflicts in our increasingly overpopulated world between short-term economic gain and the long-term health of the environment that supports out lives. The Act, as initially written by Labour and passed by National, set out some bold principles. It was to enable people to provide for their economic and social needs while maintaining \u201Cthe life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems;\u201D\u2014even trees. That is the ecological bottom line set out in Part 2 of the Act, but these days it is hardly ever referred to. Meanwhile our biodiversity plummets, and the k\u014Dkako and the mohua head for extinction. Our waterways have become filthy, and our urban air will not meet World Health Organization standards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThere has been an incremental process since 1991 to weaken environmental protection under the Act and to weaken the powers of communities to have a say about the places where they live. And here we go again. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the attack on nature, even the little of it that remains in cities, than the proposal to end protection for urban trees. A city without trees is hot, dusty, shadeless, and ugly. It is a city not worth living in. But so often developers want to cram the maximum possible number of sections into a subdivision, and the trees are in the way. Most councils manage without blanket rules for tree protection, but the areas where we find them are areas of rapid growth, urban infill, high land prices that attract greedy developers, and where the community values its trees and wants to protect them, such as Auckland and the Kapiti Coast. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EIt is true that processing consents takes a lot of time and cost for the council. That is why the Greens proposed an amendment that allowed reasonable trimming, but not felling without a consent. That would have more than halved the compliance costs. But was the Government interested? No. We will move that amendment later today, but the Minister for the Environment, Dr Nick Smith, has already turned it down. Instead, he proposes to saddle councils with the time and cost of describing every tree that is worth protecting and scheduling them, and dealing with every submission that opposes scheduling a tree. That will be enormously more trouble than processing consents. Most councils will not do it or will leave out very significant trees that the community values. The Minister knows they will not do it. We will lose the green spaces in our cities, the shade, the habitat for birds, the dappled light, and the cooling in the summer heat. Where are the Bluegreens on this issue? Where are their proposed amendments to the bill? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe attack on community participation begins with the reinstating of the power of the Environment Court to require an objector to put thousands of dollars up front as a bond before he or she can be heard. The Government and the developers know the court will only do this in extreme circumstances, but community groups who are having their first tangle with the Resource Management Act do not know it. So it becomes a fearsome weapon that applicants use to deter local people from ever setting foot in court. Planning cases are not just arguments about competing property rights and whether someone\u2019s building blocks someone else\u2019s view; often they are David and Goliath struggles between well-resourced corporates with the best lawyers and community groups with little experience of the law who are running cake stalls to pay for some professional advice on how to protect the natural values of the places where they live. They do not need to be intimidated by the threat of ordering security for costs, even if it is unlikely that the judge would ultimately issue such an order. Such groups are to be further disadvantaged by the removal of their right, under section 274, to join an appeal brought by another participant. No big firm with full-time lawyers would ever need section 274, but volunteers with a day job and a family often find out too late what is going on, and section 274 has enabled them to join the action and to put their case by piggybacking on the submissions of other parties.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ELocal knowledge counts. When a goldmining company applied to build a mine in a tailings dam in the beautiful Waitekauri Valley near Waih\u012B, those who had lived there for generations told the hearing that the land was unstable. It had slipped before in extreme rainfall and could threaten the integrity of the dam and risk toxic sludge sliding into the Ohinemuri River. But they did not have the money to bring in expert geologists. The mining company did, and it found overseas experts to testify that the land was stable. A few years later, the land cracked and slipped so badly that it cost $20 million to stabilise it, and we still do not know for sure that it really is safe now. But the Minister wants to shut out these people with his changes, including the Supplementary Order Paper, which further raises the hurdle for public notification. I will expand on that Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe Greens also object to the removal of the role of the Minister of Conservation in consents for restricted coastal activities. These are high-impact activities carried out on public land in the coastal marine area for private purposes. The Minister is there on behalf of all of us who are joint owners to consider the wider public good of the coastal ecosystem that is under threat. There are undoubtedly areas where the local iwi should be in this role, and others where perhaps the power should be exercised jointly under a co-management regime. But we should not do away with the power of the joint owners of the commons to decide what can go on there. I am heartened that the select committee and the Minister think that the role of the Minister of Conservation and coastal planning should be examined again in phase two of the reforms. But when we look at the history of allowing the privatisation of public space against the wishes of most local residents, I am not too hopeful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI want to record again my appreciation of the 850 people who took the trouble to bring to the committee their concerns, their expertise, their knowledge, and their skills. I am pleased that with their help we managed to reverse the proposal to allow no appeals against plans and plan changes, because getting the plan right is at the heart of the Resource Management Act process. A poor plan will lead to poor consent decisions for years. It is the most important time for the public to engage, and the council cannot be left as the sole arbiter of what will meet the purposes of the Act. Likewise, the committee has restored the opportunity to put in cross-submissions if another submitter proposes changes with unwanted effects. Green members sought input on the removal of the non-complying category for resource applications from all the councils that appeared. They told us of the huge cost in workload to rewrite their plans, so this silly proposal has gone too. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI want to record the enormous help given to the committee by a panel of experts\u2014Professor Peter Skelton, John Hassan, Helen Atkins, and Ciaran Keogh, all of whom submitted on the bill\u2014who were engaged to advise us on whether the drafting reflected the policy intentions of the committee. They raised many issues that led to substantial clarifications in the bill. The purpose of this bill is supposed to be simplifying and streamlining. No one could object to that purpose. Yet the bill itself adds many pages and layers of complexity. There are now multiple routes to a centralised planning process that can be initiated by the Minister, the applicant, or the council, and that can pass through the Environmental Protection Authority or through the Minister\u2019s office, and that can result in either a call in to a board of inquiry or direct referral to the Environment Court\u2014all to achieve basically the same thing. The expert panel noted in its interim report to the committee that the bill, as it stood at that time, did not simplify and streamline, but rather complicated and confused those processes. We are indebted to the panel for its meticulous work with officials under great time pressure to remove many opportunities for misunderstanding and litigation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe environment needs more protection, not less, if the places we value are to endure, and if biodiversity, soil, water, and air quality are to be there for our children\u2019s children. Communities need more say, not less, about the nature of the places where they live, and of their landscapes, built environments, urban trees, coastal marine areas, and waterways. This bill will not help, but at least it will not hinder to the same extent that it would have done in its original form. The Greens will still be voting against it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022 data-id=\u002241754215d74244f8bff2abb7d8a10159\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241754215d74244f8bff2abb7d8a10159\u0022\u003EDAVID GARRETT (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak on the second reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. In years gone by\u2014or perhaps one should say centuries\u2014a man\u2019s land, as well as his home, was his castle. [Interruption] Or a woman\u2019s land, indeed, although I do not know whether many castles were owned by women centuries ago. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c8b2252275446f7a59a08479318a251\u0022\u003ENicky Wagner\u003C/span\u003E: They just did all the work. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6f015bf4a024bbfb0c4595e9d33a916\u0022\u003EDAVID GARRETT\u003C/span\u003E: They did all the work, yes, or some of it. There was a breakthrough in the 19th century. I say \u201Ca breakthrough\u201D because I am a member of the ACT Party, not of the Libertarianz. I do not believe that I should be able to put up a chemical factory on my lifestyle block because it suits me. I do not support the idea that anyone can do anything on their land. The first breakthrough in curbing the idea that a person\u2019s land was his or her castle, and therefore that a person could do anything on it, was a case called Rylands v Fletcher in the 19th century. Simply put, it was ruled that people who, I think I can remember from law school, brought filth, privies, or stenches on to their land were not permitted to do so if the natural course of events would see that material flow on to others\u2019 land. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EBut that principle has gone far too far. The Resource Management Act, originally written by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, then superseded a year later by an amendment Act that was twice as long as the original Act, has been inhibiting people for far too long. For far too long the Resource Management Act has been misused by too many people in order to get the results that they want, regardless of the costs to those who simply want to enjoy their property as they see fit. Those who designed the Act could not\u2014well, let us charitably hope they could not\u2014have envisaged that it would be hijacked by those who see any kind of economic development as taking us one giant leap towards extinction. Were those people around in the 19th century, they would have thought our ancestors were mass murderers. The reality is that without the hard work of our ancestors, we would not have an economy or a nation of any worth whatsoever. We would have lots of trees, but not much else\u2014and I will talk about trees in a moment. If we fast-forward from the 19th century to 2009, we can see that the Act is doing its best to choke out our entrepreneurial spirit. Every council and MP has encountered people who want to abuse the Act for their own ends. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003ELike, I imagine, all other members of this House, I have been besieged by a buzzing BlackBerry in the last few days, with emails from people who wish to see clause 52 be deleted from the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205115c84c14e44b0b510418e2aaa32f7\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: It was a chainsaw, not a BlackBerry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f1216ba524f4487ba493218a8efda90f\u0022\u003EDAVID GARRETT\u003C/span\u003E: They all think that there will be some kind of chainsaw massacre, as Mr Twyford has just suggested. I will give members an illustration of why that is silly, erroneous thinking. I live on a lifestyle block out in the country, and the very first thing we did when we moved in there, after we whacked down all the 4-foot high weeds, was to plant trees. Now, I am a right-winger. I am a supposed mad, right-wing maniac, but the first thing I did was to plant trees. I was not unusual in doing that. When my neighbour Nick bought his house down the road, the first thing he did was to buy 400 trees and plant them around his boundary. Now he has so many trees that one can hardly see his house. A bloke has just built a house down the road. I have not met him yet; he has been there only a short time. There are great piles of rubbish from the construction outside the house, but what was he doing on Sunday? Planting trees! The very first thing he has done, before his wife has even hung the curtains\u2014I am not allowed to say that; before they have hung the curtains\u2014was to get out there and plant trees. The idea that everyone will go mad with a chainsaw is just silly, like so much that comes from the party on the other side of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EThis amendment bill achieves a number of things. It gives the courts more power to punish those who misuse the Act\u2019s processes, and it gives people greater control over their own land, without giving them carte blanche to do anything. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EI wish to talk for a short time about the removal of the blanket protection of trees. It has been very interesting that among the avalanche of emails, some of them relatively pro forma in nature, that I have received regarding clause 52 of the bill, there are one or two little currants in the pudding that have said what a good idea it is. One that struck me in particular was from a person in the North Shore of Auckland who has a large p\u014Dhutukawa tree on her land. It is well past its best; an arborist says it is diseased. Various branches fall off it from time to time, and they have not killed anyone yet, but they have damaged a car. The tree does not even have much greenery on it any more, because it is too old. But, because it is a large p\u014Dhutukawa, that homeowner has to go through God knows how many hoops in order to try to remove or even trim it. She is still fighting that battle now. She is delighted at the inclusion of clause 52 in the bill, because she can finally remove an old, diseased tree that is doing absolutely no one any good, and that is not a feature or an enhancement of either her environment or ours. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EAnother example, I think coincidentally on the North Shore, is a tree that is poisonous. I think it was mentioned again in the paper this morning. It has taken a resource consent application, several hearings, 13 written submissions, and a number of reports to gain consent to remove a palm tree that was injuring people, and a shrub that has leaves that are lethal when eaten by children. If a city council\u2019s parks department has to jump through as many hoops as that, where does that leave the individual landowner? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003ESome people out there worry that everyone will, as I say, go wild with their chainsaws and chop down all the trees. In the eyes of what most people would refer to as the extreme green movement, trees have greater rights to live on the Earth than we do. Well, I am afraid I do not subscribe to that view, although my house is surrounded by trees and will eventually be obscured from view by them, I hope, like Nick\u2019s house down the road is. To the extreme greenie it does not matter much what sort of tree it is\u2014perhaps it is a native tree and it looks pretty\u2014because the rights of the property owner are trumped by others who remain unaffected if the tree blocks the owner\u2019s light or falls on his or her house. Mr Twyford\u2019s speech gave an example of that when he said that no matter what the circumstances were, a p\u014Dhutukawa should be preserved because it was a p\u014Dhutukawa. The example I have just given illustrates that that should not always be the case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EIn Auckland, if a tree becomes tall enough, the council effectively becomes the owner or custodian of it. Property owners cannot remove such a tree unless they get permission, no matter what damage the tree is causing to pipes, views, or physical safety. This bill, thank goodness, will remove that stupid law from the books. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EHere is one further example. It is the case of a lady called Alice Presley, who had a 14-metre high liquidambar tree\u2014which, to the best of my knowledge, is not a native\u2014on her property. For 10 years it caused no end of problems. Falling leaves made her driveway slippery, she had to spend $600 to keep branches away from power lines\u2014there was no choice in that matter; she was forced to do so\u2014and the tree was contaminating her water supply. Alice applied twice to the Auckland City Council for permission to remove the tree, and twice she was declined. As the landowner, she knew better than anyone the dangers that the tree posed to her property and health. So she cut it down. Good on her! As a result of doing that, she was prosecuted and sentenced to 180 hours\u2019 community work, as though she was some thug. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EIn removing the blanket protection of trees, this bill gives property owners a small level of trust and a small level of responsibility, which is something they should have always been allowed to have in the first place. Most people, contrary to Mr Twyford\u2019s opinion, are not mad axemen or mad chainsaw wielders; they like trees. Much more still needs to be done in order to restore some sanity to the issue of private property rights, and the ACT Party looks forward to the next round of reforms to the Act to deliver on that. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022 data-id=\u002222a9db4aa18c4dd4a2c120414f9d9645\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002222a9db4aa18c4dd4a2c120414f9d9645\u0022\u003ETE URUROA FLAVELL (M\u0101ori Party\u2014Waiariki):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora t\u0101tou katoa i t\u0113nei ata. I do not intend to use all of our allocation for the second reading to open up all of the questions in respect of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, but I will make some general comments in regard to the M\u0101ori Party\u2019s stand, and then I will focus on some of the things we want to put to the House by way of Supplementary Order Papers as we go to the Committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003EThe M\u0101ori Party is committed to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for everyone. Within this, we are committed to assisting wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi, as tangata tiaki, to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future good health of the environment. And so we welcome this bill to amend the Resource Management Act 1991, because of the two key words: \u201Csimplifying\u201D and \u201Cstreamlining\u201D. We fully support the intention to reduce costs, uncertainties, and delays, by simplifying procedures and streamlining appeal processes. At the same time, we realise that the penalties must be sufficient to discourage inappropriate practices. Those general statements put fairly clearly the M\u0101ori Party\u2019s position in general terms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003EI am advised there was a strong theme in the submissions from iwi to the select committee. They seemed to focus on the notion that the Crown guaranteed to protect the special relationship between tangata whenua and their landscapes and natural environments. It is a consistent theme. We are likely to hear it at many hui with M\u0101ori. A M\u0101ori world view would be that the Treaty relationship should be accorded respect in any aspect to do with environmental integrity. In fact, M\u0101ori spend so much time telling agencies about the need for respect for the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that some members might have heard about a new concept that has risen throughout the M\u0101ori world called \u201Chui fatigue\u201D. \u201CHui fatigue\u201D was expressed as an issue at the Sustainable Water Programme of Action hui, which closely followed hui on the foreshore and seabed, land access and aquaculture reforms, and the review of the Resource Management Act 1991, with Treaty negotiations also proceeding in some areas. For those unaware of what \u201Chui fatigue\u201D is, it comes from the notion, I suppose, of saying the same thing over and over again without actually being heard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003EAnd so we are here today putting forward four Supplementary Order Papers\u2014maybe more as we investigate the bill even further\u2014to ensure that the Treaty is acknowledged, and the implementation is secure, in any development of the resource management legislation. The M\u0101ori Party is tabling amendments to strengthen the role of tangata whenua in the Resource Management Act. The first of our Supplementary Order Papers strengthens and elevates Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions already included in the Act, and the second will enable hap\u016B and iwi to initiate a transfer of powers from the councils so that mana whenua can manage their lands, their waters, w\u0101hi tap\u016B, and other taonga.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003EThe Treaty of Waitangi is the basis of resource management law and practice, and it needs to be recognised as such. We want to ensure that local governments acknowledge the mana and authority of mana whenua. This will require robust and accountable work practices by local government and regional authorities when working with mana whenua, as well as a commitment to establish effective strategies for engaging M\u0101ori communities and advancing M\u0101ori representation. Issues around water must include mana whenua, including water rights and privatisation. Treaty claims to water ownership and interests in fresh water must be resolved in the context of the Resource Management Act, and to do so requires respect for Treaty provisions. So our amendments will strengthen the requirement for all persons to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi in the implementation and administration of the Resource Management Act. This addresses the concerns of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi that resource management appropriately reflects obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003EThe second set of amendments address the transfer of powers from the councils to hap\u016B and iwi authorities, which for some is probably a fairly radical move. These amendments will allow hap\u016B and iwi authorities to request a transfer of powers for them to manage their lands, water, sites, w\u0101hi tapu, and other taonga, when they determine that they are better able to meet the purposes of the Act. We think this is a pretty innovative line to take. Local authorities will be required to give full consideration to the matter, including completing a comprehensive evaluation of the request for transfer, reporting on the evaluation, and making the report publicly available. At present, hap\u016B and iwi authorities are not empowered to initiate a consideration of transfer of powers. It relates, too, to the need to strike the best balance between conservation and the use of natural resources. The law already allows councils to transfer their functions, powers, and duties under the Act, and our amendments simply take that one step further to specify that mana whenua can initiate a transfer of powers process, and if they decide to do so, the councils must seriously consider their proposal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003EThe rationale for our approach comes from the common call for a shared understanding about the relationship of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to everyday life. We believe that many so-called Treaty issues are community issues that are best handled through face-to-face discussion and debate at the local level between the people who are directly affected. There is nothing people need to fear when the Treaty of Waitangi is in discussion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003EThe third set of amendments we will be submitting to the House focus on the removal of security for costs and the reinstatement of the ministerial veto for coastal permits. These amendments reinstate the provisions of the principal Act whereby the Environment Court does not have the power to order a party to give security for costs. We noted in the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee that many submitters were opposed to the repeal of the provisions preventing security for costs, as it may limit public participation in resource management decision-making to those who are simply able to raise the security. We say that is unfair. The M\u0101ori Party also proposes that we reinstate the decision-making powers of the Minister of Conservation in relation to coastal permits for restricted coastal activities. The report of the Local Government and Environment Committee again revealed that many submitters, including M\u0101ori, were opposed to this amendment. The ministerial power of veto remains important to properly protect the coastal environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003EFinally, we will be putting to the House a set of amendments relating to projects of national significance, which could go to boards of inquiry and be subject to appeals to the High Court if needed. Some might suggest that these mechanisms make for more bureaucracy and hold up the process even further. But, on the other hand, we of the M\u0101ori Party believe that these protection mechanisms need to stay where they are to ensure that our place, the M\u0101ori place, is still intact if it comes to the crunch. This Supplementary Order Paper introduces a number of amendments to Part 6AA, which deals with proposals of national significance. Boards of inquiry will be required to include a representative appointed by mana whenua, and will also be required to seek the advice of mana whenua in any matter being considered, and to reflect that advice in any decisions and recommendations they make. Any draft and final reports produced by boards of inquiry will be required to be sent to mana whenua, and to any other relevant hap\u016B and iwi authorities. The Supplementary Order Paper will remove the limitation applied to appeals, so that appeals against decisions based on merit can be brought before the High Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003EI remind the House that the M\u0101ori Party believes in the efficient use of water, the conservation of energy, and the need for active environmental management. We certainly support the call for simplicity and streamlining, and our amendments are put forward in that context. We will be putting up further amendments to address clauses in the bill that hamper M\u0101ori involvement in resource management.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ec266512-9fe8-47da-883e-48f046ee5059\u0022\u003EIwi see the amendment bill now before Parliament as an opportunity to discuss some longstanding issues. As is our practice and our desire, we will be advocating on their behalf to ensure their aspirations, their voices, are heard. We support the second reading of this bill at this stage, pending the discussion on the Supplementary Order Papers we will be putting before the House, and we reserve our right to vote against the last stage. Kia ora t\u0101tou.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022 data-id=\u00229fd20e7a91314fc5a6f4ee09688ba936\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229fd20e7a91314fc5a6f4ee09688ba936\u0022\u003ENICKY WAGNER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I am enormously pleased that the bill has finally come to the House. It has been a long haul, but it has been a very important, interesting, and worthwhile process. I will echo others in thanking everyone, including the submitters, the two advisory groups, officials, Crown Law, and the Local Government and Environment Committee members, who have all worked hard on the bill and added value. The bill is very different now as it comes out of the select committee process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EThe promise to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act was something National campaigned on before the last election. We promised to deliver a bill to the House within 100 days\u2014and we did. The bill is phase one of a significant reform of the Resource Management Act that is ongoing. However, the Resource Management Act will still be the principal statute for protecting and managing natural resources in New Zealand. There are no changes to the purposes or principles of the Act, and no reductions in environmental protection. The bill provides for significant improvements to the implementation of the principles behind the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EOver the past 18 years that the Resource Management Act has been in place there has been increased criticism from all parts of the community\u2014from environmental groups, local government, and businesses\u2014about slow and expensive planning and consent processes. There are absolutely no benefits to the environment from heavy-handed bureaucracy, lengthy delays, and expensive legal arguments. In fact, the length and expense of planning processes have often meant that the environment has suffered. The average time taken for a council to produce a full plan is over 8 years, and when it requires several million dollars to be invested it is not surprising that plans are often too inflexible to deal with environmental issues as they arise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EThe bill provides a suite of amendments that will make plan-making more effective, more efficient, quicker, and less costly, but it does not compromise the intent of the Resource Management Act, which is strongly supported by New Zealanders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EThe bill has now been through a very robust select committee process. As we have heard today, there were over 800 submissions, and we heard nearly two-thirds of submitters. We worked long hours and we worked well together as a committee. After hearing submissions, we have made significant changes to the bill. The key provisions of the bill include the establishment of an environmental protection agency and improved processes for proposals of national significance. The bill provides for a one-step consenting process for resource consent applicants and notices of requirements for designations through direct referral to the Environment Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EThe bill introduces provisions to deal with the longstanding problem of the Resource Management Act being used for trade competition purposes. The new measures include the introduction of mandatory damages, rather than discretionary damages, when a party seeks damages against a trade competitor. This will increase the deterrent effect. The bill also reinstates securities of costs. It is true that many community groups were concerned about this provision because they felt that it may have excluded them from participating in environmental decisions. However, when we reviewed court decisions from the past, when the provision was in place, we felt that judges had used it with discretion and that genuine environment groups with genuine concerns were not disadvantaged. It may be that environmental groups need more information about the provision so that they can work with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EAfter listening to submitters we have several provisions that we will not be proceeding with. We will not be removing non-compliant activities and we will not be limiting appeals on plans to points of law. We have deferred changes to decision making for designation until the next phase. Again, after hearing suggestions from submitters, we have also amended several of the provisions of the original bill in order to improve their outcome.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EThe bill is better as a result of there being much debate and a robust select committee process. The major areas of contention have been worked through successfully by the committee, and modifications have been made. Only a very small number of differences of opinion now remain. The bill will streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act, but let me make it very clear that it does not compromise the intent of the Act or reduce the level of protection of our magnificent national environment and natural resources. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00225fb5f69558a74c4998e446e915e8af34\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225fb5f69558a74c4998e446e915e8af34\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to talk on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to place on record my view that the Resource Management Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country. It is obviously important that we protect the environment and protect neighbours against industrial intrusions in residential zones. That is achieved through the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe Act is cornerstone legislation. When it was passed by the previous National Government back in the 1990s, having been designed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer in the prior Labour Government, it was world-breaking legislation. It has stood the test of time. It is now 18 years old. It was passed in 1991; it is now 2009, so it is 18-year-old legislation. Although it is in need of a bit of an update and some housekeeping, which this amendment bill largely achieves, the underlying principles of having environmental legislation that regulates activity according to its effect on the environment remains sound. That is the underlying principle here; we ought to be preserving the environment so that subsequent generations inherit an environment that can sustain them in the same way as the environment has sustained us during our lives. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe principles of the Resource Management Act remain sound. There was a lot of talk by the National Party before the election. One would have thought the Resource Management Act was why New Zealand had some sort of poor growth rate. The reality was that during the 9 years of the previous Labour Government New Zealand had a higher growth rate, on average, than Japan, the United States, and Europe, and an average that was on a par with Australia, which is one of the strongest economies in the world. So the idea that somehow the Resource Management Act was an enormous handbrake on economic activity is something that this side of the House has never accepted. I think history will show that after the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is passed, New Zealand\u2019s growth rate is not all of a sudden going to jump as a consequence. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThere has been a lot of exaggerated rhetoric from the Government as to the importance of the bill in economic terms. Having said that, I think the bill makes some wise changes. I am very pleased that the Local Government and Environment Committee, with the agreement of the Government, has changed an issue that I spoke of in the first reading debate, which was the limitation on the ability to participate in appeals against plan changes. The fundamental rules that we reply upon in our cities, towns, and provinces relate to the rules that are effectively in the delegated legislation that is promulgated under the Resource Management Act. That delegated legislation is the district plans and regional plans that are produced by district and regional authorities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAs originally promoted, the bill severely limited the rights of citizens to appeal against changes to plans. In fact, there were going to be limitations to appeal only on matters of law, which would have excluded the ability of people to appeal when they had a matter of substance, a matter of fact, that they wanted to challenge. That would have been the most egregious change to the Resource Management Act and it would have severely undermined the effectiveness of the Act to properly protect the environment. So I congratulate the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because I think he has made a wise decision to keep appeal rights in respect of plans. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThere are a couple of negative points that I must mention. The first relates to coastal permits. This was another of those dog-whistling issues where the Government said that it was somehow improper that the Minister of Conservation retained the right to veto coastal permits. These are developments that are proposed in the coastal area. If there is a development on private land, the private landowner can effectively veto it by saying that it will not happen on his or her land. In respect of public lands, there is no private owner, so we are reliant on an arm of the Government to exercise that right on behalf of us all. The Government is standing in the shoes of the citizens of New Zealand to control what happens in that coastal space. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe provision that allows the Minister of Conservation to veto proposed developments in the coastal area is but another example of the landowner, or the seabed owner in this case\u2014or the person who has custody of it, even if he or she does not own it; given the foreshore and seabed debate, I should be careful that I do not talk about ownership here\u2014controlling what happens there. The person who is effectively the proxy controller on behalf of us all in respect of that space is the Crown, and the person within the Crown who exercises that right of control is the Minister of Conservation. So it is quite proper that the Minister of Conservation has the ability to veto proposed developments in the coastal space. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThat ability to veto is not unconstrained. Principles of law have to be applied by the Minister of Conservation when exercising the discretion of whether to veto a proposed development. We have seen cases in recent years where the decision of the Minister of Conservation was overturned by the courts because the courts found that the Minister had improperly exercised that discretion. That does not mean that the rule that allows the Minister of Conservation to veto certain developments should be completely done away with. In fact, that court decision shows that there were proper limits on that right of veto anyway and that there was no need for more intervention from Parliament to remove that right of veto. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI for one think that it is sad that we are saying that the Crown no longer exercises its right to control what happens in that public space, because I expect the Crown to look after that public space. I expect the Crown to let me veto what happens on my land, but I expect the Crown to make similar decisions on behalf of the people of New Zealand in respect of the public space in, for example, the coastal marine area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will raise another issue, which is the fact that under urgency we are considering this bill and we also have Supplementary Order Paper 39, which is 45 pages long. I hope that Dr Nick Smith has the decency to smile in respect of this issue, because that Supplementary Order Paper in relation to the size and complexity of the bill is two or three times the size of the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of the emissions trading scheme that we considered last year. I do not know whether Dr Smith can remember as far back as that, but if he cares to reflect on the Hansard, he will note that he was here criticising that Supplementary Order Paper as being a constitutional outrage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EA couple of comparisons should be made. For a start, the proportionate length of the Supplementary Order Paper here is far, far longer. The second point to be made is that when we produced the Supplementary Order Paper to the emissions trading scheme legislation, we made it intelligible for people by producing a redline version, with struck-out provisions in redline, highlighting the changes that were made in the bill, whereas with the bill now before the House we are effectively blind as to what the effects of this legion of drafting corrections to the bill are. We are told that there are no policy changes and that they are matters of technical drafting. Well, I have to say that if these are not policy matters but are matters of technical drafting, then it points to pretty slack and sloppy practice on the part of the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d56a6ee6e4bb44b4b86d92e9577cbeec\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: He was going to change all that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002246fe662236a54c17a8581b0b580bd048\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is right; Dr Smith said that would never happen on his watch. Not only is it happening to a greater degree under this National Government but also it is whacking the bill through under urgency. We did not pass the emissions trading scheme under urgency. We used the normal processes of this House and, to aid members, we showed them that the amendments were merely technical and not policy changes. We produced a tracked changes version of the bill to show how those amendments were to be incorporated. We do not have the advantage of that good process on this occasion. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI also mention a concern about notification rules. The Resource Management Act changed the old status quo under the Town and Country Planning Act. Under the Town and Country Planning Act one used to have to prove what was called status, in legal terms, before one could turn up and exercise one\u2019s rights to participate in planning processes. The Resource Management Act changed that and essentially gave people who thought they were interested parties the right to turn up and have their say. The Government not only is trying to constrain that through the reintroduction of rights in respect of security for costs, and there are arguments for and against that, but also is going further. The Government is saying that in terms of the notification process that precedes the ability of people to know whether something is happening and, therefore, to take an interest in it, it is changing the onus. It is changing the rule under the Resource Management Act that stated that on the balance of doubt, notify. If there is any doubt, one should notify.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022 data-id=\u0022650c0d05267947fd8b6296a9da376f41\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022650c0d05267947fd8b6296a9da376f41\u0022\u003ENIKKI KAYE (National\u2014Auckland Central):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. The Resource Management Act came into force in October 1991 and replaced or amended more than 50 other laws relating to town planning and environmental management. This complex statute is designed to help manage a wide range of issues including conflicting values, expectations, and rights with regard to the environment. In the 17 years since the Act became law there has been criticism of the legislation\u2019s ability to effectively manage complex environmental issues, and complaints about slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EThe purpose of this bill is to begin to redress the balance of environmental protection versus economic growth. The key message that I want to get across is that sometimes this can be a very delicate balance. Overall, I think that this bill will improve the legislation, but I have raised some concerns, particularly about trees, as people will be aware, and I look forward to a robust debate on that issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EWe are delivering on our promise to streamline the Resource Management Act. For too long it has imposed unnecessary cost not only on businesses but also on communities; I have seen this in my electorate. The main purpose of this first phase of Resource Management Act reforms is to reduce the time for processing consents and reduce the paperwork required without compromising our obligation to our environmental heritage. We are here because we know that the uncertainty and delays of the current Resource Management Act are adversely affecting New Zealand jobs, infrastructure, and productivity, and they are causing economic frustrations for homeowners, small businesses, farmers, and community groups. The bill before us cuts across aspects of the principal Act to simplify and streamline processes such as developing and making changes to plans, making decisions on proposals of national significance, preparing and implementing national instruments, resource consent applications, decision making, and the penalty regime. Other than in relation to processing applications for proposals of national significance, the roles and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are not defined in this bill. They are to be expanded upon in the next phase of the Resource Management Act\u2019s reform. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EI thank all the members of the public who made submissions on this bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee considered 840 public submissions, with 339 submitters appearing in person. As a result of the select committee process, significant changes have been made to strengthen the provisions to ensure the timely and efficient processing of resource consents. The reason this is needed is that the Resource Management Act biennial survey for 2007-08 showed that only 69 percent of applications were processed within the statutory time frames. The bill includes changes to limit rather than remove further rounds of submissions on plan changes, and to strengthen the process for national consenting and national environmental standards. It also defers the changes around requiring authority decision-making to the broader phase two process. Overall, as I have mentioned, a sensible balance has been struck between reducing bureaucracy and ensuring proper process and environmental protection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EI will cover a couple of key important aspects of this legislation, including proposals of national significance, the Environmental Protection Authority, and, of course, trees. The bill seeks to streamline processes for matters of national significance by providing more clarity and certainty around the board of inquiry process and by improving the process for consenting nationally significant proposals. Matters of national significance could include applications for resource consent or change in resource consent conditions, local authority plan changes or variations, requests for plan changes, requests for preparation of regional plans, and notices of requirements associated with a proposal of national significance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EThe other key aspect of this bill, which a lot of people are looking forward to and have come to me to talk about, is that it seeks to establish an Environmental Protection Authority. The full powers and functions of the authority are to be considered in phase two of the reforms, as mentioned by a number of speakers. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EWe now come to trees. Firstly, I acknowledge the consistent approach of the Green Party on this issue, particularly that of Jeanette Fitzsimons, who has worked constructively on this issue for a long period of time. I acknowledge the hard work that she has put into this issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022603ae58e-47c4-46f9-bfc8-8355a48988ad\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238a4f5722fa64f2d83bd8272eacb0108\u0022\u003EHon Dr Jonathan Coleman\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022edab51f75ad74a46b28ce33e0848f42e\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order, Jonathan Coleman.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221d4fc1a7ee44496998460cfc30ba068a\u0022\u003ENIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: For the Labour Opposition to suddenly be concerned about this issue\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e98bbf9e0cbf4eacbcac6977547b90b8\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Order! I am on my feet, and I have called order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022603ae58e-47c4-46f9-bfc8-8355a48988ad\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e868e60c94a8451fb59fc0717adc6c35\u0022\u003EHon Dr Jonathan Coleman\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the barracking has got out of hand. Members are here, wanting to listen to this speech. Occasional interjections are fine and are in the tradition of the House, but I think there is an attempt over there to break up this member\u2019s speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229376c82658d241839525dcee4a03ec9c\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: I would have some sympathy for the member\u2019s point of view had there not been a barrage of interjections from the seats just in front of the member. There has been quite a robust exchange, but the point is made: interjections should not be to the detriment of the speaker speaking. The person wants to be heard. I invite Nikki Kaye to continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220dc3826ed7f449be8b8f3abea0e0b506\u0022\u003ENIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: For the Labour Opposition to suddenly be concerned about this issue is absolute politics. I want to use the \u201Ch\u201D word, but I will not. Members on that side of the House\u2014including Mr Twyford, Mr Hawkins, and Mr Jones\u2014supported the tree provisions and failed to put in a minority report on this issue. There is no minority report. They are not interested in the policy; they are interested only in politics. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EI personally believe that the current system of tree rules is fraught, and has led to individuals and councils spending excessive time and money on resource consents for trees. Most people, environmentalists, community leaders, and local authorities believe that the current system is not working. The question needs to be asked: how do we fix it? I believe that it is reasonable for individuals to be able to prune and trim their trees without getting resource consent, which is what this law change will achieve. My concern lies in Auckland, and it lies specifically with the ability of local authorities in Auckland to adequately protect high-value trees via scheduling. Ironically, with the reforms in Auckland governance, scheduling may become easier, with one system for tree scheduling in the future. However, rather than politicking on this issue, I have been working with the Minister regarding my concerns.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232ecfae2639548129794707a6674ea2e\u0022\u003EJeanette Fitzsimons\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We sometimes find in the House that men with very loud voices are able, despite the lack of microphones, to completely shout down women who are speaking, and I think this is such an occasion. I am not trying to shut down interjections either, but in my view this has gone a bit too far.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eadc991de5f7488db05b7bad01d9b561\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: I could hear the member from here. I could hear her well. She appeared to be coping quite well. I think the sexist implications from that member are regrettable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aad478ba23b64323b8a27dce9358e281\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Regrettable or not, members are entitled to their opinions, and this is a place of free speech. They are entitled to express their views strongly and robustly. I think that is a fair enough point. A point of order was raised before by the Hon Jonathan Coleman about the noise, and as long as people can be heard I am reluctant to stop interjections. I thought that I had left a hint for some members to ease back a little, but it was not taken. Before I invite Nikki Kaye to continue with her speech, I say to people that interjections are fair enough but not such that they drown out the person. It was getting very close to that point. Interjections are fine, but they should not drown out the speaker, who is entitled to be heard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c43f83f1b4cc4010a48a389c7eeffba9\u0022\u003ENIKKI KAYE\u003C/span\u003E: I reiterate that Jeanette Fitzsimons has worked very constructively on this issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003ERather than politicking on this issue, I have been working with the Minister for the Environment with regard to my concerns. The question I have specifically put to him is that if this legislation is passed, how can the people of Auckland have confidence that between now and January 2012 high-value trees and areas of bush will be protected through scheduling? I have asked the Minister how he can ensure that councils will undertake this work in a consistent, efficient manner at a reasonable cost. I know that in the Committee stage the Minister will set out how he will ensure that Aucklanders can have confidence that tree scheduling will work in Auckland. I choose to work constructively with local authorities and the Minister to ensure that that will happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EExcept for my reservations with regard to clause 52, I think that this bill will help to redress the balance between environmental protection and economic growth. Overall, this bill will be good for New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022 data-id=\u0022c350a430b8ac4694925f4fc85246fd3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c350a430b8ac4694925f4fc85246fd3b\u0022\u003ESU\u2019A WILLIAM SIO (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Talofa lava and kia ora t\u0101tou katoa to members of this House. The member who just spoke, Nikki Kaye, said that she was concerned, and she is right to be concerned. I have here copies of over a hundred emails that have come to me from Aucklanders expressing their outrage about a particular amendment in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Many of the people who have sent emails are from Auckland, and at the very top of the list of people they have sent emails to is the name of that particular member, so she needs to be concerned. The big question that people from the Auckland region will be asking her is what she will do about the particular amendment they are concerned about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003ELabour voted in favour of this bill during its first reading. The reason was that the bill could advance to the select committee process, thus providing the public with the opportunity to participate by way of public submissions. National rushed through the first reading of the bill, and Opposition members had fewer than 24 hours in which to consider the detail of the bill at its first reading. So it was important that public consultation take place, and it was important that Opposition MPs were given the opportunity to more fully consider the potential merits, or otherwise, of a large number of the proposed amendments, as outlined by the Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Labour expressed some real concerns about the detail of a number of those provisions. We also expressed our willingness to work constructively with the Government to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act, provided that the proposed changes did not undermine environmental protection and public participation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003ELabour members extend our sincere appreciation to those who took the time to give evidence to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this important bill. There were over 840 submissions and we heard directly from about 339 submitters. Other submitters were heard via teleconference. Although there was support from obvious quarters for the Government\u2019s proposed amendments, the bill received significant criticism in the select committee for poor drafting and the introduction of unnecessary amendments, which were described by submitters as confusing and too complex. I, like other MPs in this House, continue to receive emails from individuals, community groups, and small businesses, outlining their strong opposition to particular amendments in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill by this Government. Later I will share with the House some of that feedback. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act is a balanced piece of legislation, which provides for sustainable development, local participation in decision making, and protection for the natural and physical environment. Labour is generally supportive of ongoing moves to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act. Labour will support measures that reduce unnecessary costs and the delays and objections motivated by trade competition. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThe bill underwent significant changes during the select committee stage, which highlights the haste with which the Government put together the changes to this significant Act. Although Labour supports improvements to the bill, it does not support proposals that will rebalance the Resource Management Act in favour of development at the expense of environmental protection and public participation in decision making. Labour believes strongly that we should not allow New Zealand\u2019s environment to be degraded. Although we support streamlining the consent process, we do not support removing the safeguards for protecting the environment. New Zealanders are rightly proud of our \u201Cclean, green\u201D brand, and there are strong views in the community that the Government simply cannot be allowed to ram through its pet projects without adequate public input and scrutiny. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EOne of the principles that undergirds the Resource Management Act is the principle of community participation. The Resource Management Act is about making sure that development is enabled, but also that there is collective responsibility for the management and development of valuable natural resources and our beautiful environment. The Resource Management Act permits this by allowing communities and individuals to get a chance to have their say in the development of their local areas. It is important to ensure that communities and people that are adversely affected should be able to have their say. In fact, the Minister said in the first reading of the bill: \u201CNo changes are proposed to the purposes or principles of the Resource Management Act. I believe that those principles are sound.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003ELabour agrees that the principles of the Resource Management Act are sound. However, we believe that there are three key areas that, if the Government were to go ahead with them, would undermine these sound principles and ultimately undermine the democratic rights of local communities, their rights to participate in the local decision-making, and the need to protect our environment for the benefit of not only present generations but also future generations. Labour does not support the changes to the way resource consents are notified. Labour does not support the removal of the Minister of Conservation\u2019s decision-making powers in relation to restricted coastal activities. Labour does not support the prohibition of district rules that allow local authorities to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. Labour is concerned that the removal of the presumption in favour of notification will undermine public participation and the ability of local communities to be involved in decisions that affect them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThe bill raises the threshold of affected parties to narrow the scope of parties that need to be notified. It raises the threshold for effects on the environment before a local authority needs to notify an application. The committee received about 395 submissions on this proposal, and 75 percent strongly opposed the change. The main concern of submitters was that the changes would reduce public participation. The removal of the Minister of Conservation\u2019s decision-making powers in respect of coastal consent for restricted coastal activities will lessen the environmental protection of the coastal area under the Resource Management Act. The Minister of Conservation\u2019s decision-making powers allow the Minister to advocate for the public interest on proposed coastal developments. These powers provide an important environmental check on proposed coastal developments. Eighty-three percent of submitters on this amendment strongly opposed it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003ELabour does not support the prohibition of district rules that allow for the general protection of trees. This proposal undermines local decision-making powers and the ability of communities to determine development in their area. Local authorities should be left, through their elected representatives, to make their own decisions about the protection of trees in their communities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EI want to share with you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and with members of the House some of the concerns that have been shared with me, and I suspect with many other members of this House. I have here an email from Amanda of Auckland. She says she is standing up to those who think they are king. She expresses her concern and asks that clause 52 be deleted. She says that we need to \u201Cretain the existing tree protection provisions and seek to meaningfully engage with local communities in respect of any modifications of existing tree protection rules.\u201D I have an email here from Tony of P\u012Bh\u0101, who says that he lives overlooking the valley of all the old p\u014Dhutukawa that line the hills. \u201CEvery tree that I can see from here is on private land. If clause 52 of the proposed Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill goes through, they are all at risk.\u201D Tony\u2019s request is simple: \u201CPlease delete the clause and talk to the communities about what level of protection they would like to see.\u201D I have here an email from a Dr Andrew of Mairangi Bay, who says: \u201CI request that you delete Clause 52 \u2026 retain the existing tree protection provisions and seek to meaningfully engage with local communities in respect of any modifications of existing tree protection rules.\u201D I have one here from Wendy of Auckland, who says: \u201CTrees are an important part of the landscape and provide oxygen to the environment, and hold the surrounding land together more than we might think. The loss of large historic trees from my neighbourhood would be devastating for me, as well as the birdlife that live in them. Please reconsider the above clause.\u201D I have many, many more.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022 data-id=\u002216b7c41e7d604815952fdf8c12b5649a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002216b7c41e7d604815952fdf8c12b5649a\u0022\u003EDr CAM CALDER (National):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. National promised to introduce legislation into the House to amend the Resource Management Act within 100 days of forming a new Government. We have kept our promise. This bill is the first phase of a two-stage process to reform environmental resource management. The Local Government and Environment Committee has been working in a collegial manner on the Resource Management Act. I mention collegiality advisedly. The measured, mellifluous Scottish brogue of the chairman sought and received valuable contributions from all members of the committee. I wish to express my appreciation of the efforts of all members, submitters, and officials whose input informed and shaped this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003EThere is a broad understanding and appreciation that changes to the Resource Management Act are required to ensure a better balance between environment protection and economic growth, and that the cost, uncertainty, and delays of the current Act are adversely affecting New Zealand. Understandably, there are points of difference. The major urban area affected is Greater Auckland, where a number of councils have general tree protection laws. Clause 52 is being used to address this issue. There is a school of thought that clause 52 will countenance widespread rapine and plunder of our precious urban arboreal resource. What is it about Auckland and those who live there that should occasion such concern? Are all these good residents vegetal Visigoths? Are they Philistines of philodendrons? Are they pillagers of P\u016Briri, castrators of Kauri? They are not. Are these good people ravagers of rhododendrons? We will talk about this later, in the Committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002276d0e06069764a9197bec6e5bc65b71d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 113\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EQuestion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000346\u0022\u003EBill read a second time.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000347\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022aa01c627779a4283a102c2b463584161\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022196647706c68415b90534b5be7c58d9c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022196647706c68415b90534b5be7c58d9c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: In accordance with a decision of the House, there will be a 5-hour debate, with members having an unlimited number of speeches of 5 minutes each. At the end of 5 hours all the provisions of the bill will be put as one question. The amendments will be put before the question on the provisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022bba0c766d49946cdbca28e75f4c13ad2\u0022\u003EParts 1 and 2, schedule 2, and clauses 1 to 3\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u00229d926a3baa444b2d885efa162b314091\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d926a3baa444b2d885efa162b314091\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chairperson. I say before we start that it was very enjoyable having you in Te Tai Tokerau to show you the Marsden Point oil refinery and to learn what your party really thinks about climate change. However, that is for another time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI want to focus on three elements before my colleagues contribute. The first is notification, the second is the coast, and the third is the decimation of the trees. No more t\u014Dtara, no more rimu, no more p\u014Dhutukawa; all we will find in a National-dominated T\u0101maki-makau-rau is puha and w\u012Bw\u012B. I want to know why Government members are spending all this time on developing a super-city but are unwilling to give the authority to the super-city to generate rules, plans, and safeguards for the resources of that particular area. They are insistent on carrying on with this. It looks like a \u201Cninny State\u201D\u2014a nanny State development out of the National caucus, much to the detriment of our people in Auckland. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EHowever, let me come back to notification. Notification is referred to in one or two of the Supplementary Order Papers, and the reason why we are very, very reluctant to allow this to go unchallenged\u2014and why we will not be agreeing with this particular provision in the context of the Committee debate\u2014is that this is the first opportunity New Zealand neighbours and residents have to know about a proposed activity. We are entrusting far too much to the bureaucracy of the local government as to whether a matter is of a minor character. Once people lose that opportunity, they lose goodwill, and people feel that they are being denied a key part of what resource management married to social democracy means: a chance to have an influence through a guided process\u2014not a gilded process but a statutory process. That chance has been removed. There has been a presumption that this bill is neutral. We would have preferred to see that citizens could rely on the fact that where an activity is proposed they will receive notice of it. It is highly likely that that activity will not have a deleterious effect on them anyway\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233c4f27597db4cceb7f8f24cf909efa4\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: What?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022caa2bddd60fb4d8f9e5f190e909cd8de\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES\u003C/span\u003E: I shall repeat the word \u201Cdeleterious\u201D for Mr Henare because it has further to travel in order to educate him. However, that is another matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThat is why we will focus on the area of public notification. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI move on to the matter of the coast. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, has had experience of this issue. I am really looking forward to hearing him explain how we account for stripping away from this area of the law any reference to the putative owner of the coast. Admittedly it is in the context of stewardship. The Minister has told us that the preferred model he presents in this legislation is a focus on rules, on effects, and on the regulatory responsibilities. But who owns the coast? The Government will not give it back to the tangata whenua, and now it does not even want the Crown to hold it. It is almost as if ownership is floating around in some sort of ether. The public of New Zealand, for public weal purposes, need to know that the Government of the day is prepared to intervene and make a decision on such matters as whether a proposed project or activity ought to occupy that part of the coastal environment. That decision is not made just as to the ability of us to understand the effects; it is made as to whether New Zealanders through the agency of the Crown are comfortable with that portion of our environment being exclusively occupied for a given commercial purpose. That provision has been stripped out. We would like to see that provision not only restored but possibly enlarged so that we know, as we move through these treacherous waters as to the M\u0101ori claims and the takutai moana, that the Crown is not absolving itself of its Treaty responsibilities and its obligations to its Treaty partner. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EI come back very briefly to the matter of the trees. The issue has become very vexed and unfortunately members on the Government side of the Chamber have decided that Aucklanders cannot be trusted to come up with a solution. That is a bad decision, and we will have more to say about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022181e2d6f350e4f239f05aeaf231942ee\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022181e2d6f350e4f239f05aeaf231942ee\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E The environment spokesperson for Labour, Mr Shane Jones, identified a number of issues that Labour wants to debate in the Committee stage. I think he has done a pretty fair measure of identifying the controversial issues: the issues in respect of trees, the issues in respect of notification, and the issues in respect of the ministerial veto that we are removing in respect of coastal consents. I am looking forward to the debate over the next 5 hours as we canvass some of those issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI want to go straight to the issue of trees. When the environment spokesperson for Labour, Mr Shane Jones, gave his second reading speech his very first comments were that 50,000 resource consents for New Zealand were too many and we need to have fewer. I agree with him. If we ask officials where there are a whole lot of meaningless resource consents that cost a whole lot of money and achieve absolutely nothing, the answer has to be tree trimming. Let me give members the numbers. We have 5,000 resource consents per year for people who trim trees. Do members know what the most remarkable fact is? That number is for only eight of our 86 councils. There are 5,000 resource consents per year so that people can trim a tree. Does this Parliament really distrust ordinary New Zealanders so much that if they want to trim a tree over 3 metres in height they need to get an arborist\u2019s report and lodge the resource consent with their council? The council official has to consider the consent, visit the tree, and check that it is a proper resource consent. And 97.6 percent of them are approved. Members opposite say that this legislation will result in a chainsaw massacre and that the beautiful landscapes of Auckland will be lost. Well, I have just had lunch with the Mayor of Christchurch. Do they have such rules in the Garden City? No, they do not. Are there fewer trees in Christchurch as a consequence of not having these nanny State rules? Of course there are not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThen there is the argument from Labour. I have to say that I particularly enjoy the contributions from \u201CMr Triffid\u201D. You see, he has gone out publicly\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220504af4f12424c15a1600b8edc31f617\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. His name is Mr Twyford.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022beb134ab969649b2a10cd1430a6133aa\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I was interested to note that Mr Twyford was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I would have thought, with all his comments criticising the Government, that there would be some comments in the select committee report from Labour about urban trees. I searched through all 221 pages. Surely, if Mr Twyford has the time to call public meetings, and to put out press releases attacking the arrogance of the Government, there should be a comment from him in the select committee report on urban trees. But there is not a single sentence\u2014not a word\u2014from Labour in the report. I think that speaks volumes about the ineffective Opposition members. They make a huge deal out of urban trees but when they had the opportunity in the select committee\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d067c17bcb44fa9ad27773145877ba6\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Nothing!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227645569950b54542a8ba2a88405cc8ae\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Not only was there nothing in the report, but they voted for the provisions in respect of urban trees. Labour members should get their act together. If they really believe that people should need a resource consent to trim a tree, they have learnt nothing from the last election. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc5d1caf74964d3c8fd9f933c0cdce60\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: Trim or chop?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253c552d673c14135a6a72ea13832e727\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The law right now, and for 9 long years of the Labour administration, is that if people in Auckland want to get a tree trimmed, they have to get a resource consent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThen the members were saying that this is a case of Parliament overruling Auckland. Well, what did the Auckland City Council submit to the select committee? The Auckland City Council submitted to the select committee that this provision was ineffective and inefficient, and that we should pass this provision to change it. Members opposite are saying that we are overruling the views of Auckland. Do they think we have come down in the last shower? The real motivation of the members of the political left around this issue is that they do not trust homeowners. They basically believe that good old Auckland homeowners should not be trusted with their clippers. They are a real threat to mankind with their tree trimmers, and unless we get them to get approval of a council official, then they should not be able to use them! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EYes, there has been a pretty active campaign. The Arboricultural Association and a number of the commercial players in Auckland have been very critical of the provision in this bill, and I do not blame them. You see, for the 5,000 resource consents per year that are required for these tree provisions, the average cost of getting a council report from an arborist is a bit over $400. People then have to use one of those businesses. They cannot go out there themselves. They cannot chop down or trim their own tree. Is it surprising that the arborist businesses of Auckland would not want this provision? They have employed a flash Wellington public relations consultancy to advocate the cause for them, and I simply say that this Parliament needs to get some principles right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe principle in this bill around urban trees is actually very straightforward: if a council wants to put controls on the trimming or the removal of a tree, it has to talk to the homeowner. Is that not a radical concept? If the council wants to put a restriction on the capacity for a person to be able to trim or remove their own tree, they should talk to the person who owns the land. I think that is a very reasonable provision. If we look at the provisions of this bill, we see that there is 2\u00BD years in which councils can identify trees. I had a discussion with the Mayor of Timaru, which has a beautiful landscape with a large number of trees. Do members know what that council did? It advertised for people to put forward the trees that they thought were worthy of protection. I think that is a pretty smart approach, and I encourage the councils of Auckland to do what councils in every other part of New Zealand have done and actually identify the trees and the groups of trees that warrant protection; there certainly are some. It can be done quite effectively and result in the proper protection of trees in Auckland without the bureaucracy that we are proposing to replace with this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe last point I want to make on trees is that I have seen pictures in newspapers of people in reserves saying that the trees are at risk of being cut down, or of people saying that trees along the main streetscape of Auckland are at risk. No, they are not. This bill deals only with trees on private land, and actually it is about a reflection of property rights. It is the view of members on this side of the Chamber that if one owns the property, one has a legal right to trim a tree or to remove it, as a general rule, unless it is a tree of sufficient significance that it is properly listed in a plan, and one has had an opportunity to be consulted about that listing. It is a straightforward provision that makes good common sense. It will reduce hugely the bureaucracy around tree trimming, which needs to change, and I urge the Committee to support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u00226ecb2c9bb70c481c89b1d304b3b77942\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226ecb2c9bb70c481c89b1d304b3b77942\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The whole process around the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill has been rushed and slipshod. It came to the House later than the Minister promised, and he was in a big hurry to get it through. The Local Government and Environment Committee sat for a lot of hours to deal with it, and the Green Party is the only opposition here. The Labour Party and every other party in the House except the Green Party is supporting this bill. I think that people who are listening need to know that that is the case. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe first evidence that this bill was rushed and slipshod was the interim report of the expert panel from which the select committee asked for assistance to determine whether the drafting in fact reflected the policy intention. The panel advised us\u2014actually, in quite strong language\u2014that the bill as it stood then would not simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act but would complicate and confuse it, which is what we in the Green Party have been saying since the beginning. The bill adds many pages to the Resource Management Act, and that is hardly simplifying and streamlining. It puts a lot of words in where there used to be few. It does not clarify; it confuses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe Greens asked the expert panel to work with officials, and they did, under great time pressure, and they substantially changed and improved the drafting of the bill. However, there was not time to do it properly. What do we have now? We have the 44-page Supplementary Order Paper 39, which amends clauses from the beginning of the bill all the way through to the end, and, among other things, completely replaces new Part 6AA, inserted by clause 91. New Part 6AA was in the bill as it was amended by the select committee, and then, under the advice of officials, who have presumably cleared it with the Minister, in the Committee the Government has completely rewritten and replaced Part 6AA in the Supplementary Order Paper. In the reported-back version of the bill we can see that the whole of Part 6AA is underlined as new, but now we have another replacement of Part 6AA. In the space of a couple of weeks they decided they needed to do it differently again. The meaning of those changes is not possible to determine overnight. I do not know. I have looked at the two texts side by side, and they seem to bear little resemblance to each other. We have to take the Minister\u2019s word that there is no substantive policy change there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThis reminds me of a series of speeches made last year by the then Opposition spokesman on climate change, who relentlessly attacked the previous Minister for climate change on the basis that he had introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to the legislation that set up the emissions trading scheme that was extremely long and made a lot of technical corrections. When we compare the two we will find that, proportionally, this Supplementary Order Paper is larger in relation to the bill it amends than the one that the previous Opposition spokesman on the environment attacked the previous Government for. So I am looking forward to an explanation from Nick Smith as to why, now that he is a Minister, it is OK to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225647b868e11a440aa7fab4c7c921a651\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Under urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221dda9b0c73884eac9b47557ae53f1604\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014under urgency, that is so large in relation to the original bill when that was not OK last year for a bill that was opening new ground and dealing with new technicalities. Parliament has dealt with the Resource Management Act lots of times. The courts are familiar with it, councils are familiar with it, and Parliament is familiar with it. There should be much less reason to have to change it all at the last minute than there was last year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI want to speak now about the question of notification. Notification is how one gives effect to the fundamental premise of the Act\u2014that people have a right to be involved in discussing the changes that others want to make to the environment where they live. There have always been two grounds for a notification. One is the effect on the environment, where everybody has some right to have a say, because we are talking here about the natural environment, the resources we and future generations depend on, and the other is the right to have a say on something that may affect one\u2019s property rights as a near neighbour. The Resource Management Act has always had two tests for notification.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThis bill changes the wording yet again. The rules on notification have been rewritten so many times that I sat in the Local Government and Environment Committee saying that it was impossible to know just what these changes would mean in practice. The one thing they will mean is that all the case law will be chucked out and the courts will have to start again and define all the various terminology because the tests have changed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI had just reached the conclusion that, apart from destroying existing case law and requiring it to be rebuilt, there was not a lot of change of meaning in the bill as we reported it back. But, hang on, now the Minister has announced a Supplementary Order Paper that raises the hurdle higher for notification so that fewer applications will get notified. The bill as reported back said that a council must notify an application only if the application may have adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor. The Minister has now changed those words to \u201Cwill have or is likely to have\u201D, so a council now cannot notify an application unless it is pretty sure that the adverse effects will be serious. If the adverse effects are unknown but could well occur, the council is not allowed to notify; therefore it does not get any evidence from anybody else in the community as to what those adverse effects might be. So the bill will shut out key information that, if it is not brought to the Environment Court, never goes in front of the judge and never gets considered in the decision making. We have already had a lift in the threshold from \u201Cless than minor\u201D to \u201Cmore than minor\u201D; now we have \u201Cmay\u201D becomes \u201Cwill\u201D and \u201Clikely to\u201D. So if a council has any doubts at all about the seriousness of the effects, it must not notify. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe Minister came to the select committee and met with us. I appreciated that, because Ministers often do not do that with select committees and their bills. He told us that under the changes to notification he did not expect fewer applications to be notified. What he was trying to do was to cut the paperwork for the council. However, yesterday he told a briefing of other parties that he did expect fewer public notifications under this changed wording. Obviously, the Minister has had another turn against the rights of the public in the 2 weeks since the select committee reported back. The other thing that the notification provisions do is put councils beyond the reach of judicial review of their notification decisions, by making it clear that they have absolute discretion as to how they interpret terms like \u201Cminor\u201D and \u201Cvery likely\u201D. In the past there have been some appalling council decisions on notification. People have come home and found huge holes in the section next door that they did not know were going to be dug, multi-storey buildings going up, and huge areas of trees removed. I fought hard in previous years to get an amendment accepted that would give effect to what the Environment Court itself has said, which is that challenges to bad notification decisions should be heard by the Environment Court, not by the High Court. The High Court can consider only matters of law. It has no expertise on the facts. The Environment Court is a court of expertise on the facts; it could deal with them very quickly. We got that into section 115 of the 2005 amendment Act, but with a provision that it would not come into force until it was brought into force by Order in Council. Successive Governments have refused to bring it into force; I suspect that was always the intention, anyway. This Government tried to delete the clause with this bill, but we got that changed. It is still not in force, so one can still challenge notification decisions only by going to the High Court, which is hugely expensive. No ordinary person can afford judicial review, and therefore it will not happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ESo we should expect more cases where the bulldozers move in before the neighbours have any inkling the development is happening, and where the bush is felled and the coastline is altered without people\u2019s input because the council could not be sure that the adverse effects would be more than minor. When that happens, expect to have no recourse to legal challenge to those council decisions. I want to end with an example. A 15-house subdivision in Waitakere was not notified although it directly bordered 17 neighbouring properties. One neighbouring resident was not aware of the consent until she came home and saw 2,000 square metres of exotic and native trees and bush being cleared from the site right next door. The consent stated that there was no need for notification, as all effects were deemed to be internal to the site, despite a new road, earthworks, bush clearance, loss of shelter, privacy, and birdlife, and destruction of an ecologically significant stream on a neighbouring property. We are going to see a lot more of cases like that as, with every amendment that goes through the House, notification is tightened. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ELess than 5 percent of applications are notified now. I would like the Minister to say whether he thinks that should go to less than 4 percent or less than 3 percent, or just where the ultimate destination is; or are we heading for the kind of State where developers can do what they like, and the public be damned?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c9978d8737ac4a8d8f858c699b3a6ef1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c9978d8737ac4a8d8f858c699b3a6ef1\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National\u2014West Coast - Tasman):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I would not use the words we heard from the previous speaker, Jeanette Fitzsimons, to describe the way the bill has gone through the House; I would use the words \u201Cthorough\u201D, \u201Ctotally engaged\u201D, \u201Ccommitted\u201D, and \u201Cdiligent\u201D to describe the Local Government and Environment Committee\u2019s work, and the conduct of each and every member of it. I am surprised. The fact is that the Greens do not like the bill; they have said so from the beginning. That has always been acknowledged. It was not a matter of contention or debate. We approached the whole thing as everybody working together, and I am sorry that they wish to downplay the activities of the select committee and sell its work a little cheap. I am sure that the previous speaker did not really intend to do that, because we met regularly and we met often. We discussed a wide range of activities. A lot has been said about trees, and I will speak about them in a minute. We also heard from some serious, committed, diligent people from councils. We heard from the Porirua City Council that 90 percent of the consent applications they receive are not in a state ready for processing. This was echoed by other councils. The interesting thing in the whole approach to this bill was the level of support we received from councils, planners, and people who are involved at the coalface. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EAccording to planners I have spoken to, the changes to notification will save huge amounts of time because of the freedom from needlessly writing reports to justify why they have not notified a particular application. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be679bb8c0674cfeb65af7277b55b9e5\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s democracy!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288c5f93af82e4d519b7ba7b9863de8cd\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. This is democracy. The bill is neutral on the issue of notification. It does not impose restrictions and it does not prevent notifications from being made. The honourable member opposite, Mr Jones, who was very good to work with on the select committee, talks of democracy, but it is sometimes hard for people to see the wood for the trees. That is an appropriate phrase to use in regard to clause 52. Trees will not be put at increased risk as a result of clause 52. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EIt is interesting to note that as a legislator one gets a lot of attention from lobbyists. Just a scan of the emails I have received in the last week would make interesting reading for someone from outside Parliament. I have been getting about 150 a day.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022887ed944f4d34a6db7cf0dc48c0db342\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Thousands!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb1608a984e84399ba45cc989ce46d00\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE\u003C/span\u003E: How are they interesting? I will tell the member how they are interesting. I have been getting two sorts of emails. Half of them tell me I should be smacking kids, and half of them tell me I should be hugging trees. I like to think that it is the other way round. In fact, I misread some of them and I became confused. I thought they said that I should have an approved contractor for smacking. I guess that used to be the role of schoolteachers. All of these emails have been coming from Auckland. I do not think, from a casual analysis of them, that a single one has been written by people who are worried about trees that they own being at risk under this new law. That is not the case. They all say that they are worried about what will happen to other people\u2019s trees, or about what other people will do to their trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EI cannot quite see why a change of law will result in\u2014[Interruption] My colleague across the Chamber says that Husqvarna shares are going through the roof. Developers have not been cutting trees down. They have not been clear-felling. Developers have been getting consents. Very few applications are denied. What will change? I will tell members what will change. The $1.8 million that Devonport, or North Shore City Council, spends on processing applications might be used for other purposes. It might be used for planting trees. There is a novel thought! Instead of using all that money to get people to ask if they can trim a tree, councils could use the money to plant a tree\u2014if they could find nurseries that supply substantial trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EI planted substantial trees in Devonport, which was mentioned before.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d09e84819bbc4dd7896ed5648f1adbf7\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Flagstaff Hill!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002218ae3ba4b00448d88236bd146368c5fd\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE\u003C/span\u003E: No, no. The Chair is ringing the bell; I will not take a long call.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022796e3460ee994188ba4cef196102291e\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Please do!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aca4fcad3b81414b9321b2f4258cd15c\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE\u003C/span\u003E: That member would like me to. Very well. The Leader of the House has asked me to, and that is kind. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5de47668a7c4144a7bf05357602c4ef\u0022\u003EHon Gerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I am leaving now, of course.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223189df683ce044139beb845d8de11142\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EI planted a row of poplars in Shoal Bay Road in Devonport between my house and the houses of two neighbours. It was not very many years before the poplars were huge. They grew beautifully and everyone commented on them, but then they blocked the drains between us and our neighbours, and a sewerage pipe, as well. They were the most inappropriate species of trees to plant in that particular place, so down they came. No permits or consents were required. At the same time, my wife and her friends suggested that it would be nice to have double flowering cherries and peaches on the berm down the middle of Shoal Bay Road. The community bought the trees and we planted them. The council said it would help maintain them,\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298d7489bf15746dc8cdebe8cb451b857\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Where is this going?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238100d158eae47b088edf8c6a22ad48c\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE\u003C/span\u003E: Those trees are still there. They will not be cut down; everyone likes the trees. Why do members on the other side of the Chamber seem to imagine that everyone hates their trees? They love them. Give them a chance. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003ETo echo the opening comments of the Minister for the Environment, I say that one wonders whether the Opposition has learnt from the last election. People wanted change, and they particularly wanted change to the Resource Management Act.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0115d3b78da44b591d076ac68ffa3c3\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: The trees will be chopped down instead of protected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e56f965082b546febdfd246af2f7a410\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE\u003C/span\u003E: They will not be cut down instead of protected. I have yet to hear\u2014and I look forward to hearing it in the next 4\u00BD hours\u2014any solid reasoning why this cutting-down business could not be done presently. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022 data-id=\u0022067d109ab1ae4d2682256ce5e7b20a9d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022067d109ab1ae4d2682256ce5e7b20a9d\u0022\u003ECHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I will take a call relating to the changes being made to notification in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I do not think that the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole, was right when he said that the legislation somehow creates a neutral position, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister on that. In reading the bill afresh it seems to me that it removes the presumption in favour of notification, so that there is now a presumption the other way, in favour of non-notification. That means that instead\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7d6c86db51f499781428e6b3be855f6\u0022\u003EChris Auchinvole\u003C/span\u003E: Why do you say that, Charles?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eaacaacf758145e6a5944f5825d45ff9\u0022\u003ECHARLES CHAUVEL\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014because it is on the face of the bill, I tell Mr Auchinvole\u2014of the council having to notify an application except in certain circumstances, a council will now not have to notify an application except in particular circumstances. That is what we call a reversal of the presumption in favour of notification. Under the current provisions of Resource Management Act resource consents, they are to be notified unless a consent authority can establish one of three things: that they are satisfied the effects will be no more than minor and approval of the affected parties is obtained; that the application pertains to a controlled activity as defined, in which case public notification is not required unless a rule, a plan, or a proposed plan requires it, but notice still has to be served in those cases on an affected person; or that the relevant plan specifically states that notification is not required.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003EAs I read new clause 68, I see that it will repeal existing sections 93 to 95 and substitute new sections 93 to 95F. Under clause 68 the proposal is that the process for notification be altered so that the following three things occur: the presumption in favour of notification of resource consents comes out\u2014it is gone. So the bill has no general presumption in favour of notification, as is the current position. The threshold for when public notification is required is changed, in new clause 68, when the effects beyond the immediate environment are \u201Cmore than minor\u201D, and the threshold for affected parties is raised when effects on them are \u201Cmore than minor\u201D, and those are the words in the bill. The bill, in new section 95A, changes the requirement to notify if the \u201Cadverse effects of the activity on the environment may be more than minor;\u201D, but as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 39 the requirement is if \u201Cthe activity will have or is likely to have adverse effects on the environment that are minor;\u201D. That is a significant change. It means that the requirement to notify an application is significantly confined. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002259e9efe2-6dea-4eeb-869a-ef5b3e48a5b5\u0022\u003EThe changes to the notification process that I have just outlined cannot help but reduce public participation under the Resource Management Act, because the threshold for notification is set higher. That will inevitably lead to fewer resource consent applications being notified. It was interesting to see kids from Tawa College up in the gallery before. I was out in Tawa last month at a community meeting, and the changes to the Resource Management Act, particularly the changes proposed around notification, and the changes that make it more difficult to access the Environment Court, are a real concern to people. People are worried about losing their ability to have a hearing in the Environment Court over local issues that matter to them, and that is something that this Parliament should be very, very concerned about and very, very slow to support. We are lowering the ability of the public to have a say on the adverse effects of an application, and Labour cannot support those sorts of proposals. They significantly undermine the ability of local communities to participate in decisions that affect them, and this proposal in particular\u2014to remove the presumption of notification in favour of non-notification\u2014increases the thresholds for notification. It is an inevitable way of doing things; if we do the one, we get the other. It clearly undermines the ability of the public to participate, and members on this side of the Chamber simply cannot support that level of undermining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00227cc8a09aea7d427db7cb702a61c30c4f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227cc8a09aea7d427db7cb702a61c30c4f\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made. The first of those is in respect of the timetable and the intent of the bill. I know it may be a novel concept, but the Government is doing what it said it would do. We said we would introduce a bill to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act within our first 100 days in office, and we did. We also said we would pass that bill into law within a period of 6 months, and we are doing so. I am surprised that other members in the Chamber are criticising us for doing exactly what we told the electorate we would do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EMr Charles Chauvel made a thoughtful contribution around the issue of notification. He raised a point that was also raised by Jeannette Fitzsimons of the Green Party. It is a very important point around the thresholds for notification. It is proper that the Committee debate those. In Supplementary Order Paper 39, in terms of adverse effects that may be more than minor, my intention is to remove the words \u201Cmay be\u201D and substitute the words \u201Clikely to be\u201D\u2014and I ask members to remember that the consents I am talking about are the minor, small ones that are on the margin as to whether they should be notified. We do not want council officials having to spend huge amounts of time trying to work out what is minor, so we are saying in the Supplementary Order Paper that those consents are minor or likely to be minor. We are quite deliberately providing a bit more cover for council officials in that regard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EOther members have given examples, but let me give the Chamber an example. There is a real shortage of early childhood centres in my electorate. There are children who cannot get into an early childhood centre and get an early childhood education. I do not think there is a member of this Chamber who would not say that parents living in central Nelson need to have a place for their children to get an early childhood education. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI have an application from a person to build an early childhood centre. The council said that all the neighbours agreed. The neighbours said they wanted to have the children around. But the people six doors down said there would be increased traffic flows in their street, and they insisted on the right to be notified. So the council officials asked what the current law says. The law says that a consent needs to be notified if it has an effect on other people. Well, the early childhood centre will have an effect on that street. I would argue it would be a minor effect, but it will have an effect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ENow, the impact of all of that and of the old law was that it cost the development of that early childhood centre an extra six months in time and an extra $20,000. Who do members of this Committee think will pay the $20,000? It will not be the fairies. There is no money tree. It has to be paid for by the parents of those children. So in this debate about notification, I make no apologies for saying that the effects have to be more than minor in order to justify the cost, the time, and the expense of notification. That is all the Government is saying with respect to these provisions. It is my view that the extra wording that has been developed with Local Government New Zealand\u2014that is, in terms of effects that are or are \u201Clikely to be\u201D more than minor\u2014simply gives councils a little bit of room to apply some common sense. If there is anything that we need to get into the administration of the Resource Management Act, it is a good dose of common sense, because right now we are adding too much in cost. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe last point I want to make is that there is a balance to be struck between a level of public participation and the costs and delays because of that participation. In response to Mr Chauvel, I say that the Government makes no bones about the fact that we are shifting that balance. If public participation is to be the only criteria under which we run this Act, we will be relaxed about the fact that it took 17 years for some consents and a very long time for many others.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022 data-id=\u002229f02032ba0147bea01b59a2a036bd64\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229f02032ba0147bea01b59a2a036bd64\u0022\u003EDr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I want to start in this debate by making some general comments, because I think in all the detail we do miss some of the general points about the Resource Management Act. I think the Resource Management Act is one of the most maligned, misunderstood, and misrepresented Acts in our country. It has been attacked repeatedly, over and over, by vested interests. It has been subjected to absolutely vitriolic attack by those who want to advance the interests of developers, and so forth, yet the Resource Management Act exists to protect our environment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThere are two fundamental principles of the Resource Management Act. One is protection of the environment, and the other is public participation in decision making. Those are the two fundamental planks of the Resource Management Act. In the midst of the debate around red tape, cost, and so forth, I think we forget that the Resource Management Act is one of the primary bulwarks to protect the New Zealand environment on which we all depend. It is about protecting our land, our water, and our wildlife. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EI think we also take it for granted that this is New Zealand\u2014clean, green, and 100 percent pure. We forget that the reason why we have any kind of protection in our country is that community groups have been able to use the Resource Management Act to protect their local environment. As I travel around Aotearoa New Zealand, time after time it is community groups, it is hap\u016B, and it is iwi who find themselves in front of consent panels and in front of the Environment Court, doing the hard yards to protect the environment of our country. Yet we have an Act that changes the balance. It changes the balance against the community so that it is harder for the community groups, the people, the not-for-profit groups, and the volunteers who do the work to protect New Zealand\u2019s environment, day in, day out and year in, year out. These are the people who come before the Environment Court and get vilified, often by National and others, because they dare to stand up for the environment. They dare to clog up the courts, as it is told, because they dare to stand up for this country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe Government of the day has now decided it needs to tilt the balance against the volunteers, the iwi, and the hap\u016B of our country, who constantly stand up to protect the environment. The Government wants to change the balance against those voluntary groups, in favour of those who want to destroy the environment. That is what the Government is trying to do with this legislation. It is undermining the fundamental purpose of the legislation, which is environmental protection and community participation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWhen we look at New Zealand and at our economy, we see that it is highly dependent on being clean, green, and 100 percent pure\u2014more than most other places. In fact, it is built on the work that all of those not-for-profit groups and volunteers have done. We have built our economy on their backs. The people who have protected our environment are the people who underwrite and have formed the foundation for the New Zealand economy\u2014the environment. This applies to every economy in the world because every economy, of course, is entirely dependent on the environment. But it applies to New Zealand in particular because we have decided to build our entire brand\u2014as the Prime Minister calls it, the \u201Cmaster brand\u201D of New Zealand\u2014on being 100 percent pure, clean and green. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThose people who protect the environment now have a much harder job doing what they do best, which is looking after our country. This bill changes the balance against them. As the Minister quite rightly said, it is restricting community participation. Yeah; that is exactly right. It will make it harder for the non-governmental organisation sector and harder for community groups to do their job. In the Green Party, we think that is disgraceful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EI think we need to appreciate, as well, that if we were working against a backdrop of dramatically improving environmental performance, if we had biodiversity that was going through the roof, and if we had a background of environmental performance whereby we were getting better and better, year after year, then we might have some argument. But the reality of Aotearoa New Zealand is that we are seeing a decline in biodiversity. We are seeing a decline in the quality of our rivers and lakes, we are seeing a decline in the environment that underpins everything else, and here we are, weakening the law that is designed to protect the environment. We are seeing a decline in the environmental standards, the biodiversity on which we all depend, and that underpins the New Zealand economy. National, ACT, and the M\u0101ori Party so far, and Labour, are all voting for a law that weakens environmental protection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWhy would we weaken environmental protection, when the reality in our country is that we already have a declining and degrading environment? Why would we vote for a law that weakens the power of community groups to protect the environment? Why would we do that, when we already have declining environmental standards? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWe need to address the broader picture, which is the ideology that says New Zealand is bound up in red tape; that somehow our country is completely bound up in red tape. I have in front of me the World Bank Group\u2019s report Doing Business. This report ranks economies all around the world on the ease of doing business. The most recent report Doing Business 2010: Reforming through Difficult Times put out by the World Bank Group covers June 2008 through to May 2009. The easiest country in the world to do business in, and the one that has the least red tape, is Singapore, which I am not sure we really want to model ourselves on in all respects. The second easiest country in the world to do business in is New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWhen we look at the international comparisons done by international bodies looking at the ease of doing business in the world, New Zealand is the second easiest place to do business. So all this rhetoric about how it is really impossible for New Zealand business to get ahead because of all the red tape falls flat, when we look at an independent report\u2014rather than just an ideological position statement, as comes out from the Government so often\u2014done by the World Bank Group where New Zealand comes out as the second easiest place on the planet to do business. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EIf we dig into the report a little bit deeper and look at some of the detail, we see a section called \u201CDealing with Construction Permits\u201D, which looks, in particular, at obtaining a resource consent, obtaining a water consent, obtaining a building consent, and getting an inspection from the district council. If we look at those categories, they all go to inform the overall rating that New Zealand has as the second easiest place on the planet to do business. New Zealand ranks fifth on the planet for dealing with construction permits, which includes all of the resource consent permits and the water consent permits. When the ideological position is put forward that New Zealand is bound up from top to tail in red tape, I ask people to look at the evidence rather than listen to the ideological positions that are coming out of the Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EIn fact, when we look at New Zealand\u2019s performance, one of the reasons we perform so poorly in terms of protecting the environment is that we are not using regulations properly. Where are the national environmental standards? Where are the national policy statements that were always supposed to be part of the Resource Management Act, and that were a key part of protecting the environment? If we put up those \u201Cterrible\u201D national policy statements and national environmental standards, we would be told that we are generating more red tape and more regulation. Those kinds of regulations provide consistency for business and protect the environment, and they were always assumed to be an essential part of the Resource Management Act framework. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EIf the Government wants to put energy into developing national policy statements and national environmental standards, then the Green Party will stand alongside them, as long as they improve environmental standards rather than set a maximum, more of which we will talk about later. At this stage we have this so-called streamlining bill, which seems only to be reducing environmental standards, thereby making it harder for community groups to protect the environment. It will make it harder for community groups to do their job and to do what non-governmental organisations have done for years in our country, which is protect the environment on which our economy and our quality of life depend. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWhy is it that we have this ideological position around red tape, and all the evils of red tape? Where are the Bluegreens in all of this? The member for Auckland Central is voting for a bill that will result in the loss of tree cover in Auckland. Why are the Bluegreens standing behind a bill that will weaken the Resource Management Act? Fundamentally, that is what this law does and what it is designed to do\u2014weaken the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EI also ask the Bluegreens to look at the membership of the technical advisory group that formed this bill to start with. There was one\u2014at least one\u2014environmentalist on the technical advisory group; I give you that. But the technical advisory group membership was dominated by those who were not out to promote environmental protections; they were there to do the opposite.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022 data-id=\u00224c9fff7c4aa14c179c6f5c2e25499005\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224c9fff7c4aa14c179c6f5c2e25499005\u0022\u003ENIKKI KAYE (National\u2014Auckland Central):\u003C/span\u003E I will make a quick point in response to Mr Norman regarding the fact that bureaucracy often holds up good environmental progress. A good example is Akaroa, where it has taken 2 years to get a resource consent around water treatment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EThe other point I will make is around trees and clause 52 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. We have heard a little bit about that clause today. I acknowledge the stance the Greens have taken on this issue, but I also acknowledge the temporary tree-huggers, the Labour Party. Those members failed to put up a minority report on this issue. I have concerns about the legislation but I am pleased we are having this discussion. I believe that the current system of tree rules in Auckland is fraught, that councils are spending excessive time on this issue, and that many individuals are spending excessive money on resource consents for trees. The question that needs to be asked is not about politicking, but about how we fix this. I believe that it is reasonable for individuals to be able to prune and trim their trees, so that is quite a positive change that will be made as a result of this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EHowever, I have a specific concern about tree scheduling. I want to ask the Minister in the chair, Nick Smith, and I would like him to take a call on this, how the people of Auckland can have confidence that between now and January 2012 high-value trees and bush will be adequately protected via tree scheduling. I think there are some benefits in respect to the Auckland governance reforms in that there will be fewer systems in place. There may be one team, if you like, that will be responsible for tree scheduling; I think that is positive. It is also positive that the Auckland governance reforms are coming into place because I think it will be easier to do scheduling. I invite the Minister for the Environment to take a call on that matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002211dde57f96cb4b9a84b1807b943264ba\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211dde57f96cb4b9a84b1807b943264ba\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E The member for Auckland Central, Nikki Kaye, raised quite an important point. The Labour Party has not yet learnt the degree to which it alienated the voters of Auckland Central. You see, Labour lost that seat for the first time ever\u2014the first time ever\u2014and I would be happy to bet the best bottle of Nelson wine that Nikki Kaye will be returned at the next election. Every member has been impressed with the way in which Nikki Kaye has represented that community. I am happy to bet with any member of this House that she will be returned at the next election because of that effective representation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f0e09f4ab25a481488635d222df08633\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I cannot see how that in any way relates to the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I ask that the member be called to order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f3f2a8829114e5381da218237801646\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member for those comments. There was an interchange earlier on, and the Minister is responding to those. However, I will ask the member to come back to the essence of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225df1d26df97844bb996aff956c5a1475\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The member had a very sensible question, and that was how we can be sure that the councils of Auckland, particularly given the scale of change that Auckland is involved in, will get on and do the sensible thing, and, like every other council in New Zealand, schedule both groups of trees and individual trees that warrant protection. It is a good question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223cf9d383cb04440844521060c32722e\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019ve already said they won\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226cb60b4c4176471ea892b1fb390001c5\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: They actually have not said that, and I would be happy to take up Mr \u201CTryford\u201D in a moment. The issue that, I think, in a sensible way forward\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c41ca4f8dcc14ee68a77c27bf3df4334\u0022\u003EH V Ross Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224cbe50a70ae947afbffc8cd0e56cf839\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I know what the member will say. I say to the Minister\u2014and it has been brought up before\u2014that the member he is referring to is Mr Twyford. I ask that the Minister respects his name, either calling him Mr Twyford or Phil Twyford, but not any other name.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002287dea172e75b4f41b82ab9772869a965\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I am happy to get Mr \u201CTryford\u2019s\u201D name right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fb5ac68ab244286b716ecc4d5f67a05\u0022\u003EH V Ross Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has been here for a considerable number of years. He should be aware of Speakers\u2019 rulings 27/6. In reality, he did not say Mr Twyford\u2019s name correctly. He mispronounced it again. I suggest he have another go. It is rude and unacceptable.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000444\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253173bb10455405185e51b8f8711507a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand. I have asked the Minister to reflect on that, and to use the member\u2019s correct name. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000445\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222704d35dcb94a8cb2ea43fa228e9985\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The question that has been asked is what process we can put in place to ensure that the Auckland councils sensibly address this issue. I think there is quite a sensible process, and I would be happy to take up the challenge from the member for Auckland Central. There are powers that I have as Minister for the Environment around the issuing of directions to councils. I am reluctant to use them, unless councils will not do what I think is sensible and what this Parliament would expect. My intention would be to write to each Auckland council and ask them to set out their programme of work for identifying the trees of significance and that should be specifically, by group or individually, listed in their district plans, and to require those councils every 6 months to report to me on the progress they make. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000446\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI will make a couple of points about this issue. One of the really important things members opposite need to recognise is that from 1 October these councils will not have to spend millions of dollars, and will not have all sorts of staff tied up, with the 3,000 consents a year required for tree trimming. As of 1 October, that will no longer be required. The message I have for Auckland councils in response to the concerns that have been raised by Nikki Kaye is that the resource processing all those tree-trimming consents should be redirected, so representatives of the councils can get out and talk with people in the neighbourhoods and communities about what sorts of trees should be protected. This could happen over lunch, for example. I spoke with the Mayor of Timaru about what happened there. The first thing the council did was to invite the residents themselves.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000447\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b177d1a178f049aba45029adc1bf8f2b\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: A member of the National Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000448\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299170d3156844b02b5beabcdd087acba\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I do not think so. It is interesting that David Cunliffe always goes down that line.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000449\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299f6e44f2e8a43deafb72ee4895fc4c4\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: I think so! Ask Jo Goodhew; they are good friends.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000450\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f2c5c97723e4b7aba3f2f15e26df81f\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I will simply address the issue. The Timaru council advertised and asked people to bring forward trees to be considered for protection. Within a period of 12 months it had brought together a sensible schedule of trees that should be protected. If the good city of Timaru can do it\u2014in fact, if 75 councils around New Zealand can do it\u2014then why is it that Auckland cannot? I am interested in a contribution from a member.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000451\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe last point I will make is a very simple question that I would like members on the Labour benches to address. The select committee received submissions on the tree protection rules. The Labour members have deeply held concerns that it is the end of the world for Auckland trees. Why, then, in this 250-page report from the select committee, did Labour members vote for the changes in the tree protection rules, and why is there no word in the report of any concern about those changes? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000452\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bad44e4f236422c91c95a5b48ad246f\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s in there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000453\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a5943ea4f6d4670810bc0ac47c7e51d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, it is in the report! Well, I have actually checked the minutes. The minutes of the select committee show that the member who interjected, Phil Twyford, actually voted for these provisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022388ab26a438048afa5118c0a60b5f84b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000454\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022388ab26a438048afa5118c0a60b5f84b\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E The Minister who has just resumed his seat, the Hon Nick Smith, said he had read the commentary on the bill and found no reference to Labour members\u2019 concern about changes to the tree protection rules. The commentary on the bill makes the point that not all of the committee supported the prohibition on blanket tree protection. I will read from the commentary: \u201COn balance most of us supported prohibiting blanket tree protection rules in planning documents. A number of us, however, regard clause 52, as amended, as unsatisfactory and would have preferred a more comprehensive solution for protecting urban trees.\u201D There it is; there is exactly what the Minister said was not there. The Minister has not even read the commentary from the select committee. He has made that same reference twice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000455\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will return to some of the other serious issues in the bill\u2014firstly the Environmental Protection Authority. I encourage the Minister to build up the capability of the Environmental Protection Authority with the Resource Management Act. In 2005 the Minister, with me and Jeanette Fitzsimons, was on the select committee that considered the previous major amendment to the Resource Management Act. We were somewhat dismayed at the quality of some of the drafting and some of the suggestions that came forward. With respect to the officials, there have been similar concerns about some of the amendments that were put forward for the legislation that went to the select committee this time. That is a matter of concern. I know that the Resource Management Act is a complex document, but there is a need for more capability within the Ministry for the Environment in respect of what is its core legislation. The fact that the ministry needs to do better in that regard is pretty clear from some inadequate drafting and advice in respect of both pieces of legislation. I am not making a political point here, because the last time it happened was under a Labour Government; this time it is under a National Government. There is a need for better understanding within the ministry of the detail of its own legislation. If it does not have such understanding internally, then it needs to contract it in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe second point I will make is in respect of notification. I agree with comments that have been made by Jeanette Fitzsimons and Charles Chauvel. The Supplementary Order Paper that has been brought forward today dramatically changes the notification rules from those that were reported back. Until now the version of the bill that came back from the select committee stated that if there may be an adverse effect that is more than minor, then it had to be notified. Notification is the prerequisite to public involvement. If people do not know about something, they cannot submit on it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EAccording to the version that was reported back to the House, people have to be notified if there may be an environmental effect that is more than minor. The wording now gets changed so that it has to be proven to the satisfaction of the consenting authority that there will be an adverse effect that is more than minor, or there is likely to be such an adverse effect. Rather than it being a case of there may be an environmental effect that is more than minor, there now has to be a probability that there will be an environmental effect. Councils will be advertising and notifying fewer applications as a consequence. Therefore, people will not be informed of more applications that may have an adverse effect than was the case previously. That is a very significant change, and I am surprised that it has been done late by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. Again, that amplifies the point I made earlier in terms of capability within the Ministry for the Environment on Resource Management Act matters. It is a poor change, and it is something that I would like to see overturned in the future. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThere are some good things in the bill, which I acknowledge. There is always a need for housekeeping legislation. Again, I repeat the point I made that this legislation is vastly improved compared with its first reading version because we have restored rights to appeal on the merits against plan changes, which were absolutely essential changes. If it had not been for that change, Labour certainly would not be supporting the bill, with reservations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will make two other references\u2014firstly to the Minister of Conservation\u2019s power. Under the existing law, if an application is made that affects land above the high-water mark, that land is generally owned by somebody, and the owner of that land has the right to say that he or she does not want that happening on his or her land. The owner effectively exercises a right of veto. The owner or occupier of land has an effective right of control to say \u201CNo, not here. It\u2019s not right. It might be permitted under the plan but I don\u2019t want it.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EUnder the prior legislation, in respect of areas that are in the marine environment, they are not owned by private landowners. That right of veto is effectively held on behalf of all New Zealanders by the Crown. That is how it should be. The Crown deals with that through the Minister of Conservation having a right of veto and being able to say, on behalf of the Government, the Crown, and the people of New Zealand, just as if he or she was a private landowner, \u201CNo, it\u2019s not going to happen here; we don\u2019t think it\u2019s the right thing.\u201D Of course the Crown should have the right to do that; it is one of the responsibilities of the Crown to look after the wider public interest in respect of areas that are being managed for public purposes by the Crown. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe existing rights are constrained. That was shown clearly by the marina decision that the Minister relied upon in saying there was a need for change. In fact, in relation to the marina decision, it was found through a High Court review of the Minister\u2019s discretion that in that case the Minister had incorrectly exercised his discretion. There is no shame in that; sometimes these mistakes are made. But it showed that the system works, because there was not an inappropriate withholding of consent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b35fb7c4378a42779dd4dade9349d1bd\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: Abuse of power.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3c0dd828f44474ea3ffed9c7fa88bb1\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member says it was an abuse of power. No, it was a mistake, according to the court. It was not some sort of machiavellian abuse of power. The Government\u2019s response is to say that there should be no power of veto on the part of the Crown. I fundamentally disagree; the Crown is effectively the de facto owner\u2014not an owner in the foreshore and seabed sense\u2014controller, or protector of those spaces on behalf of the public. The Crown should maintain that right. There are ways in which the mechanism could be improved. I agree that those decisions should be taken earlier in the process, rather than waiting until the end of the process when someone has spent a lot of money on planning and probably spent money on engineers, consultants, and resource consent applications, only to have the Minister say he or she cannot do it. I do not think that is good process. The Minister\u2019s decision ought to be brought forward to earlier in the process. I would willingly agree to that. The Minister\u2019s discretion ought to be retained so that the Minister, on behalf of all New Zealanders, can veto inappropriate developments in the coastal space, just as I can veto inappropriate developments on land that is under my ownership or control. I have a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect\u2014to retain the veto\u2014and I hope that members of the Committee support it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will also make reference to the tree provisions. We heard Nikki Kaye wringing her hands and saying there is a terrible problem here. I am one of those people who think the existing law goes too far in the absolute prohibition on removing trees, including pruning. The Greens have put forward an amendment, which is supported by Labour, that deals with that issue and allows pruning. The Minister represents the current situation as prohibiting the cutting or pruning of all trees. It does not do that even now. A minimum size applies before that rule applies. In any event, the Greens\u2019 amendment is sensible. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThere is a degree of overregulation now, which could be remedied through the Greens\u2019 amendment. It permits pruning but states that local authorities that want to control the cutting down of all trees over a certain size can do so. If councils want to do that, why should they not be able to? If people disagree with those plan provisions, they can appeal to the Environment Court. If the Environment Court disagrees with them, they can strike it out, as it often does with other inappropriate plan provisions. Why does the Minister feel the need to control that by way of central government limitation of the powers of councils under the regional district plans? It seems to me to run in the opposite direction of the one that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, says that he is in favour of, which is to delegate these proper powers to councils to exercise. The Labour Party will be supporting the Greens\u2019 amendment\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222321fcb7b45243a29b7899351077f70d\u0022\u003EJeanette Fitzsimons\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s just a nanny State.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b8aa34b65294a34b0aaac35d5609e81\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: It is a nanny State response; I thank Ms Fitzsimons. It is an overreaction. Having said that, I agree that there is currently a degree of overregulation, but the Greens\u2019 provision fixes that. Nikki Kaye pretends that she is interested in the issue, but she will not even vote in favour of the Greens\u2019 amendment. They are crocodile tears. She turns up to public meetings, says that she shares the public\u2019s concerns and that she remains concerned, and then she does nothing about it. She had a staged little comedy act with the Minister in the chair about how it will not be that bad, but she will not vote in favour of the Greens\u2019 amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00225b461f60d28f4240a0eae1c25f2acd7f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225b461f60d28f4240a0eae1c25f2acd7f\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I will make two responses to the contribution from Mr Parker. The first interesting thing in his speech was that he said he accepts that the current tree rules are an overkill and should be changed. He also said in respect of the other area on which he focused his speech that he does not necessarily think that the law as it relates to the Minister of Conservation\u2019s veto is right, either. Well, is it not interesting? Labour had 9 years in Government to try to fix these bureaucratic problems with the Resource Management Act\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002227180819287340b8913b36d1f4b4914a\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: How long?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b0464e1b7e54a8dacb98dc8a641a18b\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The Labour Government had 9 long years and it did not do it. When National becomes the Government and gets on and fixes some of these problems, Labour members get into the exercise of trying to niggle over an area where they say the reforms are inappropriate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI will deal firstly with the coastal permit veto that is available to the Minister of Conservation. Let us look firstly at the powers the Minister of Conservation has. The Minister of Conservation has the power to write the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement\u2014the rules that relate to the coast for the whole country. The Minister of Conservation has the power to approve or not approve every regional coastal policy statement. That is the Minister\u2019s second lever. The Minister\u2019s third lever is being able to appoint the people who sit on the decision-making panel. That is the third power the Minister of Conservation has. The Minister\u2019s fourth power is to submit to the hearings committee on any restricted coastal activity. Beyond that, the Minister of Conservation also has the power to appeal. The Minister has five powers, and members opposite say that the Minister needs the power to veto, as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet me deal with the veto. I have checked the numbers. During my period as the Minister of Conservation there were about 280 applications in relation to restricted coastal activities. People lodge a consent application, and a whole lot of evidence is heard at the committee. Often those hearings take weeks, if not months. The decision goes off to the Environment Court, which potentially hears a whole lot more evidence. When I was the Minister of Conservation, in not one single case did I see merit in changing the decision on a consent application, but going through the process added, on average, 6 months to it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIn fact, I say to Mr Parker that since 1991, when the veto was put into law, there have been only two cases in which Ministers have used the veto\u2014only two.