Tuesday, 21 June 2005

Tuesday, 21 June 2005

Tuesday, 21 June 2005

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Obituaries

Hon Jonathan Elworthy

Larry Sutherland

Madam SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 17 June 2005 of the Hon Jonathan Herbert Elworthy, who represented the electorate of Oamaru from 1975 to 1978 and that of Waitaki from 1978 to 1984. He was Minister of Lands, Minister of Forests, and Minister in charge of the Valuation Department from 1981 to 1984.

I regret also to inform the House of the death on 21 June 2005 of Larry Walter Sutherland, who represented the electorate of Avon from 1987 to 1996 and that of Christchurch East from 1996 to 1999. He was a junior whip from 1993 to 1996.

I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former members. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for their memory.

Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.

Motions

Michael Campbell—2005 US Open

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I move, That the House congratulate Michael Campbell on his stunning victory in the 2005 US Golf Open at Pinehurst. This is the sort of sporting victory that makes us all proud to be New Zealanders; the story of the Kiwi kid from Tītahi Bay, playing on a golf course so rough that if one can succeed really well there and become a champion, one can succeed anywhere. Winning the US Open is probably the equivalent of winning a gold medal at the Olympics, as far as New Zealanders are concerned. This is a stunning victory, and for it to be by someone who did so well for a while, had some really rough spots, and fought back is, I think, absolutely appropriate, and we all admire him.

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): The National Party wholeheartedly supports this motion. This is yet another wonderful achievement by a Kiwi on the world stage. In becoming just the second New Zealander ever to win one of the four major golf championships, Michael Campbell certainly deserves all the congratulations and adulation that will come his way. That it has been 42 years since Sir Bob Charles won the only other major golf championship won by a New Zealander gives some idea of the magnitude of what Michael has achieved. It has been a long time in the making, and I suspect that makes the achievement all the sweeter for him.

For his has surely been a story of triumph overcoming adversity. The modest boy from Tītahi Bay has had a roller-coaster career that would have forced many others to give up, and, indeed, I understand that on several occasions he came very close to doing exactly that. After a brilliant start as a youngster, his career came to a fork in the road 7 years ago. A wrist injury kept him off the golf course. He lost his status on both the Australasian and the European golf circuits. This followed a near miss at the 1995 British Open, when he led after 54 holes and subsequently finished third. But, as they say, when the going gets tough the tough get going. Michael Campbell got going, fighting his way back through the form slumps that affect all golfers, and through recurring injury. He even had to play a qualifying tournament to get to the US Open. Then, having got there, he had to outplay the defending champion and also hold off the great Tiger Woods.

It is only when we consider how big golf is internationally and how competitive it is in the United States that we realise just how meritorious this achievement is. Michael Campbell can now hang his hat alongside that of the great Sir Bob Charles, and stand with some of New Zealand’s greatest sporting heroes, and that is certainly saying something.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): It is fitting that Parliament collectively pays tribute to Michael Campbell for his monumental achievement in winning the US Open, and it is an honour to be able to speak on behalf of New Zealand First to add our accolades. All New Zealanders are rightfully proud of Michael Campbell’s victory, but, even more so, we can be proud of the man behind the victory. His courage in overcoming disappointments of the past, injury, and loss of form, his perseverance and grit, his humility in victory, and his generosity of spirit have all ensured that Michael Campbell has forged a place in our sporting folklore. Even at the crowning moment of his career yesterday, he did not forget his fellow Kiwis, claiming his victory for all New Zealanders, and claiming that if he could achieve something like this, other New Zealanders could do the same. I also note that within the top two teams striving for victory—that of Michael Campbell and that of Tiger Woods—there were in fact three New Zealanders, and New Zealand First wishes also to acknowledge Michael Waite’s contribution to Michael Campbell’s great success.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): The ACT party rises to support this motion. Along with all of New Zealand, we support Michael Campbell’s extraordinary achievement yesterday—one of New Zealand’s greatest sporting achievements. We look at Michael Campbell and the long road he had to hoe to succeed yesterday, and it reminds us of what can be achieved by Kiwis when they put their minds to it and stick at it. We should not just salute Michael Campbell in his victory but look to all the New Zealanders out there on the world stage, trying to do their best. They can achieve; Michael Campbell showed New Zealanders that we can achieve.

MIKE WARD (Green): Excellence wherever it occurs has the capacity to inspire and delight. When that excellence is attained by one of our own, and it is the outcome of years of persistence and dedication, I suspect that a whole lot of ordinary Kiwis get the urge not just to be better at their sports but to do everything they do just a little bit better. Michael Campbell is not just a very good golfer; he is, by all accounts, a really nice bloke with it. He has a commitment to his country, and that is shown in his contributions to worthy causes here and in his decision to wear New Zealand - made clothes. I suspect that there are few New Zealanders who do not feel better about being New Zealanders today, as a result of Michael’s outstanding win in the US Open. The Green Party takes great pleasure in supporting this motion.

BERNIE OGILVY (United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to pass on our pleasure in being able to congratulate Michael Campbell on winning the US Open, and in so doing we support the motion moved by the Hon Trevor Mallard today. I have been told that golf is probably the biggest sport in New Zealand; if it is, I am sure that many more people will play it, whether very casually or even professionally, in the future. That is always a great sign. I think it is correct for all of us to say today that Michael’s win is one of New Zealand’s greatest sporting achievements, on top of it being, of course, as has been mentioned, his personal triumph over many setbacks. So we thank Michael today for inspiring all of us here in New Zealand.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): The Progressive Party also, like other political parties, would like to bask in the glory of the talent and hard work of Michael Campbell. We hope, like other parties, that this praise will assist us in our poll ratings! We would like to note further that the designers Charmaine and Dan Love of Kia Kaha Clothing have been duly recognised for what they have done, and that many male members of this Parliament wear their ties, as do people outside.

Motion agreed to.

Business of Select Committees

Meetings

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Following consultation with the whips of all parties, I seek leave for the Standing Orders Committee to meet at 6 p.m. this evening.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Climate Change, Ministerial Group Convenor—Confidence

1. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Hon Pete Hodgson, Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change; if so, why?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

Dr Don Brash: How can the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in the Minister responsible for making a billion-dollar bungle over New Zealand’s carbon credit position, who repeatedly abused critics who accurately told him that his assessment of our carbon credit position was flawed?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Many members of this House, over a long period of time, have accepted officials’ advice about the projections. I assume that Nick Smith will be asking for his own resignation as National’s environment spokesperson.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister think it is OK for a Minister to go around the country, selling a policy on the basis that its opponents would be “burning up a cheque for $200 million”, only to be then proven completely wrong; and what does she have to say today to New Zealanders who have been seriously misled by the Minister?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have said, over many years many members of this House, and Ministers from previous Governments as well, have accepted the projections made by officials at the time they were made. Of course, New Zealand did not ratify the protocol to make money; it ratified it because we do not want to be freeloaders.

Dail Jones: Why does the Prime Minister still have confidence in the convenor, when he advocates a Kyoto policy that will now cost New Zealanders and this Government, on previous calculations, at least in excess of $1 billion per annum, which is in excess, for example, of the annual amount needed to implement New Zealand First’s policy to increase the retirement income of superannuitants from 65 percent of the average ordinary-time weekly wage to 72.5 percent, as provided by section 16 of the New Zealand Superannuation Act, and still have money left over?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is throwing around figures a little loosely. I thought I heard the cost would be $500 million over 5 years. Given that under a Labour Government GDP growth has averaged $8 billion a year, I would say that we are in a rather healthy position.

Rodney Hide: How can New Zealand possibly have any confidence in a Minister who went down to Southland and assured businesses there that “the ACT party has been against this from the start, but New Zealand could stand to make a couple of hundred million dollars from this. Would they set fire to a $200 million cheque?”, and can she confirm that this cheque has now turned into a multi-hundred-million-dollar liability for the transition stage, and that beyond 2012 the Kyoto commitments will cost New Zealand many billions of dollars when they fully come into force?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I will credit ACT with probably being the only party in the House that has consistently opposed ratification of the protocol. Other parties, including the National Party, have consistently accepted officials’ advice that New Zealand would be in a net positive position.

Dr Don Brash: Does the Prime Minister believe that the Minister owes Dr Alex Sundakov an apology, after he described Dr Sundakov’s methodology in his analysis of New Zealand’s carbon credit position as “at the bottom end of credibility”, and the liability on New Zealand’s part as “unproven and unlikely”, given that Dr Sundakov’s analysis turned out to be very much more accurate than the Minister’s?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I am not aware of the methodology Dr Sundakov used, I could not comment. What I do know is that Governments for many years have employed officials to give advice, and the fact is that Ministers act on that advice. Former National ministers did. Nick Smith did, when he announced National’s policy. And now National has flip-flopped again.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister see any irony in proposals by some in this House to withdraw from Kyoto just as the Pentagon has advised President Bush that climate change is a greater threat to humanity than terrorism, and would not abandoning our efforts to preserve a stable climate at this stage amount to economic sabotage?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Abandoning the ratification now would see New Zealand stand with a very small number of countries that have refused to ratify. To comment on the science, the science academies of all the G8 nations now say that the projections about climate change, and the damage it will do to our world, are indeed valid.

Peter Brown: Will the Prime Minister be clear as to whether she is telling the House that she would have still ratified the Kyoto Protocol if she knew what she knows now, which is that we have moved from being a net seller of carbon credits to having a huge liability—something in the vicinity of half a billion dollars; would she still have signed?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Absolutely, because the reason New Zealand went in was not to make money. It was so that we do not freeload on other countries’ efforts. National may want to freeload; Labour does not.

Larry Baldock: Does the Prime Minister think that New Zealanders sufficiently understand that according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s own figures, even if all the countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol were to meet their promised commitments, which in New Zealand could mean a taxpayer bill of $1 billion, by 2050 that would reduce the estimated climate change temperature by only 0.02 percent, or 2 degrees centigrade; if so, does she think that that is worth $1 billion?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the member were talking about an effect of 2 degrees centigrade, that is actually quite a lot. A country like New Zealand, with its very significant pastoral and forestry industries and horticulture, does need a mild, stable climate. We have, long term, a great deal to gain from mitigating the effects of global warming.

Larry Baldock: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister may have misheard me, but I quoted 0.02 degrees centigrade.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you for that clarification.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Prime Minister agree that the figures in this officials’ report are still just projections, based on the assumption that New Zealand will do nothing to reduce its greenhouse emissions between now and 2012; if so, will she commit to a whole-of-Government programme to improve energy efficiency and to develop renewable energy if she is re-elected in September?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Yes, I understand that that is the assumption—that nothing would be done. Of course, a great deal can be, and must be, done. That is something I look forward to leading in my third term as Prime Minister.

Peter Brown: Does the Prime Minister agree with Philippe Sands, the British law professor who is currently touring the country, that countries such as Australia and the USA, and the exempted countries of China and India, which have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, will ultimately have to pay a tariff on their goods and whatever else; if so, when will she start urging that that action should come into play?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I make two points. Australia and the United States are among the very, very few Western nations that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Secondly, China and India, as I understand it, have ratified it, but their obligations are to be negotiated for future commitment periods. In response to the substance of the member’s question, I think it entirely likely in future that countries that are not meeting international environmental standards and obligations could well find new kinds of trade barriers erected against them.

Fiscal Objectives—Long Term

2. CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government’s long-term fiscal objectives?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): They are to run surpluses in average across the economic cycle, sufficient to make contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund while maintaining a prudent level of debt set at about 20 percent of GDP.

Clayton Cosgrove: What factors would threaten those objectives?

Hon Member: It’s only speculation.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh, is it only speculation; not a promise? The biggest threat is the pretence that substantial ongoing tax cuts can be financed on the basis of a single year’s surplus and a few cuts at the margins in the public sector. That, of course, was balanced this morning by a failure to give an undertaking that child poverty and the use of food banks would not rise under a National Government. As Dr Brash expansively said: “Look, there is a cycle to these things.”

John Key: If the levels of Government spending are appropriate, as the Minister maintains, and if everything is all going swimmingly in health and education, as he maintains, can he tell the House why he wrote in his Budget briefing document to Cabinet: “Growth in Government spending is unsustainable if we are to remain on track to meet our fiscal objectives, and significant reprioritisation will be important in the future.”; and maybe he would like to tell the country exactly what that reprioritisation involves?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I would love to, for another 10 or 15 minutes, but let me just pick it up briefly. That is why the Budget forecasts additional new spending of only $1.9 billion a year, compared with $3 billion over each of the last two Budgets. If the member is going to commit something like $4 billion on tax cuts, plus increased spending on defence, plus increased spending on police, plus increased spending on roads, plus increased spending on prisons and the corrections service, he will have to borrow a great deal of money on top of that, and he will need all his skills in financial market speculation to achieve that outcome.

Kyoto Protocol—Carbon Sink Credits

3. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change: Does he stand by his statement during the third reading of the Climate Change Response Bill in November 2002 that “New Zealand will be in the fortunate position of being a net seller of carbon credits in the international carbon market”, and his statement in response to opposition to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, “Would they set fire to a $200 million cheque?”

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change): On behalf of my colleague, no, and no.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister assert on 9 June that this report on New Zealand’s carbon balance was not yet complete, when it is clearly dated May 2005, and when the foreword is written by the Hon Pete Hodgson; and is this the sort of deception and dishonesty that we can now expect from this decaying, rotten Government?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That question is from a man who was called a liar by a judge! From that member the question is a bit rich. But he sits on a National Party front bench that will run up the white flag under any sort of pressure. They would do it on nukes and they would do it on greenhouse gas as well.

Madam SPEAKER: I ask the Minister, who has responded to the last part of the question, to now respond to the first part of the question.

Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. All that we could hear way down the back of the House was that the Minister’s answer was causing quite a lot of pleasure, or reaction, but we could not actually hear the answer. I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to repeat it.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but I would ask the Minister now to address the question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think the member had some experience in Government. I am not sure that he ever used to read papers, but people do get draft papers, write forewords, and release them.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because it is important, I think, that we get the record correct now, I seek leave of the House to table a document that is not a draft, it is nothing but the final report, as presented by the Minister to the Local Government and Environment Committee, which is clearly dated May 2005.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Dail Jones: Why has the convenor failed to resign over this $1 billion Kyoto fiasco when he should have known the false nature of New Zealand’s calculations—for example, failing to recognise that forests must be planted on grassland to meet Kyoto definitions, when it is clear to everyone in New Zealand that 16 percent of our forests are planted on scrub, so cannot be counted as forests for Kyoto Protocol definition purposes, thereby causing one of the reasons for this billion-dollar fiasco?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think it is a pity we did not have the honourable member helping brief the Government 2 or 3 years ago, and making sure we had the appropriate information at that time. The official documents certainly show that some assumptions were made earlier on that are not now accurate. That is not a reason to run up the white flag and give up on this issue, the way Opposition members do on nukes, and other issues.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we have listened rather patiently today to Government Ministers start their answers with little political barbs, which, I have to say, will lead to considerable disorder if the situation continues. Your job is to give everybody in this House a fair go. Mr Mallard has no respect for your position as Speaker, and it should not be up to the Opposition to have to point out that you are being abused by Mr Mallard.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his contribution. I would also ask that those asking questions refrain from a similar practice, and we might then get answers that do not contain those comments.

Hon Richard Prebble: Is the Minister aware that on 27 June 1995 the original questioner, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, asked the then National Minister for the Environment whether New Zealand’s forests would be enough to meet New Zealand’s Kyoto commitments, to which the Hon Simon Upton replied: “New Zealand will meet its commitments under the convention through a combination of emission reductions and absorption by forest sinks. Forest sinks are expected to be the main contribution towards this target and, in fact, will enable us to go considerably beyond it.”; if so, is it not reasonable for the House to conclude that both National and Labour have been wrong about Kyoto, and wrong when they have told the country that we will be in a net credit situation?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have a feeling that we are coming full circle. I find myself very much in agreement with the Hon Richard Prebble on this particular issue. I have no doubt whatsoever that National Party members have been supporters of Kyoto right back to the time of the Hon Simon Upton. The difference is that now they have weak-kneed, wobbly, doddery leadership and they are falling over.

Larry Baldock: Is the Minister aware of a hastily assembled special negotiation meeting this month, where European countries admitted the following: “Portugal, over its promise by 77 percent, Spain by 61 percent, Greece by 51 percent, Ireland by 41 percent, Luxembourg by 31 percent, Finland by 27 percent, Denmark 26 percent, Italy by anywhere from 13 to 23 percent, … France by 19 percent, Austria by 18 percent, Belgium by 16 percent and the Netherlands by 10 percent.”; if so, is it not beginning to dawn upon him that on current projections there will not be enough carbon credits available for purchase by non-complying countries to make a carbon trading system work?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am sure the Minister will be aware of those figures. I think the member is talking about price, not amount.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did Pete Hodgson release a press statement on 28 September last year, after the Castalia report, stating that the Audit Office agreed with his position in respect of the liabilities, when the Audit Office advised the select committee last week that it had given no such advice or report?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I was not at the select committee at the time. My understanding is that that is something that has not yet been reported to the House and, if that is the case, I am not willing to compound any breach of privilege.

Larry Baldock: Does the Minister agree that in light of the unreliability of Kyoto, it is best to adopt “no regrets” policies, such as the one United Future is proposing, which would mean that New Zealand and its environment will benefit regardless of whether Kyoto falls over, such as a reduction in the age of the vehicle fleet; hybrid vehicles being imported to New Zealand much faster; a massive planting of native trees around our rivers and lakes, so that we can absorb carbon; and other such policies, because they are not dependent on the success of Kyoto?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: All those things will help us meet our Kyoto Protocol requirements. Gerry Brownlee is showing his ignorance again. All those things will help us meet our Kyoto undertakings. It is good to see a party that is looking at positive ways of doing that rather than saying “We give up when any pressure comes on.”

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us which particular clause in the Kyoto agreement allows a country to count plantings alongside riversides, hedgerows, and other such. The Minister is talking utter garbage, and he knows it.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. However, is the member wanting a supplementary question?

Gerry Brownlee: No.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that emissions over the last 5 years have been going up at 2½ times the rate that they were during the 1990s—

Rt Hon Helen Clark: No growth!

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That has happened to me, Madam Speaker, and I have been booted straight out.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Interjections during questions are not permitted. I am sorry about that.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please sit down; I have not finished. Those rules, I am afraid, do apply to everyone. So I am sorry I will have to ask the Prime Minister to leave.

Rt Hon Helen Clark withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that New Zealand’s emissions over the last 5 years have, in fact, gone up 2½ times the rate of the 1990s—in fact, substantially faster than any comparison with growth would be—and that there are no prospects of any of Government’s policy getting New Zealand out of a substantial deficit position, is the Minister telling the people of New Zealand that they will need to send a $1 billion cheque to either the Russian or the Ukraine Government to meet the commitment that it has made under the Kyoto Protocol?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, I am not saying that. What I am telling the member is that this Government is not prepared to take the same approach to emission reduction as the previous Government. The previous Government had lower emissions because it deliberately, on the part of Dr Brash, as Governor of the Reserve Bank, collapsed the economy.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would just ask you to consider how the Minister’s answer complies, particularly, with Standing Order 370(2)(c), if nothing else. We understand that the answer was pathetic and hopeless. We had a man on his feet who had no idea of what he was supposed to be talking about. But to have answered that way is, I think, somewhat unacceptable. So I ask again whether you would consider that the answer to that question did comply with Standing Order 370(2)(c).

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am happy to elaborate. What is clear to all people on this side of the House is that emission growth grows with a growing economy. During the late 1990s the economy grew hardly at all, and this time it has. We are not going to collapse the economy in order to reduce emissions.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table a press statement by the Hon Pete Hodgson on 28 September saying that the Auditor-General’s office agreed with his position with regard to liabilities, despite the fact that the select committee said it had given no advice.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rodney Hide: Who does the Minister think should take responsibility for the billion-dollar Kyoto stuff-up, and will the Government be doing an estimate of what it will cost New Zealand, particularly beyond 2012, when Kyoto really begins to bite on New Zealand and will be costing this country billions of dollars?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I understand that there are quite a lot of negotiations to take place as to the out-years as far as Kyoto is concerned. This Government will be calculating. However, we will be relying on the advice that was accepted by Nick Smith and his mates.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was quite plain about who should take responsibility. We heard from the Minister that it was not his fault. It is a matter of a billion dollars. My question asked who the Minister thought should take responsibility, and nowhere in his answer did he address that.

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister addressed the question. He is not required under the Standing Orders to give his opinion, but he did address the question.

Whaling—International Moratorium

4. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he support lifting the international moratorium on whaling; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House), on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: No, because successive Governments have been strong supporters of the moratorium.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is he concerned that New Zealand’s excellent stance at the International Whaling Commission may be compromised by the fact that a Japanese whaling company that cans and markets whale meat under the so-called scientific whaling programme owns half of our largest fishing company and an eighth of our total fishing quota?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No.

David Parker: What has New Zealand done in the last 24 hours to further the cause of whale preservation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In conjunction with other like-minded countries, we defeated the pro-whaling nations on three important votes on the first day of the International Whaling Commission meeting in Korea.

Simon Power: Does the Minister agree with the comments of future Labour leader Shane Jones, who was reported in the New Zealand Herald on 8 November 2000 as saying: “The Green movement’s disgust over commercial whaling was a Pakeha cultural perspective only.”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. The member was not speaking in a Labour Party role at that point, any more than I am sure that member would really want to be bound by the utter nonsense that Allan Peachey is going around telling teachers about National’s education policy.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What advice does he have for the chairman of Sealord’s, who was reported to have said: “We have no intention of being associated with any efforts to lobby against Japanese scientific whaling.”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: None at all. This is a matter for the New Zealand Government on behalf of New Zealand. Other people are allowed to take different views.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he still not agree that it was a mistake in 2001 to approve the sale of a major stake in Sealord’s to a Japanese whaling company, Nissui, or is it just that trade and business come ahead of environment and conservation, again?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. I am advised that the two Ministers who took that decision considered it extraordinarily carefully before it was made.

Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—Timing of Action

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Why has he, and Government agencies, waited until June 2005 to take action on Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, when an official stated on 17 October 2003 with respect to Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, “I’m tired of going to large meetings which are drawn-out and everyone agrees but no action comes of it all.”?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): The Government did not wait.

Hon Bill English: Given that the Minister himself has said that the wānanga has serious levels of financial risk, and that there is doubt about its ongoing capabilities, how did those problems escape the notice of three public agencies—the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the Ministry of Education, and the Tertiary Education Commission—dozens of officials, and a consultant paid $4,000 a day to watch the wānanga over 2 years; or is the Minister now attacking the wānanga in election year because Labour believes that the wānanga supports the Māori Party?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think the member has an interesting perspective on life. The wānanga ran into problems when this Government stopped its unlimited growth path. It was relying—[Interruption] In 2003 this Government capped the number of equivalent full-time students. That resulted in some financial problems for the wānanga. If the members interjecting spoke to their mates in the National Party they would know that.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Has the Minister seen any reports contesting that the wānanga is in financial difficulty; if so, what do they say?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have seen multiple reports. I have seen a report that argues that there is no financial crisis at the wānanga, that the courses offered are valuable, and that the Government should let the wānanga get on with the job.

Hon Member: Who said that?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Bill English said that on Willie Jackson’s programme. I have seen also a report stating that there has been a huge amount of waste at the wānanga. Do members opposite want to ask again who said that? It was said by Dr Brash on Morning Report this morning.

Hon Ken Shirley: Could the Minister of Education explain to the House why, in the knowledge of advice from his own representative Mr McNally that the wānanga council was in breach of its statutory obligations with regard to financial management, Ministry of Education staff were enrolled at the wānanga at several places around the country and funded as full-time students when they did, at most, only one 3-hour course a week?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is fair to say, in relation to another wānanga—the member is mixing his wānanga—that a ministry official was enrolled in a course in a way that I think was inappropriate. That has been discussed with the official, and that person has been reprimanded.

Hon Ken Shirley: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from a staff member of the Ministry of Education that explains how that person and many other Ministry of Education staff members were enrolled this year in courses run by Te Wānanga o Aotearoa and were funded on a full-time basis, yet spent at best 3 hours a week on a course.

Document not tabled.

Hon Bill English: Will the Minister take the same actions against The Open Polytechnic as he took against the wānanga, given that The Open Polytechnic has doubled its size in the last 2 years and is teaching exactly the same large-scale courses as the wānanga does, by exactly the same delivery methods and with exactly the same excessive Government subsidy; and when will he crack down on it?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That member is aware of a number of things, I think. First, The Open Polytechnic, although not in flash financial condition, does not have the financial crisis that the wānanga has. Also, it is subject to the 15 percent per annum growth maxima over a period of 4 years, and it will meet that. Just because it dips down and comes back up again does not mean the receivers should go in.

Hon Bill English: Which way was that Minister looking while the Tertiary Education Commission signed out huge cheques specifically authorised by Cabinet that allowed both Te Wānanga o Aotearoa and The Open Polytechnic to breach the Government’s own capping rules, and why does he continue to blame everyone else when he has spent almost 6 years now as the principal Minister responsible for every dollar spent by both of those institutions?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The changes around the caps and the timing of the caps were consistent with Government policy. It is all very well for that member to be brave in here, but why does he say exactly the opposite when he is on Willie Jackson’s programme, which is listened to mainly by brown people?

Treaty Claims and Settlements—Legal Aid

6. DAIL JONES (NZ First) to the Minister of Justice: How much has been spent in legal aid on treaty claims and settlements, broken down for each year ending June, since 1999?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): Expenditure on legal aid for treaty settlement process has increased as the Government has worked to settle historical claims so that we can start to look to the future. The number of open cases with the Legal Services Agency has increased from 151 in 1999-2000 to 377 in 2003-04. Legal aid expenditure on these claims for each of the financial years for which we have full-year information, from 1999-2000 to 2003-04, is as follows: $3.1 million, $4.4 million, $5.6 million, $7.2 million, and $6.9 million. Those figures are rounded.

Dail Jones: Is the Minister satisfied that the legal aid system is being used effectively for this purpose of treaty claims, given that in the period mentioned by him Treaty of Waitangi settlement claims cost the taxpayer about $22 million in legal aid costs, and given that in this time only six claims were settled; and does he agree that wastage is going on in what the race relations Minister calls the “treaty industry”?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Act sets out clear criteria by which the Legal Services Agency makes its decisions on granting legal aid. I think, in terms of the sums of money expended, they reflect not wastage but, rather, the complexity of the claims, and the need for the research to be done thoroughly. If we are to settle this process properly and put it behind us, then we have to do it in that way. We have to have proper representation, it needs to be thorough, it needs to be independent, and both sides need to respect the finding at the end.

Tim Barnett: Why is it important to ensure that treaty claimants are adequately represented?

Hon PHIL GOFF: If we want settlements of the historical grievances that are robust and durable, it is important that claimants are properly represented. Failure to provide legal assistance would be counterproductive, if the objective is to settle the grievances—and they are genuine grievances in many cases—and move forward as a nation. This is the policy objective for the Government and, apparently, for New Zealand First and National as well, both of which provided legal aid for Treaty of Waitangi processes when they were in Government.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister seen any projections as to how much the legal aid bill is likely to increase, now that the Government intends appointing six new judges to the Māori Land Court; and has he seen any projections for what legal aid would cost if it were to be available to those making claims to the seabed and foreshore?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Legal aid cannot be used for foreshore and seabed cases. The short answer to the member’s question is that I have not seen such forecasts. National’s policy is to accelerate the claims process, settling all grievances by 2010. If National puts that in place, it will not need just six new judges; it will probably need about another 26 judges, to settle the claims in that time frame.

