Thursday, 20 September 2007

Thursday, 20 September 2007

Thursday, 20 September 2007

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): When the House resumes after the 2-week adjournment on Tuesday, 9 October, priority will be given to the third readings of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, the Arbitration Amendment Bill, and the Succession (Homicide) Bill; the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3), which will be ready by that point, and the remaining stages of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill and the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Given the announcements made by the Government today around New Zealand’s response to climate change, when will we expect to see the emissions trading scheme legislation brought to the House—in the next sitting or the one after?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I think we can be very confident that the drafting will not be done by the next sitting of Parliament. The intention is to introduce the bill, obviously, before Christmas. It will be, clearly, a very complex bill.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Emissions Trading Scheme—Greenhouse Gas Reduction

1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues: Does he have confidence that the emissions trading scheme announced by the Prime Minister today will reduce New Zealand’s net domestic greenhouse gas emissions below current levels by 2012; if so, by what percent?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): Yes. Further, we expect to about halve our liability under the Kyoto Protocol to about 25 million tonnes or less. We look forward to working constructively with all other parties in Parliament as we advance New Zealand towards carbon neutrality.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How can he confirm that our net emissions will be lower in 2012 than now, when the figures presented this morning suggest they will be higher?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The revision of the net projection report showed that without today’s announcement New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions would have increased for that 5-year period from 2008 to 2012, from where they were previously projected at 41.2 million tonnes up to 45.5 million, most of that because of increased dairy-related livestock and processing emissions. Of course, as a consequence of what we announced today, we expect substantial reductions in emissions, and that projection to be revised next year.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Madam Speaker, could you ask the Minister to address the question, which was about whether emissions in 2012 will be higher or lower than they are today, not higher or lower than they would have been without any action?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The member’s first word in the first answer was “Yes”, to the question of whether emissions would be lower.

Madam SPEAKER: I thought the Minister had actually addressed the question.

Tim Barnett: What reports has the Minister seen on support for emissions trading?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Recent opinion polls show that a majority of New Zealanders are in favour of measures like emissions trading. This Government has been steadfast in its leadership on climate change and the need to tackle the challenge as a nation. Today’s announcement takes us forward to climate change solutions.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister outline the timetable for legislation on emissions trading, and can he also tell us how the Government expects to involve other political parties in further detailed development of the policy, including the Greens?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We expect legislation to be introduced into the House by the end of the year. In terms of the process forward, as I said in my answer to the first question from Jeanette Fitzsimons, we do look forward to working constructively with all other parties in Parliament. Briefings have been offered to all parties. Detailed briefings have been taken by some parties, including the member’s own party. Requests for further involvement have been received and agreed to.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does not today’s scheme fail to meet the test put forward by National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leading scientist James Hansen, when he said that if we continue to increase emissions “even for another ten years, it guarantees that we will have dramatic climate changes that produce what I would call a different planet—one without sea ice in the Arctic; with worldwide, repeated coastal tragedies associated with storms and a continuously rising sea level; and with regional disruptions due to freshwater shortages and shifting climatic zones.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it does not, because for the first time in our history we will have our emissions going down.

Rodney Hide: Was a regulatory impact statement undertaken on the emissions trading regime; if so, what is the total cost to the country of the plan, compared with doing nothing, and will the plan be strict enough to achieve John Key’s stated goal of “a 50 percent reduction in carbon-equivalent net emissions by 2050”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Carbon dioxide emissions will go down by more than 50 percent by that time. Indeed, we have said we will be carbon neutral in the whole of the energy sector by 2040. In respect of the member’s question about a regulatory impact statement, I tell him that the regulatory impact statement is there; it—or a summary of it—is in amongst the documents that have been released. The reality is that the costs of climate change are much higher than the costs of reacting to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of the effect on the New Zealand economy during the next 5 years or so, it is expected that it might knock 0.1 percent off New Zealand’s GDP growth—that is 0.1 percent over that 5 years, not 1 percent, or even 0.1 percent per annum.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister concerned that the Labour Government’s targets for so-called carbon neutrality in the energy sector by 2040 rely heavily on purchasing emissions reductions in other countries, and is it not the case that if all countries approach carbon neutrality by paying others to reduce emissions, nobody will be able to get there?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Carbon neutrality in the electricity sector requires a modest 3 million tonnes per annum of offsets in 2025, declining thereafter. The carbon neutrality for total energy, including stationary energy, process emissions, and transport energy, requires 18 million tonnes of offsets in 2040, declining to 12 million tonnes in 2050. If the world does that, the world will get emissions on a downward track.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the agricultural sector on track to meet its non-binding commitment under the 2003 memorandum of understanding to reduce its emissions by 20 percent below business as usual; if not, why does the Government feel obliged to deliver on its non-binding commitment to continue to use taxpayers’ money to completely subsidise New Zealand’s most profitable industry for the whole Kyoto period?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, the agricultural sector is not on target to meet its part of the deal under that agreement. That is one of the reasons why, despite having a proposed date of entry for agriculture of 1 January 2013, we want to have negotiations with the agricultural sector to bring forward emissions mitigation technologies like, for example, the more widespread use of nitrification inhibitors.

Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Period

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Did he receive any advice from officials on his proposal to extend the regulated election period in New Zealand to up to 11 months; if so, what was that advice?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: [Interruption] It is always good to get that support in when I stand up. Yes, the Minister of Justice has received advice on the regulated election period and financial spending caps in other jurisdictions.