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cec79e75b49547a9a0757a7d7c2a8c78\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: So why is it a problem?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e8e9b8186bc74f009b0cb54ffb90aad8\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The members ask a very good question, and if they can wait I can give them the answer. Why is it a problem? I will tell members why. It adds approximately 6 months on to the process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d0d33ed41b0480da6c497037f44f101\u0022\u003EHon Steve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: Does that matter? It protects the environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d30ee131f82848c9afd23c1e902da4c2\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Labour members say it does not matter. Actually, that is the problem. Members opposite do not seem to understand that time is money. An extra 6 months on the process does matter, from our point of view. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe other reason is an important constitutional point. Members on our side of the Chamber believe that it is proper that Ministers write laws and proper that they make rules and approve plans, but it is not proper for Ministers to overrule decisions of the Environment Court. Let us be real here. How much time do members think Ministers spend considering resource consent applications in relation to the coastal environment? The reality is that the Minister will receive, on average, about two applications a week. On average, each of those applications will have spent 5 or 6 weeks before a hearing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bd4efe0b55f4200a343b008c9ade020\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, rubbish!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d86748605074017982f0cd9a6ab3a6d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: No, it is true.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224c78441e9dae4059a4ebc9d7d60348c9\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: No, it\u2019s not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7f43236b4054a37a7d1638c06565e03\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the truth is that if we take the Whangamata example, I say to Mr Parker, the reality is that it was a 9-week\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2ec0f740720432baa34dd847a97fc06\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not a typical example, at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a570ec030cad4931b8cc856cc87e37bb\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Mallard says it is not a good example. Do members know why? It is because the previous Labour Government got caught out. The High Court of New Zealand found that the previous Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, broke the law. Chris Carter broke the law. One of the reasons for this provision is that a large number of New Zealanders said that it is not fair. It is not fair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225697495742ff4761bb534893c77a1bbc\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: Abuse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a924e153f98463e933b3c400a292c21\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: My colleague said it was an abuse, but I would go even further than that. Let us read what the High Court said. The High Court said that the powers of the Minister are nothing like what Mr Parker said they are. Mr Parker said that the Minister of Conservation is exercising the powers of the landowner. He said that if the landowner wants the power then he or she can have it, but the landowner does not have to have the power if he or she does not want to have it. The High Court decision makes very plain that the Minister\u2019s powers are incredibly narrow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a16e5b4d50594fd18c2396f77ffd36f4\u0022\u003EHon David Parker\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019ve already said that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c405b0706e04a64b7b4c5d29b964e33\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, let us go through it, because Mr Parker and Mr Chauvel think they are the great judicial brains of the House and that we mere engineers cannot have a view on such things. I ask members to read the decision of the High Court, because it shows that the powers of the Minister to overrule the consent process are so incredibly narrow that, frankly, they are worthless. If we are serious about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act, then the power of the Minister of Conservation to overturn a decision of the Environment Court\u2014which is not provided in any other part of the Resource Management Act, nor should it be provided here\u2014is not needed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe final point I will make is that removing the ministerial power to veto is what we promised to do. I know that Labour makes promises and does the opposite thing, but National said we would remove the ministerial veto, and we are delivering on that promise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022 data-id=\u0022faa3183ce50f4c2c91516c2578bd0afd\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022faa3183ce50f4c2c91516c2578bd0afd\u0022\u003ESUE KEDGLEY (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Jeanette Fitzsimons said this morning that the Government cannot disguise the fact that the true purpose of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is to remove the obstacle of public participation from the path of developers wanting to make their money at the expense of the environment and the community. That is absolutely clear. That is the underlying intention of the bill. The intention has been disguised by good words and so forth, but the hundreds and hundreds of submitters on the bill are very well aware that that is the true purpose of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003EOne of the ways to remove the obstacle of public participation is through the notification provisions. The Government is tightening up the notification rules so that councils will have to notify affected parties about a development only if the effects \u201Cmay be more than minor\u201D, whereas previously councils had to notify affected parties if the effects \u201Cwill be more than minor\u201D. That might seem to be just a minor quibbling over words and not of great significance, but I assure people listening to this debate that the changes to those words are hugely significant. Some people have already predicted that they will effectively make non-notification the norm. Non-notification is virtually the norm already, because 95 percent of resource consents are not notified. Only 5 percent were notified under the previous rules, and now that they are being tightened up I predict that very few developments will need to be notified. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003EIt is a very subjective rule, and councils interpret it differently, but I can say that when I was a councillor on the Wellington City Council for 8 years, lack of notification was the most common issue that I had to deal with in my constituency. People would wake up one morning to find a development going up next door. I well remember hearing from a guy in Hataitai who had woken up one sunny morning and looked out of the window to see his neighbour with a wheelbarrow. When he waved at him and started chatting to the neighbour he discovered that a huge building\u2014a three-storey dwelling\u2014was to go up outside his house without his being notified. A few months later all he could see out of his enormous windows was a great big concrete wall 1 metre away. That was a non-notified development. I could tell members numerous examples of what I had to deal with as a city councillor. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003EAn enormous building is going up in Oriental Bay that was non-notified. It has had a huge impact.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002270b9e1d250304bb289de0bbbf3905098\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s where you live, isn\u2019t it, Sue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228783094d3e33405d8be5a033dd6f74d7\u0022\u003ESUE KEDGLEY\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is. The building can be seen from this side of the harbour. It has had an enormous impact on the environment. It was not notified. Non-notification is going on and on. A 15-house subdivision was not notified in Waitakere, although it directly borders 17 neighbouring properties. All of those examples happened under the existing rules, but now that the rules are being tightened up I warn people that non-notification will effectively become the norm. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003EI will use the example of cell towers in order to warn New Zealanders what will happen when this legislation goes through and non-notification effectively becomes the norm. When I was a city councillor I sat on many hearings about cell towers, all of which had to be publicly notified. There was always a consent process. I remember the meetings in Ngaio and so forth, and there were days of hearings. The telecommunications companies decided that it was very irritating and annoying to have to spend all those hours going through hearings, so they lobbied the Government. First of all, a provision was passed that stated that provided the land that is designated for telecommunications purposes was in a district plan, then telecommunications companies could build cell towers on that telecommunications land as of right. Then the companies went round councils, getting all sorts of areas notified as telecommunications land so they could build cell towers on it as of right. But then they wanted to make it even easier for themselves, so they lobbied the previous Labour Government and got the so-called national environmental standard rammed through Parliament last year\u2014an \u201Cenvironmental standard\u201D, what a misnomer! The standard allows cell towers to be erected, effectively, on every telephone pole in New Zealand as of right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003EThe Green Party stood here in this Chamber and tried to oppose that Draconian provision. We tried to warn New Zealanders, we did action alerts, and we said \u201CWake up New Zealanders! You are going to wake up in a year\u2019s time and you are going to look out of your window and find some cell tower being erected outside your house.\u201D Nobody listened, and the media ignored us. But what has happened? The provision went through last October, and now, I can tell members, not a week goes by without my getting emails from distressed New Zealanders, from all over New Zealand, who have woken up to find cell towers being erected outside their homes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003EI was at a public meeting in Point Chevalier last week, and there have been public meetings in Papakura. A woman spoke at the Papakura meeting and said she had woken up to find she had eight cell towers just across the road from her home. She is extremely distressed about it, as are people all over New Zealand. People are asking me how this happened. They are asking how it can be that we need a resource consent to do minor alterations on our homes but telecommunications companies can erect some huge cell tower outside our homes without requiring any resource consent or notification of any kind. Of course, the answer to the question is that the previous Labour Government, with the support of National, rammed through the standard that allows these cell towers to be erected as of right. We will have to revisit the issue in this Parliament, because it is causing such distress around New Zealand. I hope the Local Government and Environment Committee will address the issue, because we have several petitions on the issue before the committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003EI use that example as an illustration; that is what will happen when this legislation goes through. People are going to wake up, as so many of the people in Wellington, and I am sure other places, have already done, to find that these huge developments are taking place and will have an enormous impact on neighbours and on neighbouring properties. Those people will find that they have never been notified of the developments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003EI assure National members that as more and more people find it happening and ask how it has happened, the explanation will be that it is because National, with the support of Labour, has rammed through this resource management amendment bill and has tightened up the notification rules to the point where notification is no longer the norm. More and more people will then realise what has happened in the House\u2014what is happening here today\u2014and they will realise that Jeanette Fitzsimons was absolutely right: the purpose of the bill is to remove the annoying obstacle of public participation from the path of developers who want to make their money at the expense of the environment and the community. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003EThe issue of notification is a huge issue, and hundreds and hundreds of submitters were concerned about it. They recognised its implications, and there will be great distress in the community when they realise what has been done by tightening up the notification provisions even further. Thank you. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u002235b46153b2ce48baae97ab27049dd4ce\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002235b46153b2ce48baae97ab27049dd4ce\u0022\u003ELOUISE UPSTON (National\u2014Taup\u014D):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. One of the things that I think has been missing is the focus on the fact that it is a simplifying and streamlining bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EWe have had a lot of debate about trees, which might be of interest to some of the Aucklanders, but other councils around New Zealand have adequate protection for trees\u2014protection that works. Cambridge is a town of trees; it has fantastic trees. It does not have blanket tree protection, but it has the most beautiful trees in the country. The Taup\u014D District Council, which is also part of my electorate for obvious reasons, does not have blanket tree protection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI will turn this debate, therefore, towards the issues that actually matter to the majority of New Zealanders\u2014the majority of New Zealanders who wanted a National Government because we promised them we would deliver changes to the Resource Management Act. And that is what we are doing: we are delivering a promise that we made to New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI will address the comment the Green Party made that we have rammed through this legislation. I am, quite frankly, disappointed with that. The Local Government and Environment Committee worked together very, very well. We had a great discussion and we made several changes. As a result of discussion on the first draft of the bill and the submissions, we have had many, many changes. We have had healthy discussion and healthy debate, and there have been significant changes from the first draft of the bill. We have come to a good position, and of course Labour thinks it is a great bill, as well. Labour members voted for it. They did not bother to put into the report as a minority report any comments they have said in the House today, because, inherently, they agree with the position. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI will come back to what many New Zealanders are interested in with regard to the Resource Management Act, which is its simplifying and streamlining. I will put in a plug for hard-working New Zealanders who want to build a garage on the back of their property, who want to extend their existing house, or who\u2014though how dare they, if they are in Auckland\u2014might want to trim a tree. It is actually those guys who will have huge benefit from this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI will give members the example of my brother. He wanted to build a fairly simple extension on to his house. We would have expected the resource consent to be back in 20 days. But because he had not done this before, he went to the expense of getting a planning consultant to advise him on the process, and to make sure that he came out with a successful resource consent at the end of it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca257216f5e4453289a8c6fa346733aa\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: How much did that cost?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f08064d7867e4e31adc602172a9aca9a\u0022\u003ELOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, no, it was not really about the cost, initially. It took 7\u00BD months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f41e7e083441487bada43a0da75b673b\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: How long?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fb219e1bc81444b8414099652e5b903\u0022\u003ELOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: It took 7\u00BD months for a resource consent for a minor addition to his house. That is the sort of thing I am talking about. When New Zealanders are out there listening to this debate, they want this bill passed, because they do not think it is good enough to wait for 7\u00BD months for a resource consent. They know, unlike some of those members on the benches opposite, that time is money. Let us say that my brother had a builder lined up to do those extensions and was ready to go. But all of a sudden that builder did not have work because the council had not been able to process that consent for 7\u00BD months. So some of the measures that we have put into place in this bill that I will focus on are about improving the processing of those consents. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThere has been a lot of discussion about tree protection, but what about some of the other measures? In terms of the notification of resource consent applications, the Minister has explained it. There has not been a change in the policy, in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper; there has been further clarification that the presumption has been neutralised. It has not been changed in favour of non-notification; it has been neutralised so that the presumption is not on notification. That alone will save council officers months of time on processing consents, because they will not have to justify something that does not have to be notified. Currently, they waste time having to write reports to justify 95 percent of the consent applications that will not be notified anyway. This Government is focusing on getting rid of that waste, and this measure is the sort of thing New Zealanders are looking for. The guy who wants to build a garage on the back of his property or who wants to put on an extension to his house will not be sitting there waiting for months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EWe also know that important strategies have been put in place for improving housing in this country. They have been brought in by our good Minister of Housing. We want those houses built. We do not want people sitting around waiting for months and months for houses to be built. That is exactly the sort of progress that this Government is focusing on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EWe are not doing this at the expense of the environment. I am a particularly proud member of the Bluegreens organisation in the National Party, and Taup\u014D is hosting the Bluegreens forum next month. The Bluegreens are an important part of National, so it is absolute rot that the Opposition would have people believe that National is not into environmental protection. This legislation gets the balance right so that we are able to best protect the environment and still manage\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c042e1a105ff4c35994e53fc6cf8d087\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: What part of you is green?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d596ea883b4345e4b642119f85f67cdb\u0022\u003ELOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: I am from Taup\u014D. Has the member considered the Taup\u014D electorate and its extensive tourism appeal because of our clean, green\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b224f05221e45c387e14d869b02b351\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Labour policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e7aa559c8d04321a6d0970bae2298b0\u0022\u003ELOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Not at all. National has a very strong blue-green movement and that is why we are getting this balance right. We have sought advice from an experienced technical advisory group, we have had great discussions in terms of the select committee process, and we have got the balance right to make sure that the hard-working New Zealanders who want to make changes on their own property can do that without spending months and months bogged down in a council process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThe other thing that we have not heard a lot about today is the number of submitters who came out in favour of the changes we are making because they know it will be a significant improvement on what we have now. We had close to 900 submissions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252c6ccdc862b442eb3e79c1ab2bf3c63\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: They haven\u2019t read one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022321d8c051ed040318ab27d5a8e2657b5\u0022\u003ELOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: Does the member want a bet? We had close to 900 submissions, in boxes this high. Our hard-working team on this side of the House reads the select committee papers. We read the submissions, we took them on board, and we were able to make changes from the first draft of the bill to make sure that we ended up with something that is great. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224515452c603442e1af35ce4598da6653\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Interjections are permissible, but we are getting to the point where there is too much discussion from the cross benches.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4667d4fde724e829c3f401c43f8407c\u0022\u003ELOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: One thing that we are doing to improve the resource consent process that will have a big impact on the little guy who wants a resource consent\u2014and I am speaking for such people\u2014is to limit the ability of councils to stop the clock. Basically, it means that they will not have an endless stop-the-clock process, where they can draw out the amount of time they take to process a resource consent. If the expectation is 20 days, then councils on most occasions should be adhering to that expectation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EWe have also introduced in this bill a complaints process and a discount fee for consents that are processed late. We think that is fair. In business practice, if one does not deliver something on time, then the customer should not suffer. In this instance, that is what we are talking about. If the council has not processed the consent in time, then the customer who has applied for it should get a discount. We had a great discussion in the select committee and I do not think anyone disagreed with that point. In this Chamber we have spent too much time focusing on issues such as trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EAnother point, which the Green Party was particularly supportive of, is that we are increasing the fines for those who break the law. For those who breach their resource consent, we have increased the fine to $600,000. That is far more in line with what those people should be paying, and this measure is part of National\u2019s commitment to the environment. So I will not sit here and listen to conversations where it is claimed that National is not for the environment, because that is rot. Here we have a $600,000 fine for a serious breach of a resource consent for companies, and a $300,000 fine for individuals who breach resource consents. That is really important in terms of getting the balance right in this legislation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EWe have streamlined decision making. We have improved the workability of the Resource Management Act and we have streamlined the consent process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9454fa930d547829e3cd2c93dfbb2c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9454fa930d547829e3cd2c93dfbb2c2\u0022\u003EHon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I congratulate the Minister in the chair, Dr Nick Smith, on taking so many calls on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill to put his perspective to us and to help clarify some situations, but I am concerned about the removal of the Minister of Conservation\u2019s decision-making powers in respect of coastal consents for restricted coastal activities. I was Minister of Conservation for only a year, but in that year I recognised that the public of New Zealand felt a sense of security because of that role of the Minister of Conservation. That role is repealed by clause 20. I think a feel-good factor was there about the Minister of Conservation being the activist and the protector on behalf of New Zealanders as a last resort. It gave New Zealanders a lot of confidence that the Minister would exercise that role; it was not used with gay abandon, as the Minister for the Environment said it was. There were only two cases in which the role was exercised, but I believe it is absolutely critical to have it there. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003EI ask Dr Smith what we heard from Local Government and Environment Committee responses to the repeal made by clause 20. Eighty-three percent of submissions felt opposed to it. I think that says a lot about New Zealand. As well, 76 percent opposed changes made by clause 83. I think this shows that New Zealanders do not feel comfortable with this change. Just having those powers there was a means of protection for all New Zealanders that they were comfortable with. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003EI picked up another issue when I was the Minister of Conservation, and that was the overlapping issues with the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Many were still disaffected, particularly in the Whangamata marina case, about protection aspects of land that were subjected to a Treaty claim. I think we need to look at that issue very closely. One cannot look at the Resource Management Act just on its own, take away the powers of the Minister of Conservation, and think that solves the problem. It will leave a legacy for iwi with cases that they are really unsure about. Within some common-sense applications regional councils are over-exercising their powers without oversight of the Minister of Conservation, but under the jurisdiction of another Minister\u2014the Minister for the Environment. That really worries me. I think that power of veto was wonderful. It was not abused; it was exercised with due constraint. We may have got it wrong on the Whangamata decision, but in the end the working through showed that the issue there was process. We always said that the process needed to be clarified. When this bill was first put before us in some rushed state we said we should look at the UK model, where the Minister of Conservation is involved at the front end of the process for restricted coastal activities. That model works. But the Government is simply taking away the powers of the Minister of Conservation. I think it is a very sad day for us all in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003EThe Minister in the chair also mentioned national policy statements and the Coastal Policy Statement. One piece of work that I was particularly proud of was the work that Judge Shonagh Kenderdine got moving on the Coastal Policy Statement. I can remember when the Minister in the chair was the National spokesperson on the environment. He asked me several times in the House what had happened to the national policy statements. Well, I ask Dr Smith what has happened to the Coastal Policy Statement. We quite rightly said that the report should come to an incoming Government, but that was in November. What has happened to the report from Judge Shonagh Kenderdine, which she prepared with very learned people who went around the country working on the Coastal Policy Statement? Where is that report? Why is that thinking not factored\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267431f57-e958-4c83-b438-7da8061d479e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6b7a07ed7f14080a1906f738ec850ec\u0022\u003EPaul Quinn\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s coming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214713b3f72844564b948eb3bc57f0094\u0022\u003EHon STEVE CHADWICK\u003C/span\u003E: It is coming? Here we are, considering simplifying the Resource Management Act, and we do not even have a major implicating instrument, which is either a national policy statement or the Coastal Policy Statement. I think that is very dangerous. We obviously have to wait until phase two of the reforms, and that is where the process itself really concerns me. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003EWe all said in our opening speeches that the Government wants to simplify and streamline the bill. We did not have problems with that. There are many aspects in the bill, and the previous speaker was particularly bitter about the fact that we worked on so much of this and got it right. But we agree with the Greens and Jeanette Fitzsimons that we have unduly complicated and confused the processes. I think the powers of the Minister of Conservation are now absolutely complicated and confused. The Minister in the chair talked about five steps in which the Minister of Conservation has a role in terms of restricted coastal activity. What does that simplify? Is that what the Minister has done in terms of simplifying? I say to Dr Smith that other models could have made it so much simpler. I think he has made the role of the Minister of Conservation unduly complex, and it will confuse applicants when it comes to activities that protect the coastal margin. We know that in New Zealand if we do not show due process and care for the coastal margin, especially with the impact of climate change and also with development pressures moving along the coastal margin, these restricted activities will become more and more fragile, and will require greater protection. I believe that the role of the Minister of Conservation in relation to restricted coastal activity should have stayed in the Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003EI remain very concerned about the overlapping implications on the Foreshore and Seabed Act. This bill gives us no assurance that the processes will be clarified, streamlined, or simplified. As a Minister, I saw that that was particularly an issue for Hauraki. I think it is wrong to remove that power of veto of the Minister and say that five steps will assure the public of New Zealand that the coastal margin with restricted coastal activities will be protected environmentally. It makes it unduly complex. Overlapping regional councils all coming together to work on one plan is great, but the Minister of Conservation is informed only at the end of the stage, not right at the beginning. I think that is a big mistake.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae265f64fa794255a2c3a00165d26bf9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae265f64fa794255a2c3a00165d26bf9\u0022\u003EDr CAM CALDER (National):\u003C/span\u003E It is a privilege to stand again to address members on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. My previous oration this morning on the issue of trees was cut off somewhat; one could say it was truncated. I would like to return to that subject. As the Minister observed, we need to apply a good dose of common sense in the Resource Management Act, and I think that with the broad cross-party support we have received on this issue, we are getting it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003EClause 52 of the bill, which deals with the general protection of trees in the urban environment, has occasioned much correspondence from the community, mirrored by the debate in the House. The major urban area affected by clause 52 is Greater Auckland, where a number of councils have general tree protection rules. There is a school of thought that clause 52 will countenance widespread rapine and plunder of our precious urban arboreal resources. What is it about Auckland and those who live there that should occasion such concern? As an MP who is resident in Auckland and fortunate to have his office in the green and leafy electorate of Epsom, I feel I must stand and speak on behalf of those residents who wish to trim or remove a tree on their property, without the time-consuming and expensive process of seeking a consent. This Government believes that citizens who own their properties should be able to do just that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003EAre those good residents, as I asked this morning, all vegetal Visigoths? Are they philistines of Philodendron; plunderers of p\u014Dhutukawa; pillagers of p\u016Briri; or castrators of kauri? I suggest that they are not. Are those good people ravagers of Rhododendron; topplers of tawa\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cf21bbe1a9c14634a8e15ffe182fc35c\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b0850b487c2e4de9bda92168de26949a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I hope this is a serious point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f9acbcf0cad44d091df9f4f598ae8bb\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: As a descendant of the proud Ng\u0101puhi tribe, I cannot let that remark go unchallenged.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e3f389ae674b4bf99da5fe84fd9c3701\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order. The member is interrupting the speech.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221afcdd3f08764b45b8f6307212942d8b\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Castrating a kauri, for goodness\u2019 sake! What next?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dda1f36223084dfca3fe6eaac05a9c9b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: Please sit down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b42330e11e44b5c8921fb08c0cbe4d1\u0022\u003EDr CAM CALDER\u003C/span\u003E: We have heard from the Hon Shane Jones that we are not likely to see any castrators of kauri in the far north. I am relieved to hear that. I put it to the Committee that neither are we likely to find them in Auckland City. Will people take an axe to every akeake within sight? I respectfully submit that they are not likely to, and they will not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003EWhat is it about the good citizens of Auckland City, North Shore, Waitakere, and Manukau City that causes them all to be portrayed by those opposed to this amendment as rabid pillagers and plunderers, who are straining at the legal leash of section 76 of the principal Act? I remind members that clause 52 is designed to amend that section, which is apparently the only restraint on the lust and naked greed that would otherwise see people sacrifice huge numbers of prized, significant specimen trees on the altar of Mammon. Are the good citizens of Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere, and Manukau City any more likely to act in that manner than the worthy burghers of Christchurch, Hamilton, and Wellington?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226661d7a751884ad68d9698400ac1905b\u0022\u003EJo Goodhew\u003C/span\u003E: And Timaru.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6da2cb39415411492e2cc4a04a11048\u0022\u003EDr CAM CALDER\u003C/span\u003E: And Timaru, thank you. I respectfully suggest that they are not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003ENinety percent of New Zealand cities do not have blanket tree protection laws, yet all communities face developmental pressure to a greater or lesser extent. Four of New Zealand\u2019s largest cities, as we have heard\u2014Wellington, Hamilton, Timaru, and Christchurch\u2014do not have such blanket tree protection. There is no endemic problem with regard to the loss of urban trees in any of these cities. Indeed, it would not have escaped the attention of anyone in the Chamber that Christchurch enjoys the sobriquet \u201Cthe garden city\u201D. These reforms are about pulling back on expensive and unnecessary bureaucracy. We have had some concern raised about the Bluegreens. They reinforce National\u2019s blue-green principles that being pro-environment does not equate to being pro - red tape. We find it unacceptable that concerns about minor projects, such as trimming and removing a small tree, can cost more than the projects themselves. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003EAs a case in point, about 5,000 of the 50,000 resource consents that are applied for every year are for tree trimming or removal, as we may have heard earlier\u20145,000, which is almost 10 percent. Very few of these consents are declined. However, this process is estimated to cost Auckland City almost $2 million. \u201CHow much?\u201D, we might ask. It is $2 million, which could be used to treat stormwater or, perchance, could be used to purchase small parcels of urban land dotted throughout the community that could become treed, or that are treed already. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228cf0fb6b-0b8f-4327-983d-73e1166c220e\u0022\u003ETo reiterate, I say the consent process for trimming or removing trees costs individuals and ratepayers considerable time and money, although it shows few benefits. This Government believes these costs are unjustified. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022 data-id=\u00225824b704184645598c1b328ec21b3557\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225824b704184645598c1b328ec21b3557\u0022\u003EHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour\u2014Hauraki-Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak after that entertaining interlude. There is a saying in M\u0101oridom: \u201CWhen one t\u014Dtara falls, another one stands.\u201D But in the Opposition, when one t\u014Dtara falls, another building is built. After hearing Cam Calder, I say that his speech was very entertaining. We know now why it took such a long time for him to have another speech. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI want to go back to a speech made by a colleague of the member, the member for Taup\u014D, Louise Upston. She talked about getting the balance right. If getting the balance right means we have a top-heavy model weighted in favour of developers, at the expense of public participation in the Resource Management Act, she can have it. I know that there are a great many more people in the Taup\u014D community who have very real concerns about the way in which the changes to the Resource Management Act are weighted in favour more of developers and less of the community, public participation, and certainly iwi and hap\u016B input into decision making. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI listened to the Minister\u2019s previous contribution and I say that one thing is for sure: under the previous Labour Government, when it came to the Resource Management Act, the ability of the public to have input into the consent and planning process was never under threat. It was never under threat, and there was no misunderstanding about it. But what good ideas did we get from National members in their 9 long years in Opposition? Their ideas were to gut the Resource Management Act of any public participation in the resource management process, limit notification, and make it really hard for appeals to happen. We have to ask ourselves whether this is the track that this country, which we are proud to call a clean, green nation, wants to go down. I suspect not, because many submissions were heard during the first tranche of Resource Management Act amendments, and many submitters supported the retention of a high level of public input into decisions made in their local community. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EWe talk about limited public notification and minor adverse effects. Minor adverse effects are a matter of perspective, and a lot of smaller communities said that a lot of things that were happening in their backyard were of real concern to them, and the only way they could have a say was through greater input into the public process. When we talk about limited notification, in fact a lot of submissions said that people were very concerned about that move. Indeed, only 5 percent of consents are notified, so why change something that is not broken, and why limit the ability and the opportunity of communities\u2014good, thinking citizens, who are concerned about preserving the quality of life in their communities\u2014to have a say on what is happening in their backyard? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EA fine example was raised with regard to minor modifications and housing improvements. But let us go to the other end of the spectrum where earthworks are happening that are significant to many communities. There are major earthworks where trees were being cut down on the corner of Grey Street in Hamilton by a developer who had no regard whatsoever to the interests of the community, and who would have rather stumped up with the $50,000 fine than preserve the quality of life and the green space within that part of the Hamilton City community. There are real issues for M\u0101ori landowners who, under a minor works umbrella, have seen that, in order for a lines company to clear space under, say, fallen lines, they have actually had another major road ploughed through the middle of their land. That is not minor; those landowners consider it to be very major. When we talk about minor adverse effects and when we talk about raising the threshold of notification, we have to look at a range of examples and not just at the one pointed to by members of the Government. We say that there are works happening under the label of minor adverse effects that need to be notified and that the public should have a say on, because, from the perspective of the local community, people are concerned about the impact on their quality of life and about what is happening in their community. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EAgain, I say to the Minister that many, many submissions on the issue of limited public notification said that there was really no need to change it\u2014only 5 percent of consents are notified at present. What is the real intention here? It comes on the back of not listening to submissions on Auckland governance, on the back of not listening to a public referendum where a lot of people have spoken, and on the back of ramming through a number of amendments. Clearly the public sentiment has been to ask why we should change some of those things that do not need to be changed. The Minister really needs to provide greater clarity, because on the surface of it, the way in which these types of amendments are moving are weighted more in favour of developers\u2019 interests rather than public input and public participation in the decision-making process. Again, I say that the Minister has taken a number of calls on the bill, and it is important to clarify those things, just so that there is no misunderstanding about what the second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments might foreshadow. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EOn the issue of Whangamata, one can hardly say that all the issues around it were an everyday type of scenario. But I want to provide my perspective, because it was this issue that, in many respects, provided probably one of the most difficult ranges of interests, and they were not all given equal weight in the consideration of that application. It was the interests that were promoted by Hauraki iwi Ng\u0101ti Hako and Ng\u0101ti Hei, and endorsed by the Hauraki M\u0101ori Trust Board, around really simple things such as that, if there were to be a marina in that space, it would significantly impact on our customary fishing interests, specifically the gathering of pipi in our pipi beds. It was very simple. But the weight of those interests against big development interests with a lot of money behind them was lost in the white water, so to speak. There was never really a sense from local hap\u016B that the severity of their concerns about major impacts\u2014protecting the pipi beds, protecting the natural habitat, and concerns for the moko skink in that area\u2014was ever taken into account. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EOn the question of retaining the role of the Minister of Conservation, those powers have rarely been used. Why get rid of them? They should be retained for the public interest, and, more important, for the interests that exist amongst hap\u016B with regard to some of the issues that are never really given much weight in the Environment Court, because hap\u016B do not have the resources to have the technical support to provide the level of intensity in their argument within the Environment Court context. I want to support and endorse the contribution made by my colleague Steve Chadwick on the issue of retaining the role of the Minister of Conservation. She makes the good point that now, since the Foreshore and Seabed Act, in Whangamata the car park space, in a strict sense, would be considered as foreshore and seabed area. If we take out the role of the Minister of Conservation, who protects the public interest there? If customary interests are yet to be determined, who then fills that space? Where customary interests have not been determined, I do not think it is the Minister for the Environment. In fact, it should be the Attorney-General. In my mind there needs to be further thinking about how the gap that has been created should be rightly filled by the best person or position. I would say it should be the Attorney-General with regard to the foreshore and seabed space, to ensure that the opportunity for the customary interests of hap\u016B to be claimed can be held, and the space can be preserved in the meantime for the rest of the public. That is the best way. We cannot assume, I say to the Minister, with respect, that the Minister for the Environment is the best Minister to preside over decisions on questions of that nature. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EOn that front, again I would argue strongly that this role has not been used very often, and there are obviously very specific limitations on the way in which the Minister of Conservation can make decisions. The court said that the process appears to have let the former Minister down on the Whangamata issue. However, let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us have another look at the implications of the issues of the space that we are talking about, especially when it comes to the foreshore and seabed. I think the Minister needs to revisit the question of who fills that gap. With respect, I do not think it should be the Minister for the Environment in a carte blanche way. In fact, I would petition the Minister strongly to do an assessment and scoping of the various lands that are captured in that domain, and ask for advice to ensure that the Attorney-General be considered as the most relevant person to fill the space, if it is not the Minister of Conservation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022be3f8ffbb8e84890b1aefc5782852343\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be3f8ffbb8e84890b1aefc5782852343\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been raised by Nanaia Mahuta in the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Firstly, regarding the issue of the Minister of Conservation\u2019s veto or capacity to overrule the decision of an Environment Court, I put to the Chamber this scenario. Let us say that we had an application that was heard before the Environment Court. The local iwi come along and say that the application will have an adverse effect on their pipi beds, the Environment Court says that they are right, and it turns down the application. In this scenario let us say that the Minister of Conservation was my good colleague Chris Auchinvole, and he said \u201CNo, I\u2019m a keen fisherman and I\u2019m going to overrule the Environment Court. I\u2019m going to let it go ahead.\u201D He would be the very first member to scream foul. I say to the member opposite that that is what the law says. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EMy challenge to the members on my left is this: why do they not trust the Environment Court? There is no other part of the Resource Management Act where Ministers make decisions on individual consents, and members on this side of the House say that we trust the Environment Court. The sorts of issues that the member has raised should be properly dealt with in that court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022942d6eeb153d4c12a8f0b6e35fb85fad\u0022\u003EHon Nanaia Mahuta\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Will the Minister take a question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225254fcf6c3ca49eca2e330ade7ed0875\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order. You cannot interject like that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d43c2de101af4300bfc3991adbd832c2\u0022\u003EHon Nanaia Mahuta\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave for the Minister to take a question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022088408fda934456f83572a2e4191ba68\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: No, you cannot do that. It is a debating point. The member can interject, but if the member who is speaking does not respond then that is the end of asking the member to take a question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299ff037a8e41486492a5b8f6ca438424\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I have a very simple question for members of the Labour Party. Why do they not trust the Environment Court? It is a very simple question. We trust the Environment Court in respect of hydro developments, major transmission projects, and huge roading projects, so why would Parliament take a different view and not trust our Environment Court judges to make proper decisions without political interference in the area of the coast? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second point the member raised was that this bill was all about developers. In fact, Russel Norman went one step further. He said that this bill is an attack on the voluntary and community spirit of communities all over New Zealand. Let me give member a very practical example of why members on this side of the House support this bill. I have a letter here from Mr Peter Grant. He is the treasurer and a life member of the Mercury Bay Tennis Club\u2014one of those rampant developers! Do members know what that awful tennis club wanted to do? It wanted to build a volley wall for its community. To apply for a 2-metre high volley wall at the Mercury Bay Tennis Club\u2014and I have a photo of it that I would be happy to table\u2014it lodged a consent with the Thames-Coromandel District Council, and the council said the club had to have a resource consent. Do members know how long that took? This application was lodged in July last year. How long do members think it took for the Mercury Bay Tennis Club\u2014one of those rampant developers out there\u2014to get consent to build a volley wall for the children of Mercury Bay and Whitianga? The club lodged its application on 11 July, and it finally got consent on 17 February. But there is a byline. Do members know how much it cost the Mercury Bay Tennis Club to get a resource consent for a volley wall in Whitianga? It cost $2,200 to build, but the cost of getting the resource consent was $2,564. Is Mr Norman telling me that that is a voluntary and community group that is being attacked in this bill? I say to that member that that is the sort of bureaucracy that is driving ordinary New Zealanders mad. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ECommunities and members want to do the right thing. They want to make a positive difference for their communities, and members on this side of the House are saying that it is examples like that that show why we need this bill and why we need to take a practical view of how we deal with resource consents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u00223139032db86e4af3b073bdd4292f07c0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223139032db86e4af3b073bdd4292f07c0\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Greens have put forward a number of Supplementary Order Papers on the notification provisions of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, and I would like to run through them so that members will be able to support them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI ask members to turn their attention first to Supplementary Order Paper 43. It removes altogether clause 68, which makes the changes to notification. Basically, these clauses have become a mess. It is confusing. It is not at all clear. We know that it somewhat raises the bar for notification, but it is very unclear how it will be interpreted. It is creating a legal mess. We should go back to the position we had earlier. It was not ideal, but at least we were getting some case law around it, and it was better than what we have now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThat brings me to some comments made by Louise Upston. She talked about people having difficulty getting resource consents to build a garage. Most garages and house extensions need a building consent but they do not need a resource consent. It would have to be an unusual kind of garage\u2014one that shades people\u2019s sunlight, encroaches on the boundary or bulk and location requirements, or whatever\u2014to actually need a resource consent. People certainly would not be notified beyond the immediate neighbours. So it is a very bad example. I give members an example of something of much greater impact that does not get notified, at all: an open-cast coal mine in the Waikato. An open-cast coal mine was regarded as having effects so minor that it did not need notification, at all. I ask members to try that next door! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EIf Supplementary Order Paper 43 fails, which I am sure will not be the case, we have Supplementary Order Paper 45. It clarifies that in a case of limited notification, where the restrictions on who gets notified are quite narrow, an organisation representing the public interest when there is an impact on that public interest by the development should be regarded as affected persons. Because the definition of \u201Cperson\u201D under the Resource Management Act makes it clear that organisations are persons under the Act, we would think that an organisation representing the public interest would be a person affected anyway. But some have argued that only natural persons can be affected in the sense of the Act and that, therefore, organisations representing the public interest could be excluded from the limited notification provisions. That is why we have said, for the avoidance of doubt, that these organisations should be regarded as affected persons. If that organisation is the tennis club and water quality is being affected, then it would not qualify. But if the local environment group has done work on water, and water quality will be impacted, then it ought to be notified. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ESupplementary Order Paper 45 also omits new section 95D(a)(ii), inserted by clause 68, which has the peculiar effect of saying a person \u201Cmust disregard any effects on persons who own or occupy\u2014(ii) any land adjacent to that land;\u201D. So people can cause effects on their immediate neighbours, and they do not get notified, but people cannot cause effects further abroad. That seems to be bizarre, and we propose that that new section should be omitted altogether. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003ESupplementary Order Paper 43 removes clause 131, which is the clause that repeals the right, under section 274 of the Act, to join an appeal brought by another party. I dealt with this issue somewhat in my second reading speech, where I said that the ability to join an appeal brought by somebody else will never be needed by a large developer with full-time lawyers. They will be in there right at the beginning. The people who need section 274 are the people who are holding down jobs and looking after families. They are volunteers, they are part-time, and they just do not see the deadline coming up in time to get into the original case in front of the council. Therefore they lose their right to appeal. As the law stands, section 274 allows them, when someone else appeals, to join that appeal and to bring their information and evidence for the benefit of the court in order to make a better decision. I quote the case of the Cypress mine appeal, where the Buller Conservation Group, under section 274, joined as an interested party the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, which had appealed. They were able to fund a lawyer, an ecologist, and a landscape architect, and that helped the environment movement produce a well-rounded case in that appeal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, and groups like it, sometimes use that ability to join a case. In this case a national environment group brought an appeal, and then the local group was able to join that appeal and bring its local knowledge. Local knowledge is really important in a case like this. I have already mentioned in my second reading speech the case of the local people who knew that the land on which a mining tailings dam was built was unstable and would slip. Unfortunately they were not listened to, even though they got as far as court, and the land was unstable and slipped, and it cost $20 million. The mining company might wish that it had listened at that stage to the local group. So we believe that section 274 adds a useful provision to the Act and should not be repealed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EIf all of this fails, finally we have Supplementary Order Paper 44, which clarifies that even if section 274 is repealed, a person representing some aspect of the public interest that is affected by this case can appeal against the case. I recommend those Supplementary Order Papers to the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI will talk about trees. We do not have laws on murder because we think every good citizen of Auckland will go out and murder people. We do not have laws against theft because we think most people are thieves. We have those laws because there are a few who might be. Likewise, we do not need tree protection laws because we cannot trust the householders of Auckland; we need tree protection laws because in Auckland, above all other places, a lot of infill development is going on whereby developers buy a section they have no real connection with, do not intend to live on, and have no attachment to, in order to build as many apartments as they can fit on to it, and the trees are in the way. This is a totally different situation from a person with a beautiful magnolia in his or her front garden, who is unlikely to chop it down. That is not who this rule is for. We are talking here about the areas that have the most intense development pressures. Of course we are not losing trees in Christchurch! Developers are not trying to cram multiple apartments into every tiny corner of Christchurch. It is not growing at quite that rate. We have those pressures in a few parts of the country. Councils can use this tool in the public interest where it is necessary to have some control over trees in those areas that are being densified quite fast. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe Minister for the Environment said there were 5,000 applications per year to trim trees. If the Minister is right, then what he is saying is that all of those 5,000 cases would not have had to happen if he had accepted my amendment, which excluded trimming trees and allowed a blanket protection only for felling, removing, or destroying trees. But the Minister would not accept that amendment, at all, despite the fact that it would have dealt with those 5,000 applications, which he said were about trimming trees. My suspicion is that roughly half of them were about trimming trees and roughly half of them were about felling trees, but in either case it would have dramatically reduced those compliance costs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EIn addition, councils could delegate the decision to an officer on site who goes out, visits, and makes an assessment. The officer says yes, signs the piece of paper, and says: \u201COff you go.\u201D There is no need for the mass of paperwork that goes on at the moment. It could be done very quickly and simply. It is just a matter of having a check. The scheduling will create very much greater compliance costs because every single tree scheduled is open to appeal by people who do not want it scheduled. The council will be tied up in a nightmare of compliance, red tape, cost, and paperwork trying to get its schedule, and most councils simply will not try.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022f584bd5c462d476695c55262b38618fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f584bd5c462d476695c55262b38618fe\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E Self-sown or planted, raised and nurtured by the landowner or growing up naturally through the canopy cover above. Growing over dozens of years, sometimes hundreds of years, sometimes thousands of years, they emerge to provide shelter and shade. They provide stability for our soils, they prevent erosion and slipping. They fertilise, they attract rain, they hold moisture, they provide beauty, wilderness, amenity, and view. They refresh our souls as well as our waters. Trees. They are slow to grow, quick to go. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EAt the heart of the debate lies this paradox. There are two competing views of the ownership of these things called trees. On the one side is a party that believes that ownership is entirely individual and entirely temporal, and therefore every individual should have the ultimate right to cut them down. On this side we have a party that believes that trees are part of our birthright that we give to other generations, and are also something that we own collectively as well as individually. In recognition of that broader view, some communities around New Zealand have joined together to agree rules that everybody in that community should stand by in the way that they either protect, or decide to chop down, a tree. Clause 52 amends section 76 of the Resource Management Act to prohibit any rule in a district plan from providing for the protection of any tree or group of trees in an urban environment. It is an act of prohibition against any community deciding that there is a common interest in maintaining those trees. Clause 151 requires any council to remove rules from the district plan by 1 January 2012, conveniently after the next general election, which probably explains why the Government has brought in a Supplementary Order Paper that at least scores the unrestricted trimming of a tree immediately on the passage of this bill, before the next general election, just in case National does not win it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EHere we come to another fascinating political point. In the life of any Government there are some key moments, moments when in its arrogance it puts its big boot right in the organic matter, and this is one of those moments, just as it was on adult and community education cuts, and just as it was when the public decided that it was revolted by Rodney Hide\u2019s minimalist vision of a local government agenda. On this issue inboxes are clogged with hundreds and hundreds of emails from Aucklanders who say that it is not the Government\u2019s right to override their democratically elected councils that have put in place rules that the majority stand for. Here is the problem. This is an active override by central Government over local democracy, from a party that campaigned against the nanny State! This is the chainsaw State, the bulldozer State, driving its way through local government rules. It is the party of liberty crushing bottom-up democracy\u2014go figure! That is what these tree provisions are really about. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThis is a bill that was supposed to streamline and simplify, but whose only solution to the trees issue is to create a mountain of bureaucratic red tape by requiring that every tree or\u2014maybe, just maybe, especially if Lynne Pillay\u2019s amendment goes through\u2014group of trees has to be individually scheduled by the council, creating a trail of paperwork and further consultation. They say the blanket rules are too bureaucratic so we are going to get 100,000 little individual rules for each tree. One of the members opposite raised the subject of Timaru. I grew up not far from there. That is the kind of place where, if people are driving along an empty country road and see another car, they wave because they never know whether it is the last car they will see. It is not hard to protect an individual tree in Timaru; there are not too many of them. But it is a totally different scenario in Waitakere, where I now have the privilege of living. In Waitakere, there are hundreds of thousands of trees. It is completely impractical to do individual scheduling or even small group scheduling of trees, and many properties and many dwellings exist in the bush.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThere is a ridiculously inequitable state of affairs in these clauses, because they apply only to urban trees and urban councils. That says that rural people\u2014is that because they vote National more often\u2014must love their trees more or would be more sensible. Is that the hidden agenda here? Why should urban people not have the right to join together through a democratically elected council and protect their native flora? It does not make any sense, it is inequitable, and it is unnecessary because streamlining is an operational matter. It does not need to be a legislative matter. If it is, the Greens have an amendment that quite rightly allows for improved trimming and provides for on-the-spot consenting processes, and we believe that there is a lot of potential there to find a good middle ground. We are not opposed to streamlining, but we believe that these provisions take the Act in the opposite direction. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe legislation is unethical. It manifests an extreme individualism. It says \u201CThe tree on my property is mine alone. It doesn\u2019t matter if it took 200 years to grow. It doesn\u2019t matter if I am a blink in the eye of the life of the tree. It doesn\u2019t matter if as well as being on my property it provides shade or stability for the properties beside me, above me, or below me on the hill, and it doesn\u2019t matter if removing it might cause erosion or a slip. That does not matter. It does not matter if it is part of a view. It doesn\u2019t matter if it is part of a line of p\u014Dhutukawa along the coast. That does not matter, because it is mine alone.\u201D That is the kind of individualism that ordinary New Zealanders do not buy into.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003ELabour will be vigorously opposing these tree provisions, and we will be moving three amendments to remove or reduce them. Phil Twyford will be moving amendments to strip those offending provisions from the bill because they are wrong and they should go. At the very least, they should be deferred into the second tranche of the Resource Management Act reforms so that the Government has time to properly consult. If National is a party of consultation, then let it be true to its word. I will be moving an amendment to exempt the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area, established by this Parliament not a year ago after 30 years\u2019 work and supported by 81 percent of Aucklanders, according to Colmar Brunton. That should be akin to a reserve or a conservation management area, and that should be exempted for very, very sensible reasons from the operation of those clauses, if they stand. If the Government rejects both of those two, I call on the Minister to state whether he will support an amendment on behalf of Waitakere City by Lynne Pillay MP. They are technical amendments that hold the Minister to his word that it is not an individual tree but a group of trees that can be scheduled, if scheduling must occur. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI come to the fundamental point that the trees of west Auckland are a community resource as well as an individual resource. There are far too many homes on properties of less than 4,000 square metres that are reticulated that are surrounded by trees. In fact, the only area on some properties that is not treed is the physical area of the house. The rest of it is solid tree cover, and scheduling every tree is a nonsense. At best, it is a bureaucratic nightmare; at worst, it is a deliberate con. That brings me to National\u2019s Auckland MPs. Nikki Kaye goes around the tree groups and says that she will help. Either she knows she is powerless and she is not being frank, or she has an overblown impression of the Minister\u2019s willingness to listen. Either way, it is vacuous; she has delivered nothing. Paula Bennett would not return the phone calls of the Waitakere City Council. She presents herself as a defender of west Auckland, yet she is selling it down the river. Tim Groser could not be bothered because he is overseas. Pita Sharples could not pick up the phone. In his case, I understand there may some family reasons, so we will cut him some slack on that. But I call on M\u0101ori Party members to be the kaitiaki of the trees, not just talk about it, and vote with Labour if they can get over themselves and long-past history, and support these amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00223f224d10b3f74500b3460474478a2ed9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223f224d10b3f74500b3460474478a2ed9\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E That was an extraordinary contribution from David Cunliffe. It was wrong in fact, wrong in process, and wrong in philosophy. Let me go through each of the issues. The member opposite said that there is no provision except for individual tree protection. That is wrong. There is absolute capacity for groups of trees to be identified for protection through the proper process. All this bill does is ban blanket protection rules across the district. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second error I want to mention, which I find extraordinary, concerns amendments. Where are all the amendments that Labour members moved at the select committee when they heard submissions on this bill? I do not think a single amendment was put forward at the select committee. [Interruption] Mr Twyford has said he has strong concerns. He was on the select committee. Was he asleep? Was he not there? Why did Labour members not move a single amendment at the select committee when these detailed provisions concerning trees were being dealt with? They have completely let the side down. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet us turn to the issue of philosophy. I will explain very simply the philosophy on this side of the Chamber. In an extraordinary backwards flip the member David Cunliffe is saying that somehow the changes we are making are an attack on liberty. Let me very simply explain for the member the principle that applies here. It is perfectly proper for Parliament to define something as simple as a person\u2019s property right. Probably the most important asset that New Zealanders own is their little quarter acre, and it is the proper business of this Parliament to define the limits and the extent of people\u2019s rights around their little quarter acres. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a1f5c54535ec466ba7635d81633864f9\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: No limits under this Minister!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6136e95593440ed87e0289dc168d2a3\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The member opposite keeps interjecting and saying that there are no limitations. That is simply untrue, and it is below what I would expect of a front-bench member of the Labour Party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EMembers on this side of the Chamber say that is an absolute right\u2014and David Cunliffe gave a speech about a huge tree that has been growing for 200 years\u2014for a community to identify a tree, or group of trees, in its district plan, and there is nothing in this bill to stop anybody from properly recognising those trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI say to the member that if the council wants to adopt a rule of that sort, then it should talk to the property owner. Is that not a novel concept? It seems to me that it is a novel concept for members on the Labour benches to say that if people have a tree on their property and the council wants to protect it, the council should talk to them and consult them. Is that a radical notion? Is that something that this Parliament and its members cannot grapple with? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EPerhaps I should read, for the benefit of Mr Cunliffe, this contribution from Mr Bill Ralston. He says: \u201CBefore Christmas I decided to get rid of an ugly, stunted, exotic box elder tree at the bottom of my garden that was strangling a native nikau and a couple of other palm trees. The guy who does our garden brought around an arborist who told me he could not fell the damn thing without a resource consent. I wrote a cheque and several weeks later a man from the Auckland City Council with a clipboard came around and stared long and hard at the offending tree. Yes, he would recommend we could cut it down. More weeks passed and eventually a long document arrived from the Regulatory Planning Department of Auckland City Environments saying we had been granted consent. The tree feller came, cut it down and removed it in 30 minutes.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EBill Ralston said he was very pleased that the National Government is going to pass changes to end that sort of nonsense. He went on to say: \u201CI will never again have to apply for a Resource Consent to trim my garden, the council will not have to spend many hours pondering my botanical behaviour, and the ratepayers of Auckland will not be wasting hundreds of dollars every time someone in this city wants to do some gardening\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI also draw Mr Cunliffe\u2019s attention\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226c20f812215b40609144542bb4e0d4b6\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: How many emails has the member received in favour of whacking down trees?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223647fa5ca3394c40b8b55696fcc0715f\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member Mr Cunliffe asks about emails. That is an interesting question. I never\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002244ce97bfbf934479bb8a10c07f0389c1\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: He has to read his media trainer\u2019s emails.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002228269d52ab2d43f185360b287ca9cf43\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The member should take a big deep breath for a moment. I draw his attention to the New Zealand Herald poll. What did the poll say about this issue this week?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b59f2f2ddc840ee9cd5d938ed9313ae\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: How scientific was that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cd1f1635afb44573b48fdd879183bcfc\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, that member, who has just been talking about the number of emails I have received, is not prepared to accept a poll from the New Zealand Herald. I have to tell the member that it is as simple as this: the vast majority of New Zealanders do not believe they should have to get a resource consent to trim their trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI look forward to campaigning in 2011 and saying that a vote for Labour is a vote for a nanny State and a vote to go back to the nonsense we have tolerated for 9 years, as has been demonstrated by the poor old citizens like Bill Ralston, who had to go through a 6-week performance to get resource consent to trim a tree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022 data-id=\u00225bf3d12465a34bd284174e242816c48c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225bf3d12465a34bd284174e242816c48c\u0022\u003ENICKY WAGNER (National):\u003C/span\u003E I want to refer to Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of Dr Russel Norman. Part of this Supplementary Order Paper deals with security for costs. Security for costs is something that concerned many of our submitters, but we believe that a lack of knowledge about the process increased their concern unnecessarily. The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill does reinstate security for costs. Many community groups were concerned that this provision may exclude them from participating in environmental decisions. But when the Local Government and Environment Committee reviewed court decisions from the past, we felt that the judges had used their power with discretion and that genuine environmental groups with genuine concerns would not be disadvantaged. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EIt is important to note that the Environment Court has always had the ability to award costs in appeal proceedings, but the power of the court to require security for costs has varied. Security for costs is the deposit of money or security to meet the possibility that the party will be unable to pay costs that may be ordered by the court should the case be unsuccessful. In the period 1996-2003, although the Environment Court had this power it was rarely used. Database searches could find only eight times when security for costs was required, whereas nearly 1,500 cases went before the court each year. Contrary to common perception among many of the submitters, the practice of requiring security for costs in the Environment Court does not kick in automatically upon the lodgement of an appeal. A party, usually the party whose resource consent decision is being appealed against, first has to apply to the court for an order for security for costs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EWhen it had the power to require security for costs, the Environment Court exercised its discretion according to a range of factors. The general principles are set out in rule 61 of the District Court Rules 1992, and the interests of both the appellant and the applicant are to be considered. Factors that are considered include the strength or merits of the plaintiff\u2019s case, the conduct of the parties involved, public interest factors, and an assessment of the financial resources that are available. Given that the court already has case law in place and it has been considered to work well, we did not see a need to specify criteria for additional consideration in this legislation. I repeat: we do not think that environmental groups or individuals with a genuine issue need to fear this amendment. It is there to provide a balance at the court\u2019s discretion, and I believe it is needed. During the submission process we did see firsthand evidence of an environmental group that felt it was OK\u2014in fact, it felt it was its right\u2014to dissolve the organisation and walk away from its responsibility when court costs were awarded against it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EWe believe that the new bill, in allowing the ability to require security for costs at the court\u2019s discretion, provides a good balance. We hope that as groups get to understand the process and see it in action, they will conclude that they have nothing to fear and everything to gain from participating in environmental decision-making. Therefore, I suggest that we do not support Dr Russel Norman\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022 data-id=\u0022c18b0253351943caa9e25efe0587854a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c18b0253351943caa9e25efe0587854a\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour\u2014Manurewa):\u003C/span\u003E I will begin by saying that I think the Resource Management Act has been a very good Act. It is very easy to find examples of where things have not gone right. One can always dig those up. The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill has to make sure that red tape is cut. However, will it work? I think we have to look at the situation as it is. People came to the select committee hearing and made their submissions with passion. I was disappointed that I was not able to sit on the committee very often because I was on the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee that was sitting at the same time, dealing with Auckland issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003EI want to talk about what is going on in Manurewa in regard to this bill. If someone wants to build one of these things called a bloke\u2019s shed and it happens to be going up against the boundary, that person will run into real conflict. The resource consent cannot be gained very easily. I understand that, and I want to see things change. The reality is that the people who administer the Act at the moment are the same ones who will be in charge of this new Act, once it passes through the House. We have to change those people, and I think that is the real problem. We have to change the way these people see things. When someone asks to have a bloke\u2019s shed built on the back of his or her section, up against the neighbour\u2019s property, these guys see that there is at least 3 months\u2019 work in it for them. Of course, it is not made easy. I hope that these things will change quite considerably. I think the Act itself has been fairly important, in terms of making sure that developers do not run roughshod over the assets of a community. The environment is very, very important. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003EI want to tell members about a situation in Weymouth. Two macrocarpa trees are growing right on the boundary of someone\u2019s place. They are not beautiful trees, and the next-door neighbour wants to get rid of them because they are blocking the light and making the property damp. But the person who lives about eight houses down the road thinks they look pretty good, and then the debate starts and the council ends up taking sides. I do not want this bill that is before us now to start a chainsaw massacre.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221de0ec9b163543a392045e287b72f756\u0022\u003EChris Auchinvole\u003C/span\u003E: It won\u2019t, George; it won\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c082c7fe445e4033a670b631ced66b42\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS\u003C/span\u003E: I think it very well could, and I think we have to be careful about that. When we see how some people in Auckland will do anything to clear a bit of land to build on, we have to be very careful. Auckland is even better than Christchurch, as far as a city with trees goes. There are some wonderful places in Auckland. But people get passionate. Remember One Tree Hill, when it used to have a tree? People became very emotional when the tree was cut down. Aucklanders love their trees. Of course, we would be remiss if we did not make sure that people cannot go out there and just chop down the tree. We cannot say to people: \u201CWell, that tree has been there for the last 100 years. It\u2019s going to stay.\u201D, and have them reply: \u201CNo, it\u2019s not. I\u2019m going to chop it down. It\u2019s my tree.\u201D We most certainly do not want that to happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003EIt is interesting that at the moment the chief executive of the local council has more say over the tree than the person who owns the land that the tree is on. However, there are people in our community who are not responsible, who do not care what their neighbours think, and who do not care what the wider community thinks. We do not want to let them get their chainsaws out and hack down every tree, because they do not like them. Councils are notorious for putting so much red tape in the way of people. I have a case in Manurewa at the moment. It took the council 26 years to notify a person that a fence was the wrong size.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022 data-id=\u00224beee5f8cf7f4aeb921af629235a334c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224beee5f8cf7f4aeb921af629235a334c\u0022\u003EDr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I will speak briefly about notification issues, because those are some of the issues in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I will talk about a particular example of how the notification processes are already far too weak. The example I wish to address is around a piece of bush that used to exist in the South Taranaki ring plain. It was called the Parihaka bush. This is an example of why the current regime around notification is far too weak, and why it is a mistake to weaken it further, as the Government proposes to do with this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EParihaka bush was about 10 hectares of remnant forest and a remnant swamp, or wetland, and it sat in the South Taranaki ring plain. Members who know the South Taranaki ring plain will know that outside the Taranaki park, very little native vegetation is left. According to the ecological assessment done on the area, about 1 percent of the original native vegetation is left in the South Taranaki ring plain. Parihaka bush existed previously; it was about 10 hectares. Tawa, rewarewa, miro, pukatea, rimu, m\u0101hoe, pigeonwood, tree ferns, and about 20, 30, or 40 different varieties of ferns, trees, and shrubs existed in this area. It was a very important local piece of vegetation. It also had the Waitotoroa Stream, which had water of reasonable quality in it because of the bush that existed around it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EParihaka bush was in the middle of a dairy farm\u2014and there is a family story about this. New farmers basically wanted to bowl the bush in order to do a dairy conversion. They wanted to take it out; they wanted to get rid of it. They went to the South Taranaki District Council, which told them they would need a resource consent. The farmers, being of the same mind as the National Party and the ACT Party, thought that that was an outrage. They said something like: \u201CHow dare they! It is our land. How dare we have to have a resource consent in order to bowl the last 10 hectares of native bush\uF020 left in an area where 1 percent of the native vegetation is left? It is our land. How outrageous it is that we should have to have a resource consent in order to bulldoze bush!\u201D. So the farmers started bulldozing it anyway. They said: \u201CBugger that! We don\u2019t believe in this Resource Management Act stuff. The National Party tells us all the time how bad it is, and we subscribe to that, so we will get the bulldozer out and start bulldozing the bush.\u201D They started on the bulldozing before someone found out and the council sent someone around to assess what was going on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe council intervened and had an ecological assessment done on the bush. It found out that the bush was a 100-year-old piece of bush that was tremendously important in terms of the ecology of the region. One would think that the council, at that point, would have said the farmers could not bulldoze any more of the bush. In fact, one would think that it would fine them for bulldozing the bush without obtaining a resource consent. One would think that would be the logical conclusion. Instead, the council looked at the ecological assessment, which showed the bush was tremendously important, and it obtained a recommendation from council officers, who said the council should not give the landowners a resource consent, because that would only reward them for bad behaviour, and it would be a bad thing to do anyway. The council then said no, it would give the farmers a resource consent. Not only did the council say it would give them consent to bowl the rest of the bush but also it said they did not have to notify the proposal. The council decided not to tell anyone about it. The farmers had a non-notified consent for the bowling of the rest of the 10-hectare bush, but they left some parts of it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThis is the current situation. The Resource Management Act is already so weak and unable to protect the last remnants of natural vegetation from dairy conversions that this clearance of the bush went ahead. In the bill before us the Government proposes to weaken the notification provisions further. This is the reality on the ground in New Zealand today. This is what is going on outside this House. We hear the rhetoric from National and ACT about the evil Resource Management Act and how it does terrible things, but the truth is that we are losing biodiversity rapidly, because the Resource Management Act is too weak. We need provisions to protect biodiversity on private land. That is essential if we are to protect the remnants of biodiversity. There are farmers right across New Zealand who protect biodiversity. They have Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust covenants put on their land, they protect biodiversity, and they would be appalled by the actions of these farmers in knocking over this important remnant bush. They do not support that. But in this case, the farmers got away with it. They did it and it was not notified, and that is why we have to strengthen the notification provisions, not weaken them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u002295e07c54aff845399a3fc9559fac2caf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002295e07c54aff845399a3fc9559fac2caf\u0022\u003EH V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour\u2014Manukau East):\u003C/span\u003E In acknowledging the work that has been done at the select committee, let me say to the presiding officer that I acknowledge and recognise the important part he, too, plays in the debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EThis legislation will be dubbed the chainsaw massacre legislation, because it opens the way for people to be able to remove trees that they do not like. Many of us know the importance of a tree. As an electorate member of Parliament I have served Papatoetoe for the previous 22 years, \u014Ctara for 13 years, and \u014Ct\u0101huhu for just under 1 year. I can imagine some of the great trees that exist in Papatoetoe. I can envisage places like Kolmar Road, and also Wallace Road, where we have some wonderful oaks. Some of them overlap, and I can see some overzealous people now using this legislation to be able to remove those trees if they do not like them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EThe Government is overreacting. Labour was accused of being a nanny State Government. We can now turn the tables and say this Government is a nanny State Government. This nanny State Government is putting forward this legislation and overreacting, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In Auckland, where population pressures are increasing, our small areas of vegetation are under great pressure. Six out of seven Auckland local councils have general tree protection. The Environment Court accepts the approach, declaring in favour in 2002 of an argument that general tree protection rules were necessary to achieve the purposes of the Resource Management Act. Clause 52 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill will undo that tree protection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EIt is not just my Labour colleagues or my Green colleagues who oppose clause 52. If we look at the New Zealand Herald, the headline on 7 September reads: \u201CTree law change aids \u2018sneaky\u2019 choppers\u201D. I will quote from the article: \u201CHomeowners whose trees are illegally chopped down by neighbours will no longer be able to count on council help once a proposed law change likely to become final this week is passed [into law]. The owner of Auckland\u2019s biggest tree consultancy predicts more neighbourhood spats if the law scraps protection for trees of a certain height or size\u2014and councils will no longer be able to step in. Stacy Colyer, whose Greenscene company is often called in to help with disputes, said there would be an increase in court cases over who owns large trees on boundaries.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EAlthough one can accept the need to simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act, I have found from experience that much of it comes down to the training of individuals in councils. It comes down to staff training, and being able to handle applications for resource consents. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EMr Colyer is concerned about clause 52. He says it means that in urban environments only trees or groups of trees that are specifically identified in a schedule of notable trees to a district plan in a reserve are protected by the Reserves Act. He says, and he believes, that some simple operational modifications could have been implemented to deal with the problem, rather than act in a way with the legislation and with what it is intended to do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003EMr Colyer has a lot to say. Some of what he says I agree with, and I think the Minister should take some notice of what is being said. We know that trees are important for the environment. We know that there is urban sprawl in Auckland. We know that there will be a time when those people who are developers will want to remove the trees. They will use any opportunity they can to ensure that that happens. If we look around at some other countries that have environmental legislation we see the importance of trees and why they are there. In a lot of the countries, vegetation, wildlife, and birds are affected by a lack of trees. As urban centres become more intensified, the challenges facing the Government are greater. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u00228f4b09eeb7774d47b9f39dcdcaf7edc3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f4b09eeb7774d47b9f39dcdcaf7edc3\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E We have spent a lot of time in this Chamber over the last few months debating the Auckland super-city, and an enormous effort is going into creating governance structures for Auckland. But what do we find? Before the ink is even dry on the second super-city bill, this Government\u2014this nanny State Government\u2014is already intervening in a heavy-handed way to take away the powers that local government uses to govern its own communities. I think it was the Prime Minister who said that local decisions should be made locally. The Associate Minister of Local Government will be able to confirm that comment, because I have heard him repeating the same idea over and over. But what is happening? The Government is coming over the top with its big boots on, and overriding the powers of local government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI quote Mr Chris Dempsey, who is one of several hundred Aucklanders who has emailed me in the last few days. He says: \u201CFirstly, if the National Party would really like to place such a prohibition on enacting policies within district plans, then I invite the National Party to write the district plans for every TLA. As I pointed out in my submission to the select committee, for central government to interfere, nanny-like, with how TLAs reach decisions and make policies about things that are important to them, then the obligation is on the Government to do the work for the TLAs. The National Party cannot pick and choose. Either the party abides by its beliefs that the local communities know what is best for them, or it doesn\u2019t.\u201D I think Mr Dempsey makes a very good point.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIt is worth asking why six out of seven Auckland councils use the general tree protection rules. Why do they? I have some answers. It is because those rules protect trees, and because the alternative\u2014listing and scheduling those trees\u2014is impractical and expensive. It is also because democratically elected councillors going about their work, and implementing district plans after considerable public input, find that those rules are actually the most effective tool open to them for protecting trees. Does that mean anything to National? No, it does not. There has been a lot of debate this afternoon about whether this is a strange Auckland phenomenon. Why should Auckland rely on these rules when the rest of the country does not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI invite members opposite, and the Minister, to reflect a moment on why it is the case that six out of seven Auckland councils use these rules. Could it be anything to do with the population density in Auckland, where 1.4 million people are crammed into a little isthmus? Could it be anything to do with property prices? Could it be anything to do with the intense development pressures experienced in our country\u2019s biggest city? I invite the Minister to take a drive along the motorway from Fanshawe Street towards the Harbour Bridge, and to look up at the cliffs of St Marys Bay. And members should not worry because the Minister is not driving; he is sitting in the back of his limousine. He will see there that rogue developers in the past have taken a chainsaw and cleared the cliff-tops in order to be able to provide a clear view for their clients. That is the kind of development pressure we face in Auckland; Aucklanders know that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe existing general tree protection rules have not prevented every mishap of that kind, but they have prevented many of them. Nikki Kaye, the member for Auckland Central, will have to explain to the good people of Herne Bay, Freemans Bay, and St Marys Bay why the cliff-tops will lose their p\u014Dhutukawas after the bill is passed. I have news for the Minister. Once the clause is passed there is no safety net. It will all be over; there will be nothing left to protect the trees of Auckland. Councils have made it very clear that they will not be individually listing trees in anything like the volume that is needed and in a way that currently protects those trees. It is a crazy, expensive, impractical, and bureaucratic approach to solving the problem. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWhen the Minister spoke early in the day he was completely disingenuous in claiming that 5,000 resource consents every year were needed to deal with the trimming of trees. This debate is not about the trimming of trees, but that is what the Minister said. Already in the select committee Labour members and Green members have made it very clear that they are not opposed to lifting some of the restrictions around these provisions, but the Minister has rejected a compromise proposal that would have made tree trimming a non-consented activity.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002231443c46d41a49e7bec549285cbc4af4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231443c46d41a49e7bec549285cbc4af4\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I want to challenge a number of the quite ridiculous notions that have been put forward again about the issue of tree trimming. Let me just flick through a few of them. Essentially, Labour is arguing that unless councils love trees we will not have trees. It is a bit like arguing that people would not paint their houses unless there was a council law that required them to paint their houses. Actually, people do paint their houses. They paint their houses to look very nice. It makes the community look good. But does that mean that our Parliament and our councils have to have a whole lot of rules, regulations, and Acts of Parliament to ensure that people paint their houses? No, it does not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254bf981549b84f1ca31355c2db1edbcb\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re the one with the mandate override.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225cf52d4e1e98488bbd8b5936eba4f7b8\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I say exactly the same to the member who is continuously interjecting. Labour members essentially do not, at heart, trust New Zealanders. That is the heart of the issue. They say to them that we need a nanny State Government and nanny State councils to introduce blanket rules, because nobody is capable of making decisions about their trees unless there is some bureaucrat who is able to give them consent or not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThen another extraordinary argument was put forward, which was that on 1 October we will see a massacre of trees. I say to any member of the Labour Party that I will bet them the best bottle of Nelson wine that their tree massacre comments are utter rubbish. Will the member Phil Twyford take me on? He is silent. He is absolutely silent. He knows that his claims are ridiculous. Then the member said that this debate is not about having to get\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0ac49b5ffe1439f8ecb392674673dcf\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member knows that the implementation date of the bill is 2012. Would it be possible to re-offer the bet\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8e6bbd49e134a8c914b939f18475f35\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order. The member knows that it is not a point of order. The member has been here a while. The member is on the front bench. The member has raised a debating point as a point of order in order to interrupt someone\u2019s speech. It is a free-flowing debate. I like it for that reason. People are having a robust debate. Let us continue, please. That is a message to all members.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228f9e75ce799b49efbc10e1575c2eb98c\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The members opposite say that it is nothing to do with tree trimming. It has everything to do with tree trimming, because for the 9 years that Mr Cunliffe was in the Cabinet room 5,000 New Zealanders each year had to get a resource consent to trim their trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e26956e18474f32b973302e9776e3af\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: We support tree trimming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ebda8ff7f8b466698bd45a0d4749722\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the question I ask members on that side of the Committee is what they did about it. What did they do about the frustrations of the New Zealanders who, for 9 long years during the course of a Labour Government, had to get a resource consent to trim their trees?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe answer is that the nanny State Labour Government ignored the concerns of those New Zealanders and required that they get a resource consent for the purpose of being able to trim their tree. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe other extraordinary point is that those members claim we are overriding the wishes of councils. The Auckland City Council, which is the largest council to be affected by these provisions, has made a submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee and stated that the rules do not work and that it supports the bill and the changes. I ask how it is possible for Labour members to argue that we are overriding councils, when the largest council to be affected by the changes supports the changes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EAnother point I would make is to do with the quite pathetic point put forward by Labour that this Parliament has no right to consider what powers councils should or should not have. That is nonsense. It goes to the core of the responsibilities of this Parliament to define which things it is proper for councils to be able to do, and which things it is proper for councils not to be able to do. Government members say that if citizens want to trim their trees, then they should not have to get resource consent, and councils should not be able to require them to. We say further that if the Government wants to limit the powers of councils to be able to put rules in place without consulting with landowners, then it can. I know that land ownership is not a concept that weighs heavily on members of the Labour Party. All we are saying is that if a council wants to protect a tree or a group of trees, there is a very simple provision in this law. It simply says that if councils want to protect a tree or group of trees, then they should talk with the landowner. Is that such a novel, unusual concept? If councils want to pass a rule that directly impacts on a person\u2019s property, then they should talk to that person. They should consult people. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bc6760c614de4709a2d5baeae4729e7e\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: The member knows it won\u2019t happen.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e76b49e21d14e9a8fd935d24ec90d4e\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The member opposite says that cannot occur. Well, I ask Mr Twyford how it is possible that every single council supports this, including Christchurch. Let me go through the list: Palmerston North, Napier, New Plymouth\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de13da0d3ec545709fa2369755ae1169\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Christchurch hasn\u2019t added one tree in 10 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f365fed1558944babd2268af21605a1a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Let us take up that point. The member makes the claim that the Christchurch City Council has not protected a single tree in 10 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a54891a41d2b438087c96c4ed10e6d9a\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Not one extra; not one extra in 10 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227edf1f01e57d4d2d8094a9c79168a7b3\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, well let me tell the member what happens. The Christchurch City Council\u2014and I had lunch today with Mayor Bob Parker\u2014points out that\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a92034345efc48fea0c9dce685b3a2eb\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Who paid?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022114f7c86abe14dd28e70497613d6a5f0\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Is that not typical of the senior Labour whip? All he is concerned about is that pathetic point. Here we have Parliament debating an issue that is costing millions of dollars, and the great intellectual contribution from Darren Hughes is to ask who paid for the lunch. Well, if that is as good as Labour members\u2019 debate gets on this bill, then I can be assured that people will not be voting for a change of Government for a very long time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI want to deal with the issue of the trees in Christchurch, because the truth is this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f496c17e415f43e4961589754321a4bd\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: There are fewer of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002258821590c10046f0992753e0134442c6\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: No, hundreds of trees have been protected in Christchurch, and I will tell members how. Again, this is an area where Labour members are ignorant of the law. Every time a resource consent is applied for, as a condition of that resource consent, many councils properly require the protection of trees. That is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225691d1e9af3a45da814edea6686cde67\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: Why is this member the only one talking from the National side?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002242211907851441378a5187e240d68e05\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Are the members of the Labour Party not truly pathetic? When I do not take calls they complain, when I do take calls they complain, and they try to interject to the point that I cannot answer the questions from the member. I will come back to the issue. The Christchurch City Council has protected hundreds of trees in the last 10 years. The member is incorrect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022afe661fce9a045e8bae7203e3ea1f69b\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: He hasn\u2019t scheduled a single one.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254413ac93abf4a8292f455d84d6428b8\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Well, Mr Cunliffe asks whether the council has put them on the schedule. I am not sure that the public actually cares whether they are protected as a consequence of a condition of a resource consent or whether they are scheduled. From the public\u2019s point of view, their concern is whether the tree has been protected. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe last point I would make is that Labour members have claimed\u2014and we have just heard this from one of them\u2014that a neighbour would not be consulted about the removal of a tree. Well, I will give those members some news: under the current provisions the neighbour is not consulted either. In all those 5,000 resource consents per year in Auckland to either trim or remove a tree there is not a single case where the neighbour is required to be consulted. What is more, in 97.6 percent of the cases the consent is granted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022 data-id=\u0022d0441fcef4bd4d0696539f657ac737fe\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d0441fcef4bd4d0696539f657ac737fe\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E The Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, is clearly not listening to what this argument is all about. This clause is being held up by the Government as some sort of trophy for cutting red tape and bureaucracy, and also as a promotion of individual and property rights. I see the Minister is looking attentive. I ask whether he can explain to the Committee how the requirement of councils to identify trees in groups or individually throughout the whole of the Greater Auckland region is not bureaucracy. The task would be hugely time-consuming, expensive, and complex, and it would be impossible to carry out effectively and efficiently. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003ENow the Minister is saying that he wants a progress report from councils every 6 months. Under the new one city, we will have Len Brown as the mayor, and after a few months he will ask what is going on, as his budget will have been absolutely blown-out on identifying and protecting trees. The hard-working council workers\u2014those who have kept their jobs\u2014will say that they are going out to meet all the property owners and have a nice cup of tea with them and a jolly good chat, but that there are thousands and thousands of them. The council workers will say that they have not got through them all or identified all the trees, but that they are talking to them. That is where the expense is. When the Minister next takes a call, I would like him to explain that point very clearly, because I think that he talked about having a cup of tea with property owners\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a80e91e6b1ad449687b4bfd3d993964f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I\u2019ve never said that in my life.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022aa5ddb2b9d2349e8b1ac648a59e9ffe7\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014or having a good chat with them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ca6901480494cb89c278a9d7132c07c\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I never said it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e6ae3cc4df94b119bf5e10029805201\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY\u003C/span\u003E: If the Minister goes to Waitakere, I am sure that the property owners there will ask him whether he would like a cup of tea, and they will ask the council workers that. But the reality is that the process will take huge, huge amounts of time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003ESo many Aucklanders from right across the region, from every city in the Auckland region, have sent piles and piles of emails. They have held meetings, they have written to MPs, and they have telephoned MPs. I am proud of my west Auckland colleagues and my Greater Auckland colleagues who have listened to the people and are running the argument here. I have to say that not one National MP from Waitakere has answered those people\u2019s calls or listened to them. My colleagues are the people who are there to represent westies. The people who have contacted me and my colleagues have not just been critical. They have offered sensible solutions and proposals, such as expanding the exemption list to include exotic trees, increasing the list of notable trees, and removing tree protection from areas that are low in character. All of those suggestions fell on absolutely deaf ears and were completely disregarded by this Government, which is a Government that talks about central government not being nanny State. Yeah, right! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003EThe irony of it is that the councils and community groups throughout Waitakere are working really hard at the moment and are putting considerable resources into identifying the cause of the disease that is killing many, many kauri in the ranges. Why bother? I ask why they are bothering to go to all that trouble when any individual under his or her individual property rights can cut down the tree anyway. Why are they putting in that time and resources? When the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill was in its early stages, and it was supported by the vast majority of westies, Nick Smith rode into town, and did he ever whip up a storm! \u201CConfiscation by stealth\u201D is what he said. The minority of people who believed him were so inspired that they got signs made that said \u201Cconfiscation by stealth\u201D. Just like his leader\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd8779ebcdcd4ec8a82744e2b357de68\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Stop making it up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022948f7c6761f44ed78c7e968966abe8f2\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister says that he did not say it. Is the Minister saying that he never said that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce626506612446e9a3cde21ee3b76ca6\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s correct, I\u2019m saying you should stop making it up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb566c7d50fe4b3495c956aef73b66a9\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister said he never said it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f241781bf104171af10e59cc6a4851f\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: You should stop making it up.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257bc53948b0b446cb41738650bc1dc61\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY\u003C/span\u003E: OK\u2014just as his leader said \u201Csocialism by stealth\u201D. Did anyone in Waitakere have their land confiscated by the enactment of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act? Absolutely not. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003EI hope that my amendment will not be necessary, because of the Green Party\u2019s amendment and the amendments of my colleagues\u2014my very good colleagues, who have put great amendments on the table. I hope the Government will support those amendments. In the event of that not happening, my amendment\u2014and this amendment was requested by the Waitakere City Council\u2014seeks to enable councils to identify trees in a more achievable, less bureaucratic, and less red-tape sort of way. If that can happen by way of a map, then it will not be easy, but it will certainly make the provisions in section 52 more achievable. I hope that my amendment is not necessary, because I hope the amendments that give more protection to trees will be carried through the Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003EIt is ludicrous to hear not only the Minister but many MPs compare Timaru with the pressures of Auckland development. I have been to Timaru; it is a fabulous place, but we can in no way compare the development and the population pressures in the Auckland region with that of Timaru. A third of the country\u2019s population is in Auckland. The pressures of development are astronomical. One of this Government\u2019s many slogans has been about allowing local people to make local decisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c503b71c4e384801a85868b675bcb3b7\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s right, we\u2019re going to make a local decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000678\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac635f1659f643be9d448950bbcb2164\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY\u003C/span\u003E: That is right!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000679\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e420f908a674ee0853494505ed4d913\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: If I want to chop my tree down, I\u2019ll chop my tree down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000680\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292cb232befe0402fb115ee085ddd01b2\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY\u003C/span\u003E: I say to that member to speak out again. Yet central Government is taking that right away from\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228d7be5ffc7f14acf9f09b3c6b31c0033\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: If I want to prune my trees, I\u2019ll prune my trees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225e7cac7381184a6a9a83bca8c196b3bb\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY\u003C/span\u003E: I say to that member, Tau Henare, to speak out again. Central Government is taking that right away from locally elected councils and citizens who want to ensure that trees and our environment are protected. We all know that trees reduce urban pollution, stabilise soil, give shade and privacy, and are integral to the well-being of our communities. The reintroduction of many species of native birds, and the well-being of t\u016B\u012B and wood pigeons, happens because we protect trees in our environment. In Waitakere the trees on private land are vital\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a71e243f0d11487a9f176b6359924b38\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: What wood pigeons? You killed them all 100 years ago!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000684\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fa4406566f664fdaa2a8ece6d9f7e173\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY\u003C/span\u003E: They may not have them in Te Atat\u016B. The trees are on private land and they are vital to ensure a buffer between an urban area and the regional park. Any schoolkid in New Zealand can tell this Government why tree protection is so important in urban areas. Those same students had got their heads around climate change, and were doing meaningful projects and tackling climate change when this Government was still a climate-change denier. My property in Titirangi\u2014[Interruption] It is the weaving of the tree roots that stabilises the soil on the bank that it stands on. If the council did not have the time and resources to get around to my place and put it on the list\u2014because thousands of properties, as we all know, need to be done\u2014and if I had decided that it was my individual right to cut those trees down, what would be at risk? At risk would be beautiful trees that are hundreds of years old, and the erosion of not only my property but also my neighbour\u2019s property. There would be very serious problems, including landslides and potential flooding, to say nothing about the risk to birds or the ghastly blot on the landscape. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000685\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003EBefore the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, the Waitakere Ranges were being really cut away at. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment referred to the axing of those trees as \u201Cdeath by a thousand cuts\u201D. The implications of clause 52 being enacted would lead to just that, but it would be across the whole Auckland region\u2014\u201Cdeath by a thousand cuts\u201D. I urge the Government and the Minister to take heed of the speeches, and to support the amendments that are before the Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002202e4d0f7895d4636bbd5bf9c6c7f66b5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000686\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002202e4d0f7895d4636bbd5bf9c6c7f66b5\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E That was such an extraordinary contribution from Lynne Pillay that I just have to respond. First up, she claimed that kauri in the Waitakere Ranges are at risk. What total garbage! Not one tree in the public areas of the Waitakere Ranges is affected one iota by the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, which is before the Committee. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000687\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second point I make to the member is to ask why, if Labour is so opposed to clause 52, every Labour member of the Local Government and Environment Committee voted for it. If the bill will bring about the end of the world as we know it\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000688\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022691cc3f6fe744ad39632a5a677a663e6\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Death by a thousand cuts.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000689\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002251c128f72a0c499fbd60ba7a580d00f7\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and \u201Cdeath by a thousand cuts\u201D, as Lynne Pillay has said, why did every member of the Labour team on the select committee vote for it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000690\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThirdly, Lynne Pillay wants me to respond quite specifically to her amendment. It is truly \u201CEinsteinian\u201D and truly intellectual. It will really stretch the limits. She wants to change the wording in the bill so that councils can schedule or provide for trees in plans and can use maps. That is a good one! I have to advise the member that I am legally advised that her amendment will have absolutely zip effect, and that it is perfectly possible within district plans\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000691\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229579b033a9c54c029c88be9a714d1f4f\u0022\u003ELynne Pillay\u003C/span\u003E: Then pass it\u2014support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000692\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226bbf97570924471099cb51ff89b35445\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The member says we should pass her amendment. She says we should pass an amendment that will do absolutely nothing. I do not know whether she has noticed, but if we look at any one of our district plans what do we see?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000693\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7a600e456cb4072bf79f9d5ab738c97\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Maps.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000694\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ae9de6361c6432d96710c62686856a5\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Maps. So I am not sure whether the Government will be choosing to include an amendment that provides for maps, although I reassure the member that councils will continue to be allowed to have maps in their district plans. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000695\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EA further point I will make, which is about something that seems to have focused the mind of the member, is about how councils will be able to make provision for the protection of trees in the process that is used by 90 percent of councils. Let me make it very plain for her. With great relief, on 1 October Aucklanders will no longer have to apply for resource consents to trim their trees. As a consequence, I am advised that the work of about a dozen staff and about $2 million of resource will no longer need to be applied to that meaningless function. The staff will no longer have to do that work. I think everybody\u2014homeowners and others\u2014will be relieved about that change. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000696\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI simply ask that rather than those council staff members doing that meaningless task they do a worthwhile job\u2014that is, get round their suburbs, their beautiful areas of Auckland, and whip around with a very simple device, a locator, and find out from the council plans where those significant trees are that we really should be protecting. I have confidence that they will get on and do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000697\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe last point I will make is that Lynne Pillay and others have quoted a number of arborist businesses that are desperately opposed to this provision. Well, of course they are. When people are required to get an arborist\u2019s report to be able to trim or remove a tree, the average cost for them is over $1,000. I am advised that those businesses at the moment are earning over $5 million a year from the current requirement of the law. Are we as a Parliament surprised that those businesses would like the law to remain the same? I am not. Of course they want that to be the case, but the decision for this Parliament is not about the interests of those arborist businesses. They are not of concern to me; what concerns me is\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000698\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fab0a8eb2f7847f7a364dded062c4320\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: What about all the citizens?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022acec5733c2af46d99ebff1bf443b7e30\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014exactly\u2014the ordinary citizens we are empowering through this provision. But where I think Mr Twyford and I differ is that he says that citizens will protect their trees only if there is a busybody bureaucrat from a local council telling them that they have to look after their trees; members on this side of the Chamber say that the vast bulk of Aucklanders value and want to protect their trees and do not need a nanny State Labour Party or a busybody bureaucrat telling them to do so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022 data-id=\u0022633753e1538b4b99a96ba3ca7c5a471f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000700\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022633753e1538b4b99a96ba3ca7c5a471f\u0022\u003EDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):\u003C/span\u003E This is the first time that I have intervened in this debate. I will address some general issues in the first instance pertaining to environmental protection and sustainable management as they are involved with the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I may address some specific issues later pertaining to ministerial powers of coastal protection. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000701\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003EThe stated purpose of this amendment bill is to simplify and streamline. \u201CSimplify\u201D means to make something less complicated and easier to understand, reflecting a characteristic belief on the part of this Government that New Zealanders are inherently unable to comprehend anything that may approach a complicated level. \u201CStreamline\u201D means to shape something so that it can move as effectively as possible through liquid or gas. The purpose did not say anything about red tape. The Minister for the Environment, in sponsoring the bill, noted in his first reading speech: \u201COver the nearly 18 years since the Resource Management Act became law, there has been growing criticism across all sectors about the slow and costly plan preparation and consenting processes.\u201D He warned: \u201CDecision-making processes \u2026 must become more efficient.\u201D The bill, he exalted, would provide a timely support to measures to stimulate the economy. He concluded that \u201Cstronger tools for managing anti-competitive behaviours and new consent pathways,\u201D were required. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003EMy main contention is that the bill represents the Government\u2019s rather distorted view of reality. The Government, since its election in November, has essentially conveyed two mantras into this House. One mantra is that we need to balance economic opportunity with environmental responsibility. The second mantra is that we have to remove the nanny State. Those two mantras inform this Government\u2019s approach to pretty much everything. It brings the mantras with the claim that it has an electoral mandate to articulate them. It sees the Resource Management Act as a central strut of this Government\u2019s implementation of that philosophical orientation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000703\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003EThat approach suffers from several mistakes, both of logic and of political judgment. The logical mistake is the following: the economy and the environment are not separate and discrete entities that can be balanced. There is only one thing; there is only the environment. That is the reality. The economy is simply human activity within the environment. If humans display such hubris that they can pretend to live and grow outside the environment, they will perish. If humans display even a lesser amount of hubris, and think that they can engage in economic activity and then tend to the environment separately and subsequently, they will suffer. To use the jargon that even the erstwhile Association of Consumers and Taxpayers can understand, the economy is a subset\u2014that is to say, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000704\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003EThe second mistake is a political mistake: the belief that the nanny State is the central threat to the New Zealand people. What arrant nonsense! It is true that Labour developed a reputation for being a nanny State, and I think it indeed befitted the assertive leadership of 9 years of the previous Government. It got a belly laugh in the course of 2008, and a negative vote in the November election. What about the rest of us? How are we best described using similar imagery? The erstwhile Association of Consumers and Taxpayers is best described as the robber baron State: those who wish for unbridled freedom to make excessive personal wealth. National is best described as the cowboy State: those who wish for freedom to desecrate, then modestly pretend to clean up the environment afterwards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022 data-id=\u002219014b13940047d0b39fb5f5b4bf726d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000705\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002219014b13940047d0b39fb5f5b4bf726d\u0022\u003ERAHUI KATENE (M\u0101ori Party\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E I stand to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 47 in the name of my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell, which inserts new clauses 5A and 5B into the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. These amendments are critical to strengthening requirements for all persons to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi in the implementation and administration of the Resource Management Act. We will be putting forward these Supplementary Order Papers; I will speak to them now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000706\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EThe House will no doubt recall the advice of Sir Robin Cooke in 1990 on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He said of the Treaty: \u201Cno matter precisely how it should be categorised in law, it has taken on in fact a vitality and a potency of its own \u2026 it has become part of the essence of national life \u2026 it is a foundation document. It is simply the most important document in New Zealand\u2019s history.\u201D The amendments we hope the Committee will support today are in essence the commitment to uphold the Treaty as simply the most important document in the land. The amendments address the concerns of wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi that resource management appropriately reflects obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000707\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003ECurrently, section 8 of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires that the exercise of functions and powers under the Act take into account the Treaty principles. These three words\u2014\u201Ctake into account\u201D\u2014are part of a suite of concepts and phrases that constitute the menu of Treaty clauses in legislation. Other legislation includes phrases such as \u201Cto give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi\u201D, as in section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987; \u201Cto give particular recognition to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi\u201D, as in section 10(o) of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act 2002; \u201Chave regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi\u201D, as in section 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991; and \u201CEnsure \u2026 full and balanced account is taken of\u2014(iii) The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi;\u201D as in the preamble to the Environment Act 1986. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000708\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EThe Government has a responsibility to uphold the Treaty relationship and tangata whenua rights. Throughout the select committee process there was a very strong theme in the submissions from M\u0101ori that the Crown guaranteed to protect the special relationship between tangata whenua and their landscapes and natural environments through te Tiriti. The Government has agreed that the Treaty of Waitangi is the basis of resource management law and practice. The M\u0101ori Party was extremely pleased to be able to safeguard the Treaty provisions earlier on in the process of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000709\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EWe propose these changes now in light of feedback from the select committee stage, in order to strengthen the provisions. We propose a new clause 5A to the effect that this Act now binds the Crown in respect of \u201CThe Treaty of Waitangi relationship between hap\u016B and iwi M\u0101ori, and the Crown.\u201D We also propose to add new clause 5B, which repeals section 8 and substitutes the following: \u201CIn achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).\u201D We look forward to the debate as we introduce these provisions to strengthen and uphold the Treaty of Waitangi.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022 data-id=\u0022ed6de889a2764c10a9d7c5ccd8ad5a16\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000710\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ed6de889a2764c10a9d7c5ccd8ad5a16\u0022\u003EDAVID SHEARER (Labour\u2014Mt Albert):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to support my colleagues in calling for the removal of clauses 52 and 151 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Labour has always opposed those clauses. It did not vote on the clauses; it voted on the bill as it went through, part by part. I also rise in support of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have written in and have been in contact with us to oppose clauses 52 and 151. I spoke at a meeting last week in Grey Lynn, in the heart of the Auckland Central electorate, and my colleagues David Cunliffe, Russel Norman, and Phil Twyford were also present. People were opposed to, angry at, and very saddened by the fact that many of the trees in their area were going to be removed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000711\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6938c4c8b5249e9b9bf58215415805c\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Were there any National MPs there?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000712\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257fad8e377ea4a9e9da8c6ea5847d190\u0022\u003EDAVID SHEARER\u003C/span\u003E: My colleague asks, interestingly, whether any National MPs were there, and the answer is no, there were none, unfortunately. People were disappointed that National MPs were not there, because they wanted to tell them what they felt about clauses 52 and 151\u2014that they did not want them. Essentially, those clauses remove the council\u2019s right to put on a blanket ban to protect trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000713\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EThe question, and it is a fundamental one, is why central government is telling councils what they should and should not do. What is wrong with councils being able to respond to their own communities and put in tree protection legislation that fits their local communities? Six out of seven Auckland councils currently have blanket tree protection. Rodney District Council removed it in 2000, but put it back in 2007. Why? Because popular opinion said that it was the best way to protect trees. Now, either the councils are stupid, or they do not understand good tree protection\u2014or are they doing what works best for them? We have to ask ourselves that question. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000714\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003EAuckland is different from much of the rest of the country, and my colleague Phil Twyford mentioned some of those differences. Auckland contains one-third of New Zealand\u2019s population. It is a high-density population, and the demand for development is more acute than in any other place in the country. There are development pressures. The extra value placed on a property that has a view after the removal of trees is way above what we would find in any other place in the country. Auckland has a high rainfall and young soils. It is hilly, and those hills are very susceptible to erosion. That is why its councils prefer to have blanket protection for trees. Trees protect the environment that is so precious to Auckland.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000715\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eeb247a9cccb4400a4b096523912a726\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Why does Auckland City Council oppose it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000716\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002200a8b49ed973408ab0ed7d31be970cbf\u0022\u003EDAVID SHEARER\u003C/span\u003E: Auckland City Council could change it, if it wanted to. Manukau City Council is for it, North Shore City Council is for it, and in 2007 Rodney District Council voted it back in. Why is this Government talking about removing it? I do not understand it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000717\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f59877f1b9f142fc97a25400160e81f5\u0022\u003EPhil Twyford\u003C/span\u003E: Nanny State.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000718\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022dfa851f0-ef7b-4834-bc41-1b3b645a3495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eeb952cb126640d39022ed534385fede\u0022\u003EDAVID SHEARER\u003C/span\u003E: It is not a nanny State; it is a \u201Cninny State\u201D. It does not make any sense. The alternative is to schedule individual trees. Members should think about the bureaucracy that is involved with individual trees, or even groups of trees, as suggested. Members should think of the bureaucracy it will take in order to be able to do that for each of those trees, or groups of trees. It is time consuming, it is bureaucratic, and it is costly. Members should think of the litigation that will be involved when somebody arrives at somebody\u2019s property and demands that their tree be scheduled. What will their reaction be? They may not want it to be scheduled; they will appeal it. There will be an enormous amount of litigation, which councils will have to fund. As my colleagues have said, it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022 data-id=\u00228ea5339937394ad39d22bda8b491f9e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000719\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ea5339937394ad39d22bda8b491f9e2\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER (Labour\u2014Te Atat\u016B):\u003C/span\u003E I am not going to talk about trees, although, as members of this Committee know, I am a passionate believer in trees\u2014particularly endemic species of trees\u2014being saved. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000720\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003EI want to talk about the very serious matter of the removal of the Minister of Conservation\u2019s decision-making powers in respect of coastal consents for restricted coastal activities. I stand in support of the two Supplementary Order Papers that have been put up by my colleague David Parker and Rahui Katene from the M\u0101ori Party. They have both said, and rightly so, that it is very important that the Minister of Conservation, in representing the public interest\u2014the Crown ownership of our coastal space\u2014has the ability to exercise that judgment on behalf of the people of New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000721\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003EI feel well qualified to speak on this matter. For 3 years, from 2002 to 2005, I was privileged to be Minister of Local Government. Indeed, the current Local Government Act stands in my name. I was also Minister of Conservation between 2002 and 2007. During that time, as Minister of Conservation, I signed off many significant coastal activities. Some of them I declined\u2014for example, at Whangamata. It is very important. I know that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, who is responsible for this legislation, has also served as Minister of Conservation and will have exercised the responsibility of judging what impact a significant coastal development would have on the unique landscapes, the biodiversity, and the coastline itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000722\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003EOne of the things that defines us as New Zealanders is the coast. Ask any Kiwis what they love about our country and they will inevitably mention the landscape, and almost always the seascapes. No part of our country is more than 90 kilometres from the ocean, so the beach and the coastline are very important to New Zealanders. The coastline, as many members know, is under increasing developmental pressures. It is under pressure from residential and commercial development, aquaculture, and intensification of population. All of those are impacting on the decision making of local government. I think that retaining the ability of the Minister of Conservation to give guidance to local government in the consent process is absolutely critical. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000723\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003EThe New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is the only planning document local government has to guide it in its decision-making process. When I became Minister I asked for that policy to be updated. We have gone through a long process. Dr Jo Rosier, a planning lecturer at Massey University, updated the Coastal Policy Statement. We then set up a team of four experts to look at her recommendations. Interestingly enough, the current Minister of Conservation has postponed the report of that committee. The report of that group of experts guides the Minister of Conservation in giving guidance to local government. It is about protecting our unique coastline. It is about giving guidance to local authorities. That has all gone in this change in the legislation before us.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E I think it is amazing that Nick Smith is the Minister responsible for this legislation. He has spoken to me personally about his pride during the time he was Minister of Conservation and his love of the environment. He is weakening the protection of our coastal areas. For the New Zealanders of the future, that could be an enormous liability. One of the things I regarded with great pride about being Minister of Conservation was the legacy that we leave for future generations, whether it is in biodiversity protection; whether, in my case, it is the 360,000 hectares we added to the conservation estate; or whether it is the 17 marine reserves I created as Minister with the support of my colleagues. That sort of stuff lives on for future generations. Protecting our seascapes from inappropriate development is an absolutely critical thing to do in Government. It is a responsibility for future generations. Nick Smith is weakening that ability by removing from the legislation\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000725\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275875a65f151497a8b73f72c78c05caa\u0022\u003EDr Russel Norman\u003C/span\u003E: Mining! Don\u2019t forget the mining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000726\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c526325d68fe46eebacc0bed0ee6df9a\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: The Green Party co-leader brings up mining.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022907ac8eadd8b4a35b3884d6eaa3d689a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000727\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022907ac8eadd8b4a35b3884d6eaa3d689a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I am truly gobsmacked that Labour would put Chris Carter on his feet to defend the ministerial veto on coastal consents after the way in which he abused his powers in the previous Parliament as Minister of Conservation. In one foul act he destroyed confidence in the law and actually created the constituency in which this bill occurred. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000728\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELet us just go through the history of what occurred with Whangamata. Environment Waikato dealt with the resource consent on that marina. It received hundreds of submissions, and it heard submissions. The decision was appealed to the Environment Court, the Environment Court heard evidence for 6 weeks, and then the Environment Court judges made their decision. Then what happened was that a few of Chris Carter\u2019s Labour mates, particularly Bob Harvey\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000729\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223776c0f9e4554a639fd53645a3382fc7\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: Why is this relevant?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000730\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229b2d2d380d634a66ba9671ceb64228d5\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I will tell him why this is relevant. It is because we are removing the ministerial veto on coastal consents over decisions of the Environment Court because of the way that Chris Carter abused the law. Is that what I said? No, it was what the High Court of New Zealand said in overturning his abuse of the law. You see, the High Court found out that a few of Bob Harvey\u2019s mates went around the back door and sent him some quite appalling emails. They were people who had not bothered to submit before the council committee. They were people who could not be bothered with going to the Environment Court but thought they could get around it and with subterfuge affect the process by being able to overturn the decision. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000731\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWhat was even more interesting was that the Environment Court considered the matter for 6 weeks. How long did Mr Carter take to overrule the decision of 6 weeks of consideration in the court? It took less than a few hours. I simply ask Mr Carter and other Labour members why they do not trust the Environment Court. Why does Mr Carter not trust the Environment Court? You see, what members on my side of the Chamber are saying is that we have faith in the Environment Court, and we do not think we should retain the power to overturn decisions of that court. Effectively, Labour members are arguing that they do not trust the Environment Court and that they want politicians to be able to veto those decisions. I think that is appalling. I make a simple point to Mr Carter. I wonder what the attitude of Labour members would be if a coastal consent, an application for a marina, a marine farm, or a big port, went all the way through a resource consent hearing, and went to an Environment Court hearing, and a National Minister said that even though the Environment Court said no to the consent, National says yes. I will tell members what would happen. Labour members would be crying foul from the rooftops. I bet every member of the House\u2014and, frankly, every member of the House knows it in his or her heart\u2014that that is exactly what would occur. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000732\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThat is why we ask, from quite a principled point of view, why Ministers should overturn decisions of the Environment Court. We say they should not. We say that when Chris Carter vetoed the decisions of the Environment Court he actually brought both politicians and the judicial process into disrepute. That is why that provision should come out of the law. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u0022335d84ca20f64a4d9657b8a49bd4b7be\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000733\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022335d84ca20f64a4d9657b8a49bd4b7be\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I will respond to the point the Hon Nick Smith made. We are not saying that Ministers should reverse the decision of the Environment Court\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000734\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002251dfea20-2244-4fc7-bd7d-ebf7a98580e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b38941b3605647f582118d39a8bd3675\u0022\u003EHon Tau Henare\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, you are.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000735\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f423d56d401a4e8a8629a8716bffcb44\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, we are not. The Minister\u2019s decision to veto is a different decision. It is not the same decision as the Environment Court\u2019s; it is a different decision. The Environment Court\u2019s decision, as the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, has already acknowledged, is severely constrained as to its breadth. The Minister\u2019s decision is not the same decision as the decision of the Environment Court. But there are some situations in which the Crown, through the relevant Minister, in this case the Minister of Conservation, should have the right to veto developments in coastal space.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000736\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224fe6d45e87e14e9ea388cb853ed973b2\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Veto the court?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000737\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f3126ad5a184601a9a00c5edad7c0ab\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: No, not veto the court; veto the right to develop coastal space. It is a different thing. Lots of things are permissible on my land under the Resource Management Act that I, as an owner, none the less say I do not want and will veto. That is the same position the Minister of Conservation is in, within a limited jurisdiction\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000738\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6d4ccd4fc28435a91922f6cca8d9ddd\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: That is not correct.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000739\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e20a53134e1474099006ccf80e35246\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER\u003C/span\u003E: It is. It is a limited but real power of the Minister of Conservation to sometimes say \u201CNo, I don\u2019t think this is in the public interest.\u201D That is the responsibility of Government, but this Government is saying \u201CNo, that\u2019s all too hard. We never wanted to be involved in those decisions. We don\u2019t think there is ever a case for the Crown, as the guardian of these areas, to say no.\u201D The Government is going to devolve that decision to someone else and not have to take responsibility for it. That is what the Minister is doing; he is abrogating his responsibilities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000740\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will turn to another issue. We have a 45-page Supplementary Order Paper here for the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, and we are not really sure what some of it means. A 45-page Supplementary Order Paper was dumped on us, with no tracked version to show the effect of it on either the Act or the bill. We have had substantial criticisms about the legislation\u2014not from people whom the Minister might like to criticise as being lightweight but people like former judge Peter Skelton. I did a lot of work in the environmental field in the 1980s. I can say that Judge Skelton, who is now retired, was the best judge I ever appeared before. He is widely respected. He is now\u2014or was until recently\u2014an adjunct professor of planning law, so he went on to a distinguished academic career. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000741\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EPeter Skelton turned up to the Local Government and Environment Committee and said that the bill was poorly drafted. I do not totally blame the Minister for its poor drafting because I think there are some institutional problems that lie behind it, which also vexed the previous Government and are yet to be sorted. Peter Skelton criticised the drafting of the bill and said that it did not achieve its policy purpose because it was so complex, so otiose, and so poorly drafted that even things that it was supposed to achieve are sometimes not being achieved. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000742\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EHe was not alone in that view; a few other people were of that view too. Through the intervention that was led, in part, by Shane Jones, one of my colleagues, the select committee, with the approval of the Government\u2014and I thank Government members for that\u2014agreed that it should harness the efforts of a group of experts, including retired judge Peter Skelton, to try to sort out some of those problems. They did sort out some of those problems, but they have not had a chance, any more than we have, to have a look at these 45 pages of new drafting. So how can we have any confidence, as we deal with the bill under urgency, that we are not actually making things more complex and creating more problems rather than fewer? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000743\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will give one particular example. We have had the very important change of wording in the notification provisions brought to the Chamber just today in a Supplementary Order Paper. There is a fundamental change of onus from consent authorities stating that there may be environmental effects as a result of an activity, to environmental effects having to be proven to exist or to be likely. The effects have to be probable rather than possible. That is a big change in the legal test. We have not had any advice from the group of experts as to whether the Supplementary Order Paper is properly drafted, even if that is the policy intent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000744\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will mention another thing. New section 95D, as inserted by clause 68 of the bill, states that when assessing whether the adverse effects are minor, one \u201Cmust disregard any effects on persons who own or occupy the land in, on, or over which the activity will occur; or any land adjacent to that land;\u201D. I spoke to my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons, who is very learned in these matters\u2014and I do not think I am a complete prat on these matters. I cannot find in the legislation the other provision that is meant to go with that one and that deals separately with the effects on the land itself and the adjacent land. I am told by Jeanette Fitzsimons that she thinks that somewhere there is an alternative provision that deals exactly with that point and that deals with the effects on the land on which the activity will occur or the adjacent land.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000745\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe difficulty we have in the Opposition is not just the difficulty of finding our way through this complex amendment bill; we now have 45 pages of amendments, including amendments to this particular clause, which is fundamental to notification and therefore fundamental to whether people learn through notification about an application that might affect them or the environment, and we do not know whether they have a right to participate in the process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000746\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe test to be applied by the councils is being changed, and there is a lack of clarity as to what happens if one is an owner of land adjacent to where there is activity. If a person is an owner of more distant land, it is clear what the test is now. We might not agree with the test, and we might think it has been forced upon us late in the process through a Supplementary Order Paper under urgency, but in respect of adjacent land we are less clear. So I ask the Minister to clarify that situation. He may well be able to do so with advice from officials. The provision may be unaltered from the original Act. That may well be the answer, but it is very difficult for us to know, and I think it is unreasonable for us to have to deal with these matters on the floor of the Chamber when the 45-page list of amendments ought to be referred back to the select committee so that the select committee, including members of the Opposition, can get the benefit of hearing from advisory experts like retired judge Peter Skelton and so we can make sure we are getting the legislation right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000747\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act is the cornerstone of environmental legislation in New Zealand, and we ought not to be amending it on a wing and a prayer. We know from the Minister that he is driven by the promise he made to have this legislation in the House within 100 days and passed within 6 months. I say to the Minister that we will forgive his not meeting that deadline. It is more important to get the legislation right than it is to preserve the Minister\u2019s dignity about the promise he made for it to be passed within 6 months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000748\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI remind the Minister of the comments he made in respect of the emissions trading legislation. He put exactly the same accusations to the previous Labour Government\u2014and we were not proceeding under urgency, the Supplementary Order Paper was smaller, and we had provided tracked changes to the bill in order to show the effects on it of the amendments. None of those protections is available to this Parliament today, and I think it is an abuse of our processes that the Minister is proceeding in this way.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00224b2c5972873e48e9989a9f8a55fe54a3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000749\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224b2c5972873e48e9989a9f8a55fe54a3\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E During the Committee stage there is often a point where it is useful to start to gather together some of the rebuttal that comes across the Chamber. The Minister said earlier that he was gobsmacked. I might observe that if he were my child I would be tempted to change my vote in the referendum. He was using several porkies that, I think, he knows were never true. He has accused the Labour Opposition of opposing tree trimming. That is just ridiculous. Labour supported it in the select committee, and we support it now. We have said two things. We said, firstly, that it would be useful to have a definition of \u201Ctrim\u201D and a definition of \u201Cfell\u201D, because I would not trust that Minister not to cut something from 50 metres to down to 2 metres and call it a trim. So some guidelines would be helpful. He said that the Labour Party supported clause 52 in the votes at the select committee, which was ridiculous, because it was a part by part vote. We were never given the opportunity to vote for or against the clause. What we did do in the select committee\u2019s report was clearly reserve on the point and clearly show that we disagreed with that matter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000750\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbe226b425e944a2ac9f01ebcf367789\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000751\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022747ef12578704027b35ea61c0614b2a0\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: That is absolutely true. But the Minister\u2019s furphies go on and on. He has used the argument that very few tree consents are declined, and, therefore, substantial expense is incurred for little benefit. What he has failed to tell the Committee is that, as an overall percentage, a higher rate of general planning consents are passed than tree consents. So by the logic of his argument we would not have any planning processes at all because it is all a waste of time when most are granted. The second point is that the Minister has omitted to tell us that many of the ones that were passed were modified and passed in modified form, and that, therefore, the process is not only real but valuable. He said that no tree rules exist in 90 percent of councils, so there is no need to have them all. There are two problems with that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000752\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c2817d2c44c947018d4ebc02c33f9363\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014no blanket rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000753\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298e07e97b33d48808debc0f11495e96d\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes\u2014no blanket rules. The first problem with it is that all areas are not the same. The reason the district councils surrounding Waitakere wanted Parliament to pass the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill was that the pressures of development on the boundary of the bush were uniquely strong and acute in that area, and that is why this House only last year, by majority, voted that bill into law. Having put that bill into a correct format with the Resource Management Act, it is an abomination that this House would now reverse its own decision of not even a year ago and gut the provisions that allow it to be implemented. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000754\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EI remind the Minister that, in respect of the trees provisions, 81 percent of Aucklanders and 77 percent of Waitakere residents in an independent Colmar Brunton poll said they supported the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, and they wanted greater protection for the trees in them thar hills. That is exactly why I am putting forward an amendment that treats the Waitakere Ranges in the same way that the Minister is proposing to treat conservation management areas and reserves, which is simply to say that it is a special case, and the general prohibition on blanket tree provisions should not apply because it is impracticable to schedule every tree. I welcome the Minister to come up to Titirangi and go around and schedule every tree\u2014we can barely see the ground for the canopy cover. The only clearances are where there are actual dwellings amongst the forest, and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is a streamlining measure to schedule all of the trees there. It may be physically possible in the extreme, but it will cost the Waitakere City Council an arm and a leg in time, money, and attention. It will cost the residents of my city a huge amount of bother at a time when Rodney Hide is running a minimalist agenda and saying that councils have no place in environmental protection at all. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000755\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EDoes the Government not talk to itself? How can it be that Rodney Hide says in his Cabinet paper that councils have no role in environmental protection, yet this Minister says councils have to schedule every individual tree? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000756\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235afc45c999c45b282db34b490c21b17\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: No, I don\u2019t.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000757\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ba772085e23415a8f26e819e8a594c7\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: Oh, well\u2014or group of trees. But if he is going to use the group line, why will he not accept Lynne Pillay\u2019s amendment, which removes the word \u201Cspecific\u201D and makes clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that groups of trees can be scheduled together? It does no more than that. The Minister tried to make a crude joke by saying \u201CHa, ha, ha! District plans already have maps in them, so there\u2019s no need to have an amendment that allows them to schedule using a map.\u201D Well, that is simply childish. Of course it is helpful to use a map. It is absolutely essential. If the Minister\u2019s word is to be taken\u2014and he is an honourable member\u2014then it is essential to be able to use groups, and maps are part of that. I ask the Minister to confirm for the Committee whether he will consider this again. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000758\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe bottom line with this\u2014and there are many, many hundreds of emails that I dare say we will want to table before this is over; many hundreds of emails make the point\u2014is that this Minister has got it wrong and this Government has got it wrong, and they will pay the price. The last bastion of hope for Aucklanders is the fact that the felling provisions do not take effect until 2012, and there is a little event near the end of 2011, which will give Aucklanders the opportunity to make sure that clause 52 is never operative. When Labour wins the election in 2011, with our colleagues in the Green Party\u2014and no doubt the M\u0101ori Party will change horses by then\u2014we will suspend the implementation of that provision and have a new review so that Aucklanders can have a say in their own future. So I say to ladies and gentlemen out there in listener land that if they do not like clause 52, and if this jackbooted Minister tries to steamroll it through Parliament without further consultation, and refuses to put it in the second tranche, they have one chance to stop it in 2011.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00227ea1f65aa9b64bf28e28b44937d7077d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000759\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227ea1f65aa9b64bf28e28b44937d7077d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is about the member\u2019s language. He talks about jackbooting legislation. This legislation was introduced in February. Members opposite had an opportunity at the select committee\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022 data-id=\u002236f8d5d72d9348d19e91acc5c4587ebf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000760\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002236f8d5d72d9348d19e91acc5c4587ebf\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: I say to the member\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000761\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f039a8ae14a64adcb5d32a22731ff2d2\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000762\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002243431a9aa1b043c9b217d160d79f29c1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I want to rule on it, and I have 15 seconds, so I will. There is quite a distinction between referring to legislation and referring to the Minister. In my interpretation of what the member did, he did cross the line. So I rule that comment out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000763\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4112fc5-c53f-4aa9-bf6d-5a05ce6252cf\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3f87e6096f34aed947284a099707179\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000764\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3f87e6096f34aed947284a099707179\u0022\u003ERAHUI KATENE (M\u0101ori Party\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E I stand to speak to the M\u0101ori Party\u2019s amendments to clauses 20, 83, 83A, and 133, which relate to the removal of security for costs and the reinstatement of ministerial veto for coastal permits. I will, firstly, talk to the detail around the removal of security for costs. This amendment reinstates the provisions of the principal Act whereby the Environment Court does not have the power to order a party to give security for costs. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I recall that many submitters were opposed to the repeal of the provisions preventing security for costs. It was their view that the repeal of the provisions may limit public participation in resource management decision-making to those able to raise security. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000765\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EThe provisions in the current Act reinstated the powers for the court to require security for costs from appellants. The idea was that this move would limit the number of vexatious and frivolous objections to applications for development. What it means in practice is that before a group can take a case against a company, the group would need to put up whatever money the company determines the court proceedings will cost it in lost time, production, etc., as security for costs. Claimants then have to sign that they are able to put up the money, before the case can go to court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000766\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EI recall that for my auntie Eva Rickard, in the case she brought against Tainui in 1995, the security for costs that Tainui named was $1 million. That is a classic case of environmental injustice. We all know there are already significant costs for wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and communities in taking cases before the Environment Court. I recall a case brought against the Exide Technologies battery recycling factory in P\u0113tone by the local community, which cost approximately $35,000 before it even got to court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000767\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EIn many respects, security for costs is a way of restricting and preventing people\u2019s right to challenge development. It is yet another way of shutting up the public and marginalising the poor. Corporations that fund developments have the financial means to fight through the Environment Court for years, whereas hap\u016B and communities may not be able to afford even to get to court. The other key issue is that a judge can already throw out a case and order costs if the judge thinks the case is vexatious. So the M\u0101ori Party\u2019s amendments will reinstate the provisions of the principal Act whereby the Environment Court will not have the power to order a party to give security for costs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000768\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EThe second issue dealt with under these amendments relates to the decision-making powers of the Minister of Conservation in respect of coastal permits. The amendments reinstate the decision-making powers of the Minister of Conservation in relation to coastal permits for restricted coastal activities. The bill before the Committee amends the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect of restricted coastal activities by repealing the section that allows the Minister of Conservation to make the final decision on the issuing of coastal permits, after receiving a recommendation from the Environment Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000769\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EClause 83A substitutes a new section 119A, which stipulates that the court\u2019s recommendation is the final decision and that the coastal permit commences on the date of the decision or on such later date as the court determines. Members will recall the fracas that erupted over this issue in respect of the Whangamata marina. Well, if the bill goes through unamended, it could all be on again. The amendment put forward in the bill will have a retrospective effect, which means that the court\u2019s recommendation made on 26 October 2005, in respect of the Whangamata marina, operates as a legal coastal permit, regardless of the actions of the Minister of Conservation in declining to grant the coastal permit for it. It is important to remind ourselves that the Government has a responsibility to uphold the Treaty relationship and tangata whenua rights, which were upheld in respect of the Whangamata marina. As we know, Hauraki iwi were not listened to by the judicial process but were listened to by the Minister. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000770\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EThe M\u0101ori Party believes that it is not appropriate for the Environment Court to make final decisions on resource management. It has no responsibility to uphold or recognise a Treaty relationship and tangata whenua rights. Judges cannot be held accountable in the same way as a Minister. Again, as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I can say that many submitters, including M\u0101ori, were opposed to this amendment. It was their view, a view we share, that a ministerial power of veto remains important to properly protect the coastal environment. So our amendments to clauses 20, 83, and 83A reinstate the ministerial veto for coastal permits.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022 data-id=\u00221c3d9c55515e4a8981fe508c97100830\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000771\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221c3d9c55515e4a8981fe508c97100830\u0022\u003EDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):\u003C/span\u003E Before the dinner break I offered a broader, philosophical view of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, and I was disposed to describe the different philosophical orientations of our parties using the imagery offered to us by National over the last several years in criticising the Labour Government for developing the nanny State. I am wont to extend that imagery to characterise the rest of us, and I do so with a view to throw light on where we differ at a basic philosophical level and where, in practical terms, it comes to mean different decisions at the margin of political judgment. I recalled that the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers is best described as the robber baron State, while National, which makes up the Government, is best described as the cowboy State as it wishes to assert ultimate freedom to desecrate, if necessary, in the name of economic growth, with scarcely, at most, a modest concern to clean up the environment. I believe that mistake will be recognised within the first 3-year term of this Government. Cowboys riding high in the chaotic rodeo of New Zealand polls do get thrown, sooner or later\u2014and I think sooner rather than later.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000772\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003EIf we turn the same spotlight of imagery upon ourselves in the Green Party, how are we best described? I can think of no better description than that we embrace the concept of a holistic State; we wish for a holistic inclusion of all human activity in harmony with the environment. That is the philosophical difference that motivates us, as opposed to National, and it prompts us to oppose this amendment bill in its current form. To us the environment is paramount and it must be protected. This central assertion does not, in any way, preclude the development of a healthy and vigorous economy, a vigorous economy based on innovation, productivity, and, yes, efficiency. But it does preclude strip mining the proper protection of the environment, which we believe this bill runs the danger of doing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000773\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003EAll parties agree that there needs to be a Resource Management Act that reflects the recognition of the need to protect the environment. In practical politics we differ at the margin between economic growth and environmental protection. At the margin is where our fundamental differences in philosophy are displayed. If in doubt, National and ACT would engage in economic growth, even where the environment is in danger of damage. So, I believe, would Labour when tempted. If in doubt, the Greens would desist from a proposed economic project on the basis of the precautionary principle strictly applied. That is why the Greens oppose this bill. These differences strike at the overarching issue of our times\u2014that of sustainability. We believe that our approach results in a sustainable planet and a sustainable nation. We believe that the National and Labour approach\u2014the Nat-Lab\u2014results in a planet that is sliding dangerously to irrevocable depletion, climate instability, and potential political strain.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000774\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003EI now ask where, in all of this, are the Bluegreens.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000775\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8121e7db963487e86538b274c164cc6\u0022\u003EHon Clayton Cosgrove\u003C/span\u003E: Who?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000776\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292557bd5-0e66-473c-a6df-7d108e7822e3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222354064549974367ab0b483981264560\u0022\u003EDr KENNEDY GRAHAM\u003C/span\u003E: That is a good question. Where are the Bluegreens? Let me offer a series of statements from National\u2019s Bluegreens. The first statement states: \u201Cclean air, clean water \u2026 ought to be achievable in New Zealand within one generation.\u201D Who got us into this mess? National prides itself on having had the reins of power for the majority of the last 50 years. Who got us into this mess in the first place? The second statement states that New Zealand \u201Crivers, lakes and streams [should be] swimmable, fishable and in good ecological health \u2026 groundwaters [should be] drinkable.\u201D I ask members who got us here. Who got us into this mess? The third statement states: \u201CAttractive, liveable cities that are easy to get around are hugely important both for quality of life\u201D\u2014correct phraseology\u2014\u201Cand [for] economic competitiveness.\u201D Well, that must explain the extraordinary roading expenditure that we are now facing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u002267725a0b6c4a45d7afc0b4bac88d4f67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000777\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002267725a0b6c4a45d7afc0b4bac88d4f67\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E The Committee has probably gathered by now that Labour members are against clause 52 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000778\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207861c8b6df2475d97d7f2090e8d51f6\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: But it is worth repeating. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000779\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c6dc208f44d346149a7fd21bc330a68a\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: It is worth repeating. So disgusted are we by this expedient, tatty clause that this evening I will propose an amendment by way of Supplementary Order Paper 40, which has been tabled. I shall mention briefly that there are two parts to the amendment. One is to omit clause 52, and the other is to omit clause 151. The effect of the amendment would be to delete the prohibition on the use of general tree protection rules. The intention is that this change would allow the Government time to meaningfully engage with Aucklanders and local communities on appropriate modification of the tree protection rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000780\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EI want to comment on the many interventions that we have had from the Minister for the Environment this evening. I think disingenuous is probably the best description I can find for the comments of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. That is his name is it not, the Hon Dr Nick Smith? Is that the correctly pronounced name? [Interruption] Yeah. He repeatedly and insistently characterised Labour\u2019s position on this provision as being against the trimming of trees. We have made it clear throughout the select committee process and during today\u2019s debate that we are not against the trimming of trees. We have made it very clear that we support the expected Green Party amendment that would make the trimming or pruning of trees a consent-free zone, and that remains our position.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000781\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe Minister, in fact, rejected out of hand the Green Party\u2019s compromise proposal, which would have seen trimming removed from the rules, and would have introduced a quicker, easier, and simpler procedure for homeowners who wanted to obtain consent for the removal of trees. The Minister rejected it, yet he came to the Chamber this afternoon, all puffed up, and repeatedly said that the intention of the Government, against our opposition, was to deal with tree trimming.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000782\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThere are a couple of points that the Minister has returned to over and over again through the afternoon and evening. The first one is property rights. He clearly is of the view that this issue is about an assertion of the property rights of landowners. I will read an email from Sue Roff, who describes herself as a National Party supporter: \u201CIt has come to my attention that many believe in property rights. I know I do, and I agree with the right of a person to do what they want with their land, but large trees are a resource that affect everyone. Consider if I want to put in a septic tank. Why do I need a consent? Do I not have property rights then? Because the contents of the tank could leach into the groundwater, and this would affect everybody. Well, the value of large trees are the same. They affect everyone: our birdlife, groundwater, drainage, physical well-being\u2014the list goes on. I have trusted the National Party all my life, and now trust they will do what is right.\u201D Well, I say good luck, Sue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000783\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EAnother email will be of particular interest to the member for North Shore. It comes from Roger Donnell, who is fearful that the Government will \u201Cthrow the baby out with the bathwater.\u201D He has an interest in this matter because he lives in Wilcox Bush on Beach Road. He tells the story about the intention of a developer to subdivide the next-door section. He writes: \u201CWe were originally approached for approval of the subdivision concept, but did not approve it because of the possibility of damage or destruction of the trees on the property, which include a 400-year-old puriri. Since then the Government has changed and all has gone quiet. We suspect it is simply to wait for this bill to be passed so that the bulldozers and chainsaws can move in and destroy the existing bush.\u201D The member for North Shore might like to get back to Roger Donnell, because I think he deserves an explanation if clause 52 is passed this evening\u2014and I suspect it will be, unfortunately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000784\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThat last letter conveys the accurate sense that if this ban on general tree protection rules is implemented, there is nothing standing between Aucklanders and the destruction of some of our most treasured trees around the city. If that happens, the National MPs on the other side of the Chamber will have to do some explaining. They will have nowhere to hide, including Ms Nikki Kaye. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u002245f2f235a2f74007a4fd6280c2d75fb2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000785\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245f2f235a2f74007a4fd6280c2d75fb2\u0022\u003EHon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence):\u003C/span\u003E I want to deal with the issue that has been raised by Mr Phil Twyford and with the misinformation he is spreading. He is spreading simple propaganda. I say that because he quoted an example\u2014and I was listening carefully\u2014of a 400-year-old puriri. The concern was that the tree would not be protected. Well, I suggest to Mr Twyford that he read the bill carefully and think of the obligations that rest upon the various councils up until next year and upon the Auckland Council thereafter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000786\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIt is inconceivable, I suggest, that a 400-year-old puriri would not be designated by a council, because that will effectively be the obligation of councils from hereafter. Certainly, there are blanket rules at the moment, but there will be new rules following the passage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. We on this side of the Chamber have a reasonable expectation, and I know that the Minister of Conservation will be writing to councils and setting out the expectations of the Government in terms of the responsibilities of councils to designate, firstly, individual trees of special importance\u2014and a 400-year-old puriri clearly fits into that category\u2014and, secondly, groups of trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000787\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI will deal with the second issue as well, because I think it gets to the heart of the concerns of the people who have written to me and, indeed, of other members of the Committee. As I understand it, from both reading the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee and talking to the Minister, councils will have the power to designate discrete areas, particularly on the coastal fringes, which are common throughout much of Auckland, particularly around the North Shore, where there are p\u014Dhutukawa, puriri, karaka, and other native trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000788\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EWithout question, the coastal fringe is hugely valuable to our community, and much of it is in private hands. The groups of trees will be able to be designated by councils. That is actually what landowners in those areas will expect to be the case. They will, of course, also expect to be able to appropriately prune and trim those trees. So I suggest to the Opposition members that their scaremongering has been fundamentally misleading, because there are ample powers on the part of the seven councils currently, and the single council that will exist from September next year, to designate the important trees and, significantly, the groups of trees that represent ecosystems. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000789\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EI have taken a particular interest in this issue because I am the member for North Shore and because I happen to live on the coastal fringe. I understand the significance of these issues, and I know the feelings of the communities. I suggest to members of the Committee, and, indeed, more broadly to the community, that there are ample powers in legislation for councils to act responsibly and to ensure the protection of unique heritage trees, which are usually native trees, and, more significantly, ecosystem areas that are covered by the concept of \u201Cgroups of trees\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000790\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EIt is also important to recollect that we are talking about privately owned land, so reserves, council-owned lands, and land owned by the Department of Conservation are all fully protected. That is not the issue in question, yet many people are of the contrary view. It is my view that councils, acting constructively, using the powers of this legislation, and with the encouragement of the Minister of Conservation, will, over the next 2 years before the provision comes fully into effect\u2014because that is the final point\u2014ensure that they take up the responsibility to protect the heritage that we in Auckland expect to be protected. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223facbb72-b3b0-464b-b24d-e6de0616f323\u0022 data-id=\u00223b51bef68e444a0f946fc2b48a31aa82\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000791\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223facbb72-b3b0-464b-b24d-e6de0616f323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223b51bef68e444a0f946fc2b48a31aa82\u0022\u003ECAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I rise as an Auckland MP to speak against clause 52 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, and to speak in support of my colleague Phil Twyford\u2019s Supplementary Order Paper 40 on this matter. I think it is really important for particularly the Auckland MPs across the Chamber to think very, very carefully about what they are doing here. An overwhelming number of the people in the city in which we live oppose clause 52, and they do so not because they are silly and are subject to scaremongering; they oppose it because they have very genuine concerns that the removal of the blanket protection will see the removal of large numbers of trees from Auckland. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000792\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223facbb72-b3b0-464b-b24d-e6de0616f323\u0022\u003EIn the area in which I live, if one climbs up Maungakiekie and looks out, one sees a large number of trees. It is a very green and beautiful part of Auckland. That has not always been the case. Recently I was in the Onehunga Community House, where there are some old photos of that suburb. There was a period of time in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and even the 1960s when it did not look like that. More recently, we have added trees back into our urban environments, and that makes a very real difference to all of us. It makes a difference in terms of what our environment looks like, and it makes a difference in terms of the quality of our standard of living. There are native birds back in our cities. That may sound corny, but I know that in the street I live in there are now many t\u016B\u012Bs that were not there 15 years ago, or even 10 years ago. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223facbb72-b3b0-464b-b24d-e6de0616f323\u0022\u003ELarge numbers of trees could be removed. That is the risk the Government is taking. The Government is trying to assure us that it will not happen, but it is very interesting to note that the New Zealand Herald environment reporter yesterday talked about what might happen to protect trees. Her view is that Auckland City is clearly saying that it will not go through a complicated process of listing all of the large trees that are currently protected, and that it will be up to individual landowners. The property on which I live has many large trees, and, as it happens, I would want to protect them, but not everybody will have that attitude. It could be that we sold our property and that the next people who came there felt that they should cut those trees down. Are we prepared to take those risks? I think the Auckland members of Parliament opposite need to think about this very, very seriously, because if that is the result, they will be blamed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000794\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223facbb72-b3b0-464b-b24d-e6de0616f323\u0022\u003EAs I said before, the people who are saying these things are not scaremongering. They are not fools. I will quote members another North Shore example. Adrienne Grace says that many trees will be cut down as soon as this bill becomes law. The reason she says that is she knows, as do many Aucklanders, that there is very real pressure from developers. Developers will be able to clear-fell a site and they will not have to replace any lost trees through replanting. If my own property were bought by developers, they would want to knock down the trees so that they could put more buildings on it. Adrienne Grace says that the development pressure is so great in the Auckland region that there will be increasing numbers of sites with little or no tree cover for shade, screening, or visual amenity. Any trees planted will be of a size that it will take decades for them to provide the functions provided by the trees we have now. As a result, New Zealand risks losing the international clean, green image it has worked so hard to promote, and tourism could be negatively affected. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000795\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223facbb72-b3b0-464b-b24d-e6de0616f323\u0022\u003EAs Adrienne Grace said, and as the New Zealand Herald environment reporter said yesterday, listing or scheduling trees in the district plan, which is the only permissible means of protecting trees, is costly, time consuming, very limited, and insufficient. Along with many Aucklanders, she is very apprehensive about this. What that says is that the Government is pushing this measure through without listening to the people of Auckland. The current provision has worked well. The fact is that six out of the seven local authorities are quite happy with it. It is clear that some things could be fixed. A very real compromise has been put on the table by Jeanette Fitzsimons. That is what we should be looking at, so that the people of Auckland have some assurance that we are not going to see the wholesale destruction of trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022 data-id=\u00220a3bb0e4be894c6d92541c999df34651\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a3bb0e4be894c6d92541c999df34651\u0022\u003ECATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Chairperson. T\u0113n\u0101 koutou. Much as I love urban trees, people seem to have got quite obsessed about that issue. I think there is a big picture here, which includes urban trees, that we need to reassess. It is about the actual future of the sustainability of the entire nation. In 1991 my colleagues and I came down to Wellington from Hauraki-Coromandel to participate in a round-table discussion on the resource management law reform process. We did our best at that time to fight for the protection of our natural resources and heritage. We were very worried that section 5 in Part 2 was too weak in its so-called balancing of the environment versus the economy, because the entire Western World\u2014and more\u2014was obsessed with protecting the economy from any real environmental accountability. So we lost the so-called balancing act on water, soil, and air, and these fundamental sources of life are so much more polluted now than they were in 1991. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000797\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act, far from being a major brake on pollution, has been fairly weak and at times downright facilitative of inappropriate development, but it is way better than nothing the way it is and it does not need some of these changes, especially in terms of community participation and decision making around resources. This so-called streamlining of the Act has done nothing to rebalance the power inequities between paid lawyers and experts versus volunteers from hap\u016B and community groups. As a former environmental mediator under the Resource Management Act, I have every sympathy for people struggling to get consent to build a garage, but that is not what this bill is about, or even what the problems are. If we want to improve the Resource Management Act then we should train the councils and the consenting authorities to work with alacrity and respect for communities. We should not pretend that a large, wordy, and unwieldy proposed reform of the Resource Management Act is fixing that issue. The Resource Management Act as it stands barely holds the line on natural resources, and I totally endorse the comments of Dr Russel Norman and Jeanette Fitzsimons that the degradation of the environment means the degradation of the economy. I also add that the issues of citizen participation are vital and that this bill seriously undermines those rights through increased costs even to participate in hearings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000798\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EMy own experience with the Resource Management Act includes 15 years as a lay advocate in the Environment Court, and 5 years as a Resource Management Act mediator. I have also had some very interesting days on the Local Government and Environment Committee in its consideration of this bill. At the select committee hearings there were so many submitters who reminded me of my own experience. They came to our committee very well prepared, with heartfelt submissions about the need for expanded notification, not a reduction in notification. As a new member of Parliament and a very inexperienced member of a select committee, I was astonished by the fact that hardly anybody asked them any questions, except me, because I have literally been those people. I have spent my life trying to communicate about resource management matters with people with power who can hardly be bothered asking any questions. What is more, no one else on the select committee when I was there seemed to have actually spent a lot of time being a submitter. These members had never experienced being intimidated by judges and hearings panels, let alone having costs awarded against them or their group, unlike many members of the Green Party, who have lived the resource management issues. Members can call us masochists, if they like, or public-spirited citizens, but we are better equipped to critique the Resource Management Act than many people who have limited experience of being on the submitters\u2019 side of the table. It is a shame that so many submitters were not actually listened to, even if they were heard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000799\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220ee528dc-7870-4553-95ed-5ec0cab60f07\u0022\u003EI also rise to express support for a number of Supplementary Order Papers from the M\u0101ori Party, particularly those of Te Ururoa Flavell in which he talks about the need to change section 8 and strengthen the recognition of tangata whenua rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I also want to support the Supplementary Order Papers that refer to the security of cost issue and the role of the Minister of Conservation, and many other members have spoken eloquently in the Chamber today about the importance of those issues. Time after time I have been at hearings where people have been at a disadvantage, and this law puts them at a greater disadvantage. I cannot understand how we will serve environmental decision-making and resource management decision-making if people are at a greater disadvantage because of the threat of costs. At the select committee a number of people said that very few judges will implement those provisions. That is not the point. The point is that small community groups considering whether to go to the Environment Court do not want to be intimidated by the fact that they could be awarded security for costs. As a member of an organisation that was awarded more than $22,000, I know that threat is real.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u002236d2fb4ac4824a28af1c3ee7c406e243\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000800\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002236d2fb4ac4824a28af1c3ee7c406e243\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E This is one of those interesting occasions\u2014in fact, we had one in the last bill that was passed under urgency\u2014when there is general support for a bill but the parties are divided on a number of issues. Being a Cantabrian I cannot speak on the issues that will affect Auckland by the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill with the authority of Mr Twyford, who is an Aucklander, but some of those issues on which the parties are divided are heritage and the nature and environment we live in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000801\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI note with interest that the former Minister in the chair, the Minister of Defence, Wayne Mapp, was good enough in the previous bill to also take the chair. It was a finance bill, and National rolled up the Minister of Defence, whose name is \u201CParis Hilton\u201D, I think. We call him that from time to time\u2014affectionately, I must say. For the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, we got the 25-pound howitzer out, and the Minister of Defence again took the chair. He has now become what we call the Sonny Bolstad, for those of us who are old enough to remember him, of the New Zealand Parliament. Members may ask who Sonny Bolstad is. He was the New Zealand axe champion for many, many years. He pre-dated me. I have not picked up an axe. Occasionally, in politics one has to. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000802\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EChopper Mapp came out. He is an Auckland member, and his solution as a supporter of the big end of town is to just mow down the trees, Operation Desert Storm style. He is the Minister of Defence, after all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000803\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4eafc72caf544e39e40fdb28f0e947b\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Give us a break.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000804\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f463357138b24e7ca7542dd8fc447407\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister in the chair, Dr Smith, says \u201CGive us a break.\u201D Well, if anybody needs a break and a wee lie-down, it is him. We know that for a variety of reasons. We know that Dr Mapp has the developers\u2019 interests at heart. If National gets its way, through the force and tyranny of the majority, it will be possible for developers to come in, mow down all the trees, build 20 or 30 boxes, and vote for Dr Wayne Mapp, the Sonny Bolstad of Parliament. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000805\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EWe have proposed a compromise in Supplementary Order Paper 40, as I understand it, to allow people to do some surgical tree doctoring and a bit of trimming of their trees. If they want to go further than that, they can get an expedited consent from the council and away they go. National wants to push through its Draconian measures. National is the party that said it was against red tape and against bureaucracy and that it wanted to cut cost. We know that given that there will be massive opposition to the wholesale flattening of the natural environment within Auckland, if Wayne Mapp has his way, that opposition, in itself, will create further bureaucracy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000806\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI will quote from the New Zealand Herald, which states: \u201CEach tree must be assessed, mapped and described, a consultation process carried out, and a possible court appeal defended at the end.\u201D Those who are in favour of the other option\u2014or, in fairness, perhaps even an extreme option the other way\u2014should use their constitutional rights to try to hold back the tide. Dr Smith, who has said he is the champion of mowing through the bureaucracy and cutting down the red tape, ought to take a breath and have a wee think about this situation. I think there is a moment in Parliament when we can promote a compromise. A logical compromise has been put up. I think we all agree that the status quo was a wee bit over the top, but Labour has put up a compromise that I think is relatively balanced. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000807\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI say in this short call that we have again an illustration of the extremes in politics: those who are prepared to promote a compromise and find a balance between development interest in the big end of town and protecting the natural environment, and those like Dr Mapp who would be out there with the axe and the grindstone, sharpening it up and mowing down trees. He has the flat-earth philosophy\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000808\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022763fbb8a62d14753975313e8640fc0ff\u0022\u003EHon Shane Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Rhinestone cowboy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000809\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286f635ef823b45189e02ecae10ce4b59\u0022\u003EHon CLAYTON COSGROVE\u003C/span\u003E: My colleague says Dr Mapp is a rhinestone cowboy. Rhinestone? I do not know. Cowboy? He may be. Being an Auckland member, Dr Mapp has a simplistic view of the world if he thinks that that sort of flat-earth philosophy should run. It is not just about the big end of town and about those who provide big dollars doing big developments; it is all about those people who actually want to protect their environment and have a balance in life. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000810\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003EI ask National in a bipartisan way whether perhaps now that Dr Smith is in the chair and Wayne Mapp is on the benches it might consider our proposition.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00221fe8a15fb62c4b868a0da9d293a9d2d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000811\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221fe8a15fb62c4b868a0da9d293a9d2d5\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E It is extraordinary that we get this flamboyant rhetoric about the mowing down of trees and Draconian measures from Mr Clayton Cosgrove. I invite Mr Clayton Cosgrove, an MP from Christchurch, to reflect on whether he thinks Christchurch is a Draconian city. The truth is that Christchurch, a city that prides itself on being called the Garden City, does not have any of these rules. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000812\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI want to point out to Mr Cosgrove an interesting thing around the issue of development. I suspect that he knows absolutely nothing about this area of law. A number of Labour members have made the extraordinary claim that if somebody applies for a resource consent, this means that he or she will be able to bowl the trees away. Let me tell members exactly what happens in Christchurch. People apply for resource consents involving blocks of land with trees on them, and every year the council provides protection under those resource consents for hundreds and hundreds of those trees\u2014that is what it does. That works perfectly well, and anybody who thinks there will be a chainsaw massacre\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000813\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267aa5137-7503-4a8f-bde1-1811615598e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bde407165d24c02a1399065bfa29dab\u0022\u003EBrendon Burns\u003C/span\u003E: Different quality of people there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000814\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229bdc09880af84974b430424d4244f196\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I ask my colleague Brendon Burns from Christchurch whether there is a great chainsaw massacre, as the evil people of Christchurch try to take advantage of a law that Labour does not want to be imposed on other parts of New Zealand. Of course there is not. The provisions of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill are not Draconian. There will not be any wholesale flattening of trees; there will be a bit of common sense applied. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000815\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe situation is as simple as this. From 1 October, one will not need resource consent in Auckland to trim a tree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000816\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226007dc96-f459-4cdd-9972-4fde2c994088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a82c497ad9554afb8774935f3d283349\u0022\u003EGrant Robertson\u003C/span\u003E: Nikki Kaye\u2019s not cheering!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000817\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6de34c82aa84b17acbdf8a88d4064ac\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely, National members are cheering. The second thing is that over the next 2 and a bit years, the council will be able to put the bureaucratic effort that is going into processing a whole lot of resource consents for tree trimming into identifying the really significant trees in Auckland that deserve protection. Members on the Labour benches have said that this means the council will have to individually catalogue every tree and apply through the system for it to be scheduled. What total nonsense that is! Every council around New Zealand that has gone through this process\u2014and I note the member for Palmerston North is having a chuckle\u2014does it through its plan, and it does a large number of trees in a group, by neighbourhood. That is how councils should do it under this legislation. I really think this is a case\u2014I ask members to excuse the pun\u2014of Labour not seeing the wood for the trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000818\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI have found it extraordinary in this debate that there are huge changes set out in this bill to the way in which we consent to major pieces of infrastructure, so that we can get on and build the electricity, water, and transport infrastructure for New Zealand, and we have not heard a squeak from Labour about that, albeit those reforms are very significant. I simply say the Labour members should put their money where their mouths are, and to make my day by promising that they will reverse these changes. I tell those members that that will guarantee this Government a further term. If there was a reason that Labour was rejected by voters, it was that New Zealanders were sick of the nanny State laws whereby ordinary Kiwis had to spend hundreds of dollars on getting a resource consent to trim their trees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022 data-id=\u00228f2fffcce8454de5815ae646cd09ab15\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000819\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f2fffcce8454de5815ae646cd09ab15\u0022\u003ERAHUI KATENE (M\u0101ori Party\u2014Te Tai Tonga):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to speak to Supplementary Order Papers 48 and 50. Supplementary Order Paper 48 proposes to insert new clause 21A into the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. This amendment focuses on the transfer of powers from councils to hap\u016B and iwi authorities. At present, hap\u016B and iwi authorities are not empowered to initiate the consideration of a transfer of powers. Our amendment will allow hap\u016B and iwi authorities to request a transfer of powers for them to manage their lands, water sites, w\u0101hi tapu, and other taonga when they determine that they are better able to meet the purposes of the Resource Management Act. Local authorities are required to give full consideration to the matter, including completing a comprehensive evaluation of the request for transfer. They are required to report on the evaluation, and to make the report publicly available. We would hope that wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi would include section 33 of the Resource Management Act, the provision pertaining to the transfer of powers, in their iwi management plans, and promote it to their respective councils. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000820\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EThe context of this amendment is simply that regional councils have shown an absolute inability to protect harbours from pollution, foreshores from coastal erosion, and seabeds from marina developments. I give the example of Waikawa Marina in the Marlborough Sounds, which is powering ahead with its development proposal, regardless of the adverse impacts on the local hap\u016B, the local community, the biodiversity, and the wishes of the many people affected. We absolutely believe that wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi could do a much better job in respecting and protecting their lands, water sites, w\u0101hi tapu, and other taonga. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000821\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EI draw the attention of the House to the current Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region as a good case study to substantiate our position on the transfer of powers. The policy statement explicitly facilitates a transfer of powers with the added commitment of providing assistance to the transition, as long as there is a formal request to trigger it by the iwi. The provisions were written into the policy 3 years ago and provide us with a very strong basis for this amendment. Chapter 4 of the statement, entitled \u201CThe Iwi Environmental Management System\u201D, states: \u201CThe Wellington Regional Council, in consultation and partnership with tangata whenua, will investigate opportunities for iwi management of resources and opportunities for joint management, where appropriate.\u201D It goes further in subsequent sections, to state that it will \u201Csupport tangata whenua to administer transferred powers, functions or duties, where appropriate.\u201D It will also \u201Csupport iwi to prepare iwi management plans, where appropriate, and where iwi wish to do so.\u201D These are great initiatives that \u201Cfocus on improving opportunities for iwi management of resources and on formal recognition of the role of kaitiaki. These methods are consistent with a partnership approach to resource management, as required by the Treaty of Waitangi, and the transfers of powers provisions of the Act.\u201D These initiatives provide us with an excellent context within which we put forward these amendments, which we are proud to present to the House today, and which we hope will be supported, including those to clause 91 relating to the projects of national significance, boards of inquiry, and appeals to the High Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000822\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EOur Supplementary Order Paper 50 introduces a number of amendments to new Part 6AA, which deals with proposals of national significance. As a result of this amendment, boards of inquiry will be required to include a representative appointed by mana whenua. They will also be required to seek the advice of mana whenua on any matter being considered, and to reflect that advice in any decisions and recommendations they make. Any draft and final report produced by boards of inquiry will be required to be sent to mana whenua and any other relevant hap\u016B and iwi authorities. Finally, the Supplementary Order Paper removes the limitation applied to appeals, so that appeals against decisions based on merit can be brought before the High Court. These amendments are necessary to ensure that local government acknowledges the authority of mana whenua. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000823\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EWe believe that it is desirable that there be robust and accountable work practices by local government and regional authorities when working with mana whenua. We are also committed to establishing effective strategies for engaging M\u0101ori communities and advancing M\u0101ori representation. These amendments fulfil these aspirations by ensuring that at least one member must be a representative appointed by mana whenua under new Subpart 3 of new Part 6AA. There is also provision to ensure the involvement of any other relevant hap\u016B or iwi authorities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000824\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e2e2ee61-b3b9-4a89-bcc3-5b7be76c5825\u0022\u003EThis amendment and, indeed, all the amendments we have put before the House today are one way that the Crown can demonstrate active protection of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi\u2014the rangatiratanga rights of hap\u016B and iwi M\u0101ori. That seems to me as good a reason as any to support them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022 data-id=\u002211b50643aa6347b3a64ad066c13c6d36\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000825\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002211b50643aa6347b3a64ad066c13c6d36\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National\u2014West Coast - Tasman):\u003C/span\u003E The debate has gone on for a long time concentrating largely on trees. I thought it might be useful for the Committee to look at some other aspects that will change with the passing of the excellent Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000826\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EPicture, if you will, Springfield in Canterbury\u2014the original sleepy hollow. It is a lovely little town, which I have the pleasure of driving through and stopping in a couple of times a week on the way home. Springfield has some cafes, an excellent hotel, a garden shop, and a few things like that. It is a really nice place. But it has that distinctive name, Springfield. A couple of years ago\u2014it might have been 3 years ago\u2014the producers of the television programme that I believe is called The Simpsons, which I do not watch myself, decided to send a concrete doughnut to every town called Springfield. They sent one to this sleepy little town in Canterbury, and, gosh, it was really popular. The town put it up on the side of the road. Tour buses stopped, everyone was photographed beside it, kids loved it, and all the local businesses enjoyed it. It really went well.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000827\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EWhen the 3 months were over, the town was told it had to get rid of it. But the people, the community, of the town\u2014one of the small towns that, we heard, need representation\u2014said that they would like to keep it. Transit said the town could not keep the concrete doughnut by the side of the road, because it would immediately cause accidents. The town said that it had not caused any accidents for the last 3 months. Transit said that was because it had been given a permit, but a permit could not be given for it now, because it would cause accidents. So the town put it in the local park. The council said that the town must apply for a consent. The community asked why. The council\u2019s response was \u201Cbecause\u201D. The community said that it was a statue in a park, and that it did not need a consent. So the council engaged a consultant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000828\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EThis is how the story has been related to me. I find it hard to believe. I hope I am not misleading the Committee, but several people have told me this was exactly the case. The council got a consultant to look at the doughnut in order to give it a definition, and the consultant said it was a building\u2014it was a house and it must have a permit. The people said that they did not want to get a permit for it as a building. The council told them to remove it. But they could not remove it because they did not have a permit to remove it, and they could not get a permit to remove it because they did not have a permit for it in the first place. The council now intends to apply for the consent itself. An objection has been lodged by someone, who wants to take the council to the Environment Court. This goes on and on. I am told that so far the cost has been established at $20,000. This is not what the Resource Management Act was ever intended to do, but this is what it is doing. We need this bill to change it. Thank you, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022 data-id=\u0022f890fc52801248e7b50cb9ab40de5b19\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000829\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f890fc52801248e7b50cb9ab40de5b19\u0022\u003EDr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E I seek the call to cover just a couple of issues, one of which is the trees. I think we need to address the trees rather clearly. The other issue is the role of the Minister of Conservation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000830\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EOne of the things I think is a paradox about the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill and what it proposes to do is that it is once again the Beehive telling Aucklanders what they can and cannot do. Aucklanders, through their councils, voted to have blanket tree protection rules. That is called democracy; they voted in democratically elected councils, and those councils decided to have blanket tree protection rules. It seems to me that the Beehive, the National-ACT Government, is saying to Aucklanders that it does not care what they think. It could not care less that democratically elected councils wanted blanket tree protection rules. The Government says: \u201CWe do not care. We say you are not allowed to do it.\u201D In effect, with this bill the Government is introducing a maximum environmental standard. It is saying to people that they cannot have an environmental protection standard above this level, they cannot have blanket tree protection rules, and they cannot have a standard to protect trees, even though democratically elected councils want to implement a standard. Central government and this Parliament, assuming this bill goes through, are saying to people that they are not allowed to have those rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000831\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe Green Party has put forward a proposal to try to find some way through this paradox, but it has been rejected by the Government. We have a Supplementary Order Paper on it, as well. There is a very sensible compromise. First, we should allow the trimming of trees. We should not have a blanket rule against trimming. Secondly, when councils give consent for the removal of a tree, they should do it at the tree itself. People would not have to go to the council or have some kind of elaborate hearing; it would be done at the tree itself. Thirdly, there should be national guidelines so that there is some consistency around these rules, because one of the issues has been consistency around the rules. Fourthly, the process should be free. Mostly it is free now, but in some places it is not. I think that is a very sensible compromise, which allows the democratically elected councils of Auckland to maintain their blanket tree protection rules, but takes away some of the unnecessary bureaucracy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000832\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThat very sensible compromise, which was put forward by Jeanette Fitzsimons in the Local Government and Environment Committee and is partly in an amendment that the Green Party is putting forward tonight, has been rejected by the Government. Instead, National\u2019s bill means that where councils wish to protect trees on urban land, they will have to schedule individual trees or groups of trees for protection. That is massively bureaucratic. If we take this move seriously, if we accept the Government\u2019s argument that it actually has the objective of protecting trees, then it is still massively bureaucratic. The Government is talking about schedules to district plans that will be hundreds of pages long, as councils schedule and identify each individual tree and each group of trees. It is massively bureaucratic. In effect, the bill takes the evil red tape from the hands of those people who are trying to cut down trees and puts it in the hands of the councils that are trying to protect trees. This move is so bureaucratic that it will be very difficult for councils to use those rules to protect trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000833\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EI also think it is worth noting the comments from various Auckland councils and elsewhere that they will not schedule trees against the wishes of landowners. That means that once these current rules come off, councils that wish to schedule protection for any tree on private land that they view as very important will not be able to do so if the landowner says that he or she does not want that tree to be scheduled. That is what councils have told us. So it is a sham for the Government to say that councils can use this mechanism, when the councils say they will not use this mechanism to schedule trees. If councils try seriously to do this, even where they are willing to override individual landowners\u2019 consent in order to try to do it, they will end up with an immensely bureaucratic process. It will be immensely expensive and time consuming. It will result in district plans with hundreds of pages of schedules to protect trees.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000834\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EFinally, there is another issue relating to trees that I would be very interested to hear the Minister\u2019s views on. It is to do with the changes that we are making to when plans take effect. Plans will take effect only after the decision on submissions has been made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00228f3329cca688494ba425ecfe507609d9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000835\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228f3329cca688494ba425ecfe507609d9\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E A few points have been raised by Dr Russel Norman and I think it is important to put the record straight. The first point is that he questions the right of Parliament to decide what the Resource Management Act can be used for. I was here when the Resource Management Act was passed in 1991, and I can tell members that the entire Parliament at that time would have been flummoxed if it had realised that in the future, almost a million Aucklanders would be required to get a resource consent to trim a tree. It is absolutely proper for this Parliament to tell councils what the limits of their powers are under the Resource Management Act, and that is exactly what we are doing this evening. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000836\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second thing that members are completely overlooking is the reverse effect of these laws. It is interesting that I have had letters\u2014and I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee heard this evidence\u2014from nursery staff who said that people tell them that they want to buy only trees that will grow to less than 3 metres. Why do people do that? Well, if their council has a law that says they will lose control of their property if the tree grows to more than 3 metres, then it is not surprising, I say to Russel Norman.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000837\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275509d21557c4380853815a29ffaa5ad\u0022\u003EDr Russel Norman\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s 8 metres.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000838\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220b7c57ca77da4e79bc6e56a5496b4d2b\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: It varies from council to council. But what homeowners do is to say that they will not plant a tree and lose control over their property, or else they will buy only a little tree. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000839\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe underlying proof of that is that if these rules work, what we will expect to see is Auckland having a whole lot more trees than cities that do not have these rules. In reality, in Palmerston North, in Napier, in Nelson, in Christchurch, in Dunedin, and in Wellington, is there any evidence to support the contention from Russel Norman and the Labour Party that there are a whole lot more trees in places that have these blanket tree rules? The answer is no. The third point I would make\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000840\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221128d533624141fa84e48ebbd919b16f\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: Christchurch hasn\u2019t scheduled one tree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000841\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252b3399146b54b3da1267962df9f07d2\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The member should let me make the point. Let us see whether Mr Cunliffe is prepared to live up to his claim. I would have a bet with him for the best bottle of wine that either of us can find that Christchurch has protected hundreds of trees. [Interruption] Oh, now he is changing his tune. The truth is different, and I will swear on the Bible with regard to that. I had lunch only today with the Mayor of Christchurch, and he has pointed out that hundreds of trees have been protected, so this is just another example of the deliberate misinformation that comes from members like Mr Cunliffe on this issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000842\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe last point I will make\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000843\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222dc606ffa5dc4c6cba7414910465ca89\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is a fine line for the Minister to argue the case, and it is another thing to question the integrity of a member by saying that I had changed my story. I had not. The point I had always made is that there has been no new scheduling since the lifting of the blanket rules.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000844\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002294d222c0553547c39b3c82f7371bc32e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: That is a debating point, and there is no confusion on this.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000845\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db50d880b0f4497a892dea98ae758cd5\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The last point I will make is to do with a contradictory comment from Russel Norman. He said that the same councils that want to pass blanket protection rules over everybody\u2019s property without any consultation are not prepared to use the plans to identify and consult with landowners about scheduling individual trees or groups of trees. Well, I have never heard such an illogical, silly argument in my 20 years in this Parliament. If councils are prepared to ride roughshod over everybody\u2019s trees, then I ask Russel Norman why they would not be prepared to use the powers that we will provide for them to protect those individual and specific trees, which occurs in every other part of New Zealand. I say to members that these sensible provisions will see those very valued trees protected, but they will get rid of the bureaucracy of requiring thousands of resource consents for trimming a tree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u002269236627cb5e49bfa777a9e5776829a8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000846\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002269236627cb5e49bfa777a9e5776829a8\u0022\u003EHon DAVID PARKER (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E In the brief time available to me I will respond to the complaint from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, that we have not referred to call-in powers, which he sees as being so significant. The reason is that it is all smoke and mirrors. There is no meaningful change to call-in powers in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000847\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EI will illustrate why this matter is being oversold by the National Government. National members complain that there is an infrastructure deficit in New Zealand. You know, spending on motorways in New Zealand doubled under the previous Government. It went up hugely. All of those projects were consented under the Resource Management Act. Public transport funding increased tenfold, including some enormous projects like the Northern Busway, which was consented under the Resource Management Act. New hospitals from Bluff to Kait\u0101ia were consented under the Resource Management Act. New schools from south to north were consented to under the Resource Management Act. A tenfold increase in transmission expenditure, up from $50 million to $500 million, was consented under the Resource Management Act. New power generation projects\u2014many years ahead of the demand growth\u2014were all consented under the Resource Management Act. Some of those projects were consented through the call-in processes that the Minister was involved in updating while on the Local Government and Environment Committee with me back in 2005. There was a doubling of telecommunications expenditure between 2004 and 2008, from $700 million per annum to $1.4 billion per annum. That was all consented under the Resource Management Act. Some of it was called in. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000848\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003EThe idea that economic growth will take off as a consequence of these small changes to the call-in process has always been a myth. That is why we have not focused on it in this debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022d528b429ed0c4020bf6869daf26dd80b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000849\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d528b429ed0c4020bf6869daf26dd80b\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table an email from Scott Langley to Nikki Kaye and others, entitled \u201CSave the Trees\u201D: \u201CDear the people I stupidly voted for last year, I am writing to express my concern about the impact of\u201D\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000850\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5724016805a4dceb7db1b837ce0b0eb\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00226167f313d7f94cce82a62927494b7fa9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000851\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00226167f313d7f94cce82a62927494b7fa9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table an email from David Herkt to Nikki Kaye and others that says: \u201CI also watched one of the National MPs hacking down mangroves at Whangamata \u2026\u201D, etc.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000852\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022167a3b920b9b4eb28165ac011bf6b835\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022c22953f500fd4c2398c32302d50b2700\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000853\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c22953f500fd4c2398c32302d50b2700\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000854\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eca34fa916194e658da8089aaed57f6a\u0022\u003EChris Tremain\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000855\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002263727c3ee5fe4d8382d2c86c2df407a2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: We are on a point of order at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000856\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9b8d0e8a3ae4626a9b3bd4e56133629\u0022\u003EChris Tremain\u003C/span\u003E: He was taking a new point of order, Mr Chairperson; we have finished the last point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000857\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221445a275dda64f3d8d34be15cf746311\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: We are currently on a point of order. I am hearing the Hon David Cunliffe.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000858\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f9266e25118b403cb030bf3bc8441463\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table an email from Juliet Yates to Chris Carter: \u201CI am writing to you on behalf of the T\u0101maki Drive Protection Society\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000859\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231e0aee195b0423f84e0021fd8e7aeec\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022 data-id=\u00229c005f34163a474ca4b2cc6fae2cac91\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000860\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221368ba6c-25be-40f6-a2a0-8f81e1f78b79\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229c005f34163a474ca4b2cc6fae2cac91\u0022\u003ECHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Hon David Cunliffe is seeking to table documents, and is then reading parts of the emails. I do not think that that is appropriate; it is outside the Standing Orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000861\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299f8f17d739f46a28b71f47485267cbd\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you for that point. The member should just table the document and not explain in depth what is in it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00229fbe975646134757a05d343487d4d971\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000862\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229fbe975646134757a05d343487d4d971\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table an email from Owen Young, an architect with 35 years\u2019 experience.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000863\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f05677955205422f8463ff41a05d14f6\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000864\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229a96749320844a80ac3806f652ab2811\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table an email from Ben Zimmerman of Greenscene on clause 52 of the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000865\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289ec0c16052c45e8912b49bfacd41742\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022c5db93d6eb454392a161c346384d0822\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000866\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c5db93d6eb454392a161c346384d0822\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Business Committee reached an agreement in good faith that the debate on the Committee stage of this bill would be limited to a period of 3 hours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000867\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220bde60a8779346b7aaf1423e9892dd15\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: 5 hours.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000868\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a4892af07fb74536adfd8b5820334e93\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: A period of 5 hours, I am sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000869\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022241263c0304f47d7b6eded2da1de2310\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the member\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000870\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f35a4c8ffe8495fa5333f5af42811b7\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: No, Mr Chairperson, there is an important point of order here, and I ask you to hear me out, please. Mr Cunliffe, who is a senior member of the House, is choosing to seek leave for the tabling of a whole lot of very minor documents in order to effectively stop the progress of the Committee of the whole House. If you as Chairperson are going to allow that, then any party of this Committee could resort to the same tactic and could have all its members take up the whole time of Parliament by simply seeking leave to table irrelevant documents. I think you need to give a ruling about this tactic, which has been adopted by Mr Cunliffe, and whether it is an appropriate use of the Standing Orders, particularly given the agreement that was reached by the Business Committee for a time-limited debate on the Committee stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022b103f3dad92e4a52aaada174d882ba50\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000871\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b103f3dad92e4a52aaada174d882ba50\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chairperson, in reaching your considered ruling on this matter I ask you to take into account two factors in particular. Firstly, the procedure that I am using is entirely provided for by the Standing Orders, where any member has the right to seek leave to table a document. It falls within the guidelines of the Business Committee. These are not press articles or media statements; they are private communications not otherwise available to the Committee. Secondly, you will recall that I consulted the Chair about when it would be an appropriate time to table these documents, and the advice I received was not to interrupt the debate, because a pre-allotted time had been allocated. Therefore I am taking the only opportunity available to me to table these documents. In the interests of facilitating the progress of the Committee, it may be that I can reach a compromise with the member opposite, Dr Nick Smith, to table these documents in groups of like submissions rather than as individual ones. I ask you to consider that offer.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022a21b96c9b355422d8b843428cde0bf0a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000872\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a21b96c9b355422d8b843428cde0bf0a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch)\u003C/span\u003E: The debate was time-limited. The debate has concluded, but that does not stop someone tabling documents after the debate has concluded. The debate concluded on time at 8 p.m., so points of order can be raised and documents tabled after that. I ask the member, in good faith\u2014as he has just indicated\u2014to group the documents he wishes to seek leave for, so that we can progress to the next stage.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00221d9969fe242c4ff2b40325d4f7a485b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000873\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221d9969fe242c4ff2b40325d4f7a485b9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chairperson, I thought it would be inappropriate to unreasonably detain the Committee, because there are a very, very large number of like communications that the Committee ought to have available to it. In this particular sample in my hand I have over 250 documents. I therefore seek leave to table as a group two like submissions from the New Zealand Arboricultural Association, opposing clause 52.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000874\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221241865f23c644d7a7b5cb3266ea95f4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000875\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EDocuments, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u002268a6cb34ef5c4d658aed48629210718a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000876\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002268a6cb34ef5c4d658aed48629210718a\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table three like submissions from Lisa Sanderson, Angela Little, and David James, opposing clause 52.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000877\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022314a31bf138f436da75f16ca29e1f5e7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The documents will be tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000878\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EDocuments, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u00223bfc572286c0467a90ac37ca71138423\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000879\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223bfc572286c0467a90ac37ca71138423\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table four like submissions from Atkins and Otley, Felicity Barnes, Nigel Bartlett, and Lisa Benson opposing clause 52.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000880\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b5a16e5544f461fb0c3c0ef73f36a7d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022 data-id=\u00228ae3cfb78404450fa14534ee330ac7d3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000881\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002260200136-9d63-4a82-b4f5-c00411adb1fd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228ae3cfb78404450fa14534ee330ac7d3\u0022\u003EJO GOODHEW (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance. Unfortunately it was the previous Chairperson who made the comment to the Committee that if the documents being tabled were already part of the business of the Committee, then there would be no necessity to table them. Like other members of Parliament, I have received a number of emails over recent days, and I am of the opinion that, in fact, these documents have been sent to all members of Parliament and have therefore become part of the correspondence that has entered into their business as members of Parliament. I seek your guidance, therefore, on whether these emails are already parliamentary business, and on whether it would be unnecessary, and perhaps trifling with the business of the Committee, to table them all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022 data-id=\u0022b675b51acd544d27b202fa0053ce4ada\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000882\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b675b51acd544d27b202fa0053ce4ada\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: I will answer the matter quite directly. The member has been seeking to table documents; people have the right to object to them. I am not sure exactly what the contents are. The member has said that he will facilitate this process occurring quickly. The member appears to be doing that. If the member is trying to trifle with the agreement he has made, then we can intervene at that point. If the member is going to expedite the process, I welcome that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u0022ba77786ba3fa4810ad1561bdfeac9c0a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000883\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ba77786ba3fa4810ad1561bdfeac9c0a\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to table nine similar emails from a range of members of the public who object to clause 52. They were not sent to all members of the Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000884\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6a369963197449fb71e4f75098a58fa\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The documents can be tabled. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000885\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EDocuments, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u002218f90940353c4228adfd08da405954c3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000886\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002218f90940353c4228adfd08da405954c3\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table a spreadsheet of the remainder of the 250 emails received by my office in respect of objections to clause 52.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000887\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002295da6f8f135141cc831fdcb881be9cbb\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table a spreadsheet. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000888\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u002271990d17250d4f9e9340ec3f5e3d413d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002271990d17250d4f9e9340ec3f5e3d413d\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave to table the balance of the 252 emails that my office has received in the last 24 hours objecting to the passage of clause 52.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000890\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a30263bfb26e4d8a8171e9c0f48cf28d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table 250 emails. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. They will be tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000891\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EDocuments, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000892\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae4928a1860e4cadaa0e1bd329c5618d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: We now move to the substance of the matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 47 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222d83bb4a87834577a24a7e5a6f48b083\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000894\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 46 in the name of Dr Russel Norman be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220f83e3bc176d46dc8b3f70385179f51e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000895\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 49 in the name of Rahui Katene to clause 20 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e1b57a7336d34c92a6f149c70c37e599\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000896\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022354e7f8cbccb43379edd0de89706b0f8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: The amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to omit clause 20 is ruled out of order, as it is the same in substance as the previous amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000897\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 48 in the name of Rahui Katene be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d48d7d5f7fdb4ab5b2b02360a433ff66\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 14\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000898\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40 in the name of Phil Twyford to omit clause 52 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221eefd9e1edea49fcbc6086f823197432\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022447c9c0d687744adaa3eb6965b089e34\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000899\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022447c9c0d687744adaa3eb6965b089e34\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think when you read out the details of my amendment, you said that it had the effect of omitting clause 151. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000900\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226719710f6c8d4edbacee11ef755093fa\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I said \u201Cto omit clause 52\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000901\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f53fe2b7c9fb4678a1b17a9387920396\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: Did you? My amendment has the effect of deleting clauses 52 and 151.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000902\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002240bb20b1a8d445a0843486ac362a44f5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: I understand that the amendment to clause 151 is a separate amendment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000903\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002269a5eff5d1a4482a90e8b8c43a065e9c\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD\u003C/span\u003E: I did not realise that. Sorry, I thought they were together.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000904\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233afb4dfaba745b49552856bae1fa10c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: I say to the member that because the amendment is in the member\u2019s name, if the member thinks there is an error in the way in which the amendment has been referred to in the Committee, then the member should say so immediately. To raise a point of order after the vote creates some difficulty. Never mind, we have moved on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000905\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to clause 52 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002284c18abdcebb49fc94915713fb99a3c3\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000906\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 42 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to clause 52 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224198b1d5fcfb4f0c93a6decb55555c66\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000907\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Lynne Pillay to clause 52 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000908\u0022\u003Eto omit subclause (1) and substitute the following:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000909\u0022\u003E\u201C76\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000910\u0022\u003E(4A)\tHowever, a rule must not prohibit or restrict the felling, trimming, damaging, or removal of any tree or group of trees in an urban environment unless the tree or group of trees is\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000911\u0022\u003E(a)\tidentified (including a map) in the plan or proposed plan; or\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000912\u0022\u003E(b)\tlocated within an area in the district that\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000913\u0022\u003E(i)\tis a reserve (within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Reserves Act 1977); or\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000914\u0022\u003E(ii)\tis subject to a conservation management plan or conservation management strategy prepared in accordance with the Conservation Act 1987 or the Reserves Act 1977\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000915\u0022\u003E(4B)\tIn subsection (4A), urban environment means an allotment no greater than 4000 m2\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000916\u0022\u003E(a)\tthat is connected to a reticulated water supply system and a reticulated sewerage system; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000917\u0022\u003E(b)\ton which is a building used for industrial or commercial purposes, or a dwellinghouse.\u201D\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225d5c2f27f80e4b0e892b5f97bb360ca5\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000918\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e74de4fa54aa43bc9c8c8991de50cca4\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Will the member please turn off the cellphone and take it out of the Chamber.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000919\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 68 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002284a1c6763cd14e7c9b7eb8740a27c657\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000920\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 45 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to new section 95B in clause 68 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002232dfc3bb0a6c420d888328da06914d4c\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000921\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 45 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to new section 95D in clause 68 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002269d4a975bf1348a086789ec27d714700\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000922\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227cc8350c43a241f782cf4e9dc588ed04\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: The next amendment in the name of Dr Russel Norman to omit clause 68, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43, is out of order, because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000923\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 82 be agreed to: \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000924\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002249579ccc75974b6381f09208fa957f94\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000925\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 49 in the name of Rahui Katene to omit clauses 83 and 83A be agreed to. \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d6980e3673974035beff0f5e0ed2857f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000926\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b720e29cd50c4bc68b5197d5b3e02589\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: The next amendments are in the name of the Hon David Parker. They are typescript amendments to omit clauses 83 and 83A. They are ruled out of order as they are the same in substance as the previous amendments.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000927\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 84 be agreed to: \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000928\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228ed43d3a1ce54b489dc950b5b29ed51e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000929\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 85 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000930\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002207ce979a34a243efaf2e9cf3d9513498\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000931\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 50 in the name of Rahui Katene to new sections 149J, 149P, 149Q, and 149R in clause 91 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00223e69d9747efc4082b382505c9797c418\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000932\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 50 in the name of Rahui Katene to new section 149W in clause 91 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002226dc5f9e80354156b40fc4ba6ed0ac72\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 73\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000933\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 131 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d5d26b2ce61c4c3b94965fe20550d1e2\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000934\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228113d702377e466c8ddc989fd8bfa14d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I conduct the next vote, I say to members that I keep hearing sounds of a computer being switched on and ticking over. Would whoever has the offending device please shut it up and remove it. It is irritating. This is a debating chamber, not a working office. The next amendment in the name of Dr Russel Norman to omit clause 131, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43, is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000935\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 44 in the name of Dr Russel Norman be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222bfe93d16a7647f9af53cec182b1a1fd\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000936\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 43 in the name of Dr Russel Norman to omit clause 133 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022d994356e0c8648ed96b5e05bd5d2a49f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000937\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022330759c8b84b452f9d4e01de04f96f20\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 49 in the name of Rahui Katene to omit clause 133 is out of order as it is the same in substance as the previous amendment, which the Committee has made a decision on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000938\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 151 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002266c2c56f724741b9b073453a3a23607e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000939\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b24bd7e71544f53b75bfeae7e5dd40c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: The next amendments are to clause 151. They are Phil Twyford\u2019s amendment to omit clause 151\u2014the amendment that the member thought had been lost has been found\u2014set out on Supplementary Order Paper 40; Dr Russel Norman\u2019s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 42; the Hon David Cunliffe\u2019s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 41; and Lynne Pillay\u2019s typescript amendment. All of these amendments are out of order as they are inconsistent with the previous decision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000940\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 39 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022cd32bfe9b51344d286d40a638303f29f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 64\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 58\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u002208aad3e496ef43f8a80fd4dd17bb7424\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000941\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002208aad3e496ef43f8a80fd4dd17bb7424\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour\u2014New Lynn):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wish to raise a serious point of order and ask for your indulgence. It is a leave motion, but I need to provide some context for it. During the debate in the Committee stage the Minister alleged that Labour had voted for clauses 52 and 151 in the select committee. We explained that we were opposed to both of those clauses but that in the select committee, of course, the voting had been on a part by part basis.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000942\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225dd447e6904f415c81991b354aae6986\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: I ask the member to pause here. Is this a point of order about some offence to the Standing Orders, or is this simply an explanation to right the record and, therefore, a debatable matter? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000943\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d376cb60db549918f99cf21ad3d27e9\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000944\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002289ca6475efba46f380f9904d709586b1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, I hope the member is going to come to some offence that has been created and caused to the Standing Orders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000945\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227783ff598dea44ec8bbbac00581c11b8\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, Mr Chairperson. Notwithstanding the decision of the Business Committee to take the substantive motion on both parts as one motion, I seek leave in light of the earlier discussion for the votes on clauses 52 and 151 to be held as a separate vote so that Labour\u2019s opposition to those clauses can be recorded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000946\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002299041eedf73a42148d0259ede0a6b1db\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: That is clauses 52 and 151. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is the Committee clear on that? Is there any objection? There is objection. Therefore, the question is that Parts 1 and 2, schedule 2, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended stand part. All those of that opinion say Aye, of the contrary opinion say No. The Ayes have it. Is a party vote called for? No party vote is called for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000947\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe696fcd861048bfab1aa4c144c09d11\u0022\u003EDr Russel Norman\u003C/span\u003E: Party vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000948\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d85441e9f28949388c81d8de3777d498\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: I asked whether a party vote was called for. I got silence and I then moved on. I just say to the member that once the Chair has declared a vote and it is disputed, the member who wishes for a party vote should call for the party vote immediately.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000949\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f484484b11384753a78822eb87bbd2db\u0022\u003EDr Russel Norman\u003C/span\u003E: I did, Mr Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000950\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220264ac5d6f4248958b75a72fe0fb54fa\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: I did not hear it. I am sorry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000951\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question that Parts 1 and 2, schedule 2, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000952\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288be103ce3244c3094bb33900b11b3ef\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I declare the result I just say to Dr Norman that I am sorry I did not hear the call for it. That is one of the reasons why it is important that there is quiet in the Chamber when a vote is being conducted, because very often voices do not carry.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002243d0bab941204a79af77182d3432f06f\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, schedule 2, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 113\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EParts 1 and 2, schedule 2, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000953\u0022\u003EBill reported with amendment.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000954\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000955\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022ade1fcd32e344067abe9d96154ce67d0\u0022\u003EThird Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u002213e7a1873d414f6594b53c43dea2438d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000956\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213e7a1873d414f6594b53c43dea2438d\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The passing of this bill delivers on an important commitment made by John Key and National to the public of New Zealand. It reflects on the blue-green view that inefficient bureaucracy does nothing for the environment and in fact often harms it. This bill makes no changes to the purposes of the Resource Management Act but is instead very focused on far better processes to get good-quality decisions in a more timely way. I want to acknowledge all members of the House who contributed to the pretty robust debate during the Committee stage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000957\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIt is important at the third reading to know what the bill is attempting to achieve. I note, in the first instance, that there has been an ever-increasing trend of resource consents not being processed in a timely way. Every one of the Ministry for the Environment surveys over the last decade has shown an increase in the number of resource consents\u2014up last year to 14,000\u2014not being processed on time. This bill puts in place a number of measures to address that issue, and a key test that it is meeting its objectives is to see a significant improvement in those statistics. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000958\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe second area that this bill attempts to address is the frustration of so many New Zealanders who are attempting to do small projects and get caught up in the labyrinth of the Resource Management Act. That is why we are making changes around the issues of notification, that is why we are making changes in areas like security of costs, and that is why we making changes in process. We are trying to reduce the frustration that genuine New Zealanders have in applying for relatively small consents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000959\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis bill also seeks to tackle abuse of the Resource Management Act by commercial competitors. We have all witnessed the supermarket circuses where the Resource Management Act has been used in some communities, like the North Shore, to delay a new supermarket for as long as 8 or 10 years, for which the community has paid a price by not actually getting a choice as to where they might purchase the most basic of items. This legislation is intended to constrain those abuses. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000960\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe bill is also about providing for a better process for processing major consents. It is a matter of national embarrassment that it takes longer to get a resource consent for significant pieces of infrastructure projects than it actually takes to build them. That is a nonsense, and a further motivation for the Government to advance these changes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000961\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThere has been significant debate around the issues of public participation. I want to make it plain that National remains of the view, as we did when we supported the initial Resource Management Act, that New Zealanders have a right to participate in the resource consent process and decision making around the environment. But that is not an unconstrained right, and we as a Parliament need to carefully balance that right of participation in the decision-making process with the need for us to get timely decisions and to do so in an efficient way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000962\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThere are a number of changes in the bill that address that very point. The changes in respect of giving the Environment Court the power to award security for costs are to address the very real problem when groups that organise themselves as an incorporated society and who become passionately opposed to a particular project or development, are able to behave irresponsibly in the resource consent process and impose very significant costs on ratepayers, but have no responsibility themselves. That is not a fair use of the law. I have every confidence that the Environment Court will use that security for costs provision appropriately and not as a mechanism for shutting down community input into the resource consent process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000963\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIt is true that this bill is aimed at facilitating the process for building major pieces of infrastructure. So often the practice has been that everybody knows that a consent dealt with by the local and regional authorities inevitably will be appealed to the Environment Court, and that long, drawn-out process is not doing favours for anybody, either those who are supportive or those who are opposed to those particular projects. New Zealand will benefit from the changes made in this bill that provide for a single-step process for those major consents with a board of inquiry chaired by an Environment Court judge making those key decisions. Most important, we have set out in the bill an ambitious programme of such consents being processed within a 9-month time frame. This is quite deliberate, in order to send a clear signal that it is important for both the environment and the economy that we are able to get decisions in a more timely way. In this regard, for those proposals not meeting the criteria of being nationally significant, the bill also provides for direct referral to the Environment Court to provide for a single-step process, rather than the dual process that frustrates so many applicants and communities. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000964\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EOne aspect the bill addresses is unnecessary resource consents. Today we have heard quite a lot of bellyaching about the changes around the protection of trees. National was elected on a platform of reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and, specifically, streamlining and simplifying the Resource Management Act. The changes to rules around urban trees are delivering on that promise. This issue is about whether homeowners should have to get a resource consent to trim or remove a tree on their property. The Government takes the view that as a general rule they should not. The specific law change that National is making is to prohibit blanket tree protection rules. These are generic rules in a few councils\u2019 plans where every tree over a particular height, say 3 metres, requires consents to trim or remove them. National\u2019s change means that if a council wants to put restrictions on landowners trimming or removing a tree on their property, the council needs to consult the property owners and specifically identify the tree or groups of trees in its district plan. The Government recognises that there are significant trees on private land that have wider community benefits. That is why we are providing for councils to specifically list those trees or groups of trees for protection, albeit councils will have to consult the property owner. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000965\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EIn essence, this law change is around changing the relationship between councils and landowners over trees. At the moment, councils are in the box seat and property owners must seek permission to trim or remove any tree on their property. The Government\u2019s amendment bill will ensure that councils consult landowners before putting restrictions on their trees, and it reflects a greater respect by the new Government for property rights. The process for councils to list specific trees for protection, over the next 2 years, is not onerous and will require a fraction of the bureaucracy needed to process all those tree-trimming consents. I will be monitoring, though, the performance of councils as they go about the exercise of identifying those trees and if councils fail to progress this work, I will use my powers under the Resource Management Act to ensure that it will be done. It will be a relief for Auckland homeowners that from 1 October this year they will not need a resource consent to trim their own trees; this will save the whole resource management system 3,000 resource consents per year. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000966\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI acknowledge that this is a large bill that makes many significant changes\u2014the most significant changes since the Resource Management Act came into effect in 1991. The Government has a second phase of reforms, but this bill is an important first step. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022 data-id=\u00223ef5181e20f54f4599585498d6d740ac\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000967\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223ef5181e20f54f4599585498d6d740ac\u0022\u003EHon SHANE JONES (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tou katoa. Before touching on the broader themes and broader principles underlying this endeavour to reform the Resource Management Act, I will reiterate three important things in those areas where our reservations remain and that we have endeavoured to amplify this evening. Firstly, notification is about participation, and participation is the cornerstone of social democracy. We in this country have a system of devolution whereby resource management decisions take place and are countenanced by democratically elected representatives at local and regional levels of government. That is why Labour was particularly insistent in endeavouring to secure support from the Minister and his team in order to change that particular provision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000968\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003ESecondly, we feel very strongly that the Crown\u2019s role in the coastal environment for stewardship purposes, Treaty of Waitangi purposes, and public weal purposes ought not to be undermined. We fear that that has been the case in that particular area. We think it is crucial because of the issues we are still dealing with in relation to takutai moana. We also think that it is important that New Zealanders know that the coastal environment is in the custody of the Crown so that a proxy is present for the owners\u2014that is, the public\u2014and that it is admitted that there is a process to establish what proportion of the original customary title pertaining to the seabed and foreshore might still exist. It is important that in the third reading we record our thoughts in that regard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000969\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe next important area is the trees. Hone Harawira and I went to the same boarding school. I think it was when I was doing School C we were taught\u2014or made to learn\u2014a poem by Hone T\u016Bwhare from Ng\u0101puhi, an acclaimed resident of the South Island. His poem was called \u201CThe Tree\u201D. I remember a little bit of it:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000970\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003ETree let your arms fall:\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000971\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003Eraise them not sharply in supplication \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000972\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003Eto the bright enhaloed cloud. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000973\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003ELet your arms lack toughness and\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000974\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003Eresilience for this is no mere axe \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003Eto blunt nor fire to smother. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000976\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EWhat we have to say about the trees is contained in our matua T\u016Bwhare\u2019s poem. His ending line was: \u201C\u2026 your end at last is written.\u201D The effect of this action may represent a small saving, but it will empower in an unfettered way people who will do damage to the tree landscape of T\u0101maki-makau-rau. But it is up to the Auckland MPs on both sides of the House to win that debate in relation to the feelings of the good citizens of T\u0101maki-makau-rau.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000977\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EWe support the enactment of this bill. This bill endeavours to, although not as handsomely as the Minister would have us believe, reduce the number of resource management statutory consents that are needed by New Zealanders\u2014either individuals, families, or firms\u2014when they go about their lawful business. We should be identifying those areas of activity that ought not require bureaucracy or intervention by statutory decision makers. That is the sensible approach to take. The political debate has always been about the balance, and one of the other reasons why we support this bill is that we see that there is a strong place for an Environmental Protection Agency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000978\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EWe remain, however, unconvinced as to how effective the Environmental Protection Agency will be in the absence of knowing what it is actually going to do in terms of its full functions. There are critical infrastructure projects in our country that cannot be left to languish at subnational levels of Government. We should harness the full power and authority of central government, well armed and informed by an Environmental Protection Agency, to make the hard, large decisions that will have significant impacts of a productivity nature on the pace at which we develop or maintain the country\u2019s capital assets\u2014its infrastructure. So there is a great deal of work to take place. From the Minister\u2019s comments, I construed that he would give us further briefings in his phase two area.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000979\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe other area that gave us confidence to support the passage of the bill was that the Local Government and Environment Committee gave effect to a number of important changes, and I have to give credit to Dr Nick Smith. Obviously, those changes would not have taken place had he been stubborn or indifferent to the wisdom behind them. However, he ought to talk to Rodney Hide about the usefulness of being flexible.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000980\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EAn area where we were pleased to see the change lay in appeal rights. Environmental policy, environmental law, and environmental disputes cause divisiveness: passions rise and run. People must have the ability to have their day in court, and their day on an environmental matter is not just what they think; it is what they feel. So much about the environment cannot be captured, monetised, or quantified. That is why the change that the committee recommended, which has been included in the bill, enables the Environment Court to receive applications to debate the utility of resource allocation decisions not just on black-letter law but on the actual merit of the decision. I would not underestimate the importance of that change of thinking. I doubt whether my colleagues would have agreed to my supporting this bill in the select committee if that change had not been made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000981\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EThe other thing that needs to be pointed out is that this bill does not substantially unravel the principal purpose of the Resource Management Act. It actually is an attempt to reduce administrative dead weight. It is an attempt to cause decisions to be carried out more efficiently, and that is part of the balance that we felt on this side of the House. It is cumbersome legislation, if the decisions that are made cause people to become so disenfranchised or alienated that they use every technique in the book to circumvent the provisions in the legislation.