Dail Jones: Does the Government intend to put a cap on the amount of legal aid that can be granted for specific treaty claims, or perhaps to limit them to certain specific law firms, given that some firms are claiming over $1 million per year in treaty legal aid alone; and does he now realise why New Zealand First supported the passage of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 on the proviso that legal aid would not be made available to those seeking customary rights orders?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member has been a lawyer for many years, and I think he has probably done legal aid cases. He will know that legal aid has never been capped in the sense of a dollar sum but, rather, has been restricted by virtue of the criteria that are applied. To do it in the way that the member is supposedly suggesting would obviously produce major anomalies and injustices. It could not be done that way. In terms of the legal firms doing the work, if it is brought to our attention that any firm is acting improperly and against the law, then action will be taken against that firm or particular individuals within it.

Iraq—Combat Forces

7. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Is the Government prepared to commit combat forces in Iraq if a request is received from the United States Government?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): No. The Government has provided Defence Force personnel to Iraq for a period of 12 months to perform humanitarian and reconstruction tasks, and they did that extraordinarily well. We currently have a military officer attached to the United Nations mission in Iraq. However, New Zealand did not support the invasion of Iraq and does not intend to provide combat forces for the ongoing conflict.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: What suggestions has he received that New Zealand should have provided or should provide combat forces in Iraq?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have seen repeated suggestions made by Don Brash that New Zealand should have joined in the invasion of Iraq, but I have to say that the only risk of New Zealand combat forces being sent to Iraq in future would be if there was a Brash-led Government, which, of course, the country will be determined to avoid.

Keith Locke: Do not the arguments the Minister has just raised against sending combat troops to what he called the ongoing conflict in Iraq also apply to the unfortunate commitment of New Zealand SAS troops to Afghanistan, particularly when the people in Governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan have criticised the United States conduct of the war as violating human rights and in view of the fact that SAS troops in Afghanistan will be essentially serving under United States troops and passing prisoners over to them perhaps to be mistreated in the way we have read about?

Hon PHIL GOFF: No, there is absolutely no parallel. We are in Afghanistan serving with both our special forces and the provincial reconstruction team under a United Nations mandate. We are there because that was a country run by an abysmal regime—the Taliban—that hosted al-Qaeda, which launched terrorist attacks around the world. I am proud of what our troops are doing there. Having troops in Afghanistan is supported by almost every country in the world, and I am appalled that the member should think otherwise and be an apologist for the regime that was removed from there.

Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: Has he seen other statements that suggest New Zealand might blindly commit its combat forces overseas to please others?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes. I regret to say I have seen a statement of that nature. It was a statement from the former National Party spokesperson on defence Simon Power, who suggested that a National Government would join its allies in war, without reservation, and wheresoever our commitment was called upon. This Government, as I said before, has not hesitated to commit forces based on this country’s judgment of where it is necessary and appropriate to commit those forces. But it will not commit itself to blindly follow others, as Mr Power so naively and ingratiatingly undertook to do.

Simon Power: Which of these two statements made by the Prime Minister does the Minister agree with—her statement of 30 March 2003 on the question of Iraq: “I don’t think that September 11 under a Gore presidency would have had this consequence for Iraq.”, or the wording of her apology to President Bush for offence caused, which was delivered to the White House by our ambassador in Washington in early April 2003?

Hon PHIL GOFF: What I most certainly do not agree with are the statements that member made. He ingratiatingly said that the National Party would follow other countries into any war without any judgment on our part. That was an appalling reneging of this country’s independence, sovereignty, and judgment, and it is no wonder he was sacked as an utterly inappropriate defence spokesperson for the National Party.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is not uncommon for Ministers, when faced with an embarrassing question, to choose to get round their obligations to give the House a reasonable answer by addressing it with just anything at all. In the case of Phil Goff, it was a bit of a vein-popping scream across the House. The Minister did not address that question, and it is very hard to imagine how he could have. He did not even mention the Prime Minister, who has clearly caused him so much embarrassment.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Having just made my comment about the member’s own comments, I can say that the Prime Minister made a statement in the course of a talkback show. She later regarded that statement as inappropriate because it could have been interpreted in a particular way, and she therefore apologised for it. She faced up to that. I do not think Mr Power has ever apologised for the appalling statement he made that led Don Brash to sack him, even though Don Brash actually agrees with him.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister recall his Prime Minister’s unfortunate statement, when Major John McNutt of the SAS was killed whilst training in Kuwait, that there was no evidence that the SAS were an effective tool for foreign affairs or for developing foreign policy; and has she not now considered, firstly, just how that sort of derisory comment was received by Major McNutt’s family, and, secondly, how things have changed, when we see that this Government relies oh so heavily on the use of the Special Air Services in extending its foreign policy and influence?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Firstly, no, I do not recall the statement. Secondly, I attended Major McNutt’s funeral, with Jim Anderton and a number of others, and paid tribute to him out of respect for his giving of his life—sadly, under friendly fire. Lastly, both I and the Prime Minister have the utmost respect for the capability and integrity of our SAS forces.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table the Prime Minister’s quotes. They were the very first comments out of her mouth before she really thought about what she was saying.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Energy—Future Cost

8. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Energy: Has he received any reports indicating that the future cost of energy is set to increase; if so, what does he believe to be the causes of any such increase?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Energy): Yes. With the Māui gasfield depleting, we are losing a major source of cheap energy. We need to look for new sources. Some of those will be more expensive.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that if the Waitaki water allocation scheme goes ahead, there will be major increases in electricity costs; and will he tell the House specifically how he intends to replace the electricity lost if that scheme goes ahead?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I just want to move slightly to the left as I answer this question. I think the provisional water allocation for the Waitaki is not good, and that is why the Government—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You set it up.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member should just take his medication. He should listen for a second. It is a serious issue.

Madam SPEAKER: Members should settle, please. Interjections do get responses that are not appropriate. Would the Minister please continue.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: As I was saying to the member, I think it is particularly important for the Government to be heard in the submissions as far as the Waitaki is concerned, because I think it would be very serious for the country if the proposal was allowed to proceed.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You sort of ruled on the offence that was taken there. I ask you to think again about how that answer from the same Minister complies with Standing Order 370(2)(c). It sits well outside the Standing Order by any manner of reason, at all. It is this Minister who habitually offends and causes the most disorder in the House. No sort of offensive comment was made to him, but he seems to think that that is the best way to reply. That may reflect the pressure that he and the rest of the Government are under at the present time, but if we could have a considered ruling from you, now that there have been two clear breaches of that Standing Order, it would be helpful.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The National Party, whenever it loses in the debate, tries to take a point of order to cover up its embarrassment. The fact is that the member who asked the question asked it in two separate parts. There is no requirement to answer both parts of the question. The Minister clearly answered the first part of the question.

Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. The Minister did address that part of the question.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did ask a very serious question. I accept Dr Cullen’s acknowledgment that I asked it in two parts, but the serious part is the question about what will replace the electricity that will be lost. That is a question that I think the Minister should give us some indication about.

Madam SPEAKER: Does the member want to ask another supplementary question?

Peter Brown: In due course, I do.

Mark Peck: What steps has the Government taken to lower the cost of electricity for low-volume users, such as pensioners?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: All power networks have been required to offer a fixed daily charge option. Lower power users are now saving up to $96 per year on their electricity bill, thanks to the policy. I am advised that 30 percent of electricity users have taken it up and are getting cheaper power because of it. I suggest that everybody who is below average in their use of power should check whether they can switch.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister accept that we need more electricity energy in this country, and is he aware that Australia generates 78 percent of its electricity from coal-fired power stations—and, indeed, is building more coal-fired power stations; if he accepts that, how does he think it makes good sense to impose a carbon tax on us, when we produce only 8 percent of our electricity from coal-fired power stations?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, yes, yes, and I refer the member to questions Nos 1 and 3.

Phil Heatley: What is the estimated cost on a per household basis of any increases in the cost of petrol, electricity, or gas that will be required as a result of the bungle by his colleague the Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change in the assessment of New Zealand’s carbon credit position under the Kyoto Protocol?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: If one wants to really take that question literally, none.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen that today’s international price of Brent crude oil, which at just under $59 a barrel and tipped to go over $60 a barrel soon, is the highest it has been since 1979 in real terms, and is five times what it was just 8 years ago; does not Kyoto and the costs of Kyoto pale into insignificance alongside the effect of oil depletion, known as peak oil, on international oil prices?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That was a bit of a stretch from the original question, but no and yes.

School Enrolment Schemes—Possible Changes

9. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Education: What reports, if any, has he received on possible changes to school enrolment schemes?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): I have seen a bizarre report in the Central Leader of 15 June that would encourage the unconstrained expansion of already overcrowded schools by way of huge capital injections into building programmes. I have seen a sound response to that feckless policy idea, from John Morris, Headmaster of Auckland Grammar School, who said: “There has got to be a limit; we do not want to grow any bigger.”, which actually undermines Dr Brash’s policy.

Lynne Pillay: What other reports has he seen about proposed school policies?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have seen a report in The Aucklander of 8 June that a well-known person was recently summonsed to a principal’s office to explain to members of the Papakura Principals Association his endorsement of an illegal trust school, and his criticism of Papakura principals, teachers, and schools generally. By the end of that meeting, when his punishment had been meted out, and the jandal had been applied, he flip-flopped, and said that he holds Papakura principals in high regard for their leadership and the quality of the schools they run. That flip-flopper was Dr Brash. It is hard to keep track of National Party policy from one lunchtime to the next.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister concede that his new school transport policy will have huge impacts on the enrolment schemes of schools in rural and provincial New Zealand, and will he tell parents before the election whether he will proceed with this absurdity after the election?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The answer is that I hope to be able to. I think the policy was designed with good intent. It has some unintended consequences, and I have had a very good suggestion recently, which is that the policy should be applied on a voluntary basis. The big increase in funding that was going to be offered to directly resource schools can go ahead, and those who want to run buses into other schools’ areas can do that, alternatively. It is a good idea, I think.

Bernie Ogilvy: Does the Minister then concede that school zoning can lead to inequity, and that without some form of zoning it is impossible to guarantee that every child has the choice of attending his or her local school; if so, will he allow popular schools to expand the number of out-of-zone enrolments by ballot if they want to?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Notwithstanding the fact that I am Minister in charge of climate change at the moment, we do not restrict schools from increasing the number of kids who come in by way of ballot if there are places in the school for those children.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This question was originally submitted to the Prime Minister, and because the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a different gender, I now need to change it to read “Does he accept”, rather than “Does she accept”.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sure that is permissible.

Nuclear-free New Zealand—Nuclear Propulsion

10. Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Does he accept the findings of the special committee on nuclear propulsion which found that: “The likelihood of damaging emission or discharge of radioactive material from nuclear powered vessels if in New Zealand ports is so remote that it cannot give rise to any rational apprehension.”, and that nuclear-powered vessels would “occasion no significant threat to the environment.”; if not, what rational justification is there for continuing the ban?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade): The likelihood of a nuclear emission or discharge from a nuclear-powered vessel is small, but accidents or acts of terrorism mean that the possibility cannot be ruled out. That is why so many ports, including those of London, Sydney, New York, and Boston, to name just a few, do not allow visits by nuclear ships. Although it is unlikely, if such an accident or attack occurred the consequences, of course, could be potentially disastrous.

Hon Ken Shirley: In view of the fact that the Somers report concluded that there is no environmental risk or public safety reason for justifying the ban, and given that the DigiPoll of 750 New Zealanders released over the weekend showed that 62 percent of New Zealanders favour the removal of the ban, what is the possible reason for the Government’s continuation of the ban?

Hon PHIL GOFF: There are two points. Firstly, the Somers report was done by a group of people handpicked by the National Government in 1992 to get a particular result and—surprise, surprise—they got the result. Having got the result, as the member himself pointed out, they did not have the guts to carry it into effect. They do not have the courage of their convictions, and they recognise that New Zealanders do not want a change to our nuclear-free status—

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding—

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, that comment was inappropriate. Would the Minister please withdraw it.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I withdraw it. Given the fact that the National Government, having received the Somers report, did not have the gumption to act on its convictions, it never carried through those recommendations. With regard to the DigiPoll, the question was actually so heavily loaded—by a group of people who had commissioned it but who did not have the guts to say who they were—that it asked: “If there were no safety problem, at all, would you be in favour?”, then 62 percent or something said: “Well, we should perhaps give some consideration to it.” But if the member looked at other polls, including the polls done for the National Business Review and Phillips Fox, he would be shown that a consistent group of New Zealanders—80 percent—are against nuclear arms, and two-thirds are against nuclear-propelled ships.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House the purpose of the special committee on nuclear propulsion?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Somers committee on nuclear propulsion was set up by the National Government in 1992. It wanted to change New Zealand’s nuclear policy, as National members still do now. The National Government commissioned the report, got the reply, but for 8 years did nothing about it, because National knows that New Zealanders are fundamentally not in favour of having nuclear-propelled or nuclear-armed ships in New Zealand when there is no need to have either.

Heather Roy: Why does the Minister and the Labour Government perpetuate the nuclear-free New Zealand myth when Auckland City Hospital alone releases twice as much radiation into the environment every day than the entire United States naval fleet releases in 1 year?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Because that is not the issue. The issue is the risk of accident and the risk of attack. The USS Cole in Yemen, in an area that was dangerous but where the ship was properly guarded, was nevertheless able to be breached substantially by an attack on it by a group of terrorists. With regard to accidents, I have a list of no less than 34 major accidents that have taken place involving nuclear-propelled ships, the latest of which was an American nuclear submarine just last year.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Is the Minister aware that the United States Government formerly had a ship-type nuclear reactor installed and operating at McMurdo Base, and if there is no environmental risk from ship-type nuclear reactors, why was that reactor and hundreds, if not thousands, of tonnes of contaminated material removed to the US for decontamination, leaving McMurdo once again reliant on diesel for electricity generation?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The United States made the deliberate and welcome decision to remove the nuclear reactor because of the difficulties with the use of nuclear power, particularly in a fragile environment, and because of the questions of waste. I say, too, that the Somers report, in terms of nuclear-propelled ships and accidents, makes this very curious comment. It noted that Sydney should not have the ships, but said that it could have been OK for Auckland and Wellington because there was less distance to the open sea and less population density in Auckland and Wellington. If we can take that comment directly from the Somers report, on page 171, as a measure of the reliability of the judgment of that commission, then we might, as Ken Shirley has, do a total flip-flop on his previous stance and accept it as gospel.

Hon Ken Shirley: In view of the clear findings and recommendations of the experts on the Somers report, who included a chair who was a retired High Court judge, a professor of physics, a professor of medicine, and a professor of engineering, would the Minister be prepared to let the people of New Zealand express their view by way of a public referendum on this issue—yes or no; if not, why not?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Because unlike the ACT party, this party has the courage of its convictions and makes its decisions on principle, taking note of the fact that for 20 years the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders have shown their endorsement of a nuclear-free New Zealand, which is why, although Don Brash wants the nukes here by lunchtime, that will not happen because he knows that public opinion is against him.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the Government is under some pressure, but that does not excuse its members from following the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. I particularly want to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 145/5: “The Minister, in answering about the report, cannot be hypothetical about what may or may not be the effects of another political party’s policy.”, and, furthermore, to Standing Orders 370(2)(c) and (3), which have been repeatedly breached time after time by Ministers in question time today. I ask you to reflect on whether you intend to enforce Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders when the Government is obviously feeling the pressure a bit.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Far from being hypothetical I quoted from the Somers report, and I quoted things that are factually on the record, with one exception—that while in the records of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Dr Brash said that the policy would be gone by lunchtime, he said he cannot remember saying it, so I guess we do not have that admission in the House to rely on.

Madam SPEAKER: I have listened carefully, because I know we are—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—

Madam SPEAKER: Is this addressing the same point of order?

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, Madam Speaker. You have tossed out the Prime Minister for interjecting on a point of order; Don Brash interjected on that point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: I want to rule on the first point of order and, yes, I did hear the interjection, and it was inappropriate. Would members please settle! In ruling on the point of order, I say that I have listened carefully today, to make sure that references to each other’s policies are established with some report or some evidence, and are not hypothetical. The Minister, I think, gave a response to the point of order that was raised, in that he was referring to what was on the record. Now, whether the record is correct is not a question for the Standing Orders; it is not hypothetical in that sense. I want no contesting of that ruling, unless there is a new point of order, and it had better be a new point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is the point of order I referred to during your ruling on the previous point of order. During Phil Goff’s contribution to the point of order, Don Brash interjected across the floor, and was heard by all members, I think, on this side. I ask for you to rule in the same way as you did earlier in the day on people who breach the Standing Orders in that way.

Madam SPEAKER: I am afraid the Standing Orders do have to be applied equally, so, I guess, they will be applied equally. I ask the member to please withdraw.

Dr Don Brash withdrew from the Chamber.

Heather Roy: I seek leave of the House to table page 69 from the Somers report to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, dated December 1992, outlining that Auckland Hospital emits twice as much radiation in 1 day as the entire US naval fleet does in 1 year.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In respect of that which can be commented on, and the point of order I raised in respect of Standing Order 370, the intimation you made was that whether it is Government policy or another political party’s policy, the type of questions should be the same. That is not what the Standing Orders say at all. This Parliament is about holding the Government to account and there is not the capacity for Ministers to comment on other political parties’ policies at all. That is not in the Standing Orders, because they have no responsibility in that regard. That is the Standing Order that you have not applied today, and that has long been the established principle of the House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: If we were to take that as the interpretation of the Speaker’s ruling, it would lead us into a logical absurdity. Let us suppose that it were the policy of a party that we should have the vote at age 18—which happens to be the law. If we were to take Dr Smith’s point literally, no Minister could comment upon a policy of having the vote at age 18, because it was another party’s policy. There is, in fact, a dividing line here between what is allowable and what is not. Secondly, I think, Madam Speaker, you would tend to agree, that overly rigorous interpretation of some of these rulings, of course, would then have to be applied equally. I would be on my feet almost continuously, challenging at least half the supplementary questions that are asked in the House by members opposite, because they breach any number of the Standing Orders—usually those around imputation, epithets, and various other things.

Madam SPEAKER: I need no more assistance, because this is, in effect, speaking to the ruling I have made. I thank members for their contribution. I ask the Hon Ken Shirley to raise his point of order.

Hon Ken Shirley: I seek the leave of the House to table the DigiPoll conducted in the last week of May, and released last weekend, which shows that 62 percent of New Zealanders supported the removal of the ban on nuclear-propelled ships visiting our territorial waters and ports, 33 percent opposed it, and 4.3 percent did not know.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I seek the leave of the House to table the National Business Review - Phillips Fox poll, which shows that 62 percent of people are against nuclear-powered ships being allowed into New Zealand waters and only 32 percent support it. That is two to one against.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the course of the answers the honourable Minister made reference to a list he has of 34 mishaps, I think, involving nuclear-powered ships. I am not sure whether he has an obligation to table it, but if there is an obligation, I seek leave for the Minister to seek leave to table the document.

Madam SPEAKER: There is no obligation to table it, and we cannot ask for that.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I am happy to read it out, Madam Speaker, if I could take the time of the House.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I would prefer you did not. Perhaps the members would like to discuss this outside the House.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider where a point of order is, in fact, not a point of order, and whether your decision to be firm with the House, and I am not disputing that decision, over interjections—on questions in the first place, but particularly on points of order—can in all cases be fair, particularly where someone is using the point of order process to make a political point that does not meet the standards of a point of order. This, of course, happens quite frequently. In the incident that has seen you exercise your prerogative to ask Dr Brash to leave the House, Mr Goff, in speaking to a point of order, referred to a meeting that he was not present at—a meeting where certain allegations have been made repeatedly by the Government, but where the Government has refused, at all points, to release any sort of corroborated transcript for their position. What we know is that there were senior US senators present at that meeting who do not back the Government’s position with regard to what was and what was not said. I think you can see that when a person is effectively accused of mistruth in the House, it causes a certain emotional response, and that is usually quite immediate. In this case, I think, given that it was not a point of order—or even part of a point of order—that Mr Goff was speaking to, it seems rather unfair that the normal procedure for interrupting a point of order was applied.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking to the point of order, I say that we need to correct what the honourable member has just said. Far from not being prepared to provide evidence, I tabled in this House the written comments of the neutral public servant, which recorded word for word what Don Brash said in that meeting.

Madam SPEAKER: I think that part of the point of order was really a debating point. On points of order and interjections, I am aware that there is some provocation at times, but I have also been asked to ensure that questions and points of order are heard in silence, which is what I am endeavouring to do. While at times I understand that people are provoked, if we start having exceptions, then when will it stop? I have asked other members to leave the Chamber who have interjected on points of order. That is why I was consistent with that ruling. So I thank the member for his contribution. Unless there are any more supplementary questions on question No. 10, I would like to move to question No. 11.

School Boards of Trustees—New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

11. GORDON COPELAND (United Future) to the Minister of Education: Is he satisfied that, in accordance with section 75 of the Education Act 1989, school boards of trustees adhere to the general laws of New Zealand, including sections 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which provide for freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to manifest those beliefs; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): Generally, the answer is yes.

Gordon Copeland: Has the Minister seen the categorical and unambiguous legal opinion of Sir Geoffrey Palmer that the decision of the Seatoun School board of trustees in relation to the KidsKlub is contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, unreasonable, and ultra vires the Education Act, which allows religious education to take place in State secondary schools; if so, does he agree with that opinion and, in any event, how does he intend to address this issue?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There are two or three points to answer. First, I have not read the full opinion. Second, Seatoun School is not a secondary school but a primary school; therefore it may or may not be relevant to this particular issue. I think that an intense debate is going on amongst a very small group of people, and fanning it from here is not helpful.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Is it not time for a review of the secular clause in the Education Act—which was entered into our law in 1877 to accommodate interdenominational disputes over which Christian dogma was to be taught—in light of the fact that the clause is necessarily breached in order to satisfy treaty requirements and the fact that curriculum documents dictate the development of spirituality amongst our students?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think we need to note the difference between the encouragement of spirituality and indoctrination in particular religions.

Gordon Copeland: Would the provision of a prayer room for Islamic students at a State school in Christchurch be at risk if that school’s board of trustees were at any time to decide to end it; if so, does the Minister regard that situation as satisfactory?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes. One of the things we have in New Zealand is exceptionally autonomous schools. Boards of trustees are allowed to make decisions for their schools in ways that almost no other country allows. In a place like the United States, not only would all of this be excluded but also someone who lives on one side of a street must go to a particular school and a person who lives on the other side of the street must go to another. We have a very liberal system, but the problem is that, as a result of that, sometimes boards make decisions we disagree with.

Gordon Copeland: Does the Minister back the decision of the board of trustees at the Seatoun State primary school to ban KidsKlub, even though it was previously approved by the trustees of the school that every child attending the club does so with the express written permission of his or her parents, and no new consultation with the school community was undertaken prior to the board’s revocation; if so, how can that be in harmony with trusteeship on behalf of the entire school community?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do not back the decision, but I back the board’s right to make it.

111 System—Abandoned Calls

12. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) to the Minister of Police: When did he first find out that almost 180,000 calls to the police communications centres in the past 12 months were abandoned, and how did the commissioner explain this to him?

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour), on behalf of the Minister of Police: I am advised that the Commissioner of Police informed the Minister of Police of the May 2004 - May 2005 figures in early June. I am also advised that the issue of the number of abandoned general calls has been a concern to the commissioner, and that he sought independent advice on the performance of the communications centres, the results of which have recently been provided to the Government. The Government has allocated an additional $45 million to address the issues raised in the report.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why did it take the disappearance of Iraena Asher and the bashing of Peter Bentley in Te Puke for the Government and the commissioner even to look at the reliability of our emergency services, considering that almost 200,000 calls had been abandoned in the 12 months before Ms Asher disappeared?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: It is important to point out that 111 calls are not part of the abandoned calls, which are part of the general calls. But it is important to say that the commissioner was not happy about some of the performance of the communications centres, and introduced an independent report. As a result, the Government has put $45 million extra into communication services, to improve their performance.

Martin Gallagher: Can the Minister restate to this House what precisely the Government has done to boost resources in the police communications centres?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: As I have said, the Government has allocated an extra $45 million over 4 years, over and above the normal police budget, to improve police communication services. The extra $45 million will be used, among other things, to increase significantly the number of staff in—

Hon Tony Ryall: When?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: —well, about $11 million this year and $10 million over the next little while—police communications centres. That compares with the cut of $24 million to the police budget that was announced by the previous National Government in 1999. The member needs to tell the House what cuts would be made to the police budget in order to fund National’s tax cuts.

Stephen Franks: Can the Minister tell me how often in the past 12 months the Minister of Police has been delayed in getting through to the Commissioner of Police, and is the delay usually due to the commissioner’s mysterious overseas absences, or is the Minister just a victim of hopeless communication—along with 179,999 other New Zealanders?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I am not sure, and no.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Government not realise that New Zealanders whose calls the police do not answer are just the tip of the iceberg of victims, as victims have given up reporting crimes because the police do have enough staff even to answer the phone?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I have been trying to explain to the member that the number of abandoned calls are not 111 calls; 111 calls are prioritised, and if in the end they are not answered, they are followed up later, because the phone numbers are available via Telecom. The important point that the member is trying to raise is the fact that there does need to be extra staff, and $45 million has been budgeted. I would have thought the member would congratulate the Government on that, rather than continue to whinge and whine as he normally does.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table the Mi-Quality report on the police communications centres, which confirms that many of the calls being abandoned would have been emergencies.

Document not tabled.

Urgent Debates

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Release of Report

Madam SPEAKER: I have received applications under Standing Order 373 from Dr Brash and from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate the release of a report from the Ministry for the Environment on net greenhouse gas emissions. The release is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and, after careful consideration, I have determined that it is important enough to justify an urgent debate being held on it today. Dr Brash’s application was received first and, in any case, Mr Shirley’s application did not provide me with any authenticating material. Therefore, I have given priority to the application I have received from Dr Brash and I call on him to move the motion.

Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. We have become accustomed to Labour’s incompetence: 111 emergency calls, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, the Immigration Service, the huge waste in the tertiary education system, hip-hop tours, the failure to accelerate road building, and the “chewing gum Budget”. But nothing compares with the monumental scandal that is Labour’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

In the 2002 election campaign National argued against New Zealand being the only country in the Southern Hemisphere to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. After the election Labour pressed on, intent on being the most virtuous of all the countries in the Southern Hemisphere, despite the fact that Australia refused to ratify, the United States refused to ratify, and the big emitters of Asia, India, and China, were not obliged to make any reductions in their emissions. Of course we should ratify, Labour argued, as our contribution to dealing with the serious problem of global warming, and, by the way, not to ratify would be like “setting fire to a very big cheque”. That was because the Government had calculated that we would have a net credit position of 55 million tonnes of carbon, which could be sold on the international market, and was worth $825 million at the Government’s price of $15 a tonne, or $2.1 billion at the current international price of $38 a tonne. It was easy to be virtuous with a prospect of a pay-off of between $800 million and $1.2 billion.

But there were always doubts. Early last year, Alex Sundakov of the consultancy firm Castalia Strategic Advisers, concluded that the Government’s figures were wildly optimistic. It had assumed that emissions from the agricultural sector would grow over the next 10 years at a fraction of the rate at which they had grown over the decade since 1990, but he could find no justification for that assumption. It had assumed that total energy emissions would actually decline from current levels over the next decade, but he could find no justification for that assumption. It had assumed that new plantings of Kyoto Protocol forests would continue at 30,000 hectares per annum, but he argued that new plantings were likely to be well below the assumed 30,000 hectares per annum. It had assumed that non - Kyoto Protocol forests, planted before 1990, would be replanted in their entirety as they were harvested, but he argued that a significant and growing proportion of non - Kyoto Protocol forests would not be replanted once harvested. Taking those factors into account, he concluded early last year that there would not be a credit balance of 55 million tonnes, but a debit balance of 7 million tonnes, and that was just in the first commitment period, between 2008 and 2012.