Hon Bill English: Did officials of the Ministry of Justice or of any other Government department give him any advice on the merits of extending the election period?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As the member will know, because he has asked this question or versions of it a number of times, the advice from officials talked about the UK and Canada, and the 3-month period here, and suggested variations of that in the short paper they provided on this matter.

R Doug Woolerton: Can the Minister confirm that the longest and loudest objections to the 1 January date have come from the one party that has the most to lose from a level playing field, given its huge war chest, and that this date in no way undermines the principle of “one person, one vote”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I could tell that that was a very popular understanding of the issue. I would endorse what the member has said—that the party that seems to be opposing the proposal seems to be the one that believes its war chest will be disturbed. I notice that Nicky Hager said today that The Hollow Men book that he produced is perhaps “the best-documented background to an explanation of the need for the Electoral Finance Bill.” In other words, Mr Hager supports Mr Woolerton in saying that the National Party simply wants to carry on spending in the way it has been, and that that is wrong.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that in fact there was no advice from officials of that nature to him, and that in response to Official Information Act requests for the official advice on the 1 January regulated period, he has suppressed all of the papers and released none of the advice from Government departments on the Electoral Finance Bill?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can advise that Cabinet was given information on the Canadian and the UK systems, on the 3-month period, and on the longer period, and it was asked by the Minister to—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Could we just let the Minister finish?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: —go for 1 January.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to be so quick off my feet—

Madam SPEAKER: Because sometimes you do not know then what is actually going to happen.

Gerry Brownlee: But in this case, I was absolutely right. The Minister did not address that question. He was asked whether he could confirm that the Minister of Justice had suppressed the information supplied to him by Government departments. He then spoke about what Cabinet had received. He confirmed the information exists. Why cannot he simply confirm that he does not want the public to have the information he was given?

Madam SPEAKER: I want members, please, in future to enable the Minister to complete the answer before the points of order are taken, because I could not hear, then, what the Minister’s answer was. But I will ask the Minister to address the question, please.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I cannot confirm any suppression of information has taken place. I can confirm that information was put forward around the UK and Canadian systems and about a variety of dates here in New Zealand.

Hon Bill English: Is it not the case that if the briefings and reports from Ministers were full of glowing praise for this Draconian legislation the Minister would have released them all, but in fact he has used the Official Information Act to withhold all official advice on the Draconian Electoral Finance Bill and none of it is available to the public?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I cannot remember anybody thinking it is Draconian other than the member and, as the author of The Hollow Men has pointed out, the position of the National Party is that it seems to want to continue a situation where it can get a large amount of money from the Brethren and have it spent on things that may well rort an election.

Hon Bill English: Why is it that for this legislation, which is an important part of New Zealand’s constitutional framework, the Minister is refusing to release any of the official advice that he has received on whether it is reasonable to ban all political opinion from 1 January in an election year, unless it meets particular criteria set by the Government?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am sure the Minister will release the information at the appropriate time. Of course, if the member does not agree with the Minister, there is a person called the Ombudsman, and that is where he should go.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister understand that there might be some concern, particularly from groups in the community that have a political opinion, when people find that the Minister is unaware of the intense and heavy criticism of his bill in the select committee—because he thinks only National is criticising it—and when they find that the way Labour is going to shut down the National Party is to shut down every possible critic of the Government right through an election year?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I am glad the member asked that question, because I notice that recently he has been parading Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand as a group that might well oppose this bill. I understand that group went to the select committee this morning and said the National Party had not listened to it at all, and that this bill is badly needed to clear up the kinds of rorts that we see from the National Party.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Key Announcements

3. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What are the key features of the Government’s announcement on emissions trading?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): The emissions trading scheme and other initiatives announced today, such as the 90 percent renewable electricity target, will roughly cut in half our current projected Kyoto Protocol deficit. The major feature of the emissions trading system is that it will apply to all sectors and all gases over time in a way that is fair to industry and consumers, while also being good for the environment.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What does the Minister consider are further key features of the emissions trading scheme announced today?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The scheme has dates of entry for different parts of the economy, and theses dates are staggered. First in is forestry, which is in with full devolution of all benefits and costs to forestry. Transport comes in on 1 January 2009; electricity, stationary energy, and process emissions come in on 1 January 2010; and agriculture comes in on 1 January 2013. The other important point I make is that there is no free allocation to sectors that will pass on the cost anyway, but there is a generous allocation to those who are exporters at risk.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that National’s statement in 2005 that: “An emissions trading system, not a carbon tax, is the best way forward on climate change policy.”, and National’s blue-green vision document of a year ago that stated: “We should introduce a tradable emissions permit system to manage New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions.”, and our statement in February this year that: “Forest owners and not Government should receive carbon credits for trees planted since 1990.”, have all been adopted as Government policy, despite the Government arguing against them for all of the last 8 years?

Hon DAVID PARKER: What I can confirm is that at the last election National said we should pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. National said there should be no devolution of any credits to foresters, and National voted against the first two readings of the permanent forest sinks initiative. It is true that when it was obvious that emissions trading would be the preferred Government priority in this area, National followed suit. It is also true that the so-called offer of the National Party to devolve credits to forestry, even until today, was for 50 percent of forest credits. We have promised 100 percent devolution. Having said all of that, I repeat what I said in response to the first question: we look forward to working with all parties constructively as we advance New Zealand towards emissions trading and carbon neutrality.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister outline how low to modest income earners will be compensated for the increased costs of electricity that will result from an emissions trading scheme, as was announced today, and will he also advise as to whether any such compensation will be linked in any way to the price of electricity, or perhaps the price of carbon, and thereby fluctuate somewhat?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am not in a position to give final details on that issue. There is plenty of time to work that through, because, of course, the price effects are not coming for a couple of years yet. It will be clear by the time the legislation is finally passed by the House what is anticipated in that regard. Suffice it to say, the Government is already putting significant focus on improving people’s efficiency in their use of energy so that they use less of it and, therefore, have to pay for less of it.