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000982\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EOur friends in the Green Party made some important points, and they are entitled to make them; I am sure there is a constituency for their perspective\u2014that is, that this legislation does weaken the Resource Management Act\u2019s central tenets. That is not our view. What we think it does is improve the pace and the quality of decision making and make bureaucrats responsible for the performance of their organisations when they are taking the public\u2019s money and using the public\u2019s time to allocate resources or to make those statutory resource management decisions. That level of accountability is absolutely essential. In fact, I think it is one of the more sensible innovations, and, hopefully, it will see a reversal in those rather woeful statistics that Dr Nick Smith referred to earlier this evening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000983\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f44431ef-b505-4e94-9f57-a60b0a569bf7\u0022\u003EOne final reason why I think this bill is deserving of our support overall lies in the fact that people will be able to take their issues directly to the Environment Court. They can make an application, acknowledging that the Environment Court is where things will end up anyway. That is a sensible contribution on how we can get 4.5 million people to use limited resources efficiently, and get decisions that people will be proud to have participated in and that will not represent a squandering of precious resources at a time when we want to both protect the environment and grow the economy. For those reasons, we support the passage of the bill. Kia ora.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022 data-id=\u002278e9d542d5bf493f82182bda226aaf72\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002278e9d542d5bf493f82182bda226aaf72\u0022\u003ELOUISE UPSTON (National\u2014Taup\u014D):\u003C/span\u003E I am thrilled to speak in support of the Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill in its third reading debate. This has been my first experience of taking a bill from its introduction through to the third reading, and it has reinforced my faith in democracy and the working of Parliament.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000985\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EWe have had a large number of submissions\u2014close to 900\u2014the involvement of a technical advisory group, an expert panel, and a robust select committee process, all of which has ended up with all parties except the Green Party supporting this bill. In saying that, I know that the Green Party has agreed with some of the parts and with some of the changes that this bill makes. The National Government is delivering on its promises. This Government introduced this bill into the House in its first 100 days, and 6 months later is taking it for its final reading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000986\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI will focus on the intent of the bill, which is to streamline and simplify. The Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, has said that reform of the Resource Management Act is an important part of the Government\u2019s work programme, and is critical to our country\u2019s future prosperity. It is about the costs, the uncertainty, and the delays that the current Resource Management Act creates. The Act has an adverse impact on New Zealanders, on New Zealand jobs, on what we can do in terms of infrastructure, and on productivity. It also causes economic frustrations for ordinary homeowners, small businesses, and farmers. I have faced many constituents in the Taup\u014D electorate who have come to my office with frustrations about these sorts of delays and costs in the treatment of what appear to be quite simple resource consent applications. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000987\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThe purpose of the bill is to redress the balance of the ever-important environmental protection versus economic growth. We all recognise the importance of both, and that the balance between them is paramount. At the moment, approval for projects of national or local significance have a timeline of years, as opposed to months, and many projects of significant benefit are held up through the process of getting that ever-important resource consent. The new Government is committed to creating a robust and sustainable framework for development and growth for New Zealand, but it is not just about the big projects. I want to reinforce that. It is not just the large projects that are delayed. It is often the small and simple projects as well, such as the garage, the home renovation, or, dare I say it, as has been the case, the trimming or removal of a tree.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000988\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI spoke earlier about the example of my own brother in Auckland, who had a simple renovation that required a resource consent. He expected that he would be waiting 20 days until he got his resource consent from the Auckland City Council, but how many months did it take? It took 7 months to get a resource consent for an extension on a home. So it is not just the large projects we are talking about. It is the simple ones as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000989\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022175322ae71f44a6fb76f8ce5937dae0a\u0022\u003EHon John Carter\u003C/span\u003E: He was lucky it only took 7 months. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000990\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b55d1aea44214d14826aefd9b9299955\u0022\u003ELOUISE UPSTON\u003C/span\u003E: That is right. There are many cases we have all heard of that are far in excess of 7 months. He was indeed a lucky man to get it through in only 7 months. But when it is meant to take 20 days, we say that is not good enough. That is what this bill changes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000991\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EThe important thing is that the bill is the first phase of a two-stage process. We are not solving all of the problems with the Resource Management Act in this first bill. We have focused on simplifying and streamlining. There is a large amount of work yet to come in the second stage of the reforms. But I reiterate that this is not just tinkering at the edges. It will address some of the problems that have been there for years. It was unfortunate that the previous Labour Government did not take the time to address those problems, but I am thrilled that the Opposition is now on board with us in making these changes. The provisions will provide stronger tools for managing anti-competitive behaviour, new consent pathways, and a rationalisation of decision making in existing consent categories. These amendments will have a significant impact on the processes under the Act that have led to delay, uncertainty, frustration, and, of course, additional and unnecessary costs. There are a few changes to the level of public involvement, but the balance has been worked through carefully. I believe this bill strikes a better balance between the public\u2019s right to be involved and the need for both sensible and timely decisions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000992\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI make the point again, though, that these changes and this rebalancing does not mean a reduction in environmental quality. In the Taup\u014D electorate it is critical in terms of our local economy that the environmental quality is not reduced. I believe that we have got this balance right. We have had repetitive and costly consultation processes, broad appeal rights, and time-consuming reporting requirements, which are adding tens of thousands of dollars, and years, to plan preparation and change processes. I re-emphasise that slow and overly bureaucratic processes do not do anything to protect the environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000993\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EAs I said at the start of my speech, I have had my faith in the parliamentary process very much reinforced. The select committee worked well. There have been some significant changes as a result of the submissions from the public. We heard many of those submitters in person, and it was great that the Minister was very committed to making sure that we had a law that worked. We listened to the submitters, and the Local Government and Environment Committee worked tirelessly for hours on end to nut through the issues and make some of the changes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000994\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI will focus on a couple of those changes. One of the issues is, of course, the delays in processing of resource consents, and this was reinforced by the biennial survey of councils, which demonstrated that only 69 percent of applications are processed within the statutory time frames. I am sure no one here would dispute the fact that that is simply not good enough. Other changes as a result of the submissions have meant that we have limited, rather than removed, further rounds of submissions on plan changes. We have strengthened the process for national consenting and national environmental standards, we will not proceed with the removal of the non-complying activity class, and we have made changes in terms of limiting the rights of appeal on plans, because that was an item we had a lot of feedback on. Another change made as a result of the select committee process is the deferral of changes around requiring authorities, and that will be looked at in the second phase of reforms.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000995\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EOverall, a sensible balance has been struck between reducing the bureaucracy and ensuring good processes, as well as the ever-important environmental protection. The National-led Government\u2014and I am a proud member of the Bluegreens in the National Party\u2014is committed to looking after our environment. It is so critical that we balance that accurately with encouraging economic growth, particularly in the times we are in now. We are putting in place policies to help our local economies, and to ensure that we and generations to come can enjoy our unique environment in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000996\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003EI will take a moment to look at some of the comments that others have made about what we are proposing. Federated Farmers have welcomed the Government\u2019s announcements, and support many of the changes to speed up the Resource Management Act process. That comment came from the president of Federated Farmers. Looking at it from the perspective of a regional chamber of commerce, Charles Finney has said that streamlining the processes around obtaining resource consents will prove to be a real tonic for economic growth. The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development has said it is good to have central government taking regulatory leadership, that the proposed Resource Management Act process changes will be widely welcomed, and that they deserve business and community support. Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society has said that the proposed amendments can be seen as a win for the environment and a win for major infrastructure providers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000997\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a68928ea-9dd8-4a30-8e2c-a0f49dfc8bea\u0022\u003ESo we can see that this bill is about simplifying and streamlining. I am proud to support this bill. It gets the balance right, and the support across the House shows that. It is about protecting the environment while enabling economic growth. I am pleased that this bill delivers both of those aims.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022 data-id=\u0022c46357d89bcb4ee2b67efb46f6212a43\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000998\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c46357d89bcb4ee2b67efb46f6212a43\u0022\u003EPHIL TWYFORD (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E There is much in the Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill that members on this side of the House agree with, and we know that from the debates in the last few hours, but in this final debate I will to focus my comments on clauses 52 and 151, which were points of contentious disagreement between us and members on the other side of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06000999\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EAfter listening to the last few hours of debate, I am left with a couple of questions. Could the rules have been improved; if so, why did the Government not want to improve the rules and why does it insist on doing away with them altogether and leaving our trees in Auckland without any protection? The day before yesterday there was an article in the New Zealand Herald about a phoenix palm on a reserve on the North Shore. To be sure, this was an example of planning and consent regulations gone mad. It required a half-day sitting by a panel of three commissioners and a written report by council officials. I think there were 15 submissions from neighbours who live near the park about the fate of this phoenix palm. I ask whether that is a strong case for the rules being done away with. When I made some inquiries, I found out that the North Shore City Council has antiquated and inappropriate delegations that require that any tree, even one listed on the noxious plants list of the Auckland Regional Council, has to be dealt with by a commission and the question of whether it is notified has to go to that panel. Then, amazingly, the panel decided that actually it should be notified, which seems utterly bizarre to me. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001000\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThroughout the afternoon the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, has kept on insisting that there is no alternative and that the rules have to be prohibited and done away with. That seems to be a wilful denial of the fact that sensible compromise proposals were put up during the Local Government and Environment Committee process that would have allowed homeowners to trim their trees without needing a consent, and would have allowed certified arborists or council staff to visit a property and issue a consent for tree removal. I would have thought that that would pretty much solve the problem, but, no, the compromise mechanism put up by the Greens was rejected out of hand by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and he went on his merry way with clauses 52 and 151. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EMuch of the argument the Minister put forward rested on the idea that this was about property rights, and that getting local councils off the back of property owners was about protecting the private property rights of tree owners and homeowners. I think that idea is easily dispelled, and we have dispelled it a number of times in the course of the afternoon, but it needs to be said again what a trivial and absurd argument this is. Our system of Government and of politics long ago did away with the idea that private property rights exist in isolation in this way. We do not allow swimming pool owners to not fence their swimming pool because the pool is on their private property. We do not allow people to concrete their entire section because it is their private property, because that would have a very damaging effect on their neighbours. We do not allow people to build up to the boundary, because that would be damaging for the community. In that way, trees are in many ways a public good. They are a community asset. They provide beauty and character for our streets, they guard against erosion, they provide shade, and they are often just as valuable, or more valuable, to neighbours and people living in the community as they are to the people who own them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe Minister talked a lot about trusting homeowners and how Labour did not trust Auckland homeowners to look after their trees. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that we do not trust homeowners. We have so many laws on our books that are about guarding the interests of the majority against the small minority of people who are irresponsible, and that is what this is about\u2014general tree protection rules. So it is nonsense to suggest that we do not trust homeowners. In fact, most Aucklanders no doubt believe that our trees should be protected and want an urban environment that is rich in trees. It is the small minority of rogue developers and homeowners who would bowl all the trees off their section for short-term gain. That is what we are trying to guard against. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EWill trees be protected once this law goes through? Are alternatives in place that will mean that the trees will be protected? We believe that the answer is no, and councils have made that very clear. It was reported in yesterday\u2019s New Zealand Herald that the staff of Auckland City Council said that they will not be seeking to list and schedule all the trees that are currently protected around the city because it is not practical or feasible. The irony is that these clauses are purportedly about cutting red tape. Yet, in order to protect the same volume of trees currently protected under these rules, it would require an army of tree inspectors to travel around the suburbs of Auckland individually assessing, documenting, and listing the trees to be scheduled. It will not happen, it is not practical, it is too expensive, and it is not feasible. That is why we put up amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to change those provisions. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EThe question I am left with is why the National Government wants to ride roughshod over local government in Auckland. It is a Government that professes that decisions on local matters should be made by local people. It has professed this principle throughout the entire debate over the Auckland super-city. We have spent many, many hours discussing the powers of local boards and the importance of allowing local people to make local decisions, so why does the Government want to put at risk the trees that Aucklanders treasure so much? The point has been made that Auckland councils have said that they simply will not attempt to individually list those trees, so the trees will be at risk. I will tell the House why I think they are prepared to do that. It is because the provisions in this bill are a little trophy. They are something to show for the Government\u2019s crusade against red tape, but at what cost? Nick Smith is certain that no trees will be knocked over. I have lost count of the number of times he said this afternoon that no trees will be knocked over, but Aucklanders have seen it happen on numerous occasions. If we look around the cliff-tops of the coastal suburbs of Auckland, we see examples of sections where developers have knocked over p\u014Dhutukawa and cleared sections in order to put in a tennis court or some new building. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cbc37df2-57ae-4536-94ed-a2e39eecd585\u0022\u003EIf these provisions are passed then that will undoubtedly happen again, and when it does the National MPs of Auckland will have to answer to their constituents. The slightly green-tinged environmentalist of Auckland Central, Ms Nikki Kaye\u2014sometimes she is slightly pink-tinged\u2014will have to answer to the people of Grey Lynn, Herne Bay, Freeman\u2019s Bay, and Ponsonby, and she will have to explain why she did no more than hand-wringing and expressing her concern and feelings for the trees of Auckland Central. A lot of allegedly good Nelson wine was offered on wager this afternoon by the Minister, and I feel that I have missed my chance by not placing a bet to get that wine. But never mind, I say to the National MPs in Auckland, particularly to these ones with small majorities: Nikki Kaye, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, and Paula Bennett. They are the ones who will have to answer on this issue to the voters of Auckland in 2 years\u2019 time. That will be on their conscience, and they will have to explain to the voters of Auckland when the trees start to fall. Thank you, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022 data-id=\u00222054a385154c4b66bd4d03b8e580a3e1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222054a385154c4b66bd4d03b8e580a3e1\u0022\u003EDr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is National\u2019s down payment on its opening attack on the environment movement. There were 850 submissions made by the environment movement all around our country against this bill. Hundreds and hundreds of the small community groups that do the real work to protect our environment submitted against this bill and came out against it. It is one of the great aspects of my job that I get to go around New Zealand and meet the real guardians, the kaitiaki of our country\u2014iwi, hap\u016B, and environment non-governmental organisations. They are the people who end up in the courts and in front of consent panels all the time, actually protecting our environment. They have come out against this bill because they know what it is trying to do. What National is doing with this bill, with the support of Labour, is voting for a bill that tilts the balance against the environment movement. For example, by supporting this bill, National intends to restrict notification. Environment groups and locals will not know what is going on in their neighbourhood\u2014it is very hard for them to know. That is combined with the changes to section 274 that restrict the ability of groups to join other people\u2019s cases. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EIn the first instance, National, with Labour\u2019s and ACT\u2019s support, is voting for a bill that says that people will not be told what is going on in their neighbourhood, so they will not have the opportunity to object. Then, when they find out later what has happened and it ends up in the Environment Court, this bill will make it harder for groups to join Environment Court cases. On the one hand, people will not be told about it. There will be special laws\u2014the changes to the notification provisions\u2014that prevent people knowing what is going on. Later, when people do find out about it and want to get involved in the Environment Court case, people will not be able to, because of the restrictions involvement in Environment Court cases. So National and Labour are voting for a bill that completely restricts community participation in decision making under the Resource Management Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003ECommunity and public participation is one of the founding principles of the Resource Management Act. The Act exists to protect the environment, and facilitate community participation in the decisions that are made in communities. National is completely overt about the bill restricting community participation. Those Labour members say they support community participation, but even after an enormously long time complaining about the bill, they are voting for a bill that restricts community participation. National and Labour say they want to restrict community participation in the decisions around environmental management. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003ENational is doing that because this is part of its anti-environmental agenda. National knows that the people who actually protect our environment are those terrible and troublesome groups, those iwi, hap\u016B, and environmental non-governmental organisations, that end up in the Environment Court all the time, clogging up the system and causing terrible problems to National Party\u2019s mates, the developers. Those groups end up in the Environment Court because they are trying to protect the New Zealand environment. It is those groups that do the hard work; little Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society branches, small environmental groups up and down our country, do the hard work to protect our environment. This bill is designed to get them out of the process. That is why this bill exists, and that is why National is restricting notification. It is why the bill includes security for costs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003ELet us remember that the Environment Court already has the ability to strike out frivolous and vexatious cases. But, no, that is not enough! We will have security for costs put in, as well, just to make sure that people are discouraged from getting into the Environment Court. Combine this with the dramatic increase in filing fees that the National Government has introduced. That is another barrier to people using the Resource Management Act process to protect the environment, and that is exactly why this bill exists. When we put it all together, we see that it now costs $500 to get through the front door of the Environment Court. People may be faced with security for costs, so that will put them off. People may not even have known about the proposal to start with, because National and Labour are restricting notification. If people have missed out on filing a case in the beginning, it is much harder to join the case later, because the changes to section 274 make it much harder for groups to join cases later. All the way through, step after step, National, Labour, and ACT are joining together to make it harder for ordinary community groups to protect the environment that underpins our entire economy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EAnother way they are doing this, and it has not been talked about much, is when plans have legal effect. One of the things that councils do is change plans in order to protect the environment. Under this bill, the time at which the plan has legal effect is delayed to further back in the process. It is not when the plan is notified; it is after submissions have been resolved. That means that it creates a loophole between when the plan is notified and when it has legal effect, during which one can drive a bulldozer through the hole so that one can see what it is they are trying to protect and so one can destroy it. This is the classic case of what will happen with the trees. Councils will notify that they plan to schedule individual trees, but that notification of scheduling individual trees will have no legal effect under this new bill. So the landowners will know that their trees are being scheduled and those trees will have no legal protection until after submissions are resolved, so during that window they will be able to chop down all those trees that are scheduled. That is why they have set this thing up. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe other part of this bill is the direct referral. The direct referral has some benefits, but the system that has been set up is so incredibly complicated that it is hard to see that it will reduce red tape. Numerous routes have been set up to get direct referral. Whether this reduces red tape is very, very unclear. I think that is one of the most amazing things about the so-called tree protection rules: it is very unclear whether they will reduce red tape, at all. In fact, they might multiply red tape. If councils do, as the Minister says they should, go around and try to schedule thousands and thousands of trees, then it will add red tape, it will add cost, and it will be a bureaucratic nightmare. If councils do not do that, then the trees can be chopped down, and, of course, that is what will happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EThe other part of this bill that I think is incredibly significant is the role of the Minister of Conservation. Normally, when there is a resource consent process, in order for a development to happen people need two types of consent: the consent of the landowner\u2014the person who owns the land\u2014and the consent of the consenting authority, whether it is the local council or whatever. These two types of consent are needed. So if I want to do a development on my property, I need the consent of the landowner and I also need the consent of the council. What about when that land is the coast of New Zealand, which is supposedly controlled by the public of New Zealand? It supposedly belongs to the people of New Zealand. We had a very long debate in our country about this. Should the people of New Zealand have the right to say no? If a developer wants to come along and do a development on coastal land, should the public of New Zealand have the right to say no? Under this bill that the Government is pushing through under urgency, the right of the public to say no has been taken away. The public no longer have the right to veto it and to say no. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EWe still have the resource consent process, and so we should. But the other consent that is normally necessary, which is the consent of the landowner, has been taken away. In the coastal environment, the landowner is the public of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand have had their right to say no to development in the coastal environment removed. They have effectively had their right to say whether something should go ahead on their land\u2014it is their land, it is owned by the public of New Zealand\u2014taken away. They no longer have the right say no. I think that that is ridiculous. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eb49ee66-7ca7-472d-a4a1-b099fd594dfa\u0022\u003EPeople often forget why the Resource Management Act is there. An enormous amount of rubbish is spoken about the Resource Management Act, but it is there to protect the environment and to enable community participation. This bill will reduce protection of the environment. This bill will reduce community participation in decision making. I am not surprised that National is pushing this view, because it is so anti-environment. I am surprised that Labour is voting for this bill, because Labour members reckon they are pro-environment. Labour says a lot about sustainability, but, here it is, voting for this bill. Once again, it is left to the Greens and, as I understand it, the M\u0101ori Party to stand up for community participation and democracy, and protecting the environment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022 data-id=\u0022886576497601425db1b4ac6ce30ebf21\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022886576497601425db1b4ac6ce30ebf21\u0022\u003ENICKY WAGNER (National):\u003C/span\u003E It has been a most interesting debate today. It has been particularly interesting, considering the breadth and complexity of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, that only a very small number of issues have been contentious. The debating points have focused mostly on trees. The vast majority of the issues in the bill have been non-contentious and are supported by the majority of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EAll parties, even the Green Party, have indicated that they support the streamlining and simplification of the Resource Management Act. Everyone is aware of the dangers to the environment of lengthy and expensive planning and consenting processes. If we are to protect our environment and manage our natural resources well, we need processes that are flexible and responsive in order to manage environmental issues as they arise. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EI reiterate that although the bill is phase one of a wider Resource Management Act reform, the Resource Management Act will still be the principal statute for protecting and managing natural resources in New Zealand. There are no changes to the purposes or principles of the Act and there are no reductions in environmental protection in the bill. But it does provide for significant improvements in the implementation of the principles behind the legislation. The bill provides a suite of amendments that will make planning more effective, more efficient, quicker, and less costly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EThe bill has been through a very robust select committee process. Significant amendments have been made to the original bill, and it is better for those changes. We have listened to submitters and we have dropped several of the original provisions. We will not be removing non-complying activities, we will not be limiting appeals to plans to points of law, and we have deferred changes to decision making for designations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EWe have also amended several of the provisions of the original bill in order to improve outcomes. We have amended and improved the discount policy for late processing of resource consents, and we have modified the \u201Cstop the clock\u201D provision for requests for further information in the consenting process. The bill has also made changes to further submissions on council planning documents that will speed up the process and reduce the workload of councils, but still ensure that those who may be affected by matters raised in a submission will retain their right to a fair hearing. The original bill proposed to scrap the review of district plans every 10 years, but after debate this bill now proposes rolling reviews. A significant number of technical amendments and improvements have also been made to the bill during the select committee process. I thank the expert advisory group for its help and advice in this area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EThe major debating point today has been about trees. I will add just one final comment from the perspective of a resident of Christchurch, which is a very pleasant and leafy city without blanket tree protection regulations. I, like other MPs, have received numerous emails about trees. There seems to be real confusion in Auckland. Many people there seem to be confused about which trees will be affected by clause 52 of the bill. Clause 52 affects only trees on private property. The trees on public roads, reserves, and parks are all controlled by councils, not by private individuals. Therefore, those trees are unaffected by clause 52. I also note that in terms of scheduling trees for protection, there is an ability to schedule groups of trees, as well as individual trees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EI received a particularly interesting email from an Aucklander who acknowledged that Christchurch had plenty of trees but believed that Christchurch was not protecting them properly because there were not enough native trees in the city. I had to gently remind her that the city of Christchurch was established on a grassy, swampy plain with only the odd clump of cabbage trees. Almost every tree in Christchurch has been planted by its citizens, which illustrates that most New Zealanders plant many more trees than they ever cut down, and that Parliament should trust New Zealanders to protect and manage the trees on their properties. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002292824476-4e66-4052-8435-b049833d8b83\u0022\u003EI am delighted to support the bill. I am delighted to see it pass into law. It will streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act, and that will benefit both the environment and all New Zealanders. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022 data-id=\u00222d1b94720c424785a6567127cf58b76d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222d1b94720c424785a6567127cf58b76d\u0022\u003EDAVID GARRETT (ACT):\u003C/span\u003E It will surprise no one in the House who heard my earlier speech during the second reading debate on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill when I say ACT is pleased to support the bill. It will also not surprise those who hear me speak regularly when I say I am always delighted to find something to agree on with members on the other sides of the House. On this occasion I am very pleased to be able to agree wholeheartedly with Dr Russel Norman, who said quite correctly that the Resource Management Act is the Act that protects the environment. That is absolutely what the Act is intended to do, but that is all it is intended to do. What has happened is that the legislation has evolved into a circus in which frivolous delays tie up too much development in red tape. Those delays ultimately cost us all money and do nothing to improve productivity and living standards. Reducing those silly obstacles is something I am pleased to support, as everyone in this House should do. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EI had hoped that my story about listening to the extensive submissions on this bill would be amusing and instructive, but I am afraid that the story from the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee far outstrips mine for ridiculousness.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227883c85e-a5bb-4a12-9962-80df55af0ecd\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229c2fc28c34f4b38b8e19e2f37ae94c3\u0022\u003EHone Harawira\u003C/span\u003E: Yours is the most ridiculous! You win!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228605a80c7c2e4b599c7aba91f2ace457\u0022\u003EDAVID GARRETT\u003C/span\u003E: Ha, ha! Those members who were at the select committee that day will recall that all of us, I believe on both sides of the table, shook our heads in disbelief when Brother Pat Lynch, chief executive of the Catholic Education Office, came along and told us in a very serious way that a school in Manukau had decided to build a bike rack. One would not think that building a concrete pad with some holders on it would require any kind of resource consent at all. But apparently, it was decided that it did. The school applied for a resource consent for the bike rack, and it was rejected on the grounds that it did not have a roof, and therefore the bikes would rust. It escaped the comprehension of everybody on the committee as to how on earth it was the business of the Manukau City Council to dictate that a bike rack should have a roof, because otherwise bikes would rust. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EOne of the most positive things about the bill\u2014and the Minister spoke on this briefly\u2014is the crackdown on businesses that use, or rather misuse, the Resource Management Act to eliminate potential competition. Everyone in the House, and indeed most people in the country, are well aware of the Foodstuffs circus on the North Shore of Auckland. With respect to the Minister, I think he understated the debacle. In fact, it took 20 years, not 10 years, for Foodstuffs to finally open its Wairau Park Pak \u2019N Save, thanks to continuous spurious objections by Progressive Enterprises. In other words, for the entire life of the Resource Management Act, that company has used spurious objections, which allowed it to stifle its rivals and therefore prevent the people of the North Shore from getting their groceries at a cheaper price.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EUndeterred by its eventual defeat on the North Shore, Progressive Enterprises continued its attempts to block a mall that would include a rival Pak \u2019N Save from being built in Te Awamutu\u2014many miles away, for cripes\u2019 sake! That development was approved in 2006. Since then Progressive Enterprises has tried to delay the progress of the Te Awamutu development on four separate occasions. Ultimately, sanity prevailed, but no doubt not before millions of dollars were spent on lawyers\u2019 fees by both sides. That business should never have been allowed the chance to succeed in the first place. This type of behaviour will be severely curtailed under the changes made by this bill. The threat of damages will make people think twice before so abusing the legal process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EI began my speech by saying how happy I was to find something that I could agree with in Dr Norman\u2019s speech, but, sadly, I must take issue with him on his paranoia about the security for costs issue. Dr Norman said the provision in existing legislation that allows the striking out of frivolous claims was a sufficient protection, and that security for costs is a Draconian, democracy-smothering device. Well, I say to Dr Norman that the strike-out provision is almost never applied by the courts on the basis of something being frivolous. There is a very, very high test to meet, and the courts are very, very loath to strike out cases on that ground. Conversely, although requiring security for costs is allowed by the bill, it does not mean that the courts will give that remedy lightly, either. It could be said, in summary, that courts rarely require security for costs, and if they do, then they make it as manageable a figure as possible. But they strike out frivolous claims even more rarely. So this bogey about security for costs is nothing of the kind; it is merely a mild disincentive for silly behaviour. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EThe bill makes it illegal for businesses to object to trade competitors moving in on their turf, as it should do. It also limits their ability to slow down the process through appeals, but it preserves the right to object if businesses genuinely believe that there will be an adverse impact on the environment. That is exactly as it should be. Businesses have as much right to put forward environmental protection arguments as anybody else. At the risk of tedium, I say the Resource Management Act is meant to protect the environment, as Dr Norman said. It is not meant to protect trade monopolies. There are some members who will vote against this bill. I think that its opposition is limited to the Green Party and perhaps Mr Twyford, who will claim that communities will suffer when the legislation is passed. I look forward to hearing him explain why having 300 more jobs and lower grocery prices will hurt the people of Te Awamutu so badly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022187e4099-cc16-4bb8-8379-82c881af1724\u0022\u003EI will finish with a few words on the bill as a whole. Reforming the Resource Management Act is a process that is long overdue. Such a complex law\u2014especially one drafted by Sir Geoffrey Palmer\u2014for all its good intentions, was never going to get everything right the first, second, or even third time. That is why the ACT Party, in its confidence and supply agreement with National, insisted on the establishment of an advisory committee to review the Act. Specifically, in the agreement both parties agreed to \u201Cpromote investment, jobs, wages, employment and prosperity, as well as environmental improvement, through amendments to the RMA.\u201D Environmental improvement was not added as an afterthought in that agreement, but ACT recognises what many in this House, sadly, do not recognise, which is that environmental progress and economic growth can and must coexist. This bill acknowledges that important reality. Therefore, I am pleased to indicate on behalf of the ACT Party that we will be supporting the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022 data-id=\u002214253ba3f6e040bfbe5e9090d7e32f89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002214253ba3f6e040bfbe5e9090d7e32f89\u0022\u003EHon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs):\u003C/span\u003E T\u0113n\u0101 koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. T\u0113n\u0101 t\u0101tou katoa. I rise to speak to the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill tonight with an air of disappointment. The M\u0101ori Party stands for a deep commitment to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for future generations, and our environment spokesperson and member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Rahui Katene, put that simply in a press release she issued a fortnight ago. This is all it was: \u201CWe are committed to protecting the rights of Papat\u016B\u0101nuku and Ranginui. We are obligated to keep them from being polluted.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003EThat commitment to keep Papat\u016B\u0101nuku at the core motivates us to do all that we can to protect waterways and land from ecological misuse and destruction. It instructs us to place our focus on the need to stimulate the regeneration and revitalisation of indigenous flora and fauna. It prompts us to support sustainable development rather than growth, and to reduce our dependence on oil. It encourages us to promote wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, and iwi as kaitiaki, and to support moves to restore this role to them. This bill does little to move us along on any of these areas. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003EThis bill continues to provide for security for costs, despite our Supplementary Order Paper to overturn this and despite the call from M\u0101ori submitters to do so. The bill continues to put up an appeals process that is too restrictive. How can we be convinced that there is a commitment to simplify and streamline when there are still fixed thresholds to meet and when appeals based on merit remain disallowed for large projects? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003EThe bill continues to be too restrictive on terms of who can be involved in the decision making around the development of district plans. It limits the ability of tangata whenua and communities to be involved in decision making and to challenge and appeal consents once they are approved. The bill does not sufficiently protect urban trees from development plans, the process of public notification of consents by councils is still too restrictive, and the bill continues to disallow the Minister of Conservation to determine coastal permits, despite our amendment to the contrary. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003EThe M\u0101ori Party had every intention of trying to enhance the provisions of the bill during the Committee stage, to bring about the sense of balance we so vitally need between matters of environmental integrity and the rush for development. We put forward amendments to introduce a Treaty of Waitangi clause, to remove security for costs, to reinstate the ministerial veto for coastal permits, to initiate the transfer of powers from councils to hap\u016B and iwi authorities, and to amend the process around which projects of national significance are considered, including the membership and functioning of boards of inquiry and the ability to raise appeals against decisions with the High Court. Never let it be said that the M\u0101ori Party has not tried to make the best of a difficult situation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003EOne by one the amendments were voted down, and, as that happened, we lost our sense of optimism about the potential of this bill to make a difference. Without those changes incorporated in it, the bill veers dangerously towards gaining the edge of economic progress at all costs. In the quest to streamline and simplify decision making, are we taking proper cognisance of the investment we must make in the world our grandchildren\u2019s grandchildren will inherit? In the quest for development, will we end up with a poorer natural world, a more depleted environment, and a less secure world? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003EThe M\u0101ori Party has talked often in this House about the concept of a genuine progress index, which is a way to understand the arithmetic and the consequences of growth, especially regarding Earth\u2019s finite resources. We believe that we must learn the first law of sustainability: that growth in the rate of resource consumption cannot be sustained. It is to do with the fundamental questions of globalisation without regard for the health of humans or the prosperity of the planet. We ask again whether, in the race to streamline and simplify, we have actually created additional pathways that have the effect of being able to avoid community participation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003ELet me remind the House of some of the statements of our people, as part of the 840 submissions that were received on this bill. The Ng\u0101ti Kuta resource management unit, from Te R\u0101whiti in the Bay of Islands, challenged Parliament to ensure section 8 of the Act, which contains the Treaty provision, must be strengthened. Indeed, they suggested that some form of compulsion is required. Their reason for such a strong point of view is simply that the Treaty is always relevant and significant. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003ENg\u0101ti P\u0101hauwera, both Raupunga and M\u014Dhaka, pointed out that clause 68 limits the ability of iwi and hap\u016B to participate in the decision making. This will mean a reduction in public scrutiny and negative environmental outcomes. Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti, Ati Awa, Ng\u0101ti Raukawa, and Ng\u0101ti Toa recommended that the Government should commit greater resourcing of iwi to help effective engagement in resource consent and plan change processes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003EI need only think of the impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to consider how iwi and hap\u016B rights are able to be utilised to protect the seabed and foreshore. Many of the submitters to the select committee spoke of their experience that regional councils fail to protect their interests and that councils do not share the Crown\u2019s obligation to acknowledge or accommodate present and future Treaty claims. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003EOur capacity to exercise kaitiakitanga will be greatly impeded if we are not able to participate in decisions around resource management at all levels of development: local and national, small and large. The resource management unit of Te R\u016Bnanga o Ng\u0101ti Awa recommended including provisions in the Act to enable councils to commission cultural impact assessments from tangata whenua where an applicant fails to provide evidence of those assessments with the application for resource consent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003EI could go on, but I think the point is clear. Aldous Huxley once said: \u201CFacts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.\u201D We believe that the legitimate arguments put forward by tangata whenua have been ignored. We are concerned that the Treaty provisions in the Resource Management Act are not being sufficiently regarded to the extent to make a difference. We were keen to give the Treaty greater status in the Act, so that decision makers would be compelled to recognise and provide for hap\u016B as the Treaty envisaged. We are moved by the view of Ng\u0101ti Pahauwera that reintroduction of security of costs places iwi and hap\u016B who have a genuine issue of appeal but who do not have a secure financial base in a position of ngoikore, or disempowerment. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219767ece-60f1-4014-9855-74afaa34e699\u0022\u003EWe could have been world leaders; we could have taken up the opportunity to protect our environment, to care for our future, and to invite and sustain community participation. The health of our environment must remain at the very top of our priorities in moving our nation forward. This bill does not give us the confidence that the difference will be made. Our final vote is to be a vote against this bill; we are voting for the aspirations of our people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022 data-id=\u002252adc5ddabec43d7a532442b5e94391f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002252adc5ddabec43d7a532442b5e94391f\u0022\u003EHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour\u2014Hauraki-Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E I will take a call on the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Labour supported the bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee at the first reading, on the basis that the public submission process would provide ample, practical, and considered feedback from people who use the Resource Management Act. The aim of the Resource Management Act has always been to ensure the protection of the natural and physical environment, to encourage sustainable development, and to enable local participation in decision making to be achieved. The challenge has always been to ensure that the balance of interests is given weight in the practical application of what the law intended. On that challenge alone, diverse views have been reflected in this House about where the tipping point has occurred. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI, for one, recognise that in many communities, amongst tangata whenua, far too much weight has indeed been weighted in favour of those who can afford to protect their interests by using the process. National has touted its objectives as a means to streamline and simplify legislation. Interestingly, the bill as introduced received significant criticism at the select committee for poor drafting and introducing unnecessary confusion and complexity. I recognise that several changes to the original bill have been made by the select committee, and I commend its efforts. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003ELabour will support clauses that improve the performance and operation of the Resource Management Act, and that reduce costs and unnecessary delay, without significantly undermining environmental protection and public participation. But we do not support those changes that will rebalance the Act in favour of development per se. On that front, there were several aspects in the Committee stage, which Labour brought to the attention of the Committee, that do not meet those tests\u2014firstly, the way in which resource consents are notified, as well as the removal of the Minister of Conservation\u2019s decision-making power in relation to restricted coastal activities, and, secondly, the prohibition of district rules that allow authorities to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI spoke to the first two points in the Committee stage, and for the purposes of this contribution I will further highlight the fact that submitters recognised that removing the presumption in favour of notification, and truncating the time limit for public or limited notification, will mean that public participation will be undermined. This in turn will limit local community, hap\u016B, and iwi involvement in decision making. Several councils noted that the current practice was that roughly 5 percent of consents were currently notified. This in part was due to either a heavy emphasis on involvement in the pre-consent process, working with tangata whenua at the front-end of processing consent applications as an early-alerts mechanism, or better processes for collating and aligning information to the consent process. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThe bill proposes to raise the threshold of affected parties, to narrow the scope of parties that need to be notified. This may invariably impact on the broader interests of tangata whenua, who are often reliant on their marae, hap\u016B, or iwi organisations to protect their interests. By the time their interests are recognised, they may have a very short time in which to state the nature of their interests, and more than likely will not have time to go back to the marae, hap\u016B, or iwi collective to confirm a position. A consequence, sadly, is that an individual will take action on behalf of the broader collective in the meantime. I am still unsure whether clause 131 will enable marae, hap\u016B, or iwi to act in the broader interests of the collective, and support an individual who has expressed concerns with regard to a particular consent. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EOn the matter of the removal of the Minister of Conservation\u2019s powers, I was particularly cognisant of submission 729 from Te Kupenga o Ng\u0101ti Hako, who were concerned that this provision was being promoted due to issues arising from the Whangamata marina. By way of explanation of the work they do, I tell the House that this organisation deals with approximately 10 to 15 applications a month, and it has been a section 274 party to about eight applications affecting their rohe. As the Whangamata marina issues commenced in 1996, it is somewhat ironic for them that this issue commenced under a National Government. To date, the costs for this hap\u016B in promoting and protecting the interests they believe they have, have been in excess of $300,000. To this day Ng\u0101ti Hako\u2019s existing resource consent that was granted for the Whangamata marina is inadequately monitored\u2014by their standards\u2014by the regional council, and remains a source of great frustration for Ng\u0101ti Hako, who merely wanted to protect and preserve access to their customary fishing grounds and their pipi beds. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EAt some point, the Minister of Conservation should have a role to protect the public interest in coastal space that may end up compromised by the Minister for the Environment in applying the Resource Management Act without any regard whatsoever to some broader issues. I made the point earlier in the day that there are far-reaching implications of removing the Minister of Conservation\u2019s role in the coastal space, where the Foreshore and Seabed Act could apply. In short, one cannot assume that the Minister for the Environment should fill that space, and I maintain that if it is not the Minister of Conservation, then it should be the Attorney-General in consultation with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister of M\u0101ori Affairs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003ENg\u0101ti Hako made the point in their oral submission that the Minister of Local Government cannot deal with Treaty issues. Certainly, issues around the foreshore and seabed will be partly considered in that context, as well. On the basis of decisions affecting tangata whenua in Auckland in the recent governance restructuring, I strongly agree with Ng\u0101ti Hako, and I urge the Government to reconsider this issue or we will be back to revisit this role at some point in the future. The select committee has been able to defer several issues to the phase two tranche of amendments: matters relating to the requirements of authorities, the role and function of the Environmental Protection Authority, and water reform, which will be eagerly monitored on this side of the House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EFinally, in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper amendments tabled by the M\u0101ori Party, which Labour endorsed, we certainly support the intention of these proposals. Given the nature of the coalition arrangement between the M\u0101ori Party and National there would have been clear direction in leadership from the outset if those Government parties showed that they were of one mind on these types of issues\u2014and clearly they are not\u2014rather than the M\u0101ori Party relying on Opposition parties and cobbling together support to be able to endorse what they see as fundamental points of policy that need to be agreed on. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThe Government has continued to demonstrate its lack of support for the views espoused by the M\u0101ori Party. That is a very sad situation, especially given the immense anticipation of iwi and M\u0101ori throughout the country on the second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments. Labour generally agrees that where good practice exists, then it should inform policy to provide durable and workable solutions. For example, the Government, through its Treaty settlement process, tends to favour large natural groupings, and the way in which hap\u016B interests are taken into account exists within this general approach. Regional councils already have a recognised process of working with hap\u016B and iwi through the establishment of, for example, Te Manawhenua Forum under the Auckland Regional Council structure, and Ng\u0101 Iwi Toopu o Waipa under the Waipa District Council structure. There are many more, and I am sure M\u0101ori members could point to them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EThere may be broader and wider implications on a range of policy fronts that would need to support the intent of what is being proposed by the M\u0101ori Party, and I would certainly encourage them to resume discussions quickly with their coalition Government partner National on the second tranche of the amendments. To simply stand in this House and say that this is what they think should be done, when they have the influence on this Government to be able to lead change at a policy level, is fundamental to achieving durable change for the interests of M\u0101ori. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220e7e8da2-a6a1-41bb-aeb0-a49be255a293\u0022\u003EI commend the select committee members. Certainly the chairperson, Chris Auchinvole, has stewarded this bill through in a responsible way. His leadership has been cordial and should be recognised in this House. The clerks and all the officials should be commended for the hard work that they have put into the number of submissions that have been heard. We certainly support the sensible amendments that have been contained in the bill as reported back from the select committee, even though we highlighted at the outset that the initial drafting was pretty scanty. We hope that the M\u0101ori Party will be able to significantly influence the second tranche of amendments that will have a huge impact on tangata whenua. N\u014D reira, kia ora t\u0101tou katoa.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd5a28eab8244126901bcc4519f3a392\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd5a28eab8244126901bcc4519f3a392\u0022\u003ENIKKI KAYE (National\u2014Auckland Central):\u003C/span\u003E Tonight we are debating legislation that is focused on protecting the beautiful country that is New Zealand. It is good that there is cross-party support for the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee heard from 339 oral submitters, which took up 69 hours of our time in these hearings. The select committee process was very robust. During those hearings we heard the sometimes horrific stories of average Kiwis just trying to get basic consents. This legislation is dedicated to those Kiwis. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EOfficials have spent hours of hard work assisting our committee to improve this legislation. I want to thank the efforts of public servants and all of the submitters for their efforts to do that. I acknowledge my National colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee\u2014the effervescent chair, Chris Auchinvole, Louise Upston, Cam Calder, Nicky Wagner\u2014and, of course, I acknowledge the Minister for the Environment for bringing this legislation to the House. I acknowledge the individuals, businesses, and community groups that are listening tonight. There are community groups that have spent time and money on resource consents that could have spent that money on educating kids or spent their time on community projects like the farmers market in Grey Lynn. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EThe purpose of this bill is to begin to redress the balance of environmental protection and economic growth. It is a delicate balance, and at times it can be tough, but for too long this legislation has imposed unnecessary costs on businesses and communities. I am confident that these Resource Management Act reforms will reduce the time for processing consents and will reduce paperwork. The costs, uncertainties, and delays of the current Resource Management Act are costing New Zealanders jobs at a time when people most need them. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EThe current Resource Management Act has been holding up valuable infrastructure in areas like Auckland. This bill will go some way to fix that. It will ensure that projects of national significance will be processed in a timely manner so that New Zealanders and the country can benefit from them. Other than in relation to processing applications proposals of national significance, the role and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority are not defined in this bill but they will be expanded upon in the next phase of the Resource Management Act reforms. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EThere have been some very important changes to this bill as part of the select committee process, and I think it is time that we acknowledge them. There has been a strengthening of the provisions to ensure the timing and efficient processing of resource consents. The bill now limits rather than removes further rounds of submissions on plan changes to ensure property rights are recognised, and it strengthens the process for national consenting and national environmental standards. The select committee also chose not to proceed with the removal of the non-complying activity class as we believe that the transitional costs exceeded the benefits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EI think it is important to take a moment to acknowledge the Environmental Protection Authority. The establishment of this entity will be very important for New Zealand. I look forward to phase two of the reform, when the full powers and functions of the Environmental Protection Authority will be considered. Many speakers this evening have acknowledged the delicate balance between public involvement and ensuring that progress can be made in terms of consents. I think this bill strikes a good balance in that respect. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EThere has been robust debate this evening about trees. I believe it is reasonable for individuals to prune and trim their trees without a resource consent. As of 1 October Aucklanders and New Zealanders will be able to do that. It is good that that provision is supported by most of this Parliament. I am pleased that the Minister for the Environment is writing to all local councils and asking them to report back to him to ensure they protect high-value trees for our scheduling. The Minister has also confirmed that he will assess whether they are undertaking adequate scheduling. He has said that he will make a direction under section 25A of the Resource Management Act if they are not doing that. This is a positive step to give Aucklanders confidence in scheduling. I believe that this will help ensure historic trees and others with special value are protected. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003ESome of my constituents have raised concerns, and I have had the opportunity to raise them through this legislation, but I am very glad that the Minister has shown an ability and a desire to want to protect trees in Auckland, as well. There has been a lot of scaremongering this evening regarding trees, but these provisions regarding the removal of trees do not come into force until January 2012. That gives Auckland local authorities adequate time to ensure that they have good scheduling in place. The changes in Auckland local governance also have the potential in the long term to make scheduling easier as there could be one system of scheduling across Auckland. I have worked constructively on this issue with the Minister and the local community to allay those concerns, and I thank the Minister for taking that step. I look forward to working with him on this issue and on other issues in the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ed2d10c1-43b7-41d9-9f5c-0c313f70e625\u0022\u003EPhase one was about simplifying and streamlining the Resource Management Act. However, as the Minister has outlined, further reforms are needed to improve the economic and environmental outcomes of the Resource Management Act. The Minister has identified 10 related work streams. The first four work streams involve greater central government direction to improve the management of aquaculture, infrastructure, urban design, and water. I look forward to being involved with the Minister in those reforms. Our natural environment is a core part of who we are as Kiwis. It is a privilege to be in this House to support this legislation this evening. We are gifted as a country, but we must continue to be active to protect our natural heritage\u2014our parks, our beaches, our rivers, our lakes, our mountains, and even our trees. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022 data-id=\u00222eddb95cfc47499fac6fae4fb63627bc\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222eddb95cfc47499fac6fae4fb63627bc\u0022\u003ESU\u2019A WILLIAM SIO (Labour\u2014M\u0101ngere):\u003C/span\u003E From the outset of this debate Labour supported having this bill referred to the select committee. It was important from our point of view that the general public be given the opportunity to participate and give their evidence in such an important change to the Resource Management Act. We raised our concerns about the rushed and hasty manner in which the Government wanted to proceed with this bill. As a responsible Opposition party, Labour also expressed its willingness to work constructively with the Government to improve the operation and performance of the Resource Management Act, provided that the proposed changes did not undermine environmental protection, and that they did not undermine public participation. We believed from the beginning that if the Government were not so intent on showing off and flexing its ministerial muscles and its new powers as Government, and that if the Government were genuine in actually listening, we would have arrived at a bill that allowed for more efficient processes but still maintained environmental protection and meaningful public participation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EEarlier in the debate a National MP from Auckland commented that she was concerned about her Government\u2019s amendments. But when asked whether she would do something about her concern, there was silence. Her behaviour, however, highlights a pattern that this Government seems to have well rehearsed in its 9 months in power. The pattern is one whereby it attempts to show empathy. Government members say they are concerned and attempt to portray that they are listening. They use the word \u201Clistening\u201D repeatedly. This gives the impression that they are consulting people, but the reality is that they will go ahead and do what they want to do anyway, irrespective of whether the weight of evidence is against them, as is the case in three specific areas of this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EProtecting the environment and public participation in the decision making in managing and developing our natural resources are the two pillars that underpin the Resource Management Act. Although Labour supports the bill generally, there are three specific areas where we are still in disagreement with the Government. We disagree with the changes to the notification of resource consents. We do not support the removal of the Minister of Conservation\u2019s decision-making ability in respect of restricted coastal activities. We oppose the removal of local authorities\u2019 ability to have general tree protection rules in their district plans.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EI want to focus on two of these areas and, firstly, say that Labour opposes the changes to the notification of resource consents. The current Act contains the presumption that consent authorities will notify a resource consent application, unless they are satisfied that the effects will be no more than minor and that the approval of the affected parties is obtained. Unless the application pertains to a controlled activity, public notification is not required unless a rule in the plan or proposed plan requires it, and notice must be served on any affected persons unless the relevant plans specifically state that notification is not required. The Government is now intent on changing all this by introducing clause 68, which will alter the process for the notification of resource consents. The Government\u2019s amendments were bulldozed through in the Committee stage earlier tonight, even though 75 percent of submitters on this particular area opposed that clause. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EWhat does this amendment mean? It means the National Government\u2019s amendment is designed to neutralise the Act and remove the presumption towards notification of resource consents. It means the threshold for the required public notification is raised, and the threshold for affected parties is also raised. With this amendment, the Government lays out a foundation where the potential for reckless and irresponsible development could take place by some unscrupulous corporation, without that corporation then taking responsibility for any damage to our natural environment, and with little concern for the impact on the lives of local residents and their communities. It would seem from this specific amendment that the Government is giving big corporations the key to unfettered and uncontrolled development, driven by profit and taking no responsibility for any damage and destruction such corporations may cause to the environment and local communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EThe public shares Labour\u2019s concern in this area. Let me give the House an example of how this Government\u2019s amendment is going against the grain of public opinion. The public is asking for more input and more notification of corporate activities, but this Government is instead removing these protections. This week Sue Kedgley of the Green Party tabled the petition of Sharon Stewart, David Collings, and 1,451 others. By the way, Sharon Stewart is a National Party supporter from Howick. They requested that the House take urgent steps to prevent the construction of cellphone sites, cabinets, and electromagnetic radiation equipment immediately adjacent to residential homes, preschools, and retirement villages; to prohibit cellphone towers and similar transmission devices from being erected near educational facilities; and to legislate to require community consultation and notified consent prior to the erection of cellphone towers and similar transmission devices in residential areas, so that telecommunications companies are required to consult local communities on the location of cell towers, cellphone sites, cabinets, and other electromagnetic radiation equipment in the area, and to seek to come up with sites that have the least impact on nearby residential dwellings and schools. The community is concerned about phone towers because of the potential health risks they pose.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EIf Sharon Stewart, David Collings, and the 1,451 others who signed that petition are listening to this debate, they will hear clearly that the Government\u2019s clause 68 goes against the thrust of what they are seeking in their petition. The people of Howick who voted National will be very worried by this clause and what it may mean for development in the Howick village. Without the general presumption either for or against notifications, I believe that the public can expect more and more activities to be advanced by big corporations through this amendment, without public input and without corporations taking any responsibility for their activities on the lives of people and their communities. Notification is important, and, as my colleague the Hon Shane Jones said tonight, notification is about participation, and participation is the cornerstone of our democracy in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EI have also said that Labour opposes the removal of local authorities\u2019 ability to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. Clause 52 prohibits councils from using blanket tree protection rules in an urban environment. Clause 52 says that a rule must not prohibit or restrict the felling, trimming, damaging, or removal of any tree or group of trees unless the trees are specifically identified in the plan, located in a reserve, or subject to a conservation management plan. Clause 151 requires councils using blanket tree protection rules to get rid of them by 1 January 2012. Labour believes that prohibiting the use of general tree protection rules undermines the ability of local authorities to decide how their local communities develop. The community\u2019s response to the Government\u2019s clause 52 is simple, loud, and clear: \u201CStop the chop, Dr Smith\u2014stop the chop!\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b398827c-6bf5-403e-90dc-ff03205302a5\u0022\u003EI will share with the House some recent emails sent from concerned citizens, which highlight why this message is important for the Government to hear. I quote Thea Govorko of Westmere, Auckland, who wrote and shared a very simple but very powerful message: \u201CTrees are living creatures, and we need them. Kids play in trees, birds live in trees, trees protect us from the sun and they give us clean air to breathe. Trees block noise and shelter us from the winds.\u201D Finally, I quote Tamsin McDonald: \u201CI find it particularly abhorrent that clause 52 is supported by our leader, John Key, our Minister of Tourism. What a farce to even consider trying to promote a clean, green image of New Zealand, all the while sanctioning the wanton destruction of our urban forest. It is not only ludicrous but insulting to take the decision-making authority away from local government, as clause 52 does. To say that clause 52 is a cost-saving measure is ridiculous. The cost and time involved in listing on council district plans the individual trees to be protected will cost so much more, be so much more time consuming, and is an insane alternative to our current tree protection laws. Hundreds and thousands of trees will be lost needlessly and with no requirement for replanting.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e7d45a58cbf84027b5e33df530988737\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e7d45a58cbf84027b5e33df530988737\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National\u2014West Coast - Tasman):\u003C/span\u003E I am pleased and honoured to be the final speaker on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which was responsible for the bill\u2019s processing, I found to my surprise that I developed an interesting relationship with the bill\u2014not necessarily proprietorial, but certainly one of wanting to nurture it, care for it, and be concerned about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002286da7fb9427f4530b1fdcddbe1228dd0\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: Is it growing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002231c5bc3db7ba4dcea22b0cc300ae86f8\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE\u003C/span\u003E: Well, it has grown. Indeed, it has grown in some ways and reduced in others. It is a bill that I have been very pleased and honoured to be associated with. It was a policy plank for National in 2005 and I campaigned on it. It was a policy plank for National in 2008 and I campaigned on it. The Government is delivering on its promises, and in the process I am able to keep faith with my undertakings to those who voted me in to the West Coast - Tasman electorate seat. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EThe Resource Management Act has been around for a while\u2014for 18 years. We learnt lots from the select committee process. We learnt that in the last decade the costs of consenting have increased considerably and that the times for gaining consent have increased appallingly. Naturally, there was a reaction to that situation. Increasingly, councils have become defensive, and their processing has become increasingly litigious, as have the activities of those who were objecting. The net and gross results of the situation are that times for consents have increased, councils have become liability shy, and the system is not working as it was intended to work\u2014hence the streamlining and simplification aspects of the bill. What will the bill achieve? Heaps! \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EThe debate from the other side of the House has concentrated on very few points of difference\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220385e6ab185429ab347682c0588fec7\u0022\u003EShane Ardern\u003C/span\u003E: Heaps!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e14a36796284361985f382e8a9501c7\u0022\u003ECHRIS AUCHINVOLE\u003C/span\u003E: Would the member like me to say it again? Heaps! There are very few points of difference between the major parties or indeed between many of the parties. When one considers that there are 167 proposed changes in the bill, to have so few points of difference, albeit they are firmly held, to my mind is an indicator of a very sound law. I guess having been so close to the workings of the bill\u2019s progress I would have enjoyed a wider-ranging debate perhaps on the way the bill deals with the way the Act has been used for commercial competition purposes. That merited more attention than it got in the debate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003ENational is determined to get the country working effectively and productively. Spending endless time in needless litigation is not productive and is extraordinarily expensive. The bill will address those needs. Looking after the environment does not, of itself, mean lots of red tape. The amount of red tape is not a good measure of how much protection is being offered. The bill is phase one of the Resource Management Act reforms that will reduce the time for processing consents and reduce the paperwork required. Phase two will address specific areas of concern covering aquaculture and the structure of the Environmental Protection Authority. It has been very pleasing to hear its structure being applauded from all sides of the House. Phase two will cover freshwater management, urban design, and infrastructure issues. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003ELet us scan for the listening public a few of the other points that have been covered. The bill removes frivolous, vexatious, and anti-competitive objections. It also restores security for costs. We all know of cases where costs have been lost through people operating as an incorporated society and folding their organisation in order to avoid meeting their cost obligations. The costs do not disappear. We had submitters who told us with some glee that they had avoided meeting costs, and they were quite proud of that fact. Costs do not disappear; they are simply passed on to other parts of the community that actually pay their bills. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EStreamlining projects of national significance was also applauded by both sides of the House and will be something of really great importance for improving plan development and processes; limiting the appeals on councils\u2019 planning role to points of law, except when leave is sought through the Environment Court; constraining cross-submission processes on plans; simplifying decisions by not requiring reference to or a decision on every submission, based on the issues raised; and clarifying the provision for councils and territorial authorities to prepare a single plan, not one each. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EDuring the select committee process I was invited to address a group of about a hundred planners down on the West Coast. They came from all over. What interested me was the thirst they had for the changes that are being brought in. I would not be at all surprised if I heard that people involved at the coalface\u2014at the front of the industry\u2014feel we have not gone quite far enough. But the committee listened carefully to the submitters, and, in conjunction with advice from the officials, we have not sought to move too far too fast in phase one. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bfa5b74-8933-458a-99d4-bbd75d9898d0\u0022\u003EWe hope the bill will break the impasse that has occurred in processing times, and from a legislation point of view I think it has done what was needed to be done. National gave an undertaking to introduce the bill within 100 days of becoming the Government and then to process it within 6 months. As the chair of the select committee that processed the bill I have a debt of appreciation to the Minister for the Environment and to the original technical advisory board. I have a debt of gratitude to all members of the committee for the manner in which they chose to conduct themselves in working through the whole process. It has been an invigorating, stimulating, and enjoyable process to work with each other. To the group of specialists who assisted us in the latter stages of the bill we are also grateful. The work of the officials, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and committee clerk and staff has been most appreciated. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224fc8badd325b46a681fbbf21b708a403\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 108\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 14\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9; M\u0101ori Party 5.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a third time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001088\u0022\u003EThe result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 108, Noes 13.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022086c9fb5ec9c4034a5b8bcdc43d45ff6\u0022\u003EBiosecurity Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022037a785c03dc4213ab78509f1822b82b\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002237ee712ab495464e9fa792fd637b4b66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002237ee712ab495464e9fa792fd637b4b66\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee, that the committee present its final report on or before 12 October 2009, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EIn late August the Prime Minister announced an agreement with the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, to a joint action plan for streamlining trans-Tasman travel. The new approach will allow low-risk visitors who are travelling across the Tasman to New Zealand to move through processing more quickly, but those who do not abide by the rules and who breach biosecurity requirements will face stiffer penalties. These proposals are consistent with the changes that the National Party signalled in its pre-election biosecurity policy. They included improving cooperation at the border between staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the New Zealand Customs Service, ensuring passenger processing times are acceptable, and increasing the instant fine for incorrect biosecurity declarations at the border. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EMany people will be aware that they risk an instant fine at the border if they break the law by failing to declare or dispose of goods such as fruit or meat products before entering the country. This bill raises the instant fine from $200 to $400. My fellow Ministers with responsibilities at the border will be making progress on other issues. Many of those will be behind the scenes and not visible to international travellers. These improvements are a key part of the joint agreement between the Governments of New Zealand and Australia to make it easier for citizens of both countries to cross the Tasman. We will be making these changes as visible as possible to everyone, with conspicuous warnings at international airports. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003ENew Zealand is free of many of the serious pests and diseases that affect livestock and crops around the world. This is due to our relative isolation from the rest of the world and our strict biosecurity measures, but now we are more connected to the rest of the world than ever before. Travel has never been quicker or easier. Each year we can expect the arrival of about 4 million passengers and over 20,000 international flights. Every arrival brings with it the risk of an exotic disease. High-risk items brought into the country have the potential to severely harm our economy, environment, and social well-being. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EI want to say very clearly that we must do everything we can to keep that risk as low as we can. Despite our very best efforts, some international travellers still do not declare that they are carrying risky items such as fruit or meat products when they enter the country. Over the last few years Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry border staff have found that roughly three out of every 1,000 passengers have carried products such as those and have had to hand them in. The instant fine system was put in place to change people\u2019s behaviour and encourage them to respect the very serious consequences that can follow if contaminated products are brought into New Zealand. By raising the fine to $400 we want to create a wider understanding of New Zealand\u2019s need for strict biosecurity measures, and we want to see a drop in the amount of risky goods that are brought in and have to be seized to prevent possible harm. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThis is a very short bill, but I want to outline some further measures it contains. The instant fine will be raised, but an alternative to the instant fine is processing through the court system. The bill also raises the maximum penalty for conviction in the courts for the same offence from $400 to $800. We think this more accurately underlines the importance of biosecurity. The bill also introduces some minor changes to make the instant fine system easier to administer and to allow more flexibility for the future. Besides the instant fine for failing to declare risky goods, there is also an instant fine for not truthfully answering an inspector\u2019s questions while in a biosecurity-control area such as an international airport. At the moment, each instant fine has its own separate system and penalty. The bill sets out a standard format for instant fines and moves them out of the Act and into regulations. Should another instant fine be considered in the future, it will be much easier to include it in the regulations rather than again change the Biosecurity Act. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThe bill covers offences that are suitable for an instant fine as a deterrent. It makes a distinction between offences committed at the border and those that happen elsewhere. The reason for that is to cater for international travellers who may be here for only a short stay. People issued with an instant fine have the option of paying it on the spot. Most instant fines give people 28 days to pay before a reminder notice is issued. If the fine remains unpaid after another 28 days, court action can begin in order to recover the fine. But, unlike the average parking fine, the Biosecurity Act allows the fine to be entered into the court system for recovery after only 14 days in the case of an incorrect biosecurity declaration. The bill ensures that the special arrangement for a quick follow-up continues to apply only to border offences. In all other processing for instant fines, the standard 28-day notice will apply. Because penalties are being moved out of the Act and into regulations, it is vital for the Biosecurity Amendment Bill and its regulations to come into force together. So the bill provides for an Order in Council to make sure that the changes can take place at the same time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003EThis bill marks an important step in improving biosecurity processing for international travellers into New Zealand. Trans-Tasman travel will be made faster and easier while improving our already world-leading biosecurity system. I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022 data-id=\u00221478cc573b944603868cd9d143cff098\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221478cc573b944603868cd9d143cff098\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I have much pleasure in speaking on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill on behalf of Labour. Labour will be supporting the bill, because it is sensible that we do what we can to increase the protection of our borders from biosecurity incursions, but we do have some issues with the bill, as members can imagine. One is the basic concern of where the Government might be heading with biosecurity. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EAs the Government introduces this bill, with, we believe, the intention of enhancing biosecurity protection at the border, it is at the same time cutting 54 front-line jobs from Biosecurity New Zealand. I cannot understand a Government that preaches about the value of extra police so that people will commit less crime but says we can have fewer biosecurity people and we will still have fewer biosecurity incursions. It is illogical that both apply. If we are to believe that additional police lead to lower rates of crime, how can we believe that reducing the number of Biosecurity New Zealand staff will lead to reducing numbers of biosecurity incursions? The Minister of Biosecurity pointed out that last year 17,000 people were identified as bringing dangerous and unwanted organisms into the country. That is a very dangerous situation and one that we have to address. So the move to increase the instant fine from $200 to $400 is logical. If we go through and analyse it, we will see the decreasing value of the fine since its introduction in 1999, yet 20 percent fewer people have been identified as bringing in or trying to bring in dangerous goods, food, or whatever we do not want in this country. So there is an illogical argument there that says it is automatically true that by increasing the penalty, more people will comply. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EI go back to one of the major concerns we have, and that is, of course, that this bill brings in regulation-making powers and allows the Government to change regulations without putting forward legislation for the scrutiny of the House. If we had a sensible Government that ran logical, consistent policy, we might trust the Government, but, as I say, the complete hypocrisy of what it says regarding crime and what it says regarding biosecurity really does leave me alarmed at what might happen at some later stage\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022977cccaf-581d-4f48-924e-32bf6c54a93d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d733819e403c4080ba585a8e1017f061\u0022\u003EHon Anne Tolley\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member opposite but I take exception to his accusation that members on this side of the House are guilty of hypocrisy. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212643ce0ffde47919d455de79c61c9ba\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That word should not be used, and I ask the member to withdraw it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fdeef93edf594f078f63966d9ffeb08a\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw, and I have to say I was not referring to any particular member; it was just\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221e6fd0cb0d1b4b6da845b45436095c9c\u0022\u003EMr DEPUTY SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member does not need to comment on my ruling. I ask the member to continue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f21e2e770b8a464d831ce0d8cb99a768\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: It is the double standards applied by the Government, across the board, that concern us when a bill that allows for open, regulation-making powers is brought into this House. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EThe second concern we have is also about double standards. On the one hand the Government is increasing penalties and saying it will be tougher and will make it harder for people to bring things into the country or for things to come into the country inadvertently, but, on the other hand, the Government is reducing the effort at the border. That is the reality. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EThe third concern we have is that in tough economic times people will take short cuts with biosecurity. We are told by the Government that this recession is the most serious since the 1930s Depression. I would have to say that is an insult to all those elderly people who went through the Depression, but we are told that by the Government constantly in order to justify the cuts it is making. The reality is that many people will take short cuts with biosecurity. They may do that for a whole lot of reasons. It may be for commercial reasons or just because they feel desperate, either to bring into the country food for their families because they want to support them, or for some other strange reason. But the reality is that in tough times people take short cuts, and there is a risk that without enhanced levels of biosecurity scrutiny, we may increase the risk at the border. The cuts that this Government made in biosecurity, which were confirmed today, resulted in 54 jobs being lost from front-line biosecurity services in this country, on the very same day that we are debating the first reading of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. That is a double standard, normally called something beginning with \u201Ch\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EWhen this country was facing droughts, we allowed the importation of palm kernel stock food. At the time that was seen as a necessary move. Assurances that were given on the biosecurity protections have proven to be wrong. I put it to this Government that at the same time it has the Biosecurity Amendment Bill before the House it should take up the issue of palm kernel biosecurity and the importation of high-risk products that put our primary industries at risk. That issue could be included in this bill if the Government was genuine in wanting to increase the level of biosecurity protection for New Zealand. This bill does not guarantee those protections. It is simply a stick that raises the amount of instant fines and penalties for those people who make an erroneous declaration. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EOne of the problems, which is pointed out in the explanatory note of the bill, is that some people will inadvertently, or erroneously, make statements\u2014one might say, if one were being kind. For whatever reason, they might say they do not have unwanted goods, or high-risk goods, and they subsequently are proven to have them. We fine them and that is fine. But every time I come in and out of this country I am aware that there is confusion about the forms we give people to fill out. If we are to develop the tourism industry in New Zealand\u2014and if the Government were to put more money in, it might do that\u2014then more and more people will come into this country. English may not be their first language, and they will have a form placed in front of them that is supposed to explain\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022026b1341a42944fbbc4dd72b9ae85394\u0022\u003ESandra Goudie\u003C/span\u003E: And a video.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002201dba570255c4d209a0e0366d0189724\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u2019CONNOR\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and a video, no doubt, but, again, maybe English is not their first language. The form is supposed to explain to them very clearly that we do not want food or unwanted products brought into the country, because that is a risk to our country. I put to the Minister that the forms, the explanations, and the videos that we put before many of those people are not very helpful. Although the explanatory note mentions that the bill is part of a number of initiatives in this area, I say that the Minister should have included in this bill a guarantee that we would have better information for people coming in, so they do not erroneously make statements that they do not have goods that we might consider a biosecurity risk. There is an issue of communication that must be addressed, particularly for those people who do not have English as their first language. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003EIn conclusion, Labour will support this bill going to the select committee. I am sure that the committee, under the stewardship of Shane Ardern, who shows more intelligence on these issues than many of his colleagues do, will guide this bill through and ask the right questions. I remind the Minister of a statement made not by me or anyone on this side of the House but by someone who traditionally probably aligns with the National Party, and that is the chairman of Federated Farmers. He said: \u201CThe threat\u201D\u2014the biosecurity threat\u2014\u201Cwon\u2019t necessarily come in the few thousand containers inspected, but in the hundreds of thousands of containers not inspected.\u201D John Key announced that he was opening up our borders to visitors from Australia. We still have 600,000 sea containers not inspected, and today we have had confirmed that 54 front-line jobs have been cut from biosecurity. That is on the same day that the Government brings this Biosecurity Amendment Bill into the House for its first reading and tries to claim that the bill will enhance biosecurity in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022 data-id=\u0022a019953a0a704149b69a2f92fb24447c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a019953a0a704149b69a2f92fb24447c\u0022\u003ESHANE ARDERN (National\u2014Taranaki - King Country):\u003C/span\u003E It is always a pleasure to follow the Hon Damien O\u2019Connor\u2014the former member for West Coast - Tasman\u2014particularly on an issue that he clearly knows very little about. He will learn more during the select committee process, and, at the end of that process\u2014which will, of course, be thorough and relevant to the bill before the committee\u2014he will know a lot more about biosecurity. That will be useful. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EDuring the last 5 years of the previous Labour Government, New Zealand had 333 new incursions that are now permanent residents in New Zealand. That issue is what this Government is trying to address. Most of that material came through in people\u2019s baggage and on their person after they had falsely declared they were not carrying some kind of foreign body or good that was likely to be harmful to the New Zealand environment. We need to spend a couple of moments thinking about that situation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EThe New Zealand environment is unique. No other environment in the world is the same, and there is a very good reason for that. We are and always have been an island nation, isolated from the original Western World and from many old Eastern societies, as well\u2014the Old World, I guess we could say. We are a relatively young country with regard to things travelling to and from the rest of the world. We have a unique environment that encourages certain types of plants, insects, and animal species to flourish\u2014species that did not flourish to the same extent in their own nation. We are vulnerable. Therefore, our biosecurity has to be more vigilant, better, and world-leading, which is what the bill is trying to address. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EWhen I had the privilege of having the biosecurity portfolio I received reports that as many as 8 tonnes of meat were entering our borders in a year on people\u2019s person. Members should think about that for a moment. Eight tonnes of meat on people\u2019s person is a big truckload. We might ask why anyone would want to bring in unprocessed, uncooked, or unpackaged meat, but people do. The meat was intercepted at our borders. We know that because we intercepted it. One could argue: \u201CWell, what\u2019s the risk?\u201D. The risk is in the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry\u2019s own audit at the time suggested that as much as 10 percent gets through. So we can see that the signal sent by the $200 instant fine was not being taken seriously. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003ELet us compare that fine of $200 with the fines for dropping litter in the jurisdiction of a district council. I understand that South Auckland has instant fines for those types of activities and for graffiti. If we look at a schedule of what those instant fines are, not only here in New Zealand but also around the world, we see that they can be as high as $500, and we then realise that the $200 instant fine is clearly not sufficient for the potential seriousness of the crime that is being committed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221c818ce2-6ca3-4c4a-9e6a-2e3a67d070e1\u0022\u003EI commend and thank the Minister for Biosecurity for the work that is being done. It is great to see. It is good policy and a good step forward. Many people will be pleased that the bill is being promulgated through Parliament and the Primary Production Committee at the moment. I know that in a survey I carried out during the last Parliament, the highest area of concern for rural New Zealand was biosecurity. So I say \u201CWell done!\u201D to the Minister. This bill is a great step forward. I look forward to the select committee process. I can assure the House that the select committee process will be thorough and relevant to the bill. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022 data-id=\u0022ec99cf8d379a4f82aa24a7a127467c95\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ec99cf8d379a4f82aa24a7a127467c95\u0022\u003EDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E It is a great honour to speak after the chairperson of the Primary Production Committee, Shane Ardern, who really should be the Minister for Biosecurity because he knows something about agriculture. I can tell members that I have had the opportunity to work with David Carter, the Minister for Biosecurity, over the last 6 years in that committee, and I thought quite highly of him at the time, but since he has become the Minister I have been really disappointed, for two reasons. The more recent reason is to do with the cutting of 54 jobs in biosecurity. That is totally outrageous. This Biosecurity Amendment Bill is basically a technical bill, and not a very big thing; it raises infringement fees. But the issue really is about cutting the people at the border, as 54 jobs are to go. Those people are the guardians of our borders and our ports. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022759f651286d54670958e00701e49f733\u0022\u003EHon Damien O\u2019Connor\u003C/span\u003E: The front line. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230d6d9effb00488bbb9856596227115b\u0022\u003EDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY\u003C/span\u003E: They are the front line. This Government is always talking about having people on the front line, but here we are cutting 54 jobs. I do not think that the Minister understands.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003EI am particularly disappointed that the Minister has cut the Fast Forward fund. That Minister has been talking about agriculture and about protecting it in New Zealand for the last 6 years in our committee, but when he got the job as Minister he cut the Fast Forward fund, which was designed to protect New Zealand through research and development. A lot of that fund was supposed to go to research and development, and its funds were partly going to be used by research in the biosecurity area. In my view as a scientist in agriculture, I can say that biosecurity is the greatest potential threat to New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bbbc73287b6c439aa657eab970f27d88\u0022\u003EHon Judith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: Why are you voting for it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ff650070e9e4988bb5edc2bbd3219fa\u0022\u003EDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY\u003C/span\u003E: I am voting for the bill because its intent is good, but I am trying to say to the Minister that his actions in other areas are not very good. Cutting the funds for research and development, and for biosecurity, is totally illogical, as my colleague Damien O\u2019Connor has already said. It does not concur with what the Minister has been saying over the last 6 years, as far as I know. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003EOur agriculture and horticulture are worth billions of dollars. We are very proud that when we go overseas we always talk about the \u201Cclean, green\u201D image of New Zealand; it has been built up over many years. I think we want to keep it that way, and in particular to protect our environment and our animals in this country. As I said, there is no more serious threat to this country than in the biosecurity area; our livelihood and our countryside depend on agriculture. Over the years I have personally done a lot of research in this area, and I think it is important for all of us that we protect our borders\u2014not only our borders but also our marine environment. We had an opportunity recently to go to Australia and look at its aquaculture. That is an area that is potentially becoming a big industry in New Zealand for the future, and we need to make sure that our marine areas are protected by biosecurity. But I am really disappointed that the cutting of those 54 jobs is designed to balance the budget. That is really ridiculous. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbaf13293f4c41bfad7d12e65cc32a7c\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: $2 billion cut.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229efc65ed4bdd49acbd6671587dfbee41\u0022\u003EDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY\u003C/span\u003E: A $2 billion cut, and 54 people will lose their jobs. That is not easy. Those job losses will not be concentrated only in the three main areas of Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington. I am really fearful that other small ports and airports might be at risk, because people will be brought into the small centres to do that job at airports. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003EOverall, we support this bill and I am looking forward to discussions in the select committee. I hope that we will have good submissions from all sectors of society, and that we will have an opportunity with Shane Ardern to look at the bill and have a detailed discussion. With those few words, I support this bill to go to the select committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022 data-id=\u0022daf365d7c9f74d53b636e114a458d723\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022daf365d7c9f74d53b636e114a458d723\u0022\u003EKEVIN HAGUE (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Biosecurity Amendment Bill has presented the Green Party caucus with quite a problem. How should we vote on a bill that has an intent we support, but where the process applied has been poor? This bill has been introduced under urgency when no good reason for urgency exists. Neither the Leader of the House in introducing his urgency motion nor the Minister for Biosecurity in introducing this second reading debate has given a good reason for urgency.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003EWhat is more, the wording of the \u201CAlternative options\u201D section of the regulatory impact statement makes it clear that this legislation was prepared in June at the very latest. In other words, this bill has been written for months, at least, and there is no conceivable reason why it is now necessary to deal with it as urgent. One is reminded of the management or parenting rule that says \u201CLack of organisation on your part does not constitute a reason for urgency on mine.\u201D None the less, the Green Party will support the bill at least being referred to the Primary Production Committee, because we cannot bring ourselves to vote against legislation that has an intention we support.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003EWhat makes urgency for this bill all the more extraordinary is that although its content essentially reflects relatively minor administrative and technical changes, the catalogue of missteps and disasters that the Government has been visiting on the crucial area of biosecurity has been largely shielded from scrutiny by this House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003EI expect that all members of this House would subscribe to the view that biosecurity is important, and, indeed, every speaker so far has subscribed to that view. Typically, we hear about the threats of incursions to our primary industries of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and aquaculture. I will speak tonight about some of those risks, but I will also draw the attention of the House to the threats posed to our natural environment and to biodiversity. It is worth pointing out, too, that there is also an indirect effect of incursions on our food export industries and on tourism, because of our trading on that clean, green, \u201C100% Pure New Zealand\u201D image. For example, we are about to start international flights into Rotorua. The cost of a fruit fly outbreak from just a single piece of undeclared fruit in a passenger\u2019s hand luggage has been estimated at $800 million in the first year, and 5,000 jobs in the Bay of Plenty alone. The current size of the horticulture industry is $5 billion and it is rapidly increasing. A foot-and-mouth incursion could cost 20,000 jobs, and reduce GDP by $10 billion over 2 years. The stakes are high.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003EThe Greens think the system of airport-based instant fines for passengers coming through with undeclared biosecurity risks has generally been working well. In general, we believe that the penalties in the Biosecurity Act have been set too low, and that is why we welcome the increase proposed in this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003EIt is a pity that the bill did not extend this to other penalties. The recent case of a man who deliberately imported tarantula spiders from the Philippines, and was caught and fined a pathetic $5,000, illustrates the fact that the penalties are clearly insufficient to deter behaviour that creates risks, and are inadequate to communicate the seriousness of those risks. A better bill would also tackle the time limits on prosecutions that, for example, have seen a company recently escape scot-free after introducing South African mussels into Tasman Bay from its oil rig, because of a 6-month limitation on prosecutions.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders need to know that this increase in fines comes at the same time that this Government is taking the axe to biosecurity services, which sustained an 11 percent reduction in funding in this year\u2019s Budget. Then the Prime Minister announced last month that trans-Tasman travel was to be 8 minutes faster on average for most travellers, because the border control processes were being streamlined. In biosecurity terms, the cost of those 8 minutes is that only incoming passengers who meet a particular risk profile will now go through biosecurity screening. That will inevitably increase risk, because some people posing risk will not fit the profile. Fewer staff to perform the screening, fewer people screened, and just one fruit fly in a forgotten piece of fruit is all it could take to decimate a multibillion-dollar industry. The increase in fines is the Government\u2019s half-pie approach to creating something to part-balance this increased risk, and it is totally inadequate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003EBut this focus on individuals is also misplaced. The biggest risks are posed by the biggest importers, and 90 percent of incoming freight arrives in shipping containers. Our processes for assessing and dealing with the risks from these sources are plainly failing. How about the importation of poorly sterilised coconut kernel compost from Sri Lanka a couple of years ago for use in garden centre potting mix that introduced more than 30 new species of weeds? How about the 17 out of 200 shipments of palm kernel imported in the 2008-09 year for New Zealand dairy farms that also failed biosecurity standards? Federated Farmers knows about many other hazards. How about the 77 percent of imported shoes containing fungi, bacteria, and plant material? How about the imported cars infested with tropical spiders and disease-bearing mosquitoes? How about the shipments of imported roses from India, only 10 percent of which are inspected and virtually all of which prove able to be propagated, despite supposedly having been treated to absolutely prevent that from happening? Currently about 104 incoming loaded containers are checked for biosecurity risks each day. That is about 9 percent of the incoming loaded containers and leaves approximately 386,850 loaded containers unchecked each year. The high rates of biosecurity hazards detected in the sample of incoming containers that are inspected make it certain that significant biosecurity risks are undetected.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003EThese risks are compounded further as a result of the free-trade agreements to which New Zealand has committed itself over the past several years bringing about a flood of imported goods that New Zealand might very well otherwise grow or make itself, with no risk to biosecurity. Examples include the shoes I have already mentioned, or Chinese garlic infested with fungi. Our biosecurity measures need to be tougher. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand need more power and more resource.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003EThe most recent outrage in biosecurity is the Government\u2019s intention\u2014having hacked into its own biosecurity budget\u2014of now sharing the cost of inspection and managing incursions with the industries being protected from threats. The Government intends that the costs will now be shared with those industries according to who principally benefits. This barmy proposal was apparently developed in consultation with an industry working group, but I note that it has been roundly and rightly condemned, at least by Federated Farmers and Horticulture New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003EWhat is more, this attempt to cost-shift to industry is certain to bias biosecurity vigilance still further away from protecting conservation and biodiversity values. We have already seen a glacial response to the fire ants incursion in Nelson, with nobody taking responsibility for managing a relatively small incursion, and the complete failure to deal with Undaria when it first arrived in New Zealand. Those are just two examples. This will become worse. Will there be any hope at all of rescuing our rivers from didymo, or our kauri heritage from Phytophora taxon Agathis, or kauri dieback disease?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003ETo recap, the Government has cut its investment in biosecurity, is not adequately inspecting imported goods, and is proposing to screen even fewer incoming travellers. It now intends to shift the cost on to the very industries we are trying to protect in our national interest. Would it not be interesting if countries adopted the same approach to defence? Frankly, the minor adjustments we are considering in this bill, under urgency, seem pathetic in the face of the disaster unfolding before us in this portfolio area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003ESomehow it seems appropriate to debate this bill today\u2014a day that has been dominated not by simplification and streamlining but by the evisceration of New Zealand\u2019s environmental protection laws. I am surprised that we are not also seeing today the bill to enable low-value coal mining in national parks; that would somehow have been appropriate. This bill does not make matters worse, but the Minister can rightly be charged with fiddling while Rome burns. Our economy, our environment, and future generations deserve better, and the Green Party would be relieved to help achieve this. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ffff330f-1757-41d6-9973-25244f0fdada\u0022 data-id=\u0022b820f7a9309c4a16ba4cb833d068c9c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ffff330f-1757-41d6-9973-25244f0fdada\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b820f7a9309c4a16ba4cb833d068c9c8\u0022\u003ECOLIN KING (National\u2014Kaik\u014Dura):\u003C/span\u003E It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. As I do so it is significant and appropriate to mention that the National Party is anchored in the principles and importance of sound biosecurity. It is also appropriate to make the comment that the Primary Production Committee will tomorrow visit the Wair\u0101kei land of Landcorp. We will be quite grounded in the importance of sound biosecurity. In saying that, we must contrast that grounding with the realities of how we live today. This evening we had an enjoyable event that celebrated 2 years to the day until the Rugby World Cup 2011 begins. That is quite relevant because we will have an enormous number of tourists coming here. It illustrates the tension that exists between our very important tourist industry, which sees somewhere in the region of 3 million passengers coming to New Zealand, and the importance of our primary production industry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ffff330f-1757-41d6-9973-25244f0fdada\u0022\u003EIt is quite important to inform the House that in implementing the Biosecurity Amendment Bill there will be a considerable need for education. It is relevant that when people come into New Zealand they all receive an arrival card. It is important that the educational process about our biosecurity is clear and understandable, because when people come here\u2014those 3 million people\u2014they need to be well informed. It is appropriate, without a doubt, that the education process will be undertaken, first and foremost, by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Its campaign will run under the title \u201CDeclare or Dispose. It is New Zealand law.\u201D It is also important to realise that as we get the balance right with our tourist industry, the experience in the primary production industry is that there needs to be training of staff. Ninety-two percent of people pay fines within 14 days. However, with the raising of those fines to $400 and $800, there will be the need for District Court administration and fine recovery. There have to be inspectors, who need to be trained. Those things are all being taken into consideration. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ffff330f-1757-41d6-9973-25244f0fdada\u0022\u003EAs this bill is receiving wide support in the House, I think the Minister has clearly articulated his vision going forward with regard to biosecurity and the benefit for New Zealand. We realise under the Labour administration that we had 330 biosecurity incursions. We had the painted apple moth, we had didymo, we had varroa, and we had didendum. It is very much in the vision of this National Government that we effectively do 10 times better. It is a pleasure to speak on the bill at 10 past 11 tonight, and I commend the bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022e50562f8a02746c49da62401a3debc66\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e50562f8a02746c49da62401a3debc66\u0022\u003EKELVIN DAVIS (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E So many of our industries are dependent on New Zealand having rigorous biosecurity systems. Members can take the tourism industry as an example. Tourism thrives under our \u201C100% Pure New Zealand\u201D brand. The \u201C100% Pure New Zealand\u201D brand is successful because we have such fantastic landscapes, culture, and people. The New Zealand reality at present matches the traveller\u2019s expectation. Tourists come to New Zealand to visit and enjoy our lakes, rivers, mountains, and bush. There are no other countries that boast rainforests that tourists can tramp through with absolutely no risk to them from wild animals such as bears, snakes, or poisonous insects. The only threat to tourists in our native bush is from the elements. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EHowever, although humans are not at risk from our bush, our native bush is at risk because of biosecurity incursions introduced by humans. These incursions are from possums, rats, stoats, ferrets, and other species introduced by humans for whatever misguided reasons. Possums alone consume over 21,000 tonnes of native foliage in a single night. In the bush where I come from, one can see whole stands of giant native trees denuded of foliage and dying because of those types of biosecurity risks. Possums, rats, stoats, and ferrets eat the eggs and chicks of native birds\u2014in particular, our native k\u016Bkupa, or kerer\u016B as it is known in other areas. It is a bird vital in the distribution of native seeds, and therefore the rejuvenation of our bush. These birds have been decimated by those pests. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EOur native bush is at risk, and when our native bush is at risk, so too is a major part of our \u201C100% Pure New Zealand\u201D brand. If our brand is at risk, so too is our tourism industry. If our tourism industry is at risk, so too is our economy, because tourism provides one in 10 New Zealanders with a job, makes up 20 percent of our foreign exchange, and is our biggest export earner. We cannot afford any further biosecurity incursions that jeopardise a single element of our tourism industry. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EHowever, tourism is more than just sightseeing and tramping in the bush. Another key element of tourism is the dining experience. New Zealand seafood is renowned the world over. Our aquaculture industry is vital to the supply of high-quality seafood. I might add that M\u0101ori have a huge stake in the seafood industry. So if we want M\u0101ori, along with the tourism industry, to be successful, protecting the aquaculture industry from biosecurity incursions is vital. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EThe possibility for marine biosecurity incursions is huge. In fact, a survey of ports around New Zealand conducted over the last few years\u2014in itself a major biosecurity exercise requiring the participation of a number of highly trained and expert staff\u2014found that many invasive species were already established. Each one of these incursions is a threat to our aquaculture industry, which is bad enough, but the flow-on effects on industries, such as tourism, mean our country\u2019s economy is hugely jeopardised. In fact, the Pacific oyster, itself a delicacy up north, is actually a hitchhiker and a pest. My uncle once told me how as a kid he used to walk along the Kawakawa River for some 3 or 4 miles in the 1930s and 1940s. These days it would be impossible to walk along it, as our feet would be torn to shreds on the oyster shells growing along the same river banks. Those Pacific oysters were transported amongst ballast rocks on the ships that sailed up our river, having come from the Pacific Islands. In order to get as far as possible up the river, as it became more and more shallow, the ships\u2019 crews would dump their ballast rocks, and thus the oyster spat attached to those rocks, on to the river banks along the way. Those piles of ballast rocks can be seen today under layers of oysters. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EThe modern-day equivalent of ballast holds are the bags, the suitcases, and even the footwear of travellers from every corner of the world. Instead of oyster spat in the hold, we are threatened with food, fruit, plant cuttings, seeds, fungus, barnacles, meat, animal products, smuggled animals, insects, and even viruses. Members will remember the calicivirus outbreak not too many years ago when frustrated farmers smuggled in the virus to control rabbits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EThat brings us to the purpose of the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill going to a select committee. Labour believes that an effective biosecurity regime is vital for protecting our interests. Biosecurity is essential to protect New Zealand from environmental and economic damage. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003ERaising fines, as suggested by this bill, if someone is convicted of not properly declaring goods that should have been declared is a good idea, but of little point if the biosecurity system as a whole is jeopardised by the axing of 54 jobs and $2 million from the biosecurity budget. This budget cut is a risk to our country\u2019s primary industries, our tourism trade, and our economy in general, and may therefore compound the effects of the recession. Last year 66 known incursions of unwanted pests and organisms were dealt with by New Zealand\u2019s biosecurity staff. Those job cuts mean that less staff will be charged with protecting our borders at a time when the Prime Minister is looking to open our border with Australia. Open borders mean more visitors. More visitors mean more opportunity for biosecurity incursion. Biosecurity risks arrive in New Zealand by many vectors, not just air travellers: the hulls of yachts, inside containers and container ships, amongst cargo, in luggage, and on the bottom of shoes, just to name a few. We need more biosecurity staff to protect us, not less. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EOn 8 July it was reported in the Bay of Plenty Times that because of a 13 percent drop in cargo volumes and a 4 percent drop in passenger arrivals, Biosecurity New Zealand was reviewing its operations, and those 54 jobs were cut. The reality is that the review of operations is a result of the $2 million budget cut, not a drop in cargo volumes or passenger numbers. We have read recent reports that we may be emerging from the recession. One would assume that this would mean both cargo and passenger numbers would rise as a result. We can add to that the new procedures that will be put in place when our border with Australia is opened up. Common sense would suggest that now is a good time to train staff to be able to deal with the new customs procedures, not lay them off, so that when traveller numbers increase again and the common border is set up we have staff there who are prepared and ready to cope with the changes. It is an opportunity missed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EOn the face of it, it seems reasonable for the select committee to have an opportunity to hear submissions on the part of the bill enabling the amount of infringement fees to be increased in regulations, and the detail of the infringement offence regime to be prescribed in regulations rather than in the Act itself. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EI ask for the House\u2019s indulgence while I recount a short tale from my time as a school principal at K\u0101retu, where we studied the effects of the possum on our local bush. I organised a short field trip to my uncle\u2019s place down the road, because this uncle was the head of a possum gang. Each day the gang would go into the bush laying lines of cyanide. Part of the study was learning about possum culling, seeing the effects of the possum on our bush, and looking for alternative uses for possum products such as the pelts. On this particular day one of the form 2 boys brought in a live possum in a trap. I took this creature down to my uncle\u2019s place with the class, and asked him to quickly euthanise the animal around the back of the shed, and to demonstrate to the kids how a possum was skinned. My uncle duly dispatched this possum and showed us how to skin it, which is a bit difficult when it is freshly killed, but the House can be reassured that these kids were all typical country kids who did not need counselling afterwards. After a bit of difficulty, my uncle completed skinning the possum\u2014[Interruption]\u2014hang on, members should wait for the punchline\u2014to a round of applause. All the kids were suitably impressed, except for one. I looked round and saw that the boy who had brought the possum to school was crying. I asked one of the kids what was wrong with Daniel, and he replied: \u201CSir, that possum was his pet.\u201D I guess the moral of the story might be that biosecurity incursions are bound to cause somebody a bit of pain. Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022802874a3-deca-48b7-9d33-9087058892f5\u0022\u003EDebate interrupted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00220757efe0d13e49648b1916206d81b8f9\u0022\u003EVoting\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002231d79a8e20104c95b544c61805206da8\u0022\u003ECorrection\u2014Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022 data-id=\u0022148e290efb4741fa93c7c3af6062ab3b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002281e8ca24-8b1d-4558-9ef9-c9418df2b3c0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022148e290efb4741fa93c7c3af6062ab3b\u0022\u003EKEVIN HAGUE (Green):\u003C/span\u003E I apologise for interrupting the flow of the debate, but I seek leave to alter the Green Party\u2019s vote on the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill from eight votes opposed to nine votes opposed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022016998fde99c4c1bb735ede89b0d766e\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker)\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The correct result will therefore be shown that the Ayes will be 108 and the Noes 14.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00222f0f241a0c3b4efabd7205e38528437e\u0022\u003EBiosecurity Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00225e68b710ecf64693a69da1d6d2f37005\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001164\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022 data-id=\u00228032110b2a77462da36267e7d5fcfe1b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228032110b2a77462da36267e7d5fcfe1b\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE (National\u2014Coromandel):\u003C/span\u003E We will educate visitors to this country\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dbe17dc0a8184a3faefd5000608ec234\u0022\u003EHon Darren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: You can\u2019t speak in a rain jacket!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022301089a3aca4432da3f1e6224d443ac7\u0022\u003ESANDRA GOUDIE\u003C/span\u003E: It is cold in here! I do not know whether that member feels it, but I came through that door and there was a huge draught. But I digress. We will educate visitors to this country by hitting them in the pocket, and the Biosecurity Amendment Bill does that. This legislation cannot come about soon enough. I commend the excellent Minister of Agriculture for being so decisive and for working so quickly to bring these increased charges into the House. We will deal to those visitors in their pocket. Quite frankly, let us hope that the judges follow suit and deal to them in the courts, if that is where they end up. We do not want the sentences for offenders to be too light, which is what the Green member talked about earlier. We want those visitors to learn a lesson, learn it well, and learn it the hard way, so that they do not take it for granted, when they come to New Zealand, that they can bring in unwanted goods. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225f8c78b-f301-4aca-a936-366f00a26bc9\u0022\u003EI am delighted to be on the Primary Production Committee, and that this legislation will be coming to the committee. It is excellent to work with members of the committee from both sides of the House. I am really looking forward to working on this bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002267aa5137-7503-4a8f-bde1-1811615598e2\u0022 data-id=\u002275f5163bc279479cba6c838adedcde9e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267aa5137-7503-4a8f-bde1-1811615598e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002275f5163bc279479cba6c838adedcde9e\u0022\u003EBRENDON BURNS (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E I am very pleased to take a short call on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill, and, yes, Labour supports this bill going to the Primary Production Committee, of which I am a member. We welcome the proposal to increase the fines available for those who breach our biosecurity regulations. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267aa5137-7503-4a8f-bde1-1811615598e2\u0022\u003EAs has been mentioned, however, there are some very real fears in that the Government is giving, if you like, some stiffening to the biosecurity regulations, but it is taking with the other arm, in the sense that we are losing 54 biosecurity staff. Those staff are the thin green line that protects and preserves our $20 billion - plus agricultural production export base. It is a very thin line. I have spoken to Christchurch biosecurity staff; they tell me it is already very hard to do their job properly, and this is before we see the loss of staff that is currently taking place. If those staff are not able to do their job properly, then goodness help this nation, because everything we have and hold dear is reliant upon their being able to do their best to protect and preserve our borders.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267aa5137-7503-4a8f-bde1-1811615598e2\u0022\u003EThe MP for Kaik\u014Dura talked about balance and tension between the 3 million tourists we as a nation want to encourage and foster, and the huge debt we have to our agricultural exports. Education is a wonderful thing, but it will not bring about the eternal vigilance that our Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry biosecurity staff put in place. The Primary Production Committee was actually in Australia in the days preceding the Prime Minister\u2019s visit there recently. One gets the sense that this bill is just to implement the photo opportunity that arose there to start discussions around faster movement across borders. That is welcome, but I note in the bill\u2019s commentary that \u201CStreamlined border processes, including refinements to the targeting of biosecurity risks at the border, will allow passengers who comply with the requirements to pass through with minimal intervention, while passengers who breach biosecurity requirements will face higher penalties.\u201D One has to ask how we will know. How will we determine that passengers are breaching biosecurity requirements if we have fewer biosecurity staff there to make those checks? That is not just a view the Labour Party is holding and expressing tonight; we are in very good company. The Federated Farmers president, Don Nicholson, made the point very strongly that biosecurity staffing is one area of government where there needs to be increases in staff and not cuts. He is looking at the risks to the industry he represents, and he is not alone in that view. I have an article from yesterday\u2019s Grower magazine that says that Tim Knox, a top official in Biosecurity New Zealand, ran into a volley of hostile statements from growers who were worried about past and future biosecurity threats. Those growers are concerned that their livelihoods could be put at risk by what the Government has in place at the moment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267aa5137-7503-4a8f-bde1-1811615598e2\u0022\u003EI was lucky enough recently to visit Samoa, partly to join, in a de facto way, the Prime Minister\u2019s delegation for a day, and then to have a short holiday. Samoa, as a nation, is not able to export fruit to New Zealand, because of ongoing problems with fruit flies. If we have a surplus of biosecurity staff, as the Government maintains, surely it would make sense to consider sending some of those staff to Samoa, in order to get that nation\u2019s biosecurity and phytosanitary arrangements up to a standard where it can export fruit to New Zealand, enabling us to support it in a better way, and to stop importing bananas from further afield, from Costa Rica and so on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267aa5137-7503-4a8f-bde1-1811615598e2\u0022\u003EOf course, as of last night, Samoa will be in the market to import cars from New Zealand, because it shifted, in rather dramatic fashion, the side of the road on which its people drive. The supposed reason for the cuts in staff at Biosecurity New Zealand is that the volume of car imports has fallen to half. If we were to be a little more proactive and consider sending some of those staff to island nations such as Samoa, we might be able to deploy those staff in a better sense, instead of cutting the thin green line that exists.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267aa5137-7503-4a8f-bde1-1811615598e2\u0022\u003EI will make a final comment about the risks that are posed if we start cutting the number of Biosecurity New Zealand staff. One incursion by the varroa mite is estimated to have cost this nation between $273 million and $486 million in lost production, jobs, and exports. We are talking at the moment of making cuts to Biosecurity New Zealand staff\u201454 staff\u2014to save $2 million. We could beggar ourselves as a nation for that small amount. This is one of the issues that need to be considered as this bill progresses through the Primary Production Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002267aa5137-7503-4a8f-bde1-1811615598e2\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022 data-id=\u002277387004faf745e68f281eb7ed2eec8d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e4b09a29-dfd3-42c0-8585-11463bd6077b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002277387004faf745e68f281eb7ed2eec8d\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 12 October 2009, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00220ba7b6bb371d4bfa951f81113a374085\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 69\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 5; United Future 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001177\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 11.29 p.m. (Wednesday)\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20090908ef46c6b6091d401db6ccb21dfdfd0e06001178\u0022\u003E\u003Cbr\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"