Of course, Pete Hodgson rubbished Dr Sundakov at that time. He stated that Castalia Strategic Advisers’ reports were “undermined by a combination of methodology errors and forecasting assumptions at the bottom end of credibility”. He went on to say that any liability under the Kyoto Protocol was “unproven and unlikely”. He also trumpeted the fact that New Zealand “will be one of very few seller nations in the first Kyoto commitment period.” Now we know that, far from being pessimistic, Dr Sundakov was too optimistic. Now we know that the Government itself estimates that the position is not a credit balance of 55 million tonnes, and not even a debit balance of 7 million tonnes, but a debit balance of 36 million tonnes. Instead of a financial asset worth between $825 million and $1.2 billion, we face a financial liability of between $540 million, at the Government’s price of carbon, and $1.4 billion, at the current international price of carbon. So we are somewhere between $1.4 billion and $3.5 billion worse off than when Labour blithely ratified the Kyoto Protocol late in 2002.

Of course, the bill could be much higher if the international price of carbon escalates above $38 a tonne, and it will certainly be very much higher if New Zealand stays in the Kyoto Protocol during the second and subsequent commitment periods. Everybody knows that the first commitment period was to be just a softening-up period to get everybody suckered in before being hit with the very substantial reductions in emissions that would be required to make any appreciable difference to global warming.

This is a Government that offers large numbers of hard-working New Zealanders tax relief of just 67c a week in 3 years’ time, but squanders money in a profligate and wasteful way on hip-hop tours, more bureaucrats, dodgy tertiary courses of the Twilight Golf variety, and now the granddaddy of them all, an enormous bill as the price of its determination to have New Zealand the only country in the Southern Hemisphere signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. And, make no mistake, the Government intends to pay that price. Pete Hodgson confirmed last week that he would be buying carbon credits on the international market to cover our projected deficit—probably paying hundreds of millions of dollars to Russia and the Ukraine to make Helen Clark and her Ministers feel good.

The Labour Government has been guilty of gross deception. It has been guilty of gross deception in more than one way. Not only did it try to tell us that there was a gain to be had in being virtuous, on the basis of assumptions that now look wildly implausible; it even tried to hide the facts from the New Zealand public, after admitting the truth to the United Nations on 15 April. It told the international community but did not tell the New Zealand public. There was only a fleeting mention of the enormous contingent liability facing the taxpayer in Michael Cullen’s Budget last month. Ten pages into the section on contingent liabilities there was a small note explaining that estimates of New Zealand’s likely position during the first commitment period were not sufficiently robust to warrant formal recognition in the Crown accounts. The Budget listed a whole range of individually minor contingent liabilities, but failed to put any number on the little matter of the liability for our projected carbon deficit of $540 million, or $1.4 billion, or even more.

To justify participation in the Kyoto Protocol we need to be convinced of three things, all of which are highly contentious. First, we need to be persuaded that global warming is actually taking place.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Oh, really!

Dr DON BRASH: I tell Dr Cullen that there is some debate about that in the scientific community. Second, we need to be convinced that even if global warming is taking place, that warming is being caused by human activity, and, specifically, increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. There is some debate about that in the scientific community. Third, to justify participation in the Kyoto Protocol we need to be convinced not only that global warming is taking place and that that warming is caused by greenhouse gases, but also that doing something to reduce emissions at enormous cost is, in some sense, commensurate with the potential gain. That too is hotly contested. Bjorn Lomborg, the famous Danish environmentalist, does believe the world’s climate is warming, and does believe that it is being driven, in large part, by the emission of greenhouse gases. But he regards the enormous costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as wildly disproportionate to the potential benefit in terms of a slightly cooler global climate. Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has been the main driver of the Kyoto Protocol, has calculated that if the Kyoto Protocol was fully implemented, it would slow the expected rate at which the Earth’s temperature increased by 6 years.

Brian Connell: How much?

Dr DON BRASH: By 6 years. Instead of a global temperature rise of 2.1 degrees Celsius occurring by 2094, it will be postponed to 2100. That is not much of a benefit relative to the estimated cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol of US$1 trillion, or NZ$1.4 trillion.

Labour has signed New Zealand up to a very bad deal. It was so intent on impressing its socialist friends in Europe that it forgot the enormous cost to New Zealand taxpayers. It convinced us all that we could be virtuous and get more rich by producing a set of assumptions that, even at the time, looked wildly optimistic, and now have been shown to be so. Labour has been shown to be totally incompetent, unwilling to listen to advice that it did not want to hear, and guilty of being grossly deceptive in failing to include that potentially enormous liability in the Budget last month—a month after the size of the potential liability had been advised to the United Nations.

The National Party cares deeply about the environment. We value clean air and we value clean water. We value New Zealand’s wide open spaces and want to keep them in a condition such that our children and our grandchildren can enjoy them. Before the election we will be announcing our policy to protect and enhance our environment. But the Kyoto Protocol is an incredibly expensive way to try to reduce global warming by a very small amount in 100 years’ time. Before last Thursday’s shock announcement, National was committed to scrapping Labour’s carbon tax—a tax that is calculated to add $4 a week, or $208 a year, to the costs facing every New Zealand household. We were also committed to withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol from the commencement of the second commitment period, starting in 2013, unless all other significant countries were engaged in meaningful programmes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In the light of the enormous cost to New Zealand even during the first commitment period, the scientific uncertainties about global warming and the relationship between possible warming and greenhouse gases, the totally disproportionate cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the fact that most of our major trading partners have not taken on any obligation to reduce greenhouse gases, the Government should undertake an immediate formal review of our continued participation in the Kyoto Protocol. That should include an independent assessment of New Zealand’s likely carbon balance in the 2008-12 period, the viability of a major programme of forest planting on New Zealand’s eroding hill country to increase our carbon credits, and the risks to New Zealand of exporting jobs to other, non - Kyoto Protocol countries in the Asia-Pacific region. I can assure the country today that it will not find a National Government spending hundreds of millions of dollars—potentially, billions of dollars—buying carbon credits from either Russia or the Ukraine.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Michael Cullen—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Here’s a guilty man.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): Ha, ha! Oh dear, oh dear! That is what the courts said about Dr Nick Smith, of course.

The first question we have to ask ourselves is what that stream of greenhouse gas emissions added to the sum of human knowledge, accompanied by all the agricultural emissions from around Dr Brash from the National Party benches. We have learnt two things. Firstly, the member opposite cannot see more than about 2 or 3 years into the future. He is a myopic politician with no ambitions for the long term, at all. He merely wants to get into power, no matter what the cost.

Secondly, every time an issue comes up now, the National Party’s answer is to go back to the past or to have a review. The big announcement on climate change—to really frighten the Chinese and the Indians into joining up to the Kyoto Protocol—was that we should have a review of our emissions from 2008 to 2012.

Thirdly—let us bring the short, fat one from Tamaki back to life, and let us have National Party policy from the 1970s—it is the forestry encouragement grant scheme. Let us pay people to plant trees in places that can never be reached for harvest, as we already have throughout some areas in the East Coast of the North Island.

By himself, Dr Brash cannot judge global warming. He has sort of admitted now that the science says it is there. He has sort of admitted that it is done by humans. But of course he is a bit like Bill Birch in that respect. He is one of those people for whom, when he walks into a room, the temperature goes down, hence his scepticism about global warming and the future of where we are going.

So why is there a change in the numbers? The first reason why we moved from a net surplus to a net deficit is simple. The economy has grown faster than it was predicted to do on the basis of National Party experience. The forecasts at the time were made on the basis of growth being around 2.5 to 3 percent, probably because under National, and even with it coming off a very low base in 1991-92, it averaged 3.1 percent. But we have now averaged 4-plus percent, and that will be shown as the figures move forward over the next few months. That will mean more emissions, because economic growth tends to create greenhouse gas emissions. Dr Nick Smith can do it all by himself, of course.

Secondly, we have not been planting forests at the same rate as predicted. Why?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because you destroyed the market in the sector?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No!—because wood prices have been low over the last 2, or 3, or 4 years. It is called markets, I tell Dr Smith, and his party is supposed to believe in them. His leader believes that they are the gods of economic life—that they are all that rules in terms of the economy. People have not been planting trees, because they judge they will not make a profit out of those trees over the long term.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why are your numbers wrong?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: But Dr Smith says: “Don’t worry. We’ll give you the pills and you can plant trees and they’ll pay some money at some point in the future.”

The third reason, I will admit, is that officials got wrong a range of technical assumptions. What that also tells us—and the National Party might care to take note of this—is that when one is trying to work out the difference between two large numbers, between emissions on one side and offsets on the other, quite small changes can lead to quite big differences in terms of the delta between the two. Mr Williamson is nodding his head. I will just dwell for a moment on the fact that that is precisely true of fiscal numbers, where to base all one’s spending on the assumption of getting that precisely right is very, very dangerous indeed—particularly when a party insists on getting the numbers wrong in the first place, as National does.

Why does the Kyoto Protocol remain important? Because the overwhelming view of scientists is that there is global warming.

Hon Ken Shirley: No, not true.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Oh yes, it is. The Royal Society of the United Kingdom made a specific report that is a word-for-word answer to the idiocy of the ACT party—thank God, that party will be disappearing from the face of this earth come the next general election! There is sign-up from the heads of the institutes of science of all the G8 countries, plus the three largest non-G8 Third World economies—that is, China, India, and Brazil—which all say that there is global warming, and all say, in fact, that it is primarily caused by human activity. I say to Mr Shirley that for people to deny that is to be like those—there are a few in this House—who believe that trade restrictions and tariff protections are good because they can find one or two economies that believe in them. The overwhelming majority of economists of every hue believe that that is nonsense, and that free and fair trade is the way the world should be going in the future.

An overwhelming majority of scientists who are expert in the climate area say that there is global warming, and that it is caused by human activity. Dr Brash, of course, thinks that that is still debatable. What on earth would he know about that? He has an ancient, rusty PhD on protection and foreign investment into New Zealand, written sometime back in about the early 1960s.

He is the man who said, as a reason for why we should not sign up, that our carbon dioxide emissions were half of those of the US and Australia on a per capita basis. The problem is that nearly half of our emissions are methane—and who triumphantly made sure that methane was part of the Kyoto agreement? It was Simon Upton, the then National Party Minister for the Environment, who of course was the Minister who negotiated the Kyoto agreement on behalf of New Zealand. National actually signed up to the agreement in 1997 but did not get round to ratifying it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Alongside Australia and the United States.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: And Australia and the United States—indeed, the United States had a change of Government and withdrew from almost every international agreement it could find to withdraw from, sadly I have to say. Bill Clinton’s Government helped negotiate the Kyoto agreement. I say good on the Clinton Government, but it is a shame the United States is not a signatory and a ratifier of the Kyoto agreement at the present time.

The science therefore is clear: the Kyoto Protocol is only a first step; much more will be required. We hear all this stuff about its cost, but what are we told is the cost to New Zealand? Well, I thought it might be about $500 million over 5 years—not an insignificant sum. But the National Party, which has promised tax cuts for everybody—and people are expecting about $30 a week more on the average wage and around there as a result, as well as a lowering of the top tax rate and a cut of the corporate tax rate, a shift of all the money from the current account into the Land Transport Fund, an abolition of the carbon charge, and a subsidy of the racing industry through the taxation system, all at a cost of $4 billion to $5 billion a year—suddenly cannot afford $100 million a year for climate change policy. That sum is only a third of the anticipated revenue from the carbon charge that National has promised to abolish.

Where is the credibility of the National Party in arguing that this country cannot afford that, when suddenly it says we can afford massive tax cuts and increased spending in health and education, police and defence, corrections and roads, and whatever little itch there is all the way around the country, right the way down to subsidising the Montecillo Veteran’s Home and Hospital in south Dunedin. No promise is too small or too large for the National Party to make, as it goes forward into the election. The cost is not enormous in terms of the Kyoto agreement to this country.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just a billion dollars!

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Just a billion dollars! The member’s colleagues are promising $700 million a year just on prisons alone, if we remove parole. The abolition of parole would cost $3 billion in capital, and $700 million in operating expenditure in a year—more than the costs of the Kyoto Protocol in 5 years—to this country. No wonder National is waiting to produce its policy on everything in detail. No wonder it is not going to produce a proper alternative budget; National knows it will not add up. No wonder it is enjoying its brief moment in the sun, before the facts come out and the common sense of the people reasserts itself.

There will be no point in standing here in New Zealand in the year 2050, with our tax rate marginally lower than it would otherwise have been, if we are standing in 2 feet of seawater at the same time. It will simply not add up as a future for this country. National members know their tax talk is rubbish, but any rubbish is good enough.

This is like 1990 for National. We remember the promises made that year. It was going to abolish the surcharge: “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”. It said it would not cut people’s working conditions: “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”; and so on.

National members face a disaster, in fact, as they try to explain what it is they intend to do. What they intend to do is try to two-word their way into Government and hope people do not notice the fallacies of what they are putting forward. And on this one, the fallacies are very strong, indeed

Do they really, really want the world to undergo increased global warming? Do they want this country, which is exposed in terms of being a temperate-climate agricultural producer, to undergo increased global warming? In this year alone we have spent, on flood relief through central government, roughly twice what the Kyoto agreement will cost.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Floods and global warming?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If Dr Nick Smith does not think there may be a connection between our increased incidence of extreme climatic events and global warming, he should go back and continue to play with his Meccano set, which led him to an illiterate PhD in engineering somewhere down the track in the past.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Get out of the gutter.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Well, that member is illiterate; I have seen his press statements. He is always illiterate in everything he puts out.

The reality is that we face a major world issue. The reality is that of all developed world economies we stand to suffer more from moderate global warming than any other developed economy, because we are more dependent upon temperate-zone, land-based industries than any other. Dr Brash says we are the only developed-world Southern Hemisphere country, but there are two such countries—us and Australia. If the sheriff was not in, the deputy sheriff was not going to be either, when it came to the Kyoto Protocol. The Australians, of course, are highly dependent upon greenhouse gas emission industries for their welfare and wealth. I still hope that they have the sense at some point in the future to join in the Kyoto agreement, so they can influence it.

But National has to say what its alternative is—I hear nothing! That was a really clear alternative we heard from the National Party. What is the alternative to the Kyoto agreement? Again, I hear nothing. Well, that was pretty clear, too; National does not have an alternative to the Kyoto agreement. Its alternative is tax cuts, because as we all know if everybody gets a tax cut, global warming will drop. Why? Dr Brash’s version of science is this: if we have a tax cut we can all afford air-conditioning, and if we have air-conditioning we will lower the temperature everywhere. We will not worry about all the stuff that goes on in terms of producing electricity for the air-conditioning along the way, because he does not have much regard for generally agreed positions in science.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about the bungle.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I invite Dr Nick Smith not just to tell us the fact that the numbers were got wrong by the officials; we know that. I want him to tell us the alternative. The alternative, given that in 2001 Dr Nick Smith said: “Scientists have good evidence that the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into our atmosphere is irreversibly changing the global climate.”—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: He says: “That’s right.” That is Dr Nick Smith’s position, so I now invite him to tell us what he is going to do about it, apart from tax cuts and taking away parole from prisoners.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I stand to speak on behalf of New Zealand First. I should make it clear that I do not have a PhD. We seem to have enough PhDs in this House to go around. It is a degree that one acquires to learn more and more about less and less, and as I hear the speeches made by the various PhDs around this House, I come to that conclusion. They do know more and more about less and less, and they express it every time they speak.

I am just a simple lawyer who has had a bit of practice here and there, and who tries to get the facts together and reach a conclusion as a result. I look at why we are involved in this thing called the Kyoto Protocol from New Zealand’s perspective. Someone mentioned the name Simon Upton to me and, almost straight away, things seemed to fall into place. We remember Mr Upton. I knew Mr Upton when I was in the National Party caucus with him—

Hon Ken Shirley: You even look like him.

DAIL JONES: Oh, no. I might have looked like him; I have not seen him for a while.

He also introduced us to the Resource Management Act as we know it now today, following on from Dr Palmer, who is also a PhD. So one immediately gets suspicious. From the Resource Management Act, Mr Upton moved on to the Kyoto Protocol, and having brought all that to our attention, he then got a very nice job at some conservation agency in Europe.

Hon Ken Shirley: OECD.

DAIL JONES: The OECD. He moved up; I think on the reputation of the Resource Management Act and the Kyoto Protocol. It shows how these things gather their own momentum, and how, if someone has a good reputation for being good in the environment and having led one’s country down the garden path, that person can still be promoted into some agency that will lead a whole lot of countries down the garden path.

Well, where is New Zealand? We are here in the South Pacific. How many countries south of the Equator have ratified this protocol?

Hon Ken Shirley: Only one.

DAIL JONES: Only us; only one. No one else has thought about it. I think Dr Cullen said something about “no other countries in the Southern Hemisphere exist”. Well of course we have South American countries—lots of them. [Interruption] They are developing a lot of emissions, even more so than that honourable member on the other side of the Chamber. That is what this is all about—greenhouse emissions. They develop plenty of emissions. South Africa is developing plenty of emissions, and a lot of those South American countries south of the Equator are developing emissions. None of them are linked to the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

So I ask myself how many countries in Asia have ratified it. There is only one: Japan. That is all. Nobody else in Asia has. China and India have 1,200 million or 1,500 million cattle—heaps and heaps of cattle—all belching out emissions, yet they are not involved in this. Who in Africa is bound to this protocol? Nobody. None at all, north or south. In the Americas as a whole, only the one country, Canada, is involved.

Who then is part of this? Europe is. That is what it boils down to. Europe is making all the mess. It is belching out all the greenhouse emissions, and it wants the rest of the world to carry the can for the mess that Europe is making out of it. That is how I look at this, from a very simple viewpoint. Europe is making the mess, and Europe should pay for it. Why should the New Zealand taxpayer have to carry the can? Why should the New Zealand taxpayer have to pay a $4 carbon tax because European countries are making a helluva mess of the atmosphere?

Hon Ken Shirley: We are making a mess of the atmosphere.

DAIL JONES: The member says that we are making a mess of the atmosphere. Purely on the Kyoto figures alone, we make up 0.2 percent of the emissions.

Hon Ken Shirley: 0.04 percent.

DAIL JONES: It is 0.2 percent, I think, with respect. We are No. 100 on the list and we make up 0.2 percent.

We get lost in the roundings of other countries. We are so negligible that we get lost in the roundings. For example, we are at the same level as Latvia and we are just fractionally above Luxembourg in the amount of our emissions. Of course, as an environmentalist I am concerned that if I want to remedy something I want to know what the problem is, and I want to make sure it is remedied.

What is the problem in New Zealand, in so far as our emissions are concerned? It is cattle and sheep belching and farting. That is where the majority of our emissions come from. What are we doing in New Zealand to prevent all those emissions from getting up into the atmosphere and drowning us in a few years’ time? Dr Cullen would have us believe that if New Zealand does not do something we will be underwater before we know it. Are we going to put bags on the front of cows? Are we going to put filters on them, so that they breathe through a filter and all their ghastly emissions do not go up into the atmosphere? Will we perhaps put an even bigger filter at the other end as well, just to make sure? I am sure there are some—[Interruption] In the main, cattle and sheep making emissions is our problem. If we are going to remedy the situation for New Zealand, we should be looking at solving it. But of course we have absolutely no intention of doing that at all.

How did this problem come about, and should the Government have known about it? The answer is yes. Clearly, the Government thought it was on a winner. It was going to make some money, and confiscate the rights of tree owners in the way of carbon tax credits and pocket them. It did not matter who they were. The Government was going to pocket the profits from every New Zealander, Māori or non-Māori, who planted trees and add those profits to its Budget surplus—and away it went.

Government members got a terrible shock today. But should they have been more careful? I asked Trevor Mallard, the Acting Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change, today in question time whether he knew that forests must be planted on grassland to meet Kyoto definitions, and whether he should have known that 16 percent of New Zealand forests are planted on scrub so cannot be counted as forests for Kyoto Protocol definition purposes. He was filling in for the Convenor, Pete Hodgson, and did not really know. But I am informed by a colleague that that issue was discussed at the select committee when this bill was being considered. The Government ought to have known that some of the bases on which it came to its conclusions were false—which, in fact, the officials knew and the Government knew. The Government was being totally reckless in the way in which it was trying to work out its profits for itself.

It is well known already that forests must be planted on grassland to meet Kyoto definitions. They cannot be planted on scrub. Yet the Government blindly went ahead, despite the fact that 16 percent of New Zealand’s forests are planted on scrub and cannot be counted as forests for Kyoto Protocol purposes. The Government went ahead and said it was going to make a lot of money out of this, and tried to bluff the New Zealand public into thinking how clever it was.

I was reading an article from the Independent from before this report came out. It made the point that the projections that were being put forward are wildly optimistic and fail to factor in the downside risk that New Zealand will lose some of its forest. Rising land prices and falling log prices will likely ensure increasing deforestation. The Government’s projections also appear to be in a state of flux. The article goes on to discuss how the Government’s surplus forestry credits have declined from 56 million tonnes to 33 million tonnes, primarily as a result of predicted growth in agricultural emissions and deforestation.

This situation has been known. The debate we are having today should not have come as a surprise to the Government. It should have fronted up and said that all the promises it was making about how much money New Zealand would get as a result of this were totally wrong. Of course, New Zealand taxpayers, the ordinary men and women who are struggling to make a living and to pay higher interest rates under the new mortgage rate revisions, and who are trying to send their children to school and paying these extra fees for primary schools and secondary schools—$400 to $700 a year for their children in the Auckland area—are going to be banged with another tax, thanks to this Labour Party.

The question the Government should have answered in the speech we heard from Dr Cullen is how this mistake could have been made. What is being done to ensure that serious errors are not made again? Are the officials and all Ministers responsible for such an enormous error being held accountable, and how? I asked that question today: will the Minister take responsibility? Of course, he was not here. He is away on business. It is quite fortuitous that Mr Hodgson should be away on other business today, when this enormous issue has come to everyone’s attention.

Now that we know that the Kyoto Protocol is going to be a net cost to the economy, is the Government prepared to consult afresh with business and other interested parties with a view to considering the possibility of withdrawing from the protocol in 2008, as we are entitled to do in accordance with article 27? New Zealand First will only proceed with the implementation of policies for the Kyoto Protocol to ensure they are in harmony with those of our major trading partners, and only once a coherent plan has been formulated to allow the appropriate targets to be reached. Our major trading partners, such as Australia and the United States, are not party to it. Of course, China, an up-and-coming major trading partner, is not involved either. It looks very, very unlikely that New Zealand First could possibly be part of this, because there is clearly no coherent plan.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): The ACT party is the only party in this Parliament that has consistently and vociferously opposed New Zealand’s signing of the Kyoto Protocol. If the Kyoto Protocol is the answer, what on earth is the question? The protocol is a fundamentally flawed instrument. The Labour Government’s foolish adherence to it I believe defies logic.

The protocol is grossly unfair. How it works is that nations have to meet 1990 emission levels by the first reporting date, 2008-12—those OECD countries that have ratified it, that is. That is why it is unfair. The rest of the world has to do nothing. Only those OECD nations that have ratified the protocol have to do anything. New Zealand just happens to be the only Southern Hemisphere country that has ratified it. Only two other nations in APEC, Canada and Japan, have ratified it. New Zealand is the only nation in ASEAN that has ratified it. None of our key trading partners—the United States, and Australia, particularly—have ratified it. So the protocol is unfair to that extent. It is also unfair to the extent that it has a huge impact on New Zealand. Because of that 1990 arbitrary selection date, we are at a huge disadvantage. The Kyoto Protocol is not about emissions per head of population or anything like that. It is about relative emissions—in other words, what they are in 2008, relative to 1990.

It just so happens that New Zealand had a huge, fortunately, dependency on hydroelectricity up until the late 1980s, but, as we know, we were not damming or building any more hydro stations, and we started developing fossil fuels. So our energy consumption in electricity generation in terms of carbon dioxide emissions is relatively, per capita, quite small. Conversely, the Europeans had the advantage of the breakdown of the Soviet Union. All those huge brown smoke industries of Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Soviet Union itself were pumping out massive pollution—carbon dioxide emissions—and Europe, of course, has a much lower relative target to meet because of that. So this particular protocol suits the Europeans, but it does not suit many other nations of the world. The other aspect is that, apart from being grossly unfair and distortionary, even the UN scientists on the panel concede that the protocol does not achieve its basic objectives. That is why I ask: if the Kyoto Protocol is the answer, what on earth is the question?

I believe that climate change is a reality. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming, but the point to make is that it always has been. Climate change on this planet is very dynamic, and it seems that when we have a period of change it can be quite dramatic, and more recent work indicates that dramatic changes can occur in decades if not centuries, rather than over longer periods. The question then is: to what extent is the anthropogenic effect driving it? I think the mobilisation of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution is having an impact. The evidence is increasingly showing that it is having an impact, but I believe that pales into insignificance compared with the natural cycles, particularly the orbital variations, which actually drive the climate on this planet.

Some members will be familiar with the Milankovitch cycle and the various cycles that go with that. In the last million years we have had a succession of ice ages. Ice ages tend to last between 70 and 100,000 years with rather brief intermittent interglacial periods of 15,000 to 20,000 years. Of course, the last big meltdown was about 15,000 years ago, and we have had a million years of records of the glacial period, and on that continuation of that cycle it is clear we are actually heading to the next glaciation, in the bigger picture. It might be a few hundred or few thousand years away but that—the next glaciation—is where we are heading to in the cycle, and that is based on records going back a million years.

Then we come to the now, and by that we mean the next few decades and perhaps the next hundred years or so, and there is sufficient evidence for concern. I concede that, and most scientists do, but the Kyoto Protocol does not address it and it is very distortionary. This Government in particular, I believe, has made a number of very foolish policy decisions. It is as if it has gone out and said that New Zealand will put on the thickest hair shirt and will go out to the world and lead the way and change behaviour. That is a very, very foolish position to take, and I am very surprised—well, no, I am not surprised that the Labour Government had done it; it seems to be its wont to think it can change the world to that extent.

When we look at some of the policies the Government has implemented, there is actually nothing wrong with market instruments. I was on the Government Working Group on Climate Change Policy in the mid-1980s. Bill Faulkner, Guy Salmon, Keith Turner, who is now with Meridian, and myself were the authors of the group’s report Climate Change and CO2 Policy: A Durable Response. We recognised that if there is an issue, putting aside the science, then a market instrument was a fair way of actually implementing any response. But this Government has not allowed any market instrument to work. If we are saying we want more plantings in forestry, because new forestry plantation absorbs carbon from the atmosphere—after all, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is actually a fertiliser for plant life and it is what drives plant life—we would, as part of the economic instrument, allow forest owners to trade the economic instrument, and the encouragement would have been to plant more forests. But what did this socialist Government do? It nationalised the carbon credits. It said: “Oh, no, the Government will take those, thank you.”, so it destroyed the economic instrument.