Gordon Copeland: Is it likely that the household price of electricity will increase as a result of a new emissions trading scheme, and, if so, does the Minister have plans to mitigate the effect of that on low-income households and fixed-income households; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is expected that the cost of petrol, at current prices of carbon, would increase by about 4c a litre in 2009. The cost of electricity is expected to go up by around 5 percent in 2010. But we need to get this in perspective. Even when we lump all of those costs for a household together, the effect of those increases is substantially less than what has been the effective price increases in petrol in the last 3 or 4 months alone.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. What was really central to my question was whether the Minister had plans to mitigate the effects of those price increases on households. I do not believe the Minister addressed that part of the question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: In answer to the question: yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm today’s latest figures on emissions, which show that for every year Labour has been in office emissions have grown at a record rate, to the point that they will be 10 million tonnes—20 percent higher than when Labour came into Government—and that the hard yards of implementing an emissions trading system and of constraining emissions will be left to the next Government?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I think this framework will be very important and will endure for a long time. In terms of growth of emissions, it is true that New Zealand’s emissions have grown ever since industrialisation began in New Zealand—that is a factor of both economic growth and population growth. Of course, sometimes emissions have not grown as much under National, because National runs recessions rather than growth. Nonetheless, it is true that the projection that was released today will be modified substantially next year because the balance will go down considerably as a consequence of our announcements.

Question No. 4 to Minister

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei): I seek leave to hold this question over until the Minister of Justice returns to the House.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Justice, Ministry—Confidence

4. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: Does he have confidence in his ministry; if so, why?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Once again, thanks for the welcome. Yes; because they are hard-working and conscientious public servants.

Simon Power: Why has the Ministry of Justice been unable to provide any information about the protection and custody orders involved in the Nai Yin Xue and Qian Xue case, except to tell the media “We can’t. It’s part of the rules.”, when the police have provided that information?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I understand that the answer the member just read out is the position of the officials.

Simon Power: What responsibility does the Ministry of Justice have for entering a custody order into the Customs Service system to prevent a non-custodial parent from taking a child out of the country, when the Customs Service has confirmed that in the case of Nai Yin Xue and Qian Xue it was “not in possession of any information or directions that would enable such intervention”?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Those are the exact questions that have to be explored at the moment; we need to find out exactly what happened.

Simon Power: Has the Minister of Justice received advice that Nai Yin Xue’s passport had been seized by the court and held by the police, and was that because, under section 77 of the Care of Children Act, the court thought there was a risk he might abscond; and what good is the system if he is able to wander into a police station with his daughter and get his passport back?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member is highlighting exactly what has to be isolated at the present time in relation to how these matters happened, and that is what the Minister is doing.

Simon Power: What steps will the Minister of Justice be taking to ensure that the failure to enter custody orders into the Customs Service alert system in this case is not a wider, systemic problem, in light of a growing number of cases, such as those involving Jayden Hedley and Caitlin Jelicich?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: If, indeed, this matter highlights a trend—and we have yet to isolate exactly those facts—then, of course, the Minister of Justice will be ensuring that in the future those loopholes are closed down. The member has raised an issue that is a fair one. We need to make sure that we isolate the problems and make sure they are closed.

Driver Licensing—Age Level

5. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Minister of Transport: Does she stand by her comment on 13 September 2007: “I would say to the member that he ought to test this House as to whether it wishes to raise the driving age of young New Zealanders. I think it is probably timely that this House was tested to see whether it would like to see the age raised. It is a question that this House could decide on.”?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Yes. However, the experience of successive Ministers of Transport is that in the past, when they have tried to make improvements, they have often faced resistance when the time came for Parliament to support a change.

Hon Peter Dunne: Has the Minister seen the poll reported in the New Zealand Herald a short time ago, that showed that 87 percent of New Zealanders favoured a change in the driving age, and do I take it from his original answer that he also does?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Yes, I am aware of the poll and the considerable public opinion on the issue, but opinion is divided. Just as an example of this a previous Minister of Transport, the Hon Maurice Williamson, strongly favoured raising the driving age, as I did, but Paula Bennett was quoted in the newspaper the other day—another National member—saying no. So that is a very good example of where public opinion is divided.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that the school-leaving age has increased to 16 since the driving age was set at 15, and is it not reasonable to tag the driving age to 16; if he thinks it is reasonable, does he believe he has the confidence of his Labour Party colleagues?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: As the member well knows there are arguments for and against raising the driving age, particularly between those living in urban areas and those living in rural areas. There will be various announcements soon concerning young drivers, and I look forward to the support of Parliament when those announcements are made. That does not, however, preclude any member from putting the matter forward as a member’s bill, and I am sure the debate would be most interesting. Can I also say that 15-year-old drivers in the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 had two crashes per year where the 15-year-old driver was at fault and which caused fatalities. That puts the issue somewhat in perspective.

Paula Bennett: I seek leave to table the Sunday Star-Times article, which clearly states—

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

Hon Peter Dunne: I seek leave to table OECD figures on international driving ages for 2006.

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

Question time interrupted.

Points of Order

Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): I seek leave for the introduction of the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is this bill in the name of the member? Because, of course, if it is, it becomes a Government bill, as the member is a Minister.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Question time resumed.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 5 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you try to clamp down on the practice of people seeking leave to table documents and then wanting to make a speech about them. But a few moments ago when Paula Bennett sought to table a document, she said: “I seek leave to table a document from the Sunday Star-Times, which clearly states—”, and at that point the microphone went dead. The House cannot possibly have known what it was about. I just ask you, Madam Speaker, although I think you are on the right track, to perhaps give people an opportunity to say exactly what it is they are trying to table.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comment. It is noted.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): I seek leave to table a document entitled “Emissions regime proposals look sound”, which is a National Party press release.

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

Accident Compensation—Employers' Liability

6. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Minister for ACC: Does she stand by her statement yesterday, “it is irrelevant whether he injured his toe or whether it was a gang-related shooting … It relates to the time and the place rather than to how the injury was incurred.”; if so, why?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): Yes; because it is factually correct. To summarise the relevant section of the Act, a work-related personal injury is one that an employee has incurred while he or she is at any place for the purposes of his or her employment, including while he or she is having a break from work at his or her place of employment. Also, as specified by the Act, it is irrelevant to the decision whether any employee suffering a work-related personal injury was indulging in misconduct, negligence, or was acting against or in the absence of instruction at the time the injury occurred.

Anne Tolley: Why does the Minister continue to claim that the 2003 gang shooting of Mr Storey is work-related when the man was not working but on a break outside AFFCO’s staffroom, outside the security fence, and outside the employer’s control?

Hon RUTH DYSON: There are two parts to my answer. The first is in relation to the break. A break is clearly specified in the legislation as being included in one’s time of work. So it does not matter whether the injury happened during morning tea, at lunchtime, or during afternoon tea, as long as the employee was on work premises. The member asserts that the car-park was not defined as a place of work. As I have said for the last 2 days in answers to the same question, there is a process for resolution so that agreement on the facts can be reached. I would recommend again to AFFCO that it follows that process.

Lesley Soper: Has the Minister seen any reports confirming that this injury occurred at the place of employment of the injured person and that, therefore, under the definition as found in legislation, it would be considered a work-related personal injury?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have seen several. The first is from Anne Tolley and states that the injured employee was “on a work break and was sitting in a car in a car-park that provides car parks for AFFCO workers”. The second is from an AFFCO spokesperson, Mr Richard Griffin, who stated: “As Mr Storey was shot on AFFCO property, ACC’s legal position would be strong if the case went to court.” The third is from AFFCO’s case manager, who told the claimant that AFFCO had accepted cover with the words: “Your employer acknowledges your injury to be work-related.” All three are in agreement that this injury, according to the legislation, is work-related. I still cannot understand why Anne Tolley and the National Party are happy for the taxpayer to pick up what is legally AFFCO’s financial responsibility.

Anne Tolley: Why is it that AFFCO does not consider it a work-related incident, the Occupational Safety and Health Service does not consider it a work-related accident, the police do not consider it a work-related accident, the media and the public do not consider it a work-related accident, and, in fact, the only person who does consider this gang shooting to be work-related is the Minister?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I do not make determination of cover for any injury; neither does the member, and, tragically, neither does the court of public opinion. There is a legal process for AFFCO to follow. I am not sure why it does not want to. It may be that Anne Tolley, its own case manager, and its spokesperson have all said it is wrong in the law.

Anne Tolley: Why does the Minister continue to claim that the accident took place inside AFFCO’s security fence, when TV footage clearly shows that the car-park is outside the plant’s fence and openly used by the public?

Hon RUTH DYSON: If there is a dispute over the facts, about where in fact the injury—the shooting—occurred, there is a process that AFFCO could follow. I recommend that it takes up that opportunity.

Anne Tolley: Is the Minister aware that when AFFCO told the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) it wanted to revoke the designation of this accident as work-related, ACC asked it not to; when AFFCO said it would like to, ACC said it could not; when AFFCO said it would do so anyway, ACC confiscated the file; and when AFFCO finally asked for dispute resolution, ACC said no?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No, absolutely not. I do know that there has already been one attempt at mediation, and that the next opportunity of engagement was delayed while this member raised the matter in the House in an attempt to get the taxpayer contribution to AFFCO’s responsibility increased. Currently, AFFCO is responsible for $1 million of this claim. It is likely that the total cost of this claim will be over $8 million. That is an actuarial assessment. So AFFCO currently is responsible for less than one-eighth of the claim—a responsibility it is trying to get out of.

Anne Tolley: Will the Minister give an undertaking to this House that she will see that sensible negotiations take place between ACC and AFFCO in order to resolve this stupid dispute over a gang-related shooting, costing a company $1 million?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As the member well knows, I am a strong supporter of negotiated resolution, and I certainly accept her bipartisan commitment to that process.

Climate Change—Land Management

7. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Forestry: What steps is the Government taking to address climate change in the land management sector?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry): This morning the Government announced a comprehensive response to climate change, including an economy-wide emissions trading scheme. The Government proposes under this scheme that forests planted after 1989 will be eligible for 100 percent of carbon credits, as well as the liabilities generated by those forests from 1 January 2008. That, along with a $50 million Afforestation Grants Scheme, is expected to significantly increase the planting of trees across New Zealand.

Steve Chadwick: What reports has the Minister seen on climate change in regard to forestry?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have seen a blue-green document from the National Party that proposes to abolish the limits on deforestation. I have also seen a report saying the National Party would give only a portion—I repeat, a portion—of carbon credits to forest owners. It is clear that there would be significantly fewer incentives to plant forests under a National Government than there are under this Government, and that there would be absolutely no controls on deforestation. That comes from a party that has been screaming about a chainsaw massacre of 0.017 percent of our plantation forest estate.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister stand by his press statement of 6 March this year, in response to John Key’s call that carbon credits should be allocated to Kyoto forest owners, now that the Government has adopted just that policy, when in the press release he said the policy was “political naivety”, fiscal madness, “would create huge windfall gains for a few forest owners at the expense of ordinary taxpayers”, and the “emperor of the National Party has no clothes”—or is it the Minister who is naked today?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I stand behind every one of those statements, because at the time the Kyoto Forestry Association was asking for all the credits and none of the liabilities. Today what it got was the credits and the liabilities. When the association looks at the situation carefully, it may decide that one should never ask for what one wants—one might get it. I do say that I stand behind those statements more than I wonder whether Mr Key stands behind his statement in May 2005 that the Kyoto regime and climate change were a complete and utter hoax. Then, in a subsequent interview with Kathryn Ryan in 2006, he said: “I firmly believe in climate change, and always have.”

Steve Chadwick: If the Government does not devolve deforestation—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: The member will please begin her question again.

Steve Chadwick: If the Government does not devolve deforestation liabilities to those who convert forest land to pasture, who bears the cost?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Madam Speaker—

Gerry Brownlee: Who’s arguing about this?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Well, the National Party is, actually.

Gerry Brownlee: It’s a shame you didn’t get up early.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Coming from Gerry Brownlee, a comment about getting up early—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. The interjections are starting to create disorder, as is the chipping across the House. There are opportunities to ask questions, and there are opportunities to hear the answers. Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The member asks a very good question. If the Government were to abolish the deforestation cap, as National proposed, that would place no restrictions on deforestation. The taxpayer and the environment would have to pick up the bill for that. Meanwhile, a few individuals would make handsome profits for themselves, at everybody else’s expense. That is called the National policy of capitalising one’s profits and socialising one’s losses.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table National’s blue-green vision, which makes it plain that National supports the allocation of those liabilities as well as those credits.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary question, Madam Speaker?

Madam SPEAKER: I ask members who have documents they wish to table to do so at the end of the question. That is the convention.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has become a common habit of the Government for Ministers to grossly misrepresent in their supplementary answers National’s policy. I think it is best for the operation of the House that where those errors are made, they be corrected immediately.

Madam SPEAKER: I will obviously use my judgment on that, but those are matters of debate. This is question time. The member should ask his supplementary question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Government, in June 2000, decide to allocate to Kyoto forest owners the carbon credits, then reverse that decision in July 2002 and state it would not allocate them, and now change its position again to one of allocating the carbon credits to the forest owners; and is it any wonder that we have seen net deforestation of 10 million trees over these last 4 years when the forestry policy keeps flip-flopping all over the place?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government made no such policy statement, unlike the National Party, which between 2002 and 2006—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question was in respect of Cabinet decisions. The Minister, thank goodness, has no responsibility for National Party policy.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please address the question. The member is right. The Minister cannot address National Party policy, but any reports that he has heard about that policy can, of course, be addressed.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: That is true, Madam Speaker. I am pleased that I do not have responsibility for it. But I point out to the House that between 2002 and 2006, 11 climate change - related bills were put to this House and National members voted against every single one of them. How much credibility do they have on climate change with that kind of record?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister is obviously quoting from a document, and I wonder whether he is prepared to table it now, because it would show how many of those 11 bills were actually passed and are still effective today.

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, having been here a long time, it is for a member himself or herself to decide whether to table a document. Someone else cannot ask on a member’s behalf.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the Cabinet minute from June 2000 when the Government made an “in principle” decision to allocate carbon credits—

Document not tabled.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the Cabinet minute from July 2002 when the Government rescinded that decision and said that it would not allocate carbon credits.

Document not tabled.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I seek the leave of the House to table the record of the National Party’s vote against 11 climate change - associated bills.

Document not tabled.

Secondary Schools—Graduation Rates

8. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Why have graduation rates at upper secondary school level decreased from 80 percent in 2000 to 72 percent in 2005, when over the same period the OECD average has increased from 76 percent to 82 percent?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): The main reason is that we have changed the basis for recording graduation rates from participation to qualifications attained. I also point out to the member that the same report also states that the proportion of New Zealanders attaining at least upper secondary education is consistently about 10 percentage points above the OECD average. Our own data would reinforce that kind of gain, because it shows that the number of students leaving school with little or no formal attainment halved between 1999 and 2006, and the number of students achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 increased from 57 percent to 63 percent between 2004 and 2006.

Katherine Rich: Is the Minister saying that New Zealand has changed the way we now count these students; if so, why has there been a steady decline over a period of years in the number of students finishing high school, because surely we have not been changing the way we count those students every year?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes. I confirm for the member that one of the things we have done is change from recording the number of people participating to recording the qualifications they gain, which is, clearly, a much more robust way of doing it. I also point out that one of the problems with the OECD report is that not everybody records the same kind of data towards the end of students’ schooling. For example, NCEA is a form of standards-based assessment; that is not the case in all countries. I also mention that countries like the UK and Australia were not even included in the data for this particular area. So comparisons are quite difficult to make, but we do know that within our own system we are seeing increasing numbers of people gain qualifications, stay on longer in school, and attain higher levels of qualifications.

H V Ross Robertson: Does the Minister have any suggestions about how we could encourage students to stay at school longer, and thereby provide a pathway to employment?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes. At the present time we are doing a wide range of things, like reducing leaving exemptions, suspensions, exclusions, and truancy. We are supporting a successful transition through further education through Gateway, the Youth Transitions Service, and the Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource, otherwise known as STAR; more second-chance opportunities through alternative education and things like the teen parent units; more information for parents and communities through things like Te Mana and Team-Up; and a range of improvements like Te Kōtahitanga, new assessment practises, and new teaching practises, all of which are aimed at giving a more diverse education system. I contrast that with a report I saw very recently that suggested that the way to cure this issue was to introduce American-style graduation ceremonies. That seems to be the only idea that the National Party has been able to advance recently. I am not sure it would change the situation as much as the rich policies coming from the Labour Party would.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Could it be that the reason why fewer students are graduating from upper secondary school compared with the number in 2000 is that standards have risen since that time, given that it is unlikely there has been any significant change in the overall capability of the cohort; and has he received any reports of another party in this House advocating strongly for precisely such a tightening of educational standards?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No. I say to the member that the main reason is simply the change in the way we collect the information. I am glad we have changed it, because it now has a much more robust basis. But I endorse the second part of the question; two parties, at least, in the Chamber are advocating ever-higher standards, and they are certainly New Zealand First and Labour—and I would probably count the Progressives, as well.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister accept that, even if he argues that New Zealand data is not comparable with the OECD data, and we consider only the information sent from New Zealand, graduation rates at the secondary level have been in significant decline over the 5-year period from 2000 to 2005?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, I do not accept that, at all. I think the member needs to go back to our own data. The report, for example—to go back to what I said earlier—sees us as being consistently about 10 percentage points above the OECD average in terms of New Zealanders gaining upper secondary education, and we are seeing increases in NCEA achievement, and we are seeing NCEA level 2 being achieved by more students. Those are the important points—that we are seeing a steady improvement in the number of young people gaining qualifications. They are gaining more and higher qualifications.

Judy Turner: Given that the OECD report highlighted that New Zealand suffers one of the widest gender gaps in the developed world, does he intend to honour the Government’s recent commitment to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women to intensify its efforts to meet the target of eliminating gender inequalities in primary and secondary education by the earliest possible date, and at all educational levels by 2015; or, because boys are suffering rather than girls, will the Government continue to simply ignore the 22 percent gender gap in education?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: No, of course not. In fact, one of the things we have just been convening again in recent times is the boys’ reference group. We have been looking at experience around the world as to how to improve outcomes for boys. In particular, one of the things we think will work is to continue to diversify the way that education is delivered in New Zealand so that not only boys but Māori, Pacific Islanders—all the groups that are not doing as well—get education that is tailored to their particular learning styles and achievement outcomes. But the member can rest assured that we are not going to sit by and let that gender gap stay there. We certainly do not want to see anything other than constant improvement amongst girls, but we want to see boys improve, as well.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister’s Government continue to sing the praises of international reports such as those from the OECD when the results are good for New Zealand, only to question the validity of data, or comparability of data, when the results are bad for New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: We actually release all of the OECD’s information in the usual way. In the case of this report, the data was released in the usual way. The Ministry of Education has been replying to questions about it. We are replying to questions about it here. We always welcome international comparisons. We have one of the best systems in the world. We are always very happy to have ourselves compared with others, because we show up pretty well.

Research and Development—Investment

9. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What reports has he received on the level of investment in research and development in New Zealand?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): I have some excellent news. On Monday, Statistics New Zealand released new figures showing that there has been a 7 percent increase in research staff since 2004. Total research and development is up 10 percent—[Interruption]—the member might listen to this; this is very, very good news—to $1.8 billion. Of particular note is that there was a 22 percent increase in health research between 2004 and 2006. This Government is committed to increasing New Zealand’s investment in research and development. That is why we announced in this year’s Budget a $73.7 million Government funding increase and a 15 percent tax credit for private sector research and development spending—outstandingly good policies.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What reports has the Minister received on New Zealand’s level of investment in climate change research?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: In August the Government announced an additional $6.7 million investment in climate change research. This extra funding is focused on helping us maintain the effects of climate change in our primary industries, our towns, our cities, and our transport, energy, and communication infrastructure. In the latest $44 million Marsden Fund round, a range of climate change initiatives were funded. These include research into the historic collapse of the Ross Iceshelf in warmer temperatures, and the growth of the Antarctic ice sheet over New Zealand and Antarctica 60 million years ago. These kinds of projects give us the kinds of insights we need into the future of climate change.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that improving the level of investment in research and development has long been advocated by New Zealand First, and is key to boosting the future prospects of New Zealand exporters by increasing the value and innovation of our traditional food-based exports?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I can confirm exactly that.

Arts, Culture and Heritage, Associate Minister—Attendance at Events

10. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Does she stand by her statement that “I am very happy to go to any event”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: The Minister says that she is happy to attend any event relating to her portfolio, her role in this Labour-led Government, or her electorate.

Christopher Finlayson: Can the Minister confirm that she has racked up the second-highest ministerial bill for domestic flights since 2000; and how much will it cost the New Zealand taxpayer to offset the carbon emissions she generates from all the domestic travel she currently undertakes?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm that the Minister is extremely well-travelled, and also travels extremely well, I may say. But in addition to that, I am not able to give the member advice on what her travel will cost in terms of carbon emission offsets.

Christopher Finlayson: Does the Minister’s focus on seeing every part of New Zealand other than Auckland help explain why she did not follow her own advice to New Zealanders: “We need to reduce our carbon emissions, and we need to do it now.”, in attending the same Royal New Zealand Ballet performance of Trinity in two different cities?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister is the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. That involves supporting the performances of the arts in New Zealand.

Christopher Finlayson: Does the Minister stand by her statement to One News in June last year that she was appointed a Minister not to do any paperwork; if so, what exactly was she appointed for, other than to generate carbon emissions?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Associate Minister is extraordinarily well-known for supporting the arts, culture, and heritage in New Zealand. I have heard reports that there has been a recent resurgence of interest by National MPs, many of whom are turning up to events, but most of whom show no sign of understanding what is going on at them.

Christopher Finlayson: What bold new policy is the Government developing to make her carbon neutral?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If the member carries on like that, I suspect the Associate Minister will plant him as a means of achieving carbon neutrality.

Serious Fraud Office—Public Confidence

11. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Police: Ko te āwangawanga o Te Tari Hara Tāware ka ngaro i te iwi whānui tō rātau whakapono mō te mana o te ture (ā, mō te mana hoki o te Tari Tāware) ki te kore ngā hara tāware pakupaku noa iho nei e tirohia, te take e whakaaro nei te Kāwanatanga ki te whakakapi i te Tari Tāware, meina ehara, he aha kē te take?

[Is the Serious Fraud Office concern at the potential of the public to lose confidence in the justice system (and by association the Serious Fraud Office) if low-level fraud is not investigated, the reason why the Government plans to replace the Serious Fraud Office; if not, what is the reason?]

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Police: No. Indeed, in terms of low-level fraud, the great bulk of it is probably investigated by the New Zealand Police already. For example, over the last 3 years the police have averaged something like 13,000 fraud investigations a year. The primary factors are that organised crime has been growing in New Zealand, as it has been elsewhere in the world, and that since the Serious Fraud Office was established in 1990, the nature and scale of fraud offending have changed. The issue facing the Government, therefore, was whether to have a separate organised crime agency and a serious fraud office, or to combine the functions of both into a larger and more comprehensive office.

Tariana Turia: Can the Minister confirm that the general objectives of the Serious Fraud Office were to prosecute all fraud involving over $500,000, all fraud perpetrated by complex means, and any fraud of major public concern; if so, what explanation can he offer as to the rationale for Serious Fraud Office resources being targeted towards the alleged improper expenditure of $25,000 by a Chinese school in Hamilton?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I do not have any information in relation to that. I note that the primary question, because of its nature, was transferred to the Minister of Police—who, of course, is not responsible for the Serious Fraud Office—because the question seemed to imply that it was about the reasons for abolishing the Serious Fraud Office and amalgamating it with another agency. That issue, of course, is one where the carriage has been taken by the Minister of Police.

Martin Gallagher: How will combining the specialist fraud investigation powers of the police with those of the Serious Fraud Office assist in detecting and prosecuting fraud?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Government has taken the view that putting the resources of the two agencies together will enhance the capacity for detection and prosecution of fraud. It seems to be common sense to remove any impediments that may exist that prevent New Zealand’s resources in this area from being fully harnessed. Again, I would emphasise that in a small country, operating two separate specialist agencies is unlikely to achieve the maximum impact.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister agree with David Bradshaw, the head of the Serious Fraud Office, when he said: “If someone has lost even $10,000 to a scam, they would regard that as serious fraud in their world.”; and how can that be reconciled with the police telling a person who is chasing $200,000 that “fraud and dishonesty are given a lower priority”, and that the police were not in a position to investigate that case?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As indicated previously, the police investigated something like 13,000 fraud cases a year over the last 3 or 4 calendar years, but, obviously, the new agency, which will be housed within the police but not subject to the normal police controls in that regard—it is an agency within the police but separate from the police in general—will be taking a much keener interest in the relationship between organised crime and serious fraud. On the particular matter raised, I do not have advice. The police, of course, always have operational independence about which offences they choose to investigate and how. They must have that operational independence; they must not be subject to direction from the Government.

Tariana Turia: What explanation can be offered for the fact that the Court of Appeal cancelled the award of $1 million in costs for the failed prosecution in the Digitech case, because, the court said, it was concerned about the effect on the ability of the Serious Fraud Office to perform its statutory duty of prosecuting complex fraud cases if compensation were awarded against the Serious Fraud Office that was materially significant compared with its budget?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is not appropriate for me to comment on the reasons for the Court of Appeal arriving at any particular decision.

Simon Power: Could the Minister just clear up whether the new organised crime agency will report to the Commissioner of Police whilst it is housed inside the police, or whether there will be separate reporting lines to other Ministers; and, secondly, could the Minister clarify at what point the House will know what particular powers this new agency is to have, and whether legislation will be required for the agency to be able to use those powers?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The intention at the moment is that reporting will occur to the Commissioner of Police, and through him, obviously, to Ministers. In terms of the powers, there are still some issues to be decided around them. Obviously, there is some concern about whether some of the current powers of the Serious Fraud Office will need to be transferred over—at least, in part and for certain purposes—to the new agency. On the other hand, it is fair to say there has been significant concern about the nature of some of those powers for some considerable period of time. It may well be that the Law Commission’s broad proposals around search and surveillance, etc., may be sufficient to deal with the powers that the new agency will need. Those remain open questions at this point, and will remain open questions, I am sure, through the select committee process, whatever the bill says on this matter when it is introduced, because those, I think, are the most important questions to be decided on this particular matter.

Ron Mark: Does the Minister agree with Dr Cullen’s statement that: “The demarcation between fraud and other forms of organised criminal activity is no longer a clear one.”; if so, what assurances can he give to the Mitchell partnership, which was allegedly defrauded of farm leases and a large amount of dairy stock, and to George Calvert and other investors who were caught up in the Spacetable scam promoted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and were allegedly victims of white-collar fraud, that their cases will be duly investigated, given the stated specific focus and orientation of the organised crime agency towards organised crime?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is very important that the decision to combine the Serious Fraud Office with the proposed organised crime agency means that the current work of the Serious Fraud Office will continue to be carried out by the new agency. Those functions will not disappear; they will become part of the functions of the new agency. I am sure that Dr Cullen was referring to the fact that there is a continuum now between the Serious Fraud Office and the organised crime agency, and that to draw a hard and fast line, when one has a specialist agency for organised crime, with the Serious Fraud Office, would create its own internal difficulties.

Tariana Turia: Can the Minister confirm that the reason for the Government disbanding the Serious Fraud Office is that the Government had lost all faith in the ability, integrity, and honesty of the Serious Fraud Office; if not, what is the real reason behind the decision?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Not at all; absolutely not at all. The Serious Fraud Office has continued to have a high success rate in its prosecutions. There has been some criticism from some outside that it has not chosen to pursue certain cases—and therefore that, if you like, bolsters its success rate—but I have seen no clear evidence to support that particular claim. The real reasons for disbanding the Serious Fraud Office are, firstly, that the Government had determined to set up an organised crime agency. That decision was in train. Secondly, it is fair to say that the Attorney-General—and of course I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of Police here—has for some time felt uncomfortable that the Serious Fraud Office comes under the Attorney-General because it is not merely a prosecuting agency, but an investigating agency as well. The Attorney-General’s view is that that is something of a conflict in his role as Attorney-General. Therefore, the possibility arose and discussion occurred as to whether the two agencies should be combined, particularly given the fact that there is a change in the chief executive of the Serious Fraud Office due in the near future.

Crown Minerals—Confidence

12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to the Associate Minister of Energy: Does he have confidence in Crown Minerals; if so, why?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy): I assure the member yet again that the answer is yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Chris Auchinvole: Does the Minister simply use his signature as a rubber stamp on all mining applications that cross his desk from Crown Minerals, or does he seek additional information to satisfy himself of the value of each application; if the latter, what did he uncover that justified the extraordinary decision to personally sign off on a 40-year mining permit for Macdonald Investments for an area containing no identified commercial discovery?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: First, the member says that I took an extraordinary decision. I certainly did not. It was in line with the information provided and tabled, which I hope the member has read. I also say to the member that I take a strong interest in these issues, particularly when it is a new and innovative application, as the mining application from Macdonald Investments was.

Dave Hereora: Is it true that Crown Minerals’ permitting systems are amongst the best in the world?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: Yes, it is true. The introduction of an online permitting system in June this year ensures that New Zealand’s permitting systems continue to be not only amongst the best in the world but also amongst the fastest in the world.

Chris Auchinvole: Did the Minister, when personally granting the mining permit to Macdonald Investments, make any reference to its previous work history and lack of achievement, and was the Minister aware that even if it had made a discovery, it had no financial wherewithal to develop it?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I certainly did inquire into the previous work history. The company had employed a new geologist and undertook a new technical and economic analysis, and then came back with a detailed proposal to apply for a mining permit to extract gas from what it believes is a commercially viable gas find.

Chris Auchinvole: How many employees does Macdonald Investments have working on the Westgas project that he signed off, and of these, how many are former employees of Crown Minerals?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: If the member likes to put that down as a written question, I will endeavour to find the answer. But, given the fact that his primary question led by asking whether I have confidence in Crown Minerals, of course I have not come prepared with detailed answers like that.

Chris Auchinvole: Does the Minister realise that mining industry participants are all dependent on his using best practice when dispensing his signature; and is he telling the House that his approval of Macdonald Investments is as good as his best practice gets, or who or what was it that made it seem such a good idea?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: The advice I received showed that the company had put forward a detailed work programme, which Mr Auchinvole or any member of the public can view online at their convenience. I would add this. The Pohokura permit, which I also personally signed, was in fact signed approximately 6 weeks—it may have been as many 8 weeks; I am doing this from memory—after it was applied for. This is a permit worth something like one thousand times more than the Macdonald Investments permit.

Chris Auchinvole: Which other Ministers did he discuss Macdonald Investments’ application with prior to his decision to personally approve it?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: From memory, I think I discussed it with two Ministers, the Hon Trevor Mallard and the Hon David Parker.

Question No. 11 to Minister

RON MARK (NZ First): I seek leave of the House to table two documents. One is a letter from the New Zealand Police to a constituent, saying that it unfortunately would not be able to investigate—

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

RON MARK: The second is a Hansard transcript of the select committee meeting where Mr Bradshaw says even a $10,000 loss—

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

Urgent Debates

Emissions Trading Scheme—Government Announcement

Madam SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Jeannette Fitzsimons seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s announcement of a framework for the emissions trading scheme. The announcement is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Given the importance of the policy issues involved, I consider it a matter that justifies the immediate attention of the House. I am therefore prepared to accept the application.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Ten years ago this year, New Zealand helped to negotiate an international agreement to reduce climate change emissions in all developed countries. We took a binding target ourselves to reduce our emissions back to our 1990 levels. That agreement gave countries a 10-year opportunity—a 10-year transitional time—to put in place economic instruments, stabilise their emissions, and work with their sectors to find ways to meet this agreement.

In just 3 months’ time those emissions begin to