Then, on the other side of the ledger, the Labour Government said it would have negotiated greenhouse gas agreements with industry. So instead of letting the carbon credits be traded, the Government said it would make exemptions. It said that if industries lobbied the Government and knocked on Ministers’ doors and said: “We’re a big industry and this is hurting us.”, then industry would be able to negotiate with the Government to get an exemption. But that just politicises the process and, again, destroys the economic instrument. All it means is that the Government is getting its hands on more and more levers that drive the economy—and energy does drive this economy. The other aspect is that we end up with the energy efficient actually subsidising the energy inefficient. So that is a foolish part of it in terms of this Labour Government’s policy.

We then look at the electricity market, and what did the Government decide there? It decided it would slap a tax, $15 a tonne, on fossil fuels, principally coal. But hang on a minute—how does the electricity market work in this country? We have a national grid. We have 200 nodal points of take-off. We run an auction every half-hour, and the highest price sets the price. To the extent that Genesis’s Huntly power station is the biggest power station in the country, with 1,000 megawatts, and particularly when our hydro storage is low we have to rely upon Huntly for that baseload, and what we call hydrofirming, Huntly will be paying the $15 a tonne carbon tax on its coal.

The point is that everyone else gets that same price, so the hydro generators get a windfall profit. And who owns the big hydro generators? The three State-owned enterprises: Genesis, Mighty River, and Meridian do. So all the Government is doing is taxing the economy, and we see all the problems associated with that—as if we are not taxed enough already—and making our industries less competitive than those of our trading partners and most of the rest of the world. So that money is going back into State coffers through the dividend payments from those State-owned enterprises.

That is not an economic instrument. That is just more State control; more of the Government taking control of the levers of the economy. The policy is doomed to failure, and it is about time this Government woke up. Now it has had this rude shock. It always said that not to sign the Kyoto Protocol would be a no-brainer; it was like tearing up a big cheque for New Zealand. Well, we have seen the truth of that statement. I remember Pete Hodgson ridiculing me at a private dinner with the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Watson, when I suggested that New Zealand may not be in a net situation. He ridiculed me and laughed, and said: “Impossible, impossible.” Well, I say to Mr Hodgson, the impossible has come to pass. I think for a number of reasons it was predictable from the outset that that would be the situation. So the ACT party will continue to oppose this foolish adherence to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): In 1997 I was privileged to be an observer in Kyoto at the negotiation of the protocol, when Simon Upton negotiated on behalf of New Zealand the framework for the agreement we now have. There are many things in politics that Simon Upton and I did not agree on, but on this issue I have to say that he was staunch. He understood the science. He understood the need for global action. He understood that no country could go it alone and that we had to negotiate the best we could in the circumstances. If Simon were here today, I believe he would be ashamed of the backtracking of his party since then. He knew that the Kyoto agreement was not about making money out of environmental disaster, as most parties in this House seem to think, but about facing collectively the worst threat to human civilisation for some centuries. We know that he proposed carbon charges in the 1990s to make the New Zealand economy more efficient by discouraging energy waste. We know that his Cabinet colleagues, many of whom are still here today, turned him down and said that we should stick with the energy inefficiency we have and with the financial losses that firms and individuals suffer when they use far, far more energy than they need in order to make a dollar or to keep warm.

Even in 1997 scientists were clear that evidence of climate change had accumulated to the point where we had to take action. Some uncertainties still existed, but the balance of probabilities was that we could not ignore the risk until there was more certainty. Since then, the science has become much more certain. The language of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has become stronger and more urgent with every report. Arctic sea ice is melting way before the models predicted it would. Ice shelves are carving off the Antarctic faster than expected. Glaciers around the world are retreating. Extreme weather events, floods, droughts, and heatwaves are more frequent. Just in the last weeks the national academies of science of all the G7 countries have advised their Governments that it is urgent to address the problem of climate change. Last year the Pentagon, that fringe greenie organisation in the United States, advised the President that climate change is a greater threat to world security than terrorism is.

The arguments we have heard this afternoon against New Zealand doing anything on greenhouse emissions are interesting. The first argument is that the science is not yet totally certain. Well, there are still people who say there is no proven link between tobacco and lung cancer. The risk that the problem is underestimated by current science is at least as great as the likelihood that it is overestimated. Who wants to take that risk, that, in fact, things may become considerably worse than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is predicting?

The second argument is that our trading partners have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. When we look at what the Kyoto Protocol is, we see that it was an agreement whereby the OECD countries that had historically caused climate change to date would take action first in a 5-year period, and that when they had taken action, the developing countries would join the party and make some commitments, too. Only two significant countries in the OECD have not ratified the protocol—the United States and Australia.

The third argument is that as developing countries are not part of the agreement, why should we do anything? Why should we, who have contributed for 160 years to climate change by cutting down two-thirds of our forest and burning large amounts of fossil fuel, do anything, when the likes of Africa, which has always contributed very little, has done nothing, and when the likes of China, which still uses about a tenth of the energy per capita that the United States does, still wants to develop its economy? That argument will not stand up. In fact, the only chance of getting those developing countries, particularly China and India, to join an agreement to take action against climate change is if the OECD countries act first.

The fourth argument is that we are so small and insignificant that we should just free ride on the efforts of everybody else, and that because we cannot make a difference on our own, we should not do anything. Actually, the United States cannot make much difference on its own, either. No country in the world can make a big difference to climate change—only countries acting together can do so.

Just for the information of those who think that New Zealand is so clean and insignificant, I say that our total climate change emissions are double the per capita average for the world. When we include the developing countries as well as the developed countries, we see that we are emitting twice our share of the total. What gives us the right to go on doing that?

Of course, the Kyoto Protocol will not solve the problem. It is a tiny first step, in the incredibly difficult task of international negotiations, to take action on the most difficult challenge we have ever been faced with. Energy cuts right to the heart of the industrial society and our way of life. It is much, much harder to implement the Kyoto Protocol than to implement the ozone treaty and the Montreal Protocol that we agreed to in order to prevent ozone destruction. Chlorofluorocarbons are much more dispensable than energy is. So the Kyoto Protocol will not solve the problem, but there is nothing else on the table. There is nothing else that will bring countries together around the table every year to have negotiations to build on it. As the science accumulates, there will be a forum under the Kyoto Protocol for countries to discuss how to take action. The second commitment period may have an entirely different approach to targets from the first commitment period. That period has not even been negotiated yet. Anybody who thinks like Alex Sundakov—who thinks he can predict what our commitments will be in the fourth commitment period, when nobody has even started negotiating the second commitment period—is, quite frankly, away with the fairies. I am amazed that people in this House would believe that kind of rubbish.

I move on to the projections that were released as something of a bombshell last week. They are actually just that—a set of a predictions. They are based on a whole lot of assumptions, some of which I think are very questionable—such as that the price of oil will go way back down from US$59 per barrel, where it is today, to US$30 per barrel and stay there right through the Kyoto Protocol period. Does anybody actually believe that? Even if we did, we would have to accept that there will be no effect from our investigation and research into agricultural emissions and from our attempts to control methane, and also have to believe that there will be absolutely no effect at all from our National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. I think that that is a pretty extreme set of assumptions. The set of predictions state that 7½ years from now we will have overshot our target. When other people and other parties see those figures, they see a financial loss—New Zealand might have to pay some money to Russia. When the Greens see those figures, they see an environmental loss. They see accelerated climate change. They see drought that causes mass starvation in Africa. They see the vulnerability of New Zealand to new pests and diseases. They see huge shifts to our rainfall patterns, agriculture, and coastal settlements.

Labour crows that the figures have changed because of our huge success in increasing economic growth. I am sorry, but the atmosphere does not care how fast Labour has grown the economy; it cares only whether Labour has managed to manage its greenhouse gases while it did that. Labour has not been prepared to face up to the costs of growth. We cannot just grow the economy indiscriminately without taking care of the side effects caused on the way. Those projections show a trend, but they do not show destiny. It is entirely within our power to turn that loss into a profit, if we decide now that it is what we want to do. It is 2½ years until those administering the Kyoto Protocol even start counting, and it is 7½ years until they finish counting our emissions. Energy drives our economy, but energy waste does not. There are huge opportunities in New Zealand for greater energy efficiency. People who work in the field tell me that they can walk into just about any industry and find ways of saving, very cost effectively, 20 to 30 percent of the energy used by that industry with measures that will pay for themselves in a year or two. Is that not better than either changing the climate or paying Russia?

Some people have been pushing for fuel efficiency standards for vehicles for 30 years. We still have no efficiency standards for vehicles. We are still spending money on vast motorways that we will not have the fuel to use. We are not developing our rail and public transport to the extent we could. We are accelerating the use of coal. Instead, we need to plant more forests for fuel and for catchment protection. If the Greens get into Government we will not be paying $1 billion; we will have future-proofed and carbon-proofed our economy with renewables, energy efficiency, and forestry.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future): I rise to speak on behalf of United Future in this snap debate on the revised estimates that were released last week by the Convenor, Ministerial Group on Climate Change. The first point I want to make is to correct Mr Shirley’s assertion that ACT is the only party in this House that has consistently opposed the Government’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. From the moment I entered Parliament as a part of United Future, we have opposed the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, within 1 month of the election in 2002 we issued a press release that stated very clearly that we did not think that signing up to the Kyoto Protocol was in New Zealand’s interests or in the interests of the world environment. I think the information that was released last week further substantiates our position on that.

The second point I want to make is that it is important to realise that if there were a threat to us as human beings on this planet and a threat to our way of life, and if we were convinced that the remedy being proposed would deal with the problem, all of us in the House would want to act responsibly and would probably be prepared to pay the cost, no matter what it was.

The fact that we may now find ourselves in a situation where we have to pay $1 billion is not really the issue. The issue is whether that money will be well spent and will really address the problem, or whether it is simply money that will go down the gurgler and be wasted without addressing the problem that people see coming.

When we raise questions about the Kyoto Protocol, it is not helpful to be accused of being irresponsible or lacking in environmental concern, and so on. This is a very serious matter that ought to be debated properly and openly, and all questions should be asked, answered, and addressed without people throwing mud at each other, and one accusing the other of not being as environmentally friendly. The real question we ought to be asking, and we ought to allow to be asked, is whether the Kyoto Protocol is the answer to this problem. In question time earlier today, I raised the matter of what is occurring in Europe, which, I believe, is one of the major issues with the Kyoto Protocol, and that is that it has been founded on very, very poor estimates, right from the beginning.

It is not really surprising that we suddenly have, within 1 year, a change from a 30 million tonnes surplus to about a 30 million tonnes deficit, because this is the nature of the Kyoto Protocol all over the world. In a recently convened meeting in Europe, most of the European nations admitted that they also have hugely underestimated their obligations under the protocol. When I read out the percentages that they have underestimated, or that will be over-reported at the next official meeting at Kyoto, it is clear to anybody with any common sense to see that they will not be able to meet those targets.

Portugal is over its promise by 77 percent, Spain by 61 percent, Greece by 51 percent, Ireland by 41 percent, Luxembourg by 31 percent, Finland by 27 percent, Denmark by 26 percent, and on the list goes. All those nations were relying on England and Germany having some surpluses that they could take up. The next bombshell to hit us will be England or Germany admitting, just like we have, that: “Oops! We got it wrong, and we do not have any credits to make available to the rest of Europe.” That will be the next bombshell that will come. Then Russia will realise that its economic growth has been so substantial and underestimated that it, too, will be in a deficit situation. So we will end up with a situation where there are no sellers of any carbon credits, and therefore the Kyoto Protocol will, in effect, fall over.

The carbon trading mechanism will not work if there are no sellers, unless, perhaps—and this might be the one positive that will still exist within Kyoto, though I am not entirely convinced—there is the opportunity that if one cannot buy credits, one can earn them by going out and helping a Third World nation reduce its emissions. Perhaps, if the world were committed to spending billions and billions of dollars in the developing world to reduce its emissions and to get rid of very highly polluting kinds of energy development, it would be a positive for the whole world. But I very much doubt that we will ever arrive at a situation where Europe, or even New Zealand, would be prepared to spend a billion dollars in foreign aid in terms of earning Kyoto credits to make the whole thing work. But it is a possibility and I will keep my mind open in that regard.

I think that as European nations begin to realise that they have signed themselves up to something that is actually very, very costly, the whole political spin machine will probably change in the world. Instead of reading headlines and hearing statements from politicians all over the world about this being the worst thing we could ever face, and about this resulting, as Jeanette Fitzsimmons has said recently, in mass starvation in Africa, we will find that the language changes, and that some of the scientists who have deep concerns about the basis of the Kyoto Protocol will start to be heard a bit more clearly, and Governments will shift their emphases, because no one will be committed to paying the kind of money that is looming on the horizon from the Kyoto Protocol.

The second question that we ought to be allowed to ask is not only whether the protocol is the answer, but whether the money that will be spent really makes a difference, and whether it is cost-effective. For many, many years when it came to building roads in New Zealand, we had a thing called the benefit-cost ratio, whereby if we had a road that needed to be fixed, on which people were being killed, we had to wait for a few more lives to be wasted on that road before the Government would spend the money. If we applied that same kind of logic to the Kyoto Protocol, I believe we would decide that it was not worthwhile spending the money, because we have no guarantee that it would very much alter what is predicted to come upon us. I share Ken Shirley’s scepticism about whether this is the whole cause of the climate change that is being discussed.

The international office for climate change estimates that the global temperature might increase by 2.1 degrees centigrade by 2100. Even if all the Kyoto targets were met—and, as I said earlier, that seems very unlikely, because of the recent estimates out of Europe, for example, for the first commitment period; the estimates for the second and third commitment periods are even more dramatic and impossible to meet—we have an opportunity to reduce that 2.1 degree temperature increase by 0.02 degrees centigrade by 2050. By 2100 it could be reduced by 0.14 degrees centigrade. We have to get the point in the right place. We are not talking about a 1 degree reduction; we are talking about 0.14 degrees, which will not make a lot of difference, and as Dr Brash pointed out earlier, it will perhaps delay the inevitable by a matter of only 6 years.

Therefore, it makes no sense at all, in our opinion, to be pursuing the Kyoto answer to the problem. One of the things that actually concerns me is that every now and again, scientists have it all worked out, and they say that they know what will happen and how it will occur, and then along comes some report that completely flummoxes their theory up until that point. In fact, we have to admit that that occurs quite often in the scientific world. It is amazing what human beings know, and the increase of our knowledge is quite dramatic, but we still do not know everything; we are still learning an incredible amount every day. This is borne out by the fact that every now and again another report comes along that completely tips everything upside down, like the report that came out recently from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which Erich Duchemin, a consultant for the panel, stated that the green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false. In his report, he stated that they may now realise that, in fact, hydro dams may be emitting as much as three and a half times what is produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil. When those reports come out, those who are committed—

Hon Rick Barker: I don’t accept that.

LARRY BALDOCK: This is from the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, and I would be happy to give it to the member afterwards to read, and he can read the whole theory behind it. Those committed to the Kyoto Protocol simply push their heads further into the sand and carry on without actually evaluating whether the focus on renewable energy is the total answer. If, in fact, we have carbon dioxide coming out of hydro dams to the extent that those reports from Brazil indicate, then we should be rethinking that also.

Then we have respected people like Augie Auer, who has guided us in our weather analysis on television for many years, claiming that the Kyoto Protocol is just nonsense. I am looking forward to having a meeting with Mr Auer very soon to hear his theories about what is causing climate change. I think that that is what we all should be doing in this House—having an open mind to debate the issue further.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The report that we are debating this afternoon shows two very important things. The first is that Helen Clark and Pete Hodgson sold New Zealand a pup. When they ratified the Kyoto Protocol, against the vote and the advice of the National Opposition, they said that National’s policy meant that National would burn up a cheque for hundreds of millions of dollars. The reality is that they were not just a little bit wrong; they were a $1 billion wrong. The second point is that for all that Government members say they care about climate change, this report shows that emissions under Labour have been growing at over twice the rate that they were growing at under the last National Government.

The report does not show just those two facts. It also shows that we have a dodgy, arrogant Government that will go to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth from the New Zealand public. This matter comes on the heels of scandals about the 111 call system and about our Immigration Service, of the issues of hip-hop tours and of $234 million being wasted on Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, and on the tail of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) debacle, where thousands of New Zealand students were robbed of their proper scholarships and qualifications because of the incompetence of this Government. The real parallel with the mess over the NCEA is that no one will take responsibility for this billion-dollar bungle over the Kyoto Protocol. Nobody will put a hand up to say he or she is the person who goofed and got it wrong. In fact, that actually speaks volumes about the arrogance of this Government. Let me read out what the Government said when Alex Sundakov said a year ago that he was really worried for New Zealand, because he did not think we were going to have a big surplus of credits. What did the Government say? The Government said that he was “at the bottom end of credibility”. That is what Labour said when he challenged it. Its members went even further than that, by saying that Alex Sundakov was in the pockets of business and just anti-Kyoto.

What happens with this Government is ugly. If anybody dares to question its policy as to whether something is in New Zealand’s interests, and if the Government is caught out in telling porkies, it just gets ugly. Earlier, Dr Cullen decided to rubbish my PhD thesis in the House. Another Labour member somehow suggested that I should be going to the pharmacy to get medicine. It speaks volumes—

Darren Hughes: Why would they say that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because Labour members are not prepared to answer the real questions. They just get personal and nasty, when what they should be doing is answering those questions. Simon Carlaw, the head of Business New Zealand, questioned the Government’s Kyoto figures, and he was told he was “incapable of dealing with facts”. Those members do not apologise. They have gone out and destroyed the reputations of professionals—

Hon Ken Shirley: It started with Kit Richards.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH:—like Kit Richards, Simon Carlaw and, in respect of this particular issue, Alex Sundakov. Yet those professionals were right—absolutely right. Has any Government member been prepared to apologise to the people whose reputations they sought to destroy, simply because those people had dared to question this Government’s policy? [Interruption] Well, Judith Tizard steps in. Why did Pete Hodgson damn Mr Sundakov and say that he was all wrong, when in fact it was the Government that was all wrong?

I also want to set out, for the record, the paper trail that shows just how dodgy the behaviour of this Government is. The report here tells us that the United Nations was told of this huge bungle on 15 April. On 15 April the Government submitted a report, stating there had been a huge bungle. Now, the Government delivered the Budget on 19 May, over a month later. Was there anything in the Budget documents where the Government said there had been that billion-dollar bungle? No, it hid it. In fact, there is an absolute parallel with that. In 1990 Labour Ministers hid the fact that the BNZ was verging on bankruptcy, and required a billion-dollar bail-out. In response to that, the Fiscal Responsibility Act was passed. By law, it required the reporting of all fiscal liabilities. Yet the Minister of Finance, who knew there was that million-dollar bungle, hid it. The irony, though, is that the person who is responsible for enforcing compliance with that law is none other than the Attorney-General, Dr Michael Cullen himself. Does anybody in this House really believe that the Attorney-General will prosecute himself for misleading the people of New Zealand by not including that billion-dollar liability in his Budget?

But the dishonesty and deception did not end there. On 9 June my colleague Brian Connell asked the Minister a very straight question in question time. I want to read it out, so that the House understands the issue. Brian Connell asked: “Has he received any reports about the amount of carbon sink credits New Zealand will have in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol;”. It was a straight question. The Minister said that the report had not yet been completed. Was that true? Well, we have the report here, and it is dated May—over 2 weeks beforehand. It has a foreword from the Minister. So Pete Hodgson told the Parliament of New Zealand that the report was not completed when he knew, when the United Nations knew, and when Cabinet knew, that the answer was that it had been. We now have a standard in this Parliament whereby we can be grossly misled—where Government members can say what they like. Members on the Opposition side of the House simply say to Harry Duynhoven and his Government colleagues that telling porkies in not good enough—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member knows, because he is a longstanding member and can remember well—and so do I—that the former Speaker, the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, indicated to that member that he could not use the word “porkies”. I ask him—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. What is true is that the Minister said in this House that the report had not been completed, when it had been submitted to the United Nations and it had been completed, as is clearly identified by its date.

This Government has made a monumental mess of its Kyoto policy. There is not a hope that New Zealand will be able to meet the commitments that the Government has lined us up for. We will be put into the situation of sending a billion-dollar cheque to the Government of Russia and to the Government of the Ukraine. Now, how does that help climate change? Can somebody explain to me how writing out a cheque for a billion dollars from hard-working New Zealand taxpayers and sending it off to the Russians will save a fraction of the effects of climate change? It will not make one iota of difference. The Government has said that it will impose a carbon tax in 2007. That will not make one iota of difference, in terms of the amount of carbon emissions. It will not make any difference, at all.

I challenge the next Labour member to tell us what will happen now. The truth is that the Minister does not have a damn idea—not any idea.

Darren Hughes: Oh, rubbish.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Darren Hughes chips in that he does. What will the Minister do to put New Zealand into a position of being able to meet that 36 million tonne debit?

Darren Hughes: He will have a consistent view, unlike this member.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, he will have a consistent view. Well, he has flip-flopped all over the paddock, so we do not know where Labour stands. Labour members have deceived New Zealand. The Government has not been upfront with New Zealanders. It made a monumental error in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners.

National’s position is very simple: the carbon tax will not be put in place. We will not impose a tax on New Zealanders, when the Australians and the Americans do not have one. Government members ask about the European Union, but I say to them that that is where they are fundamentally wrong. The New Zealand economy has far more in common with the economies of Australia and the United States than it has with the heavily subsidised agricultural economies of Europe. That is why National has the correct policy to take New Zealand forward. The Labour Government has goofed, and it should apologise for that. The Minister should resign.

DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago): We have heard two speakers from National today. Neither of them has told this country—which is more at risk from the effects of climate change than just about any other country in the world because of our reliance on agricultural production to drive our economy—what they would do. All they have said is what they would not do. They said they would pull us out of the Kyoto Protocol. They said they would reverse the carbon tax. But they have not said what they would do to address the underlying problem.

National, of course, has a history of having just simple messages. Its present one is that the answer to everything is: “Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes.” Its answer to global warming is to cut taxes. What was National’s answer in the 1990s when it went to the election with its bribes? It said: “No ifs, no buts, no maybes. We’re not going to cut your superannuation, and we’re going to remove asset testing.” Of course, it did not remove asset testing, and it did cut superannuation. National cut the baseline of superannuation for a couple from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage. What did it say on education? It made another grand promise when it said: “No more tertiary fees.” I think Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith said he would resign if there were fees. What did he do after the election? Well, tertiary fees stayed—he increased them, but he still did not resign. National promised that workers’ pay would not be cut. It promised that workers’ terms and conditions would be maintained. What did it do? It brought in the Employment Contracts Act, which heralded a decade of very poor economic performance by New Zealand.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are having an urgent debate on the projected balance of units during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Several times during my speech you ensured that I kept to the topic. I have been listening very carefully to Mr Parker for the last 3 minutes. He has talked about everything but the matter for which special time has been set down. I know that the Government is deeply embarrassed by the billion dollar bungle, but I think that Government should have to respond, and keep to the Standing Orders in terms of this debate.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I thank the honourable member, and just say that Mr Parker has not yet had 2 minutes. Of course, under the Speakers’ rulings, people are given the opportunity to rebut. But I would ask the member now to come to the debate.

DAVID PARKER: I was rebutting the assertion, and I remind listeners once again that National did not tell us what it would do; it just said what it would not do.

Why do we have a protocol? Why does the world, with the exclusion of the flat-earthers in the National Party, say that global warming is the biggest environmental issue that faces the world? It says that because the reality is that global warming induced by human activity, particularly the use of carbon fuels and the production of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane, is changing our climate. That is not a fringe view; that is the normal view amongst scientists. There are a few naysayers left, but by far the majority of mainstream scientists from all countries in the world agree that that is the case. That includes the G8 scientist groups, who recently said that there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring—air and ocean temperatures are increasing, sea levels are going up—and that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. They point out that carbon dioxide levels are higher than any previous levels that can be measured from the last 420,000 years. Global warming is a reality. It is a problem.

Why is New Zealand in the Kyoto Protocol? For a start, I suppose we should note that a National Government, under the then Minister Simon Upton, negotiated the agreement of the protocol’s terms for New Zealand, which Labour agreed was the appropriate thing to do, and Labour subsequently ratified the protocol when it became the Government. Was New Zealand a leader in this? One would think, after listening to the National members, that New Zealand is out in front. In fact, I think we were about 101st out of 150 countries to adopt the Kyoto Protocol. Mr Shirley said that Europe does not have a problem with Kyoto Protocol targets. What a load of rubbish! It is true that Russia and some of the former border States of the Soviet Union do not, but the developed countries in Europe do have a problem with the targets, as we heard from Mr Baldock when he told us that those countries are having to revise upwards their estimates of their obligations during the first commitment period. Japan is in as well, and Japan and Europe are major trading partners for New Zealand.

The next criticism we sometimes hear is that these international agreements do not work. Well, we really had better hope that this one does. This Government really thinks we should be putting our shoulder behind the Kyoto Protocol, because if we do not New Zealand stands to lose a huge amount. We can also look at what has happened with the last example of an international agreement on an environmental matter, which concerned gases that cause ozone depletion. New Zealand was one of the countries in on that agreement before some other countries had agreed. Eventually, most other countries did agree. Has that agreement worked? The atmospheric research facility at Lauder in Central Otago, in my electorate, is one of seven or eight leading research stations in that field in the world. It is part of the international effort on atmospheric research—so much so, that much of its funding comes from international sources rather than from the New Zealand Government. I was there recently, with the Hon Pete Hodgson, talking about whether the international agreement in respect of ozone depletion has worked. The research facility staff are not at the point where they can, in a peer-reviewed journal, stake their scientific reputations on it having worked, but they are very confident that it has—that the concentration of ozone-depleting gases in our atmosphere is decreasing and that as a consequence we are seeing the start of the rebuilding of the ozone layer. That, for me, was wonderful evidence that the international community can make a difference with big problems when it wants to. The ozone issue is not as easy as global warming, but it is probably not as important either, and we are determined to make it work.

What have we heard Dr Smith say today? Well, it is a bit inconsistent for him to rail against what the Government is doing currently, when in 2001 he said in a Sunday News column on Sunday, 4 November: “The problem is enormous. Modern civilisation is based on burning coal and gas. The billions of tonnes of carbon being put into the atmosphere each year are gradually building up. Eventually it will stuff life on Earth. New Zealand can’t ignore the problem. Poor countries refuse to do anything because their emissions are so small in comparison to rich countries like New Zealand.” That brings me to my next point. One of the criticisms that has been made today is that New Zealand should not be in there because some of the undeveloped countries are not yet bound by emission targets. That is true; they are actually part of the protocol, but they do not have a target to reduce emissions during the first 5-year period between 2008 and 2012. Why? Because they actually produce fewer emissions on a per head of population basis compared with developed countries like New Zealand, so it would be unfair to include them at this stage.

Dail Jones: What about China?

DAVID PARKER: China, on a per capita basis, produces far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than New Zealand.

We have heard of various amounts that the revised projections are going to cost the New Zealand economy. The true figure is estimated to be $500 million between 2008 and 2012. It could be less than that, because the assumption is that we will not make progress on energy efficiency. I think that is a very conservative assumption because we are pretty wasteful of energy so far in New Zealand, so we have some easy gains to be made. Also, it is assumed that we will not make any progress on our livestock emissions of methane, despite some of the very good research programmes that we have in New Zealand, and it is assumed that we will not make as much progress as we might do on forests.

But let us assume for a moment that $500 million over 5 years is right. Let us put that in context. The last drought in Canterbury, in the late 1990s, cost about $230 million at the farm gate in lost production. When costs beyond the farm gate were included, the drought cost about $1 billion throughout the economy. This year alone the Government has spent about $200 million as a consequence of floods. Both floods and droughts increase in frequency as a consequence of global warming. Indeed, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research report dated May 2005, which came out last week, analyses the changes in drought risk associated with climate change. This causes me real concern down in Otago, my electorate. It is estimated that in Otago—and it is the same in Canterbury and Marlborough—the incidence of drought as a consequence of global warming, in the forecast period covered in this report, will become between two and four times as frequent. What used to be a one-in-20-year drought will become a one-in-10-year drought or a one-in-5-year drought, and when the droughts arise, they will be tougher and drier. With the exception of a couple of the big rivers, like the Waitaki River and the Clutha River, there will be less water in the rivers for irrigation, and the droughts will be drier. So the costs of doing nothing are very high for New Zealand.

In terms of the promises of National members, I return again to their theme. What do they promise? They promise tax cuts. This week we have already seen the costing of their new justice policy, which would scrap parole for people who are currently in prison. That move would cost $700 million per annum, as a consequence of the increased prison population, plus $3 billion in capital expenditure for new prisons. The $3 billion would be a one-off cost, and the $700 million would be per annum for every year into the future. We have heard it said that the Kyoto policy is detrimental to farmers. We are protecting farmers. This is of importance for all New Zealand, but it is of special importance to farmers. They bear the cost of droughts, floods, and trade barriers into Europe. We are protecting them through this very good policy.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3)

First Reading

Debate resumed from 7 June.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa): What a pleasure it is to speak on the first reading of the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3). This bill is designed to reduce the workload pressures facing the Court of Appeal and to increase access to the Supreme Court. Amongst other things, it will ensure that better use is made of judges’ time. The number of Court of Appeal judges will be increased. Some flexibility will be introduced into the way in which Court of Appeal judgments can be delivered. The relevant provisions in the Judicature Act are currently interpreted by the courts as requiring judgments to be delivered by any two judges of the Court of Appeal in an open court. This requirement takes up the valuable time of judges, especially when a judgment is delivered to an empty courtroom. Currently, both the Supreme Court and the High Court are able to deliver their judgments in an open court or through the registrar. The Court of Appeal does not have that flexibility. So this bill will bring the practice in the Court of Appeal into line with the practice in the Supreme Court and the High Court.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): New Zealand First supports this legislation, with particular reference to Parts 1 and 2, although the provisions in Part 2 that relate to the Supreme Court would usually be opposed by New Zealand First, because we intend, when we introduce our direct democracy policy, to see whether there is demand for a referendum on this issue allowing the people of New Zealand to decide for themselves whether appeals should continue to the Privy Council.

When the Justice and Electoral Committee looked at the bill introduced to end the right of appeal to the Privy Council, one of the issues that became very clear to us was that the New Zealand Court of Appeal is grossly overworked. When we considered that legislation, we tried to convince the Government to increase the number of judges in the New Zealand Court of Appeal. That was way back in 2003. It is now 2005 and, finally, we have been able to get the Government to do something about the issue and to increase the number of Court of Appeal judges by two, from six to eight—and I think the President of the Court of Appeal counts as being in addition to those judges.

The New Zealand Court of Appeal should be complimented on the amount of work it does and the quality of its decisions. However, the Attorney-General should consider the large number of criminal appeals that are now flooding the Court of Appeal. It is most unfortunate that, probably on legal aid, many lawyers decide to give it a go in the Court of Appeal to see whether the trial judge overlooked something or made a mistake that might form a basis for the matter to be referred to the High Court. That means yet another trial on legal aid, and a possible return to the Court of Appeal for an appeal on the outcome of the reheard case. We may be cynical about it, but when we look at the increasing trend towards appeals we see there is justification for that cynicism.

Clause 7 in Part 2 relates to appeals against decisions of the High Court going to the Court of Appeal, and refers to a case going directly to the Supreme Court. If this bill had consisted of Part 2 only, New Zealand First would have opposed the legislation. But we do not want to be churlish, and we support the increase in the number of judges in the Court of Appeal. This is the only way in which we can achieve that objective, and, as we want to achieve that objective, we support this bill going to the Government Administration Committee. What we do later as far as Part 2 is concerned remains to be seen.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time.

Ayes 84

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 36

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.

Bill read a first time.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety), on behalf of the Minister for Courts: I move, That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be considered by the Government Administration Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) be considered by the Government Administration Committee.

Ayes 84

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 36

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 111

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 9

ACT New Zealand 9.

Bill read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time. All New Zealanders join Ngā Rauru Kītahi in celebrating the triumph of a favourite son, Michael Campbell.

This bill is an important milestone, both for the iwi and for the Crown. The negotiations process that has resulted in the introduction of this bill into the House was begun under a Labour-led Government back in 1999, with the recognition by the Crown of the mandate of the Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority to negotiate a settlement on behalf of the people of the tribe. This bill addresses the significant and longstanding grievances suffered by Ngā Rauru Kītahi as a result of actions taken by the Crown. The bill enables both parties to move forward in a positive treaty relationship.

I encourage each and every member of this House to read the preamble to this bill with considerable care. It sets out a formal Crown apology to Ngā Rauru Kītahi for the Crown’s past dealings with this iwi, which breached the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi. The preamble also acknowledges that the Crown’s failure to ensure that Ngā Rauru Kītahi were left with sufficient land for their past, present, and future needs was indeed a breach of the treaty and its principles. It acknowledges that the confiscation of Ngā Rauru Kītahi’s tribal land by the Crown had a devastating effect on their welfare, economy, and development, and hindered the ability of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to live according to their own values, or Ngā Raurutanga.

The deed of settlement in this bill provides an opportunity for Ngā Rauru Kītahi to begin to plan for their future and will assist them in revitalising Ngā Raurutanga. The settlement will enable this iwi to build a stronger ongoing relationship with the Crown, and may help to dispel the sense of grief and loss that they have suffered. As well as a formal apology to Ngā Rauru Kītahi, this settlement provides for them to be given financial redress of $31 million; 100 hectares of Nukumaru Recreation Reserve; the bed of Lake Moumahaki, with ongoing protection of public access and recreational activities; Rehu Village, to be jointly administered with Ngāti Ruanui; and three other small sites of special significance to Ngā Rauru Kītahi.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill and has submitted its commentary on the bill to the House. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed with minor amendments of an editorial and technical nature. I want to thank the committee for its thorough and careful consideration of the bill.

The committee highlighted two issues in its consideration of the bill. Firstly, it noted the preference of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to define themselves in a manner consistent with Ngā Raurutanga. This was to enable legally adopted children who do not whakapapa from the tribe’s ancestors to be excluded from the claimant definition. Members of the committee were sympathetic to the position of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, but advised that it was not appropriate for settlement legislation to override the Adoption Act, or to diminish rights or discriminate against individuals under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or the Human Rights Act. The committee recognised that there is a conflict between the right of an iwi to define its members, and existing statutes. I agree that these are difficult issues that should be considered at some time in the future. The proposed review of the Adoption Act may be an appropriate time for this.

The committee noted its concern also about the quality of Māori translations in the bill, and suggested greater collaboration between the Māori Language Commission, parliamentary counsel, and the Office of Treaty Settlements. I thank members of the committee for their advice. I recognise the need to achieve translations of the highest quality possible. Officials will address these issues prior to the introduction of the next settlement legislation.

The National and New Zealand First members of the committee expressed a minority view concerning the statement of Ngā Rauru Kītahi values relating to toopuni, in schedule 12. The Māori view is that these statements should not be included. I note and respect that view. However, treaty claim settlement Acts as far back as that of Ngāi Tahu have recorded claimant groups’ values relating to particular sites, including reference to cultural and spiritual beliefs. This is how the toopuni redress instrument works. In carrying out management of the lands over which there is a toopuni, the Minister of Conservation and Department of Conservation staff will have particular regard to the values that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have over the site as recorded in the legislation. The toopuni redress enables the Crown to address the claimants’ longstanding interests in such high-value sites while the land remains owned by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders and administered by the Department of Conservation.

Settlements often rely on the Crown being willing to acknowledge the particular cultural beliefs of a claimant group. This settlement is no exception. Ngā Rauru Kītahi want their values recorded in this bill. As I have indicated in my discussions with the Māori Affairs Committee previously, at some point in the future it may well be appropriate for Parliament to consider streamlining settlement bills, and to decide what is absolutely necessary to include in them. However, it is my belief that this is not the time to do that. Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown have agreed to what will be included in this bill as part of a considerably drawn out negotiated settlement. It is not appropriate, in my view, to attempt to unpick a settlement that has been entered into in good faith by two parties. Members of this House do not need to agree with the values of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, nor do they need to endorse them; members simply need, as the legislation does, to acknowledge that these values belong to these people. It is the Government’s view that these acknowledgments, having been part of the good-faith negotiations, are an important step towards strengthening the Crown’s continuing relationship with Ngā Rauru Kītahi.

Settlement negotiations between Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown have occurred over a number of years to reach this point. The Crown considers the settlement to be a fair and reasonable settlement. The people of the iwi have ratified it, and the public now have an opportunity to make submissions on it through the select committee process. I encourage all members to support the passage of this bill through the House.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): Once again, I am obliged, on behalf of the ACT party—

Lindsay Tisch: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just seek some clarification. I did indicate to the ACT party that, because of time constraints, it could take the second call, which is a National slot. My question is: will we be able to take the third call, with my colleague Gerry Brownlee? That is out of the usual speaking order. We are supporting the bill, but the ACT member has to leave, so I did indicate that he could take National’s call if we could take the third call, which is a Government call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Normally in this situation, National would have to take call No. 5, which is the ACT call. The member, of course, has already risen to speak and, under Speaker’s ruling 25/4, once he has been called he has to continue that call. But the member may seek leave.

Lindsay Tisch: Well, I seek leave from the Government that the third call be a National call.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): There is no objection.

Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. New Zealand First was not consulted about this change to the sequence of speakers. My understanding is that if the National Party has given its right to ACT, then by the normal sequence New Zealand First should follow ACT.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member could object to the leave. But the reality is that I have a list of the order of speakers, which has been adhered to, and it is a guide. The next speaker, now that Mr Franks has been given the call, will be a Government member. The Government has agreed that it has no objection to this course of action being taken, and it is quite possible that one of those speakers could drop down in the order. But I am really in the hands of the House on this particular issue. The member has sought leave. I will put the question again that the National speaker follow the ACT speaker. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.

STEPHEN FRANKS: Once again, I have to advise that the ACT party is unable to support this bill, because once again, like other similar bills, it has been presented in a form that has this House participate in the endorsement, or implicit endorsement, of matters that are not appropriate for legislation. In particular, this is another instance of the House recording, in a number of places, reference to the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, instead of to the words of the treaty itself, or instead of recording that in addition to reference to the words of the treaty itself. The ACT party has consistently opposed legislation that contains wording concerning the principles of the treaty. This was an interesting day for this bill to come back from the Māori Affairs Committee, because it is the day that the New Zealand First Party has released its treaty policy. The leader of the New Zealand First Party delivered a very fine speech, and it is a pity that it was not delivered in this House in relation to one of these treaty settlement bills. Many of the warnings that the New Zealand First leader has given, in his great rhetorical style, apply in relation to this bill.

This bill goes through a complicated recital of grievance, in English and in Māori. It refers five times to breaches of the so-called principles of the treaty—those spurious inventions of 1980 and 1990. It has the Crown, on behalf of us all, apologise for things that are just part of the normal human condition. It has the Crown state that its failure to ensure that the iwi concerned retained sufficient land for its present and future needs was a breach of the treaty. The treaty does not guarantee that anyone will retain his or her land; it simply states that Māori will retain it for so long as it is their wish to do so. It guarantees that land will be tradable. Because the treaty states that land is tradable, it was clearly expected that Māori, like any other citizen of New Zealand, would be able to decide when and whether they retained their land.

So we have this Parliament about to push through its next stage a bill that is a negation of the principal assurance of the treaty, as stated in article 2. We have a bill that the select committee and the Minister just now have said they are uncomfortable about. We have a bill that the Minister says he wants to contribute to a strengthening of the Crown’s continuing relationship with the iwi. The treaty did not assume a continuing relationship with iwi. It did not assume a partnership. That is a mythical invention of judges, who were forced to invent something to cope with some political compromises put through by David Lange. A continuing relationship between the Crown and the Ngā Rauru Kītahi people is perfectly appropriate. We all expect the Crown to treat us with courtesy and to want to have a continuing relationship with us. But here we have a Minister who has admitted that this bill is designed to give a privileged relationship to Ngā Rauru Kītahi that other New Zealanders do not have with the Crown, which is the embodiment of us all.

I do not know how many times we will be told that it is not yet time for a select committee to try to change one of these bills. Here at least we have New Zealand First and National saying that some of the things in this bill should not be there. The select committee’s minority report states that the recital of spiritual values, with reference to “the origin of gods man, vegetation, and taonga.”, deals with matters, perhaps, of the belief of some members of the iwi, but that they should not be included in legislation. We agree entirely with the select committee, but what we want to know is why this bill is nevertheless likely to be supported by the members who consider that. When will they stand up for a standard of legislation that does not remove the proud boast we started with: that our Government would be secular and treat all alike, and that our Government would protect any spiritual values, provided they were expressed in a law-abiding way?

The New Zealand First and National view is great, but I will listen with interest to see whether those parties vote on this bill according to where their mouth is. That is particularly significant today, when we have a very eloquent mouth, in the form of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, articulate a view of the treaty that I think most New Zealanders would endorse. But we do not know whether New Zealand First will vote in the same way as that, or whether it will support the kinds of deals that we see in this settlement—deals that are not actually good for the people they are dealing with. They are deals that give mock property rights: rights to be a nuisance, rights to be consulted, rights to be heard by the Environment Court, and rights to require Government officials to come and solemnly pretend to pay attention, but then ignore the iwi. They are only rights that put this iwi in the position of many other iwi, whereby all that it looks like to its neighbours is a nuisance, because the iwi does not get real property rights. It is not getting the ability to use, to exploit, to change, and to sell land.

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Is that the same for Ngāi Tahu?

STEPHEN FRANKS: It is the same for Ngāi Tahu, too. The pattern that has been created here, and which only ACT has had the political courage to question and to vote against in this House, is a pattern that should have long since been abandoned by the Government and by this Parliament. It is a pattern that actually perpetuates the grounds for future grievance. A future generation of young Māori will look at this settlement and say they were just given the shadow of a settlement, and were palmed off with a new generation’s baubles and beads. They will say they were given a fulsome apology and then rights that, on their face in the fine letters of the legislation, were intended to mean nothing: requirements that Government bodies take account of Ngā Rauru Kītahi views, but then, a few pages later, very blunt statements to the effect that “taking account” does not mean anything has to change. In fact, the bill goes further than that. It states that those bodies can act, or should act, as though the submissions have no weight, and as though the submissions are not required by statute.

Why would anyone in this House keep on voting for that kind of fraudulent settlement? It will not seem to be so at the moment, because people understand the context of it. Oh yes, they will rue this. This bill is necessary to maintain face. This bill is about the Crown showing its regret, and that is all those people want. They want to be acknowledged. They want it to be recognised that wrong was done to them—and I have no doubt that wrong was done. But wrong went both ways in so many of those areas. The next generation, when it finds an apology that is all one-sided, will look at it and ask why, if everything was so bad, the settlement was so insubstantial. Nothing in this bill tells us we will not have exactly the experience that occurred after the last set of Taranaki settlements. The Sim Commission went there, and in good faith tried to settle this issue. The Sim Commission’s recommendations were, in fact, beefed up by the Labour Government in those days—by Peter Fraser and his Ministers—which thought that the Government should be more generous. Two generations later, we find Taranaki has come back again and has said the compensation was not enough—that it did not work. The next time round, by looking at legislation like this, the people who come to the Government will have a far more substantial ground for doing so, because on the face of it this settlement looks ridiculous. ACT will vote against it.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): That was an interesting speech from Stephen Franks. While critical of this bill, it did not give any indication of what ACT, in the event of it having responsibility for settling these matters, might do. That is rather disappointing. There can be no doubt that when these settlements are achieved, those who are settled are able to get hold of their assets, are able themselves to determine what their new structures will be for ownership in the context that is European but also Māori, and how they will work those assets for the benefit not only of the settling iwi but also the wider economy of New Zealand. So the National Party does support the settlement process.

People get upset about the “grievance industry”, as they call it—and we do ourselves—but when it comes to the settlement process, it is fascinating to note that the fiscal cap, the billion dollars set aside in 1990, still remains. While it is the source of much angst for people, is it not rather surprising that we had the news yesterday that the Kyoto Protocol is likely to cost us about the same amount of money in a very short period of time. It would seem that people do not get just as anxious over that, although I suspect that 4 weeks of National and other parties on the road would quickly manage to sort that out. Our position is that while we have concerns about the mandating process for this settlement, and for others, it should be supported.

If I might make a few comments about the mandating process. This bill, unlike any other settlement that has gone before it, states that this Parliament, and those who have signed the deed of settlement, agree that it is full and final. The difficulty for National is that too few of the iwi themselves are participating in the votes to establish either the governance entity or accept the settlement process. It is no good for the Office of Treaty Settlements to say that 92 percent of those who participated voted for it, when well short of 50 percent of those eligible participated in the vote, anyway.

Hon Mark Burton: No, 67 percent are eligible.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I am prepared to accept what the Minister is yelling across the House—that about two-thirds of the iwi supported this. But I do not think that that is enough.

Hon Mark Burton: It’s enough in this House.

GERRY BROWNLEE: He says that it is enough in this House! Well, we know how often the House overturns pieces of legislation. It happens day after day. The Minister should not get so hot under the collar, because I do not think it is unreasonable, given that the Government is denying people an opportunity to ever raise an issue again, that those who have the opportunity denied, overwhelmingly give a mandate to that. That is not unreasonable. However, in Parliament today we are settling this bill.

In the select committee process the National Party and the New Zealand First Party raised issues about the definition of Ngā Rauru Kītahi—in particular, about whāngai, or adoptees into those families. We have been told it is inappropriate to do what the iwi would want, because of the Adoption Act 1955. We think that is utter rubbish. We say that people are either part of that iwi by blood line or they are not. One of the things that is most fascinating is another concern raised by us—and I will come back to the adoption issue in a minute—concerning in schedule 12 the use of very, very ethereal concepts, and then those concepts being placed in law. I quote: “Rauru of the gods, sky, lands, and seas—Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods. It came by way of the legion of spirits who were not seen but heard, down through the generations of the Kaahui Rere and the genealogies of the ‘immediate assembly of elders’. In this respect, Rauru is a progeny of both ‘divine and human parentage’ and, therefore, so is Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi.”

I hope someone on the Labour side will stand up and explain what that means. What I am surprised at is that the Government is prepared to put this into law. Although many of us may have different religious beliefs—varying beliefs about the origin of man—for this iwi the law now states that this is it. I wonder why it has to be in the bill. If the law was not there, it would not stop that belief from being freely held. No law could take away from this group its identity. So why in settlement bills do we need references to what are essentially ethereal concepts? I do not think it adds much; I think it actually makes us look rather silly.

The statement continues: “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi makes a direct acclamation by stating its origins from the period of the Absolute Void to Rangi and Papa, to Rauru the man, and Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi the tribe. This claim draws together the spiritual and temporal manifestations of which Rauru is the central figure, it deals specifically with the origins of: the gods, man, vegetation, and taonga.”

How does that add to the purpose of this bill? How does that claim sit with the requirement that someone can be adopted into that genealogy? I do not think it does. That is an aspect of this bill that I find particularly worrying. It means effectively that if, say, Ngāi Tahu wished to expand their numbers, they could simply go out and begin some sort of very heavy adoption programme. It does not even have to be in the legal sense, which is interesting, just in the Māori sense, the whāngai arrangements. I do not see how that actually sits with the concept of settling a grievance held by a people—a continuous line of people—post-1840.

Darren Hughes: It’s hard to fill in 10 minutes, isn’t it?

GERRY BROWNLEE: I am just taking a drink of water. I have a slightly croaky voice. We just heard from the outgoing member for Otaki, Mr Darren Hughes, a man so transparent that if it were not for his varicose veins, we could see right through him.

I conclude my remarks by saying that National will support the bill, but we do hope that in future, when settlements are brought to this Parliament, they do not contain the specifics around ethereal concepts such as found in schedule 12. These should not be part of a settlement arrangement. They add nothing to the bill. They probably make a lot of Labour members feel good, but they add nothing to this.

We wish all of those who are being settled today with this bill all the best for the future. We do hope this passing of legislation allows them to take hold of the assets that are theirs, get over the grievance, and build a better future not only for themselves but also for the wider country.

MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I listened with great attentiveness to the previous speaker.

Gerry Brownlee: He always does.

MAHARA OKEROA: I always do, but I do not acknowledge him as a historian or an anthropologist. He showed his remarkable lack of in-depth, expert, traditional knowledge, when he alluded to the fact that he did not think the cosmology, the beliefs, the atua, and those referred to by Ngāi Tahu, have everything to do with their identity. The honourable member could not see the relationship of the cosmos and the tribe as being in any way of assistance towards their identity. I beg to differ. Every tribe that presents their claim in the House has the opportunity to express it in a way that is absolutely relevant not only to their identity but also to their connection to those who have gone before. They have a right also to articulate their relationship with the heavens. There is nothing that diminishes that value. The previous speaker referred to the Ngāi Tahu settlement; we in that settlement also made reference to people and places that have a historical connection between those who are in the spiritual dimension and those who are in the living dimension. So from that point of view I totally and completely support Ngā Rauru Kītahi in their articulation of who they are.

I agree with the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in terms of one of the comments he made. He brought to light that there is an anomaly between treaty settlements and the Adoption Act. It is something that is causing some considerable difficulty in the passage of claims, and will do so until that anomaly in the Act can be addressed. Here is the anomaly. For any tribal group to trace their whakapapa to an eponymous ancestor, it has to be proven through blood lines. That then identifies the group with the eponymous ancestor. It then allows the process of mandate to proceed. It is exclusive, not inclusive. It is an exclusive process, limited to those who have the whakapapa blood line. Then we have the Adoption Act. The anomaly for me is that any individuals can determine whom they wish to leave their estate to, and, whether the beneficiaries are taurima or related by blood, it cannot be contested. On the one hand we are asking people to identify their blood relationships with whakapapa, but also we are asking them to accept someone who may not be of a blood affinity as part of that group. That is where the anomaly is.

The issue for Māori, in my view—not only Ngā Rauru Kītahi but other groups who are in the process of their claims—is that Māori, like a lot of other people, are global. They are global citizens of this world. Therefore, it is highly likely that they will form a union with someone who is not of Māori ancestry at all. Their partners may be Australian, or Chinese, or Taiwanese; they may be from any other grouping that inhabits this world. The defining principle has to be whakapapa. That makes it very, very clear who is eligible and who is not. I, if I were not of Ngā Rauru Kītahi whakapapa, or any other Māori here who was not Ngā Rauru Kītahi, would not be able to be accepted within that group—even though we are Māori. Yet under the present situation people who may not be Māori are eligible. I look forward to a resolution of what I consider to be a difficult situation that needs clarification.

Ā, tēnā koutou ngā tāngata mai i Ngā Rauru Kītahi i haere mai nei ki te aroaro ki te kawe te taonga a ō koutou nei tīpuna, ō koutou nei pāheke, ō koutou nei tauheke ki roto i tēnei Whare i raro i te tāruru ō tātau nei. Koutou e mahia ngā mahi i runga i te ara mutunga kore. Mai i te wā e haere mai ngā manene nei ki te raupatungia i ngā whenua katoa mai i te raki o Taranaki tae noa atu ki te tonga, i a rātau rā e rapua te whenua, e takahia mai hoki ngā mana a koro, a kui mā. Nā, kua tae ki tēnei wā, tata atu i te mutunga o te take. Arā, ki a au nei, ehara tēnei e oti pai ai engari, kua tīmata kē ai. Kei a koutou kē te ara tika mō tātau nei mō ngā rā e hekeheke mai nei. E ngā karanga rua, ka tū tautoko mai a tēnei tangata mai i Te Rōpū Reipa, i te taha o te Minita nei, ki te tautoko mai i te pire nei, ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke i mua i te aroaro o tātou katoa. Nā, ko te wakapono me te tūmanako, ahakoa te tangitangi haere o ngā roimata a koro, a kui mā, ahakoa te waewae mai o te whatumanawa, ahakoa te popōuri mai i runga i te pokohiwi ō tātau, nā, ko te tohu mai ahau ki a koutou, kia kaha, kia māia. Rire, rire hau pai mārire ki a tātau koutou. Nō reira e te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Ka oti ai tēnei tū. Kia ora mai.

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[And greetings to you the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi who have come here before us to bring the treasured possession of your ancestors and old people into this House and under our ridgepole. You are the ones who have done the work on this path of no ending. From the time when these foreigners came to confiscate all the lands in Taranaki from the north right down to the very south, they violated the influence of the old people as they sought the land. Now, we are at this point and close to the finish of the matter. Indeed to me, this is not the ending but merely the beginning. The right way forward for us into the future is entirely in your hands. To you my other half, and regardless of the highs and lows before us, I of the Labour Party stand alongside this Minister in support of the bill. Now, the belief and hope is that regardless of the tears that continue to be shed by the old people, regardless of being cut up emotionally, regardless of the gloom upon our shoulders, my advice to you is to be strong and bold. Peace, goodwill, and good health to us all. And so greetings to the House, greetings. I end here with thanks.]

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Ā, tēnā anō koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā anō tātau o te Whare nei. Ā, tēnā hoki ngā kaikawe o te kaupapa nei mai i Ngā Rauru Kītahi i tau mai i roto i te Whare nei. Koutou o te hau kāinga e noho tonu i raro i ngā maunga whakahī, ā, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you once again Mr Speaker. Greetings to us of this House as well. Greetings also to the negotiators of this policy from Ngā Rauru Kītahi who have arrived here in this House. To those of you of the home winds living below the lofty mountains, greetings, greetings and greetings to you all.]

I acknowledge yourself, I acknowledge members of this House, and I also acknowledge those who have come from the claimant group who are here today and who have carried this matter on behalf of the tribe. I also acknowledge those of the tribe who have not been able to come to Parliament this afternoon but who remain at home, under the shadow of their mountain, and who are listening to the debate.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First—and, I reiterate, the only non-aligned party in this Parliament. Let me say at the outset that New Zealand First supports the intention of this bill.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

PITA PARAONE: Let me say at the outset that New Zealand First supports the intention of this bill, which is the culmination of a long and arduous process initiated by the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi towards a satisfactory claims settlement. The process has its genesis in longstanding claims against the Crown expressed through petitions and protests, which led to the establishment in the 19th and 20th centuries of commissions of inquiry into land confiscated in Taranaki, including those of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Such reasons for these original petitions were the Waitara purchase and the wars that followed; the confiscation of land; the impact on the welfare, economy, and development of Ngā Rauru Kītahi as a result of these confiscations; the delay in setting aside reserves; and the events relating to the implementation of the confiscation, which finally led to the invasion of Parihaka in 1881. The bill is clear that this ratification will see full and final settlement of this claim. So one can say that the journey that has seen this bill come into this House actually began way back then.

The history of this iwi in Taranaki is steeped in blood and injustice, and it is right that a formal apology and compensation be given by the Crown for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi. I commend the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi for their support for the ratification of this settlement agreement and also for their support of the management structure put in place to receive and manage the settlement assets. That bodes well for the future of the iwi and it displays a sense of unity and concord. The iwi, one of eight in the Taranaki region, is solid and secure, and I congratulate it on reaching this important milestone in its development. The leadership, commitment, and courage of kaumātua and negotiators to reach this stage of accepting an apology and redress from the Crown for past injustices will allow the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi to move on, acknowledging that their history of loss and betrayal can never truly be compensated for but also recognising that in order to move forward and to progress, the shackles of past injustices must be recognised and removed.

New Zealand First is therefore supportive of the settlement of this claim, but I must say we have a few reservations, which I wish to express. As recorded in our minority report on the bill, we do not support the inclusion in schedule 12 of the statement of values relating to the Toopuni site. The site to which this schedule applies is known as the Lake Beds Conservation Area. The statement of values recorded in the schedule describes the divine origins of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Although we in no way question the beliefs and values of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, we do not support their inclusion in legislation. This settlement is not about cultural beliefs, and we cannot see any valid reasons for their inclusion in this settlement legislation. The notions of sacredness and spirituality represented in schedule 12 have no place in the legislation of 21st century New Zealand. We believe that to include them is quite wrong. The indefinable, and essentially contestable, concept of divinity should not be put on the statute book as if it were some kind of legal status.

New Zealand First believes that the traditional beliefs of Ngā Rauru Kītahi are those of Ngā Rauru Kītahi alone, as a consequence of their tino rangatiratanga or, as they would have us accept, their Ngā Rauru Kītahitanga. This is not a matter for the tino rangatiratanga of the Crown to have these beliefs included in this bill. I would suggest that this ought to be a signal to claimants of the future that when talking of their tino rangatiratanga, that it is theirs alone and does not need to have the stamp of approval of this House. It is interesting to note that the Crown was willing to accept the inclusion because Ngā Rauru Kītahi wanted it, but was not willing to accept the tribe’s other request to give beneficiary status only to those born into the tribe.

New Zealand First notes the inclusion of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the bill, although it is pleasing to see that the presence of these references in this bill is somewhat limited compared with other legislation. During the select committee process the representatives of the claimant group were asked what they understood the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to be. Can I say I was not surprised at their response. They did not know what it meant in this context and in fact I believe they did not know why it was included. That highlights the long-term view of New Zealand First that, without clear definition in legislation, there will continue to be a lack of understanding of their inclusion. New Zealand First accepts that the inclusion in this bill does not affect future or operational matters that arise from this bill but still questions the need to include in any legislation terms that lack definition.

These so-called principles have, as previously mentioned, been of some concern to New Zealand First, and, notwithstanding the lack of impact it will have in concluding the settlement, we would be happy to have references to them removed from the bill if other parties in this House would support their removal. I am conscious that during the debate on the last settlement bill that came before this House, both National and ACT declined to support an amendment put forward by New Zealand First to have that happen.

I acknowledge the decision of the Māori Affairs Committee to present its report in both English and Māori, and, more important, in the dialect of the claimant group. That in itself recognises the tino rangatiratanga as referred to by Ngā Rauru Kītahi. We are about to conclude this matter, as we move to the Committee stage, and I believe that it is testament to the ongoing commitment and fortitude displayed by representatives of this claimant group to persevere and allow the progress of the bill to come before this House. I state on behalf of New Zealand First that we will support the bill.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): He mihi nui ki a koutou Ngā Rauru Kītahi. In my speech on the first reading of this bill, I described the Waitangi Tribunal’s interim Taranaki report, which upheld two platforms of the iwi’s claim: land deprivation and disempowerment. At that time I said that by the term “disempowerment” the tribunal referred to the denigration and destruction of Māori autonomy or self-government. This bill may restore a modicum of the economic and land resources that were wrongfully taken from Ngā Rauru—a restoration that is absolutely critical. But I do not believe for one second that the Crown has made restitution for the disempowerment and the denigration of Ngā Rauru, or for the destruction of their autonomy.

During the select committee process, the Māori Affairs Committee heard from a number of submitters, including members of Ngā Ariki hapū of Waipapa Marae. Their issues are discussed in the select committee report. They came to the committee to ask for help to have their claim, Wai 772, taken out of the bill, because they did not want to be part of the negotiations. They officially withdrew their mandate from the Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority. They informed the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements. They have been trying to organise themselves to negotiate directly, and they want the lawful opportunity to proceed with their tribunal claim and have it dealt with by the tribunal. That claim is theirs and theirs alone. Yet they have been told that Government policy is such that they will not be dealt with. Government policy is to assert the responsibility for their Wai claim and to unilaterally negotiate and settle it without a mandate from that hapū.

When Ngā Ariki said that they were a separate identity and wanted to pursue their claim themselves, the Government’s response was that it considers Ngā Ariki to be an integral part of Ngā Rauru Kītahi, as they have a shared whakapapa, and that the claims of Ngā Ariki are not distinct in nature from those of Ngā Rauru Kītahi. The Government has taken this hapū’s claim from them and prevented it from being pursued through a judicial tribunal—as a matter not of law but of Government policy. The Government has decided the whakapapa of this hapū and its place in its genealogy.

I asked the Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority, which has pursued this settlement and fought hard to achieve it, what its response was to the refusal of the Office of Treaty Settlements to drop Wai 772 from the negotiations, and whether it had any power to refuse to include Wai 772 in its claim. The Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority said that it did not; it was a fait accompli. It had no choice, because Government policy says that the Office of Treaty Settlements decides who is negotiated with and what matters are settled. The denigration and destruction of Māori autonomy has absolutely occurred over and over again. In the struggle for iwi and hapū to have returned to them a tiny percentage of the wealth and resources stolen from them in the past, they are forced to suffer the same deprivation and disempowerment that led to the claims in the first place.

Nowhere else in our current legal system can the Government take a private person’s application to the court, negotiate that application with people other than the applicant, settle that case with people other than the applicant, hand over reparation to people other than the applicant, and expect gratitude for having done it all. No Pākehā person or organisation would stand for that usurpation of the justice process. That happens to no one except, of course, Māori. There would be a riot if this Government began unilaterally to negotiate and settle cases before the courts without the consent of the parties, but it is OK when we are dealing with Māori hapū and iwi. There is no outrage and there are no riots, because structural racism against Māori in this country is so embedded in policy and political actions that it has become almost invisible.

The Ngā Rauru Iwi Authority has done the best job it can to conclude this settlement, given the constraints within which it has had to operate. The Greens are very supportive of a number of parts of this settlement, particularly the paepae rangatira, which can operate as a forum for leaders to deal with treaty matters so long as the Government engages in that process, makes an active commitment to ensure that the process is effective, and is prepared to explore similar forums with other hapū. This is a time when our constitutional make-up is under examination by this Parliament and by the people of this country, and when the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is to be discussed in our communities. We eagerly welcome the establishment of the Ngā Rauru - Government paepae rangatira as one means by which that can occur.

I mention briefly today’s launch of New Zealand First’s policy on treaty settlements. The policy sets a 10-year limit on treaty settlements and removes the capacity to use legal aid. It is, in effect, a land-grab, because without legal aid support, and without changes to the fundamental injustice of the direct negotiations process, there simply will be no settlements. That will mean that the thousands of acres of Māori land stolen by Governments over the last 150 years will remain in the hands of the Government. It will mean that no hapū or iwi will receive even the meagre 1 percent of restitution that they can at least get now. New Zealand First, which helped to confiscate the takutai moana from iwi Māori, is now seeking to keep the confiscated land of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Where does that leave all of those who, like Ngā Rauru, have struggled for years and years with their Waitangi claims and with the direct negotiations process? It leaves them bereft of anything. New Zealand First and its Māori MPs should be ashamed. New Zealanders must accept that Māori, in accepting those settlements, are making an extraordinarily generous contribution to our country as a whole. Ngā Rauru Kītahi has agreed, as part of its settlement, to forgo full redress for all the loss and prejudice it has suffered and to take the settlement—described as “fair in the circumstances”—rather than its actual rightful entitlement. The Green Party acknowledges and respects that gift from Ngā Rauru, and commits to the pursuit of a just process of redress for historical wrongs that is based on the needs and tikanga of hapū and not of the State confiscators.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future): United Future will support the second reading of this bill, but we share the concerns of other parties in regard to parts of the bill—in particular to schedule 12, the statement of belief, about which I will address most of my comments. Before doing that, however, I want to begin on a positive note and again congratulate Ngā Rauru Kītahi on achieving this milestone after what has been a lengthy settlement process, and on getting to a point whereby they have settled grievances with the Crown that extended back for such a long time and that are well documented in the deed of settlement. I will probably say more about that at the third reading debate, assuming we get there.

The concern I have, however, is over the acknowledgment in regard to cultural redress. Really, the problem is with the wording that has been put into the bill. The way it is phrased is not just to represent and acknowledge the fact that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have certain spiritual values but actually to constitute an acknowledgment by the Crown of those spiritual values, in a way that I believe constitutes an acceptance by this House of the legitimacy of those values. The concern that United Future has is not whether those values are legitimate—that is not the point—but whether this House should be acknowledging any spiritual values and endorsing a spiritual viewpoint in any legislation when we have a secular Government and live in a broad society.

The views we are talking about are expressed in schedule 12, and I will read the first paragraph of those views just to give an idea as to the sorts of values that Ngā Rauru Kītahi adopt for themselves. Again, I do not make any judgment on them: “Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods. It came by way of the legion of spirits who were not seen but heard, down through the generations of the Kaahui Rere and the genealogies of the ‘immediate assembly of elders’. In this respect, Rauru is a progeny of both ‘divine and human parentage’ and, therefore, so is Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi.” That final statement made by Ngā Rauru Kītahi effectively states that they believe that both their ancestor and themselves are demi-gods—half man and half god.

Now, I have gone back and looked at the settlement agreement, and I do not think that the bill reflects the agreement. The problem is with clause 88 of the bill, which states: “The Crown acknowledges Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values …”. For the bill to state that the Crown acknowledges Ngā Rauru Kītahi values is, in my reading, to say that the Crown acknowledges that Ngā Rauru Kītahi emanated from the cosmogenic tree of the gods, so Rauru is the progeny of both divine and human parentage, and, therefore, so are Ngā Rauru Kītahi.

That gets us into huge sorts of problems when we look at subsequent clauses and see the way that that acknowledgment is implemented. Clause 89, for example, states: “The governance entity and the Crown may agree on and publicise protection principles that are directed at the Minister of Conservation—(a) avoiding harm to Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values in relation to the Toopuni; or (b) avoiding the diminishing of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values in relation to the Toopuni.” What does that mean in terms of what the Minister of Conservation must do to avoid doing harm to those values, and to avoid their diminishment?

Clause 93 states: “(1) On notification by the Minister of Conservation in the Gazette of the protection principles agreed under section 89”—as it will become—“the Director-General must take action in relation to those principles. (2) The Director-General retains a complete discretion to determine the method and extent of the action to be taken. (3) The Director-General must notify the governance entity of what action the Director-General intends to take under subsections (1) and (2).” So there is a very affirmative obligation for the Crown, having accepted the truth of those obligations and values, to uphold them and avoid their diminishment.

The briefing document that I received from the Minister in regard to this provision did not state that that is what it is doing, at all. It stated that the redress included an acknowledgment by the Crown of the importance of Ngā Rauru Kītahi and their practices and values, and the importance of revitalising those practices and values. If that is what the bill stated, I would not be quite so worried. I am quite happy to acknowledge that certain values are important to certain people, but it is a different matter to in fact endorse those values.

Then I looked at the deed of settlement. Clause 2.9 states: “Ngaa Raurutanga is the term used by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi to describe those values, rights and responsibilities Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi holds according to custom, including the values, rights and responsibilities recognised by Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.” That is fine. I have no problem with that.

Clause 2.10 states: The Crown acknowledges the statement by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi that: (a) Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi has: (i) exercised Ngaa Raurutanga in respect of, and has occupied, the traditional rohe … and (ii) held tight to the values that constitute Ngā Raurutanga;”. I have no problem with that acknowledgment.

Clause 2.11 states: “The Crown further acknowledges that, in its dealings with the Crown, Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi: … is guided by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values; and … seeks outcomes that enable Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi to practise Ngaa Raurutanga.” I have no problem with that acknowledgment, either.

Clause 2.12 states: “Accordingly, in order to enhance the ongoing relationship between Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi and the Crown … this Deed of Settlement includes Redress that assists the Crown to recognise and respect Ngaa Raurutanga and the desire of Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi to practise Ngaa Raurutanga.” That is fine. I have no problem with the Crown recognising and respecting their values.

Clause 2.13 states: “The Crown acknowledges: … the importance to Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi of revitalising Ngaa Raurutanga; and … that Ngā Rauru Kiitahi intends that the Redress will assist that revitalisation.” I think it is quite appropriate that Ngā Rauru Kītahi will in fact use the proceeds of settlement in order to revitalise their own personal beliefs.

Then, when we look at paragraph (g) in Part 6, “Summary of Redress”, we see that it speaks of “The Crown acknowledging Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi values in relation to the Toopuni;”. That is where we start getting close to what the bill states, which is that the Crown acknowledges their values. But the definition of values in the settlement agreement defines values in quite a wide sense, and clause 2.9 refers to those values only in terms of their customs, traditions, and spiritual beliefs. it does not get into the sort of detail we now have.

However, when we go over and look further at the actual deed of recognition contained in the deed of settlement itself—which is really from where the clause has been taken—we see that that clause actually reads very differently from what has been put in the bill. Clause 1.1, which talks in Part 5 about deeds of recognition, under the heading “The Crown’s acknowledgment of statements of association with statutory areas”, states: “The Crown acknowledges the statements by Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi set out in this clause of its cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association.” That is the relevant clause. I have no problem with the Crown acknowledging statements by Ngā Rauru Kītahi of its beliefs in terms of its cultural, spiritual, and historical traditions, but that is a step removed from what we have in the legislation, which is the Crown’s acknowledgment of those values. As I have indicated, that acknowledgment appears to me to be an acceptance of those values.

Stephen Franks: But are you going to vote for it?

MURRAY SMITH: Seeing Mr Franks has asked, I tell him that I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the provisions of clause 12. [Interruption] Mr Franks will have to wait and see, but an amendment to clause 12 by a Supplementary Order Paper—which in fact would delete the first part of the statement, the sort of part I read out—would continue with a statement from schedule 12 that I believe would be appropriate, the statement starting in the fourth paragraph that Ngā Rauru Kītahi has “a spiritual and physical relationship through whakapapa to its Taonga.”

I have no problem with the Crown acknowledging that Ngā Rauru Kītahi have a spiritual and physical relationship espoused within their mana atua, mana whenua, and mana tangata. That is fine. I am quite happy for the Crown to acknowledge that they have such a relationship. But when it comes to doctrinal statements that state certain beliefs, I think we have gone too far. I would say exactly the same if the Apostles’ Creed, which I adhere to, had been there in the legislation. If there had been a statement saying that the Crown acknowledged things in the Apostles’ Creed, I would have said the same thing, because I think that it is inappropriate for this Parliament to be endorsing particular spiritual beliefs.

NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui): I rise to make a small contribution to the second reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill in respect of the work of the Māori Affairs Committee on it. I want to thank officials and also the clerks of the committee, who helped to pull together much of the consideration of the committee on this bill. I want to pick up on some of the points that have been raised earlier in the House—firstly, with regard to the issue of schedule 12; secondly, with regard to translations of settlement bills that come before the select committee; and, thirdly, in relation to adoption issues.

To address the last issue first, in my time on the Māori Affairs Committee, which has not been very long, we have dealt with the Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Bill, the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill, and the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill. Each of those times, the committee raised concerns around the way in which iwi members who benefit from the treaty settlement are expressed within the context of their treaty settlement. Each time, we have heard concerns from various claimant groups that they are not happy with the way in which they have to extend out the net, as it creates some confusion and internal issues around the relationship of adoptees, and also of whāngai.

In saying that, the committee to some extent agrees that that is a matter that should be considered within the wider context of the review of the Adoption Act. However, I certainly want to express in this second reading tonight that it is of considerable concern if Office of Treaty Settlements officials are guiding claimant groups along a particular path, and are not outlining the range of options they have to be able to express how the Adoption Act applies in legislation. That is the one point I would make in terms of achieving better progress on this particular matter. It is right that claimant groups should have the full array of information in deciding how to express weighting in terms of who benefits from a treaty settlement. So it should be.

The second issue was in regard to translations within a settlement bill. This is particularly within the context of the role that Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori plays. When a bill arrives on the committee table, the committee should not have to go through it to check macrons, grammatical issues, and things like that. However, the difficulty we have is that that is the standard process for settlement bills, and there needs to be further consideration, I believe, within the Office of Treaty Settlements and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori as to how they work out that relationship, so as to better present claims settlement bills before this House. It is simply not good enough that the select committee has to conduct the mundane task of checking particular grammatical nuances of te reo Māori within the written form. I raise this for the attention of the House because if we want to ensure that we uphold the status of te reo Māori—and it is an official language of this country—we need to pay better attention to the way in which we present bills to the House, and to the select committee for consideration and report back, so that the integrity of te reo Māori is upheld in its true intent.

I support comments made prior to me that it is good to be able to express te reo in the dialect of the claimant groups. I think that is important, and serves only to show that our language is fully flourishing out there amongst iwi, amongst our communities.

The third and last issue is in relation to schedule 12 and issues brought to the House around statutory acknowledgments. We had this particular concern on another settlement—the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill—and the particular concern is when belief systems lack a connection to a current-day context, and I will give some examples. The first lot of statutory acknowledgments was in the Ngāi Tahu settlement, and then, as other claims went through, claimants started to look at their own statutory acknowledgments. Where the House could consider models, I guess, of statutory acknowledgment is where there is a clear relationship between the epistemology of Māori and belief systems, and our traditions and histories—where there is a clear pattern to follow as to how the belief systems relate to actual history on the land. That is something that exists amongst all our communities, and that is why we have the stories that we do on the land. That is why we have names for areas, and things like that.

I would not presume, however, to tell any iwi going through this process to have, or not to have, a statutory acknowledgment. I think it is a very valid way to look at having a redress mechanism of sorts, and also to express some cultural redress as a result of the statutory acknowledgment. But I do want to say that, again, in all the settlements that have preceded this particular one there have been better ways in which to work it through. I would have some concern if we were seeking the agreement of the House to blanket reference to mythological stories without the context clearly relating them to the histories of the people they belong to. Again, that was the concern we raised in relation to Ngāti Tūwharetoa Bay of Plenty.

To some extent, the legislation upholds the deed, so claimants could have the compromise that was recognised in a previous settlement, and that is to have the detail of the statutory acknowledgment in the deed, with the legislation providing a reference to the deed. That is a way, but, again, I would not presume to impose it on a claimant group if those people believe that they want it expressed in legislation. I just acknowledge that that is a mechanism.

That is about all I want to say on the bill, in making this brief contribution. I look forward to the third reading, and I certainly support the report on the bill that has come back from the Māori Affairs Committee to this House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National): National supports the second reading of this bill. As with other settlement bills, its format is in keeping with what has gone before. Basically, there is financial redress to the total value of $31 million, a right of first refusal in favour of the Ngā Rauru Kītahi governance entity over certain Crown-owned properties for a specified time, and provision for a governance entity with the Crown, in which the iwi can enter into an accord—I guess for Ngā Rauru Kītahi to feel that they have some say over Government policy. I suppose I can agree with one thing the Green member said. She basically ridiculed it, but I suppose that while in essence it is a nice, feel-good, touchy-touchy thing, there is really no power to it. However, I want to congratulate Ngā Rauru Kītahi and give them credit for seriously considering their options and, in the end, for concluding that this is the best settlement they can get. They have shown leadership in accepting it and in concluding a settlement with the Crown—good on Ngā Rauru Kītahi! It does take courage, I think, to take steps finally to put the grievance behind one, and to look for ways to move on.

In terms of the Māori Affairs Committee’s deliberations and consideration, I can report that there were no problems, really, on the basic format of the settlement, particularly since Ngā Rauru Kītahi has concluded their settlement with the Crown. So it is their settlement; it is not ours. That is what is most important. However, as my colleague Gerry Brownlee indicated, there are three areas where National has concerns. They will probably turn out to be ongoing concerns, because this Government does not have a great record of settling claims. I am still waiting, because I would have liked to see a settlement bill come to this House for a settlement the Government had actually started and completed itself, but I do not think I will see it, because this Government will be going out of power.

Moving on, I say there are three areas Gerry Brownlee referred to, and on which I want to make some comment—mostly because the Minister had some comments to make and I want to comment on some of the things he said.

Firstly, there is the matter of the mandate. It is not as if National wants to ridicule, at all, those numbers of the iwi who first of all ratified the provision for the governance entity, and then, of course, accepted the settlement. It is that we, like every party in this House that supports these claims, want to be sure that there is no basis for an iwi to come back in the future on the same kaupapa, on the basis that they did not all agree in the past. So that is the underlying reason why National continues to raise the issue of mandate. Hopefully, if we continue to raise it, it will keep the Office of Treaty Settlements on its toes, and make it strive harder with each settlement to make sure we increase the buy-in of the iwi that is participating in the particular settlement.

In relation to the issue of whāngai and adopted children, again I think my colleague Gerry Brownlee in raising this issue also raises a good point. The fact of the matter is that on the one hand we are acknowledging, supposedly, the mana of Ngā Rauru Kītahi by acknowledging the harm, the hurt, and the injustice that has been done to them. Therefore, we want to make reparation for that and to provide a base in order for them to move on. But on the other hand, legislation is also in place that takes away their right, their responsibility, and their mandate to define who should benefit from this settlement. So the issue of whāngai and adopted children, so far as the Adoption Act of 1955 and also the Human Rights Act are concerned, is a real issue. According to tikanga Māori, one’s right to inherit is based on bloodlines, and where adopted children are being considered, then clearly bloodlines are not in the picture. So that will be an ongoing issue for tribes as they settle their claims.

Of course, the situation can be reached, I guess, where a Māori family may have adopted a person from another country and culture altogether. That is fine; nobody would wish to stop that, and it is happening. But if one’s tribal tikanga says that the way one inherits is because one is descended through whakapapa and blood, then someone who has become part of a family through legal adoption clearly does not fit into that category. Again, that is an issue.

Even Mahara Okeroa in his wisdom said he sees the anomaly in that—the situation when a person who is outside the bloodlines of the iwi we are talking about can be included. In fact, he described that as a difficult situation. I have to agree with him, and unless the Government can address its mind to it—and we in the National Government in a few months’ time certainly will address our minds to it—in the end, it is not a viable situation where on the one hand, as I say, we are trying to recognise the mana of the tribe, and on the other hand we are telling them who should be included in their tribe. It just will not jell, I do not think.

The third area concerns the area in which National joined with New Zealand First to include a minority view in the report back. It will not be fatal in terms of our support of the bill, but it is something, we think, that if the Government does not give serious thought to, then certainly National in Government will do so—that is, where this Parliament legislates for the cosmology, the spiritual beliefs—[Interruption] My colleague Wayne Mapp can describe it as he sees fit. I certainly think that it is entirely unnecessary.

The unnecessary nature of it was shown up when, largely due to the input of National in the Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill—now an Act—a statutory acknowledgment was taken out of the statute because, quite frankly, the association of an iwi is recognised quite adequately in the deed of settlement.

Just because Parliament says: “This is your cosmology.”, that does not make it any more lawful or any more legal. There are some tribes that would say: “Whether Parliament recognises it or not, this is my cosmological inheritance, these are my spiritual beliefs, I don’t need Parliament to recognise that.”

The issue is, I acknowledge—as referred to by the Minister—that it was done in the Ngāi Tahu settlement. That may be so, but as we move on through this process, we learn more, and we think maybe we could have done that differently. I think that is the way we deal with difficult issues, and it is likely that when National is in Government it will look at this issue. If it can be properly recognised in the deed of settlement, then we ask why on earth would we need to then put it into law. Iwi should be asking themselves why they need Parliament to recognise those things that are part of them.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I want to take a brief call and acknowledge the presence in the House this evening of representatives of Ngā Rauru Kītahi and congratulate them on such a tremendous effort in bringing this historical aspect of their lives to an end. I encourage them to go forward from this day and make their people prosper.

This bill is all about Ngā Rauru Kītahi coming out of the age of grievance and into the age of development. From what I hear on the marae around the Taranaki and Wanganui areas, Ngā Rauru Kītahi certainly has the intelligence within its organisation to achieve exactly that. But in listening to previous speakers one would think it was a dark day for Ngā Rauru Kītahi—not a joyous day at all. Although the members have said that they will support this settlement bill, at the same time they have many criticisms of it. I wonder whether there is not some sort of double standard going on here in the House. I just remind the House that this is a bill put together and negotiated by the representatives of Ngā Rauru Kītahi and the Crown. Overall, it has the unanimous support—or as unanimous as possible—of the people of Ngā Rauru Kītahi.

When the Māori Affairs Committee met in Wanganui to hear submissions, as usual we expected to receive some submissions that were opposed to this settlement package. That was one of the very rare occasions that I can recall where that did not happen. In fact, when what we thought was the opposing group came to the select committee, it not only supported the settlement of the Ngā Rauru Kītahi claim but also congratulated it on the process that had been undertaken and the level of consultation it had with other iwi in the district. So this is one of those very few bills that can stand up to considerable scrutiny. [Interruption]

I can hear the Green member chattering away in her seat across the House, but she should have mentioned those issues when we were in Wanganui, and the people were sitting in front of her, and not come back to this place in Wellington with double standards and start to attack the very process that Ngā Rauru Kītahi had entered into with total support. One wonders what goes on in some people’s minds when they say something in the electorate and something completely different in this House. From time to time, one gets sick of listening to them.

But as I said, well done, Ngā Rauru Kītahi. Go forth and prosper.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): I just want to make a few comments about the bill and the claim by Ngā Rauru Kītahi, and the history of the Taranaki.

I note from the texts of the acknowledgments in English—and I do have to refer to the English version, I must say—that they deal essentially with the history, derived from the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. One has to ask oneself to what extent we are indulging in some form of rewriting of history. For instance in clause 8(4): “The Crown acknowledges that: (a) it acted unfairly in labelling some Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi as rebels,”. Does that mean there were others who were justly labelled as rebels? It notes that there were “detrimental consequences for the whole iwi whose land was confiscated as a result;”. Does that mean that some confiscations were justified, and others not justified?

The point I am really making is that it is quite important that we be honest about our history, and look at it without some kind of rose-tinted approach—that everything that happened in the 1860s was the fault of the Crown, and that Māori were the innocent victims. I suspect, in reality—and there is a hint of this in the bill—the situation was rather more complex, and that there was fault on both sides. It would not actually be appropriate to make full redress for every part of confiscation, because to do so would be to do violence to our history. I note that when many Māori say that they are getting only a proportion of the loss—$31 million in this instance, which is no doubt about 3 percent of the total loss—there is at least a degree of recognition in that of a balance of rights and obligations between the Crown and Māori. We should not be afraid to examine our history fully and fairly. I do recall very well the controversy that surrounded the Waitangi Tribunal when it issued its opinion on the claim, which was in itself quite controversial. That is the first point I would like to make.

There seems to be some recognition here that there is a balance, but it does not say so specifically. It sort of says it in coded language. Some Ngā Rauru Kītahi were rebels, presumably therefore others were not.

The second thing I would like to raise is the whole use of protocols. What is being developed through this claims settlement procedure is a whole series of special relationships and special consultation rights, obligations, and rules between the local iwi, who are the beneficiaries of the settlement, and the Department of Conservation, local authorities, and various Government departments. At some point it simply overburdens the system. We end up with an immense structure of bureaucracy—I know a certain leader of a party has referred to that as the “bro-reaucracy” today—but, in fact, developing all of these protocols actually lends itself to that process. National has been quite determined that it wants to reduce the level of bureaucracy, that unnecessary consultation actually harms people. It does not advance them at all; it gets them enmeshed in a relationship of codependency. A whole structure of people within Ngā Rauru Kītahi are essentially dependent on having continuing consultations, because that will actually be the source of their income. I have to ask the question, because for all of this consultation, fees will be paid. There will be a whole structure of payments, fees, consultants employed, and so forth, to support all these consultation protocols. We have to say to ourselves at some point: “Enough is enough. We are doing too much of this. Let us get on and live our lives and participate in the wider community and the wider economy.” That is the second point I wanted to raise.

The third point, which is the specific subject of National’s minority report, is what the whole reference to religion and cosmology does. I want to mention to the House that on Friday night I was at a formal dinner held for the President of Pakistan. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made the point that New Zealand is a secular society and, in their own ways, both were proud of that fact. The reason we attach so much importance to that fact—compared with, say, Pakistan, which claims to be an Islamic republic—is that we say beliefs and religious values belong in the private domain, and all are equal. As soon as we put one category of beliefs and attitudes into legislation, we have immediately differentiated between them. Some people receive a preference that others do not receive. That is, of course, the difference between a secular society, which does not do that, and, say, an Islamic republic, which does do that. The Islamic republics are quite proud of the fact that they elevate Islam as an official State religion. That is what they want to do. So I ask why, in a secular society—and the Prime Minister says we are in a secular society and is proud of the fact—would we put the statement that we would want to respect cosmology, beliefs, attitudes, and the like into legislation?

Hon David Cunliffe: Respect diversity.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: I heard one of the junior Ministers—for the next 12 weeks, I guess—in the Government say “respecting diversity”. We do not have to put beliefs into legislation to respect diversity. In fact, it is actually the antithesis of doing that. If we really respected diversity, we would not put it into law, because diversity involves a whole range of beliefs. All of those beliefs are equal. I have said previously in the House that each and every one of us has beliefs. Even if one is an atheist, one has beliefs. In that instance, it is the belief of being an atheist. We do not put any one of those beliefs into the law, and the Government is making a fundamental error in doing so.

I close on this point. I note that the Hon Mark Burton acknowledged in the Committee stage of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill that this was an area the Government would have to re-examine, and that maybe it was doing violence to the ideal of a secular society, which by definition respects all beliefs—that is the implication of the definition—and therefore it is not appropriate to put some beliefs into legislation. Yet right here today, we have a bill where the Government commits precisely that same error.

I conclude by saying that National is supporting this bill. We do believe in the settlements process, but we send warnings that there is a right way to do settlements and a wrong way to do settlements. Some of those areas are creeping into this legislation and into other legislation. If Mr Burton were serious, he would be starting to fix it. He is not doing so—National will.

Bills

Energy Safety Review Bill

First Reading

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy): I move, That the Energy Safety Review Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Energy Safety Review Bill be considered by the Commerce Committee.

The Government is committed to the safe delivery and use of electricity and gas. This bill is designed to ensure that the safety regime for the supply and use of electricity and gas most effectively protects members of the public, and protects property. It also provides for the occupational regulation of electrical workers, gasfitters, plumbers, and drainlayers as a particular means of delivering electricity and gas safety outcomes, recognising that health objectives are essential and that plumbing and drainlaying make a major contribution to their achievement.

I want to reassure members that the current electricity and gas safety regimes and occupational regimes for electrical workers, gasfitters, plumbers, and drainlayers generally work very well. Improvements are necessary to provide for efficient and robust regimes whereby consumers can have confidence in the work done by licensed workers, and where unsafe work can be quickly remedied and deterrent penalties taken. Consequently, this bill will amend the Electricity Act 1992, the Gas Act 1992, the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, and the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Act 1989, and replace the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 1976.

Safety is the main focus of the bill. The major change that the bill brings is to move to a competency-based licensing regime for electrical work, gasfitting, sanitary plumbing, and drainlaying. To become licensed, workers will need to meet competency standards. They will need to update their competence as a condition of licence renewal. Equipment, standards, and regulations continue to change and it is no longer sufficient to assume that qualifications gained as an apprentice are adequate for a lifetime of work in the trade.

Worker licences will continue to be issued by licensing authorities: either the Electrical Workers Licensing Board or the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. Those boards will be able to designate classes of licence and to specify the work that may be done under those licences, as well as the minimum standards for licensing. They will also have an enforcement role, ensuring that complaints are investigated and taking disciplinary action where necessary.

The bill also allows for each board to delegate to the other the power to issue licences. For example, this will give the potential for plumbers who meet the competency requirements to gain or renew their licences for both plumbing and specified electrical work from the board. This recognises the increasing need for multiskilled people, for example, installing a hot water cylinder where both electrical and gas work may be necessary.

Along with licensing, a register of licensed tradespersons is to be established. This will enable members of the public to obtain information about licensed workers. This register will also facilitate the licensing authorities in their administrative and disciplinary functions. For large employers of energy workers, the employer licensing scheme is retained as an alternative to licences held by individual workers, with some improvements. Changes to the regime are that employer licences are to be issued by the boards; employer licence requirements are satisfied if a recognised person certifies the compliance of the system of operation; and a greater range of sanctions are available in the event that an employer licence has failed to comply with any term or condition of the licence.

In the electricity and gas supply sectors, a new requirement is introduced for owners to implement and maintain safety management systems that ensure that the supply system does not present a significant risk of serious harm to any member of the public or significant damage to any property. The precise scope and nature of the safety management systems will be specified in regulations.

Other steps to improve safety include extending the special powers of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development to require any person to remove or minimise an electrical or gas related danger or potential danger. This includes the production of documents and the supply of information to assist the removal of that danger.

The bill will also simplify accident notification. Under present legislation, if an accident comes under both the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the Electricity Act or the Gas Act, it has to be notified to two separate agencies. The bill will simplify this so that such accidents will have to be notified only once.

Finally, there are new offences, including offences in respect of a person intentionally or negligently creating a risk of serious harm or significant property damage, and offences in respect of breaches of occupational licence conditions. Penalties for serious harm to a person or serious harm to property have been increased to reflect those in the Health and Safety in Employment Act.

This bill will give the public confidence in the work done by electrical workers, gasfitters, plumbers, and drainlayers, and will provide workers with a consistent scheme that encourages competency and safety for themselves and their customers. As a former tradesman, I am pleased that this bill is finally before the House, and I commend it to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I look forward to discussing this bill in some detail. No doubt the Government would have secured the numbers for the bill to proceed to a select committee, but the National Party will not be amongst those numbers. I met in my electorate last night with a large number of master plumbers, and they are extremely concerned about this bill, and there are a number of reasons why. Whilst the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers of New Zealand have no difficulty whatsoever with upskilling and keeping themselves ahead of trends, and with being on top of their game, as it were, they are deeply concerned about the nature of the competency-based licensing system, the relevancy of the courses that are being offered—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: They still control that.

SIMON POWER: No, I tell Mr Duynhoven that the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board controls it, actually, not the plumbers themselves. The board is not an industry-based organisation, and it is a serious misfortune of this bill.

The tradespeople on the ground are telling me that the courses have to be relevant. They do not consider that the courses currently prescribed fall into that category. In front of me I have a copy of a letter from the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board dated January of this year, outlining some of those course credits. They are extraordinary. These are not matters that busy tradespeople should be wasting their time having to undertake in order to satisfy yet another regulatory body that is interested only in its own survival and not the welfare of its members.

Courses such as “Personal Skills Needed to Stay in Business” are offered for 10 credits each. These modules include such essential courses as “Getting Your Message Across”, “Networking and Establishing Business Relationships”, “Negotiation Skills”, and things like “Conflict Resolution”. The tradespeople at the Masonic Hotel last night told me that the biggest problem with this type of regulation is the cost that will be incurred by the tradespeople in having to attend courses that are valid only for 12 months—they have to be redone every 12 months—whereas, previously, a tradesperson who has his or her trade registered is in the trade for good.

It is exactly the same as in the legal profession. If a member of a profession or a trade establishes himself or herself as competent in a particular area, there is no good reason why he or she should be put through those sorts of hoops.

The big problem is that the people who will end up wearing the cost of this are the consumers. The consumers will end up wearing the costs of those tradespeople having to attend those courses. I am told by the New Zealand Society of Master Plumbers and Gasfitters Inc. that they were not told of the changes to its Act. They were not involved in any prior consultation about the bill.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: That’s not true.

SIMON POWER: I tell Mr Duynhoven that the board may well have been involved, but the association itself, and those people on the ground, were not, and they told me that directly last night. But most important, and it was raised a number of times at the public meeting last night, the legislation—the administration of the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers legislation—will be shifted from the Ministry of Health to the new Department of Building and Housing.

Now, these people have told me that the major reason that plumbers prefer to be under the Health Act, and working with the Ministry of Health, is that they see their role as being one of providing sanitary conditions for people to dwell in. They do not want to be part of a new department that was created because of the leaky building crisis. Those people told me last night that they believe that their role in providing sanitary arrangements for people dwelling in homes is of the utmost importance.

It is a problem, when it becomes clear that the new legislation is actually creating more problems than it is worth. I am told that when gasfitters were put in this position, those who had been in the profession for a long time would be of the view just simply to throw their hands up and say: “This is all too hard; all I want to do is get on with the business of practising my trade.” Instead, a whole new regulatory regime of 181 pages arrives at the doorstep of self-employed people who just want to get on with the business of running their trades. These are self-regulatory arrangements whereby it is pretty obvious if somebody in the trades is not doing the job. These industries and trades have their own ways of sorting these matters out.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Is that not how we got the leaky buildings syndrome?

SIMON POWER: That is exactly the point, Mr Duynhoven. These people were not involved in that, so stop treating them as if they were. Let them get on with the business of running their own trades properly and constructively. I have to say that the Government has badly misjudged this legislation, and will get it badly wrong when the plumbers and tradespeople front to the select committee—presumably the Government has stitched the numbers—and it is a major problem as far as they are concerned. I was extremely surprised, when I was asked to front at the meeting last night, to hear their concerns about this legislation. They feel completely disempowered by the process, and were completely ignored as this legislation was drafted.

So National will not be voting for this legislation to proceed. We reserve the right to watch very carefully how this Government, and 180 pages of regulation, gets its fingers into the business of good, hard-working New Zealanders who just want to get on with the business of practising their trade.

DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East): That speech was done in ignorance on behalf of the National Party. I too have met with plumbers in my electorate who are very successful business people. In fact, one of them was Business Person of the Year, and he has 50 plumbers working for him. It was very interesting to hear about his relationship with the board and its members, whom he knows and works with.

I chaired the committee that looked at weathertightness of buildings, and I must say that for too long in this country we had a system of deregulation whereby tradespeople were working in a totally deregulated industry. We had the leaky building syndrome, and I think the previous speaker has forgotten that George Chapman, whom people here know—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: National Party president.

DIANNE YATES: He was a National Party president. He chaired the Building Industry Authority and ignored all the instructions and advice he was given in regard to leaky buildings. Labour then had to clean up National’s mess—again. Deregulation created that problem, and no matter how much members opposite shout and jump up and down it was a problem we inherited. Indeed, there were multiple problems, but a lot of them were to do with deregulation.

This bill has been discussed with plumbers, and in talking with them we find they are in communication with their board. I agree that various plumbers have spoken to the board saying that some of the courses it has come up contain stuff that is not considered necessary in plumbing. The plumbers will be making submissions to the select committee. They will be talking with their own board and asking who thought that bit up. It is very good that they are in communication with their board. I look forward to hearing submissions from people who actually know what they are doing and what is required.

The previous speaker, Simon Power, referred to electricians, houses, and sanitary conditions. The arguments presented are not part of the bill. It does not say what ministry the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers will come under. I do not know who Mr Power has been talking to. Obviously, he—

Simon Power: Read George Verry’s letter. Get familiar with it.

DIANNE YATES: The member has not read the bill. He has had his 10 minutes. Shouting will not cover up the fact that he has not read the bill. The argument put forward by plumbers and drainlayers about sanitary conditions was not about houses and buildings. Some of those people lay drains that are nowhere near houses and buildings, and that is what they were talking about in terms of health. When Mr Power next meets with plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers he should listen to what they are saying, listen to what their board has said, and take note of the actual job. He should not come to this House and say things that are not consistent with what the people in the industry are saying.

I thank Harry Duynhoven for the work he has done and the consultation that went on. We look forward to some very, very good submissions in that regard. I thank all those who have been involved in the process towards regulating for energy safety. The Energy Safety Review Bill is practical and workable, and will give some certainty to the people involved.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Over many years I have had quite some dealings with electricians in particular, with drainlayers, and, certainly, with plumbers, and, speaking personally, I have not had one reason to complain against any of them. They have all been willing, hard-working people who were on top of their job. When I saw this bill—and this is the view of New Zealand First—I wondered why we needed to have a bill of 181 pages—[Interruption] I listened to the Minister with interest, and I thought that there must be something here that indicates the industry is not quite as well run as perhaps it should be.

I think back to a year or so ago, when there was a programme on television. It was not Fair Go; there was—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: Target.

PETER BROWN: The Minister has it. I watched that programme on occasions. I will say, for the benefit of those who are listening to this debate, that Target examined the activities of say, electricians one week, and plumbers another week—tradespeople in general, and motor mechanics on occasions—and put them to a test under a secret video-camera regime, usually in an empty house when the supposed client had gone out. On that programme on many occasions, as I recall it, electricians and other tradespeople—I do not want to pick just on electricians—[Interruption] I would not dare to do so now, Minister. There were tradespeople on that programme who clearly did not know what they were looking for, and who clearly were not doing the job that was expected of them. That was a consumer-type television programme, which clearly illustrated that there was a need to look at the qualifications of tradespeople in the areas outlined in this bill.

I will not take a long call. New Zealand First has read this bill, and we are concerned about aspects of it. It would be remiss of me to say that we thought it was all hunky-dory. But basically, we do believe there is a case to answer. Therefore, New Zealand First will support the referral of this bill to a select committee.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): We have here a classic response from this Government to regulate and legislate. That is the only language it seems to know. Here are 181 pages of regulation for poor, hard-working plumbers, gasfitters, drainlayers, and electrical workers. That is unbelievable. I think we can actually refer to this bill as the “NCEA of Energy and Other Trades”. That is exactly what it is all about—the NCEA, from this Labour Government, applied to energy, plumbing, gasfitting, and drainlaying.

The very fact that Mr Duynhoven oversaw it should ring some alarm bells. I am told that he did. He should be ashamed of himself for bringing this bill to the House. I am not sure whether he ran it by his caucus, because there are probably even some members on that side who do not feel totally comfortable with it. I would be surprised if there were not one or two who did not feel totally comfortable with it, because this is all about more regulation from nanny State.

The last Labour member who spoke likened it to the response to the leaky building syndrome. That is the excuse that this Government throws up for everything it wants to regulate. We need more regulation because of the leaky home syndrome. We have already seen the nonsense of the Building Act, which this Government has imposed on the people of New Zealand. Now do-it-yourself Kiwi home renovators dare not even put on their leather aprons and tool kits, because, in essence, they will be breaking the law as soon as they touch anything. This Government has closed down the New Zealand homeowner’s long tradition of do-it-yourself. Many do-it-yourselfers do a splendid job but no, they will be knocked out by this Government. Now we see that extending that into all manner of other activities.

There is no established need for this legislation. We have tremendous plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers in this country. We have good sanitary standards. How many problems do we actually have? Members should talk to local governments around the country. We have an inspectorate system. People need permits for such things. What we have now is working fine. We are legislating for that 1 percent exception, who will have 181 pages of draconian regulation thrown at them.

We have already heard from National Party speakers who have consulted gasfitters, plumbers, and drainlayers in their electorates. Those tradespeople do not want this. They do not want a bar of it. They know that they are good tradespeople. They know that they can do their jobs. But oh no, nanny State under the Labour Government, supported by United Future, will bring this sort of legislation to the House.

Who pays for it? The consumer and taxpayer. The ACT party was actually formed from the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, because we represent consumers and taxpayers in this country. That is what ACT stood for when we first formed as a ginger group. We formed to fight this form of excessive imposition on New Zealanders through excessive regulation and costs. And where do the taxpayers come into it? What we will have is an army of bureaucrats and inspectors overseeing these sorts of regulations, and that will be paid for by the taxpayer. Again, the whole of New Zealand society suffers and labours under this sort of legislation, and I stress the word “labours”, because it is weighing this country down. We have far too much regulation of this nature and this ilk.

The ACT party will be opposing it. We will be standing alongside the National Party opposing this legislation. It is bad legislation. It should not even go to a select committee. There is no need for it, and no one from the Government benches has established a need for it. I challenge the next Government speaker to stand up and give us a reason for this heavy-handed regulation.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: It’s called the EnergySafe programme.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: We have just heard from the Minister. He is now telling us he has a jargon name for it. What is the name?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: It is the EnergySafe programme, which we’ve been working on for years.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: If this is about energy safety, why is it hitting all the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: It’s about energy safety, and for years the industry has been doing the preliminary work on this.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: What do plumbers and drainlayers have to do with energy?

Hon Harry Duynhoven: What is gas, if not energy? It’s about energy safety.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY: He buys the jargon. That is the trouble: he sits in his big fat ministerial office and drives around in cars with padded leather seats. I see his ministerial car waiting for him at 10 o’clock every night—whoosh, he is off into the night in his chauffeur-driven car! Well, I have news for him. That is coming to an end. I say to Mr Duynhoven and all other Ministers on that side of the House that their days are numbered. They have only a few weeks left in those ministerial cars.

It is because of nonsense like this legislation that the public of New Zealand is saying overwhelmingly that it has had enough and it wants a change. There is that stench of a Government in decay. The public of New Zealand are saying they want a change. They have had enough of this nanny State, heavy-handed regulation. The ACT party will be instrumental in opposing this legislation, and it will be defeated, I am sure.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): There are nights when I am quite grateful that I belong to United Future, a sensible, centre party, when I hear the rabid comments of members of the National Party and the ACT party on bills like this. It was quite amazing to hear Simon Power of the National Party rage about “180 pages of regulation”. I remind him that four professional groups are involved in this regulation—those overseen by the Electrical Workers Licensing Board and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. It works out to 45 pages per profession.

I would like Simon Power, who happens to be a lawyer, to contrast this bill with the bulky Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill, which his party desperately wants to get through, which is just for the legal profession and is just an addition to the existing law for that profession. In some ways he seems to show the rather smug and superior attitude of a lawyer, whose profession has a huge bulk of legislation in place—with, by the way, the total support and backing of the profession—looking down his nose at these groups and saying that they are just plumbers or just drainlayers. It is not a credible way to proceed in life.

That brings to mind something I remember very well. I have a good friend who is a radiologist and in his leisure time—his annual holidays—makes a habit of going to India and working amongst people in the slums. When he first came back he told me that when he was studying medicine a professor said to the class one day: “Just in case you guys studying medicine get too arrogant, I want to make the statement that plumbers and drainlayers have done more for the health of human beings on this planet than all the doctors put together.” My friend told me that they had all laughed the comment to scorn, but that now he had been in a part of the world with no decent drains or decent plumbing he had to conclude that it was no more than the simple truth. I ask National Party and ACT members to be a little more circumspect about sneering comments such as some of those we have heard tonight when it comes to people like plumbers and drainlayers, because on the whole—I agree with Peter Brown about this—they do a great job for us.

But I say to Peter Brown that there are some horror stories around. I have some friends who had a brand new house built. They shifted in and were very happy with it, but as the weeks went by, a terrible smell started to emerge from underneath the house. They finally got the local council inspector in to have a look, only to find that the plumber had connected their sewerage to a couple of pipes that went 2 metres and then stopped, and were open at the other end. That is the ultimate sort of disaster story.

Human nature being what it is, and so on, I think it is really ridiculous to say in 2005 that we do not need any regulation. I agree in spirit that we should minimise regulation or be light-handed. But it is quite interesting to see that the EnergySafe working party, which has been responsible for putting this bill together, represents 30 organisations and the four affected professions I have mentioned. The legislation has been drafted in extensive consultation with that group. Furthermore, as we all know, the bill will go from here to a select committee—it will do so, by the way, because United Future will support the bill—and the affected groups will all have another opportunity to come along and say their piece. That will be the right time to deal with any nitty-gritty issues that might arise.

So the bottom line for United Future is looking at the big picture. We think that this bill is a common-sense, sensible, centre measure. It is not new regulation; it simply updates and streamlines existing regulations. On that basis we are happy to lend it our support.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): I rise to support the bill, which has been—[Interruption] My good friend Harry Duynhoven discussed this bill with us in the caucus, and in the caucus committee we had a thorough discussion of it. I am delighted to support this bill, and to recommend it to the House. I think I had better leave it there.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I point out that we do have some agreement on the Opposition side of the House that the select committee process is to be used to tidy up the loose ends of a bill, in order to get it perfect. But this bill is an example of the Hon Harry Duynhoven doing some very sloppy work, using the select committee to do all his homework, and thereby totally abusing the select committee process. He went in there with no consultation with the industry—none at all. There was no consultation with the tradespeople—master plumbers, gasfitters, or drainlayers. So the Minister sat around the table with his bureaucrats, drafted up this bill, which is full of compliance issues for those tradespeople, and has taken it to Parliament, where he is asking the select committee to do all the donkey work for him. I say to the “member for Amsterdam”, Harry Duynhoven, that he should do much more work as a Minister. He should consult people before he puts a bill through the select committee process, and he should do the work himself. In future I will keep a keen eye on the Minister, to make sure that other bills he introduces to the House are not as sloppy as this one is.

A number of issues have been raised with us as National MPs. It is not only middle New Zealand that has been contacting us, but plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers. They have been meeting with all the National Party MPs in their electorates, and asking us what we can do to this interim Government—with only 3 months left—to put a halt to this legislation, which will hurt their businesses irreversibly. First of all they talked about the issues around education. These are groups of tradespeople—professionals in their areas—who do not run from accountability or from professionalism. They believe in professional development. They believe in passing their skills down through the generations. They are not afraid of any of those things. Yet this Minister says that they have to go on education courses that will not help them at all in their trades or with their customers. Those courses will have viability for only a meagre 12 months, and then they will have to start the cycle again. So Harry Duynhoven would have tradespeople sit in classrooms, tick boxes, and hand in assignments, when we have a trades shortage in this country and we need those people to be out and about.

The second-largest issue that tradespeople have raised with us concerns their becoming subject to the Department of Building and Housing, rather than to the health legislation. I support what Mr Copeland said: that professional drainlaying, sewage control, and those sorts of initiatives all around the world have done more for the health of nations than anything else has done. Those trades should remain under the health legislation. I support the tradespeople on that. Why Harry Duynhoven wants to put those tradespeople under so much pressure, when there is demand for them right across New Zealand in the building industry and they are doing very, very well indeed, we have no idea. Why would Harry Duynhoven pick on tradespeople? It is quite simple: he has 9 to 12 weeks left in his ministerial chair, and he wants to make a mark. The “member for Amsterdam” wants to make a mark before he leaves his ministerial car at the door and goes back on to the back benches. I only wish that he had chosen to make his mark after he had done the homework and the legwork, instead of using the select committee to do all that for him.

We are quite concerned not just about drainlayers, gasfitters, and plumbers as individuals but also about the businesses they work in. We have an issue here. This bill—181 pages of it—will add more compliance costs to drainlaying, gasfitting, and plumbing businesses, which have already had those costs piled up on them over the last 5 or 6 years. Harry Duynhoven has laid an egg. He has given birth to 181 pages of bureaucracy, of regulation, and of compliance costs. I would have liked to see how red Harry Duynhoven became when he tried to push this legislation out, on to the Cabinet table. He would have become very red, indeed. Harry Duynhoven has given birth to 181 pages of regulation. It is no wonder that he has gone red. This legislation will hurt those businesses. It will hurt plumbers, and it will hurt all sorts of tradespeople. I can tell members that builders, electricians, fitters and turners, and motor rewinders—all sorts of tradespeople—across this country fear that Harry Duynhoven will get such a thrill out of giving birth to this legislation that he will be looking out for who is next.

Simon Power: Builders are next.

PHIL HEATLEY: Builders will be next, and then electricians. Harry Duynhoven will give birth to a thicket of regulation that will tie up engineers, electricians, and builders—good hard-working New Zealanders. That is what Harry Duynhoven wants to do. He wants to make his mark on this Parliament, and the way he feels he needs to do that is through words, and through giving the bureaucracy more jobs. He is building his own kingdom, and that is embarrassing because it reflects on us all in this Parliament. Not all of us can give good speeches like this one, but unfortunately the behaviour of Harry Duynhoven reflects on us all. He has given birth to 181 pages of regulation and compliance costs.

I would like to talk a little more about the clauses that deal with the legislation that drainlayers, gasfitters, and plumbers will come under. As I said before, I support Mr Copeland’s point. He said that drainlayers and those who deal in sewerage have done more for the world’s health than any other profession. It is quite amazing to think that that has happened over a millennium—1,000 to 2,000 years. It is quite a credit to those people that they managed to do it without Harry Duynhoven’s 181-page “how to do it” booklet. I am surprised that Minister Duynhoven, the “member for Amsterdam”, does not have pictures in this bill. We have 181 pages—a “how to do it” booklet. I bet the pharaohs and the plumbers who built the pyramids wished that they had had Harry Duynhoven’s compliance manual. I tell members that they would not have taken 1,000 years to build the pyramids. They would not have taken 100 years, or even 10 years. They would have been able to build a pyramid with this bill—there is so much paper. With this legislation, the pharaohs could have built a pyramid, and I believe that they could have done that no faster than in 3,000 years, by the time they had gone through this legislation and interpreted it.

Seriously, I do appeal to members. Over the last couple of thousand years, how is it that this secret society of tradespeople was able to survive and do a good job, without Harry Duynhoven’s legislation? I put that question on the floor. I ask members to respond to it, and I really encourage them to do so.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment): I am stunned by the last speech. There was such self-assurance and so little to be self-assured about. There was such incredible confidence and very little self-awareness. That was the member for Whangarei, Phil Heatley—

Hon Harry Duynhoven: The temporary one.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: He is a very temporary one because I understand that a young man called Paul Chalmers is doing extraordinary work up there as this member demonstrates why he should not be in Parliament.

The interesting thing about that speech was that for a period of time there the National Party’s spokesperson demonstrated one of the absolutely fundamental errors of the National Party at this moment on these sorts of issues. If I heard rightly, Phil Heatley argued that this bill was so badly prepared that members of the select committee will have to spend hours and hours doing the detail. Aside from that being absolute bunkum, I say to him that if he wants a really well-prepared bill—as I know this one to be—then what is required is an intelligent, dedicated, and well-resourced public service. These are the same public servants whom the National Party wants to cut. These are the same public servants, who are out there ensuring our safety by developing regulations and standards, whom that party wants to cut. This is the same public service that has put up a bill that does not need to be absolutely taken apart by the select committee, because it has been well delivered, with well-versed, well-thought-through arguments provided by the public service.

This is a bill about safety. It is a bill to protect workers. It is a bill to protect the public. It enables the public to recognise a licensed worker easily, by establishing publicly available registers. Is not that about accountability to the community? The bill provides for coordinated, fair, and transparent processes for handling complaints. Is not that about transparency, fairness, and safety for the community? The bill requires every owner of an electricity or gas supply system to implement and maintain a safety management system.

That is why I support the first reading of the Energy Safety Review Bill, and I deal with it with seriousness, not with flippancy and jokes about the Minister who put it forward. This is serious legislation about public safety. It is legislation that has been prepared, with integrity, hard work, and stamina, by public servants—the public servants that National wants to cut.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I take issue with the Minister’s claim that this board is being created for plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters, etc. This board is actually being created from the consumer’s viewpoint, and I would like the Minister to take a look at ElectroLink magazine, which is about safety in the electrical industry—which is, actually, the Government’s rationale for coming up with this multitude of paper in support of the whole compliance contingency around drainlayers and plumbers. In fact, the board is a consumers’ board. It is not a drainlayers’ and plumbers’ board, as the Minister likes to assert, and perhaps he would like to go back and have a look at his own paperwork to find out that fact for himself.

I want to look at the other reason for the promulgation of this bill. I say there has never been a demonstrated need for competence-based licensing requirements in this industry, because the record shows that for the year ended 2003 the board received 32 complaints. Is that a reason to go this far? I think not. After all, the industry has a perfectly good audit system in place, and it was working well. Everybody appreciated it, and most of the people involved in the industry accepted that audit process. So the board received 32 complaints and there are an estimated 9,000 tradesmen New Zealand - wide who complete 450 jobs per year, and that equates to about 4,050,000 jobs, and out of that there were 32 complaints. Where is the problem?

Another incorporated society of plumbers is advising its members that in order to meet the proposed compliance costs of the consumer board’s competence-based licensing proposal, they should add another $3.10 an hour to their charge-out rate. So let us look at the figures. What will this add to the invoice the consumer will receive? Well, $3.10 per hour, times 40 hours is $124, times 48 weeks is $5,900, times 9,000 tradesmen is about $53 million. That would be the cost to the country, but there were only 32 complaints last year. The Government thinks that is a good premise on which to put forward a bill of this magnitude.

Let us look at some of the costs that are being applied by the board. There are fees to accompany applications for registration, and it lists all the different registrations at $75 dollars each. There are fees for issue of a certificate of registration at $50, fees for issue of a licence at $75, and a fee for a provisional licence at $75. There is a fee for just about every imaginable contingency. The saving grace is that although the board requires an interim registration for an apprentice, it does not require the apprentice to pay the $75 fee. Wow! What generosity!

This bill gives the plumbers and drainlayers board a licence to print money, and who is going to be forking out that money? The drainlayers and plumbers are, and that is only the course fee. It does not anywhere near take into account the time away from work to do those courses, the travelling time involved, the cost of that travelling time, and the cost of accommodation if people have to stay overnight.

I have a letter from a plumber in my neighbourhood. He says that he has been upskilling and has had to take time off work to do that. He has completed some courses, and he thought they were pretty relevant to the work he was involved with. So he had several days off work and three nights away to complete the study and attend workshops and training courses. These included certificates of attendance for workshops on the new Building Act, the workshop agenda for the new Technical Publication No. 58, held by the Auckland Regional Council, covering on-site treatment and disposal of effluent, first aid certificate, among other things, which were New Zealand Qualifications Authority unit standards. So he has spent a lot of time, effort, and money on those sorts of things. He attended an all-day course on servicing Rinnai gas appliances. It was not until the day was over that he found out the board would not award credits, although with a few changes to the course, it now does.

So the board is pleasing itself about what it accepts. It makes the determination, and I see from the bill that, at the end of the day, one’s final recourse is to the courts. So if people really want to get some justice out of the system they have to take the board to court; and all the board members are appointed by the Minister. There is absolutely no involvement by the gasfitters, plumbers, or drainlayers. The Minister says, though, that this board is being created for them. No way is that the case. So perhaps he should be looking at the premise for actually making that claim. He says it is covered in the preamble to the bill but that certainly does not match up with the information that has been provided in a number of other forums. The drainlayers and plumbers whom I have spoken to are very clear that this board is being set up for consumers, not for plumbers and drainlayers. This bill is all about fleecing plumbers and drainlayers.

Hon Pete Hodgson: No, it’s not.

SANDRA GOUDIE: It absolutely is. It will be interesting to know what the board will do with all that money and to see where it goes. As I was saying, that particular gentleman from my electorate has written to me. In previous years he has attended a number of other courses.

We have a shortage of tradesmen in this country. Their numbers have been declining over the years. I have talked to a few drainlayers and plumbers who are saying that they are not going to bother to register for a licence. They will just exit the industry. They have done their time. They have put in the hard yards, and in the face of this legislation they are saying they have had a gutsful. They are getting out of the industry. They are not going to bother any more, if they have to confront this type of hurdle in terms of compliance and costs. That is what it is. It is a huge amount of cost to these people and it is just another hurdle that they simply do not want to have to confront.

Yet they do not disagree with the need for some upskilling, but what is being proposed is going way overboard and that fact is certainly evidenced by the schedule of charges I have elucidated on. [Interruption] I have touched only on some of them. There is no limit to the amount of charges that are able to be applied by this board, and for anything that it deems necessary.

The interesting thing I discovered in relation to the establishment of the board and the appointment of board members is that the board consists of two persons who hold, or are deemed to hold, a licence issued. So does that mean they can hold a licence but not really be upskilled to the level that is required and that the board is requiring of others? Is that what is meant by “deemed to hold”? It sounds to me like the board members can have a licence but they may not have done the upskilling, and they do not have to do the upskilling but they can be “deemed to hold”, just for the purposes of being appointed by the Minister to place all these charges on to other tradesmen who are out there doing the hard yards, doing the hard graft, and being whacked in the teeth by the board, because it does not recognise courses that have New Zealand Qualifications Authority unit standards.

Those people are slapped in the face and then told to do a range of courses. I have in front of me a range of courses, many of which are set up by different types of businesses, but that is a question in itself. Certainly, there is a whole range of computer courses, a dozen or so; and a whole range of business courses. There is a heavy-traffic licence course, but where is the relevance of that? There is a range of first aid courses, a whole range from Medical Hawera Ltd, which have all been recognised, and a whole range of safety seminars, although that is not unrealistic. However, the small-business management schedule is absolutely huge. Each one of those lines equals 10 units. What does having that as part of the competency-based licensing have to do with putting in a drain or doing a bit of plumbing? It is an absolute nonsense and it is a rort. It is about fleecing people blind and taking money on any pretext without any real sense of sensibility around it whatsoever.

This Government is badly letting down the tradespeople of this country when we start getting into this sort of exercise. There were only 32 complaints in a year, yet this is what we have to deal with. The bill is disgraceful.

LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I hope that Max Purnell was listening to that speech, because not too much later in the year Max Purnell will be paying tribute to that member as the former MP for Coromandel, and I look forward to that day with great glee.

The member who has just resumed her seat has overlooked one of the most important aspects of any bill—that is, the regulatory impact statement that appears at the back of it. I will quote from that, because I would hate for anyone to think that she knew anything about what she was saying: “The extension of competence-based licences to plumbers and gasfitters was consulted on with all licensed plumbers and drainlayers by the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board, who have reported ‘that the majority of submissions supported a licensing regime where licences are issued on evidence of both initial and ongoing competency.’ There are however some licensed workers who have objected to the proposed ongoing competence requirements and getting broad agreement to actual training requirements may take a little time.” That is what this process is all about. It is about good process, and that is something that people get from this Government—not the nonsense that we hear from the other side. The process in this bill has been consulted on widely. It will go to a select committee, where there will be further input. When somebody decent represents the Coromandel, then I am sure that the constituents of the Coromandel will do well out of this legislation, as well.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Energy Safety Review Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 84

New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Māori Party 1.

Noes 36

New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.

Appointments

Deputy Controller and Auditor-General

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC), on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That pursuant to section 11 of the Public Audit Act 2001, this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General to appoint Phillippa Catherine Smith of Wellington as Deputy Controller and Auditor-General for a term of 5 years. Ms Smith graduated from Victoria University of Wellington with a Master of Public Policy, Bachelor of Laws, and Bachelor of Arts, and was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in 1979. She worked as a senior solicitor for Chapman Tripp Sheffield Young from 1989 to 1993, then moved to the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, where she was the Assistant Auditor-General, Legal, until 1998. She then moved to the State Services Commission, where she has remained as its chief legal adviser. I commend her appointment to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako): I was fortunate to be on the committee that made the recommendation to the Officers of Parliament Committee for the appointment of Phillippa Smith. In doing so, I just want to look at one of the big challenges the Audit Office has. We are moving through into a new era of financial reporting standards. We have seen the collapse of companies like Enron, we have seen what happened to Arthur Andersen, and if we look worldwide, we see that auditing is becoming a very big part of the way we do business. So I think it appropriate just to outline the role that the Auditor-General plays, because the newly appointed Deputy Auditor-General will be very much a part of the team. The role is important, and I believe that it is important just to articulate some of the roles and challenges that the office will have as we look to it for scrutiny and for very robust and transparent reporting procedures in the way that entities are reported on. That gives us the confidence and the satisfaction of knowing that there is a watchdog agency that can go through and look very closely at what entities do.

The Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, known as the Auditor-General, is a statutory office that exists as a constitutional safeguard to maintain the financial integrity of New Zealand’s parliamentary system of Government. As an Officer of Parliament, the Auditor-General provides independent assurance both to Parliament and to the public that public entities are operating and accounting for their performance in accordance with Parliament’s intentions. That includes the effective and efficient use of the resources and powers conferred on them. The Auditor-General also provides independent assurance about local government, as local authorities are accountable to the public for the activities they fund through locally raised revenue.

But the Auditor-General has identified some concerns. If we look at the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, we see them highlighted in appendix A, but they are also stated in the statement of corporate intent in the draft annual plan. The new appointee will play a major part in addressing the key concerns expressed there.

These are the challenges the Auditor-General’s office faces: “The Auditor-General’s key concerns are a reflection of his mandate”—when I refer to “his”, I am talking about the office as a whole—“under the Public Audit Act 2001. His key concerns are: Performance: Have public entities undertaken activities in accordance with Parliament’s intentions, in an effective and efficient manner? Authority: Have activities, resourcing, and accountability requirements been undertaken within the authority granted by Parliament? Waste: Have resources been obtained and applied in an economical manner?—that is, taxpayers’ dollars not being wasted. Probity and financial prudence: Are entities meeting parliamentary and public expectations of an appropriate standard of behaviour in the public sector? Accountability: Have entities given full and accurate accounts of their activities, and of their compliance with Parliament’s intentions, through the annual reporting cycle? Are governance and management arrangements suitable to address the concerns identified above?”.

So there are a number of issues that the Auditor-General and the team will be operating in. This is an important appointment that is being made. We look forward to the office being at the forefront of scrutiny and being able to deliver in an unbiased manner those things that the public and Parliament expect of such an important part of our parliamentary system. As an Officer of Parliament, the Auditor-General plays a very important part.

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT): We are debating the appointment of the Deputy Controller and Auditor General, which is one of the Officers of Parliament. It is appropriate that such appointments be debated, because it is one of the few occasions when Parliament is able to express a view about how those very important accountability offices are being exercised.

As the House is probably aware, I am critical of the way that those positions are being exercised. I am not criticising just the Auditor-General’s office; my concern goes wider than that. I include officers like the Ombudsmen. In my view, these so-called independent officers are not holding the Government to account. They are far too weak, and the Labour Government has been able to ride roughshod over previous conventions. Even though ACT members are not going to vote against the appointment of Phillippa Catherine Smith, I am sceptical. I do not see anything in her CV to make me think she will give that office the sort of strength that is required in order to get some accountability back into the public accounts.

Those are harsh words about the Auditor-General’s office, but let me convince the House that I have actually done some research. Let me take just one of the most recent reports from the Auditor-General’s office, which is on Government and parliamentary publicity and advertising. One can tell straight away, from page 1, that this will be a gutless report. Let me quote from the report, which is signed by Mr Brady: “The report is not intended to be critical of any government or party, and tries to find a way forward.” Well, why should it not be critical? It is part of the office’s job to be critical. How could it fail to be critical of this Labour Government’s use of taxpayers’ money for publicity, just prior to an election? We have a campaign costing some $20 million of taxpayers’ money to promote the Government’s so-called family package, or whatever it calls it—

Darren Hughes: Rub Out the Crim!

Hon RICHARD PREBBLE: Yes, the Labour Government has a history of those sorts of campaigns. I know that well, and I say it is time we had a strong Auditor-General’s office to do something about it.

But let us just take this campaign at the moment. The Government has the nerve to go to the Auditor-General and say it has to advertise on television because there are some New Zealanders who need to apply in order to get this family support. The cost works out at about $100,000 an application. There have been almost no applications. What the Government is actually doing is putting up TV advertisements to try to convince the voters as a whole that somehow or other its Budget is assisting large numbers of New Zealanders. Well, that is a political campaign. I have to say it has been completely unsuccessful, but that is not the point; $20 million of public money is being spent on a TV campaign that is to run right up until the election campaign.

The Auditor-General’s report points out that in other OECD nations there are very tough rules on that sort of advertising, that there are no rules in New Zealand, and that this Government is taking expenditure to a whole new level. The question I ask is what is the point of having an Auditor-General’s office that is not prepared to put out a report and say what we all know, which is that this Government is spending taxpayers’ money on party political purposes.

We had another example when Labour used its parliamentary money to put advertisements in all the bus stops up and down New Zealand. It was completely illegal and completely against the rules. Has there been any public statement by the Auditor-General? No, there has not. Why is that? Because this Auditor General does not have the strength of character, I guess—or whatever it is—to be prepared to say what he knows to be true, which is that this Government is abusing the public purse, and is illegally spending taxpayers’ money for party political purposes. I do not believe that the appointment today will make any difference to that.

Then I look at another type of report, which is called Civil Aviation Authority: Certification and surveillance functions. I am a former Minister of Civil Aviation, and as the Auditor-General points out—and I am sure the Minister will know—this sort of report about civil aviation is written by the Auditor-General about every 3 years. All the reports taken together are not worth anything. They have not helped civil aviation, and they have not been of any great assistance. Ages and ages are spent looking at certification rules about which I do not think the Auditor-General really has much knowledge, when all MPs know that elsewhere hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted, and a lot of it is being taken fraudulently.

We have a debate at the moment as to whether tax cuts are affordable. We all know that if the Government of the day was prepared to target real fraud that is going on in New Zealand—real abuse of taxpayers’ money—there would be enough money to finance virtually any party’s tax packages. Of course, I am referring to the fact that our Social Development vote is now $7 billion. At a time of record employment, 70,000 New Zealanders, who by law are not entitled to the unemployment benefit unless they are ready, willing, and able to work, are still able to go along and get a benefit.

We then look at the sickness benefit, and, despite the fact that the Ministry of Health tells us that we have never been healthier, the number of people on the sickness benefit keeps on going up, year in, year out.

Then, of course, there is the domestic purposes benefit. We were told, when it was introduced, that there were never going to be more than 20,000 parents on it; there are now over 100,000. We all know there are outright fraudsters on that benefit. How do we know that? One reason is that Australia runs much tougher rules than us, and when it does the checks it finds that dozens of New Zealanders who have been ripping off the system in this country, in welfare abuse, go across to Australia and get caught. Has the Auditor-General ever made a report on that? I estimate that there is actually $2 billion worth of fraud by people on the welfare system, and if there was a proper system, all those people would be back in the workforce.

A courageous Auditor-General’s office would write a real report about welfare. Will it? Of course it will not, because the Labour Government would hate to have that pointed out. It would especially hate to have it pointed out when we look at the position in other OECD countries. I take President Clinton, a Democrat; if his Democrat reforms were implemented in New Zealand our welfare numbers—I am not talking about people on superannuation; I am talking about the 310,000 people on welfare—would drop 100,000 in 18 months. All we would have to do is, firstly, ask everybody to re-register. We would then find that at least 30,000 of the 310,000 are phantom enrolments, if the Australian experience is anything to go by. If we then said to all the able-bodied that they have to front up and do 40 hours’ work, we would find that another 60,000 people would decide that if they have to do that, they might as well go and work.

Why does not the Auditor-General’s office do something about welfare fraud? If it did, we would not be having this debate about whether tax cuts are affordable, because that $2 billion could be spent on two things. Firstly, we could be more generous to the people who really do need our help, because they are being deprived by those bludgers. Secondly, we could give back a lot of that $2 billion to the hard-working New Zealanders who are having to pay so much tax. If we had a decent Audit-General’s office, that should be possible. It is about time someone held this Labour Government to account.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future): A long time ago—in fact, about 41 years or so ago—I set out to win the annual prize for the best audit student at Victoria University. I am rather glad I did not actually make the grade. There is a bit of a story about that, which I will not trouble the House with. I subsequently went on to have a career in the corporate world, and ended up as the chief financial officer of a large corporation. I must confess that I had rather a dim view of auditors at that stage; they seemed to me to be people who niggled and asked unnecessary questions, who generally took up a disproportionate amount of time for very little positiveness in the way of outcomes, and, furthermore, who charged megabucks to do it. That was, of course, until a few years later, when I went to work for, and advise, an organisation that had not had an audit for many years. I very quickly discovered through that experience the value of having an annual audit. Believe you me, they serve a very, very necessary function in any organisation—certainly within the operation of Government. Without auditors, we would find that anarchy would take over in terms of the financial arrangements of the Government, and we would have all kinds of hidden costs and so on tucked away in all sorts of very, very devious ways.

I want to say in response to the speech from the Hon Richard Prebble that most of the points he made were about politics rather than about auditing. Although I have some sympathy with some of them, I think it is a bit rich to blame the poor old Auditor-General for some of those outcomes. Really, the thing I would say about the Audit Office—and I have said it previously, I think, in questions to Dr Michael Cullen and, certainly, at the Finance and Expenditure Committee—is that we ought just to be a little firmer in ensuring that all the expenditure of Government funds, no matter how it is done, should be subject to rigorous audit analysis. It should be a precondition. We have to get away from the idea of just handing money over to all sorts of little organisations that may be well-meaning and that may be delivering good things for the taxpayer—I do not know whether they are—because we have been bedevilled by many, many scandals even since I have been in the House that could have been nipped in the bud if we had had a cast iron rule that if people or organisations get money, then they will be subject to audit. The Lottery Grants Board has done that now for years. Those members who were around at the time will recall that it came about because the board was giving grants to ghost-busters. That hit the television screens, and everyone said: “Hey! This has got to stop.” The board learnt the lesson, and I think that the Government needs to learn the same lesson.

A very interesting thing on the international stage is that the Commission for Africa—which as members know, wants to see debt levels in Africa reduced dramatically through write-offs by wealthy nations, and overseas development systems given to those countries so that they can rise out of poverty—has come up against the central issue of good governance. Debt write-offs have been put in place but, as I read in a column in a newspaper recently, it has later been found that the money written off from the debt actually ended up redecorating the presidential palace. Not a cent went to people who were looking to better themselves in terms of education, health, and so on.

So that really does highlight the importance of the function we entrust to the Auditor-General and his staff. I do not know Philippa Catherine Smith personally. I have seen her CV. I know she is a lawyer, which probably means that she has quite a bit to learn about the art of auditing. Nevertheless, I am sure that from her legal perspective she can make a very important contribution, and United Future is very happy to agree to this motion.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I listened with interest to the previous speakers. The Minister gave us a somewhat detailed personal background of Phillippa Smith, and expounded on her qualifications. She seems very well-qualified for the job.

Mr Lindsay Tisch indicated—very well, I thought—the importance of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General, and some of the challenges that lie ahead. The Hon Richard Prebble took those challenges quite a good deal further. I have to say that he might have a point, but for Phillippa Smith to accomplish the challenges on her own she would need to be Wonder Woman or someone like that, and I do not think she is quite that. The last speaker, Gordon Copeland, told us why audits are important, and I agree in very large measure with what he said.

So there is little for me to say, except that I was on the interview panel that Phillippa Smith came before. She is obviously not aware, but she was up against some first-class candidates, and she came through as the winner by a narrow margin. I was very pleased by the calibre of the people who applied for the position. I take this opportunity, on behalf of my colleagues in New Zealand First, to wish her exceedingly well.

Motion agreed to.

Motions

Reserve Bank Funding Agreement—Ratification

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That, pursuant to section 161(2) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989, this House ratify the funding agreement entered into by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand pursuant to section 159 of that Act on 20 April 2005 and presented to the House on 26 May 2005. The Reserve Bank’s operating expenditure is funded from gross income under terms established by the Act and a 5-year funding agreement. This funding agreement applies from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2010. The Act provides for these regular funding agreements for successive 5-year periods. The current agreement expires at the end of this month.

New funding levels need to be agreed for the 5 years through until June 2010. If these are not agreed, then the current funding agreement, which provides for $33 million net, is rolled over. The new funding agreement seeks to lift that amount to just over $39 million net per annum. That increase reflects a substantially changed environment—one of increased demands on policy outputs for the Reserve Bank, one where systems are now at the end of their useful life and need to be replaced, and one where new strategies need to be implemented to mitigate some business risks. Offsetting the lift in the proposed new funding agreement will be substantial savings accruing from the modernisation of the silver coinage, as well as some smaller efficiency gains.

The major influences behind the proposed increase are as follows. Firstly, in recent years global regulatory standards affecting financial institutions have been upgraded in terms of monitoring and controlling their activities and the cross-border flows of money. A good deal of this, of course, is to do with anti-terrorism concerns. Key initiatives include also new supervisory standards known as Basel II, and new accounting standards. As part of the international financial network, the bank has to increase the level of its regulatory responses.

Secondly, 85 percent of our banking assets are now concentrated in the four major Australian banks, and that in turn lifts the potential systemic risk in the event of a major bank failure. That means that the bank must increase its monitoring capacity and be committed to ensuring that New Zealand has resilient crisis management options for stand-alone banks and the wider financial system. The reinvigoration of the banking regulatory function includes the ability to better coordinate and communicate with foreign regulators.

I think it is fair to say that the current Governor of the Reserve Bank was quite concerned, when he became governor, about the weakness on the regulatory side. It is particularly fair to place on the record that Dr Brash, as the previous governor, had also indicated the need to improve the regulatory side of the bank’s functions, whereas the concentration in the period from 1999 to the early 2000s was on the monetary policy function rather than on the regulatory function of the bank.

The bank needs also to fund the replacement and upgrading of several critical computer systems, including the replacement of its treasury and document management systems, its economic forecasting and data systems, and its core financial reporting system, and the upgrading of critical national payments system infrastructure.

The final major influence is the fact that the bank is seeking to better safeguard its payment operations in the event of a natural disaster—which, considering where the bank sits, is obviously a very sensible concern. The bank needs to invest in a number of projects that will protect its computer facilities, provide an enhanced presence out of Wellington for key infrastructure and services, and establish a single disaster-recovery site in Wellington to replace the current multiple sites for dealing with a local disaster. I ask for the House’s support in ratifying this new funding agreement, which I think will be important as we move forward in terms of the regulatory functions of the bank.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): National will support this motion. As the Minister has pointed out, this funding agreement really simply specifies the amount of the bank’s income that can be applied in meeting its operating expenses. It is interesting that the Minister has given a whole range of reasons why the amount of the bank’s income applied to its operating expenses has to increase, in round figures, by 33 percent, because over recent years it has been roughly $30 million a year.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: $33 million.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Well, $33 million—so it is more like a 30 percent increase.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, its about a 20 percent increase, actually—six on 33.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Well, if we take off some of the bits and pieces, it is still a huge increase. I guess it is typical of what has happened under this Labour Government. The bureaucracy and the cost of administering the Government operations in this country have ballooned under Michael Cullen’s stewardship as Treasurer in this Labour Government—and the Reserve Bank is no different.

It is interesting to go back over history a bit—and I might have the figures wrong; I am sure the Treasurer will correct me if I am wrong. In 1990 the amount applied to operational expenditure was about $45 million in round figures. Under Don Brash’s stewardship as Governor of the Reserve Bank, that figure was brought down to just over $30 million. In fact, I think that at one stage it was brought down to $30 million, and it probably went up in the previous 5-year period to $33 million. But for it to now go back up to just under $40 million is unfortunate, because it is all hard-earned income of this country going into operational expenditure of the wider Government sector. As we look to the future, I think that the cost of this administration should be very carefully examined in the next funding agreement.

One has to ask whether Dr Alan Bollard has been as successful in keeping operational expenditure as efficient as Dr Don Brash was, because, as I said, Dr Brash brought the operational expenditure down from about $45 million to just over $30 million.

I do accept that some of the increased cost is necessary. I think that some of the systems upgrades the Minister just spoke of are needed, and there is no question that there are some regulatory issues that have to be addressed. We can only question whether we needed the extent of the increase, but despite concern about the size of the increase, National will support the motion.

We do so because it is important that there is bipartisan support for the work of our central bank, the Reserve Bank. National totally supports and endorses the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, and this debate is an opportunity to reflect just on how important that is. The formulation of monetary policy and the pursuit of price stability is critically important to our economy. I think the reforms of the Labour Government in the 1980s and the National Government in the 1990s brought inflation under control for the first time for many years in this country, and in the preceding years the devastation caused by high inflation was only too apparent.

It is interesting that during the stewardship of Dr Don Brash—who now leads the National Opposition and has brought it back into genuine contention with the Government in recent weeks—inflation was brought down from 18 percent in the late 1980s to average just over 1 percent in the second half of the 1990s. That is a tremendous achievement.

Interest rates during that same time period, floating mortgage rates, and variable first mortgage housing rates came down from around 15 percent to just under 7 percent during the 1990s. That made housing more affordable to so many New Zealand families. So I think the record of Dr Brash as Governor of the Reserve Bank has been quite outstanding. When the current Labour Government commissioned the Svensson report on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, it was interesting what Professor Svensson had to say about the workings of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. He spoke of the extraordinary qualities—in fact, his language was “the exceptional qualities”—of the then governor, Dr Don Brash.

Darren Hughes: Did you read it?

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I am quoting Professor Svensson from the Svensson report. He said: “Another governor may not cope as well with the pressure, criticism, and even abuse, that seems to go with the territory, and may, in difficult times and under high pressure, lose confidence and let policy go awry in a number of different ways.” It is interesting that the qualities that Dr Brash showed as Governor of the Reserve Bank for those years he has shown in great abundance as Leader of the Opposition as he has focused on policy to bring National into very strong contention with this Labour Government today.

It is also interesting to reflect on what Dr Michael Cullen had to say about Dr Brash, the day Dr Brash announced that he was actually standing for the National Party. This is what Dr Cullen had to say on 26 April 2002: “The Reserve Bank Governor, Don Brash, has been a leading central banker recognised around the world for his commitment to price stability.” It is interesting how Dr Cullen now seeks to criticise Dr Brash, but of course it does not carry much weight, because everyone in New Zealand knows the tremendous job that Don Brash did as Governor of the Reserve Bank.

It is also fascinating to see now what the OECD is saying about what this Labour Government is doing to the inflation challenge in this country right now. The OECD in its most recent report following seven increases in interest rates over the last 18 months said that the Government’s fiscal policy has complicated the job of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. That is what the OECD is saying: that this Labour Government has complicated the job of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.

There members have it—a chance to reflect on the work of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand—a tremendous achievement under the governorship of Dr Don Brash. He brought down the operating costs of the bank during his tenure as governor. Under this Labour Government, and Dr Michael Cullen’s tenure as Treasurer, the cost of administration is going back up again as we are seeing right across the whole area of Government administration in this country. All I can say is that help is on its way. A National Government will bring the spiralling costs of the public sector back under control when elected.

It is frightening to reflect that here, in this City of Wellington, a very high percentage of the office accommodation space in this city today is now occupied by Government bureaucrats instead of the private sector. That is a bad omen for the future of New Zealand, but help is on its way, because a National Government will turn around that burgeoning bureaucracy of which this increase in costs of operating the central bank is just one indicator of something that is out of control under Labour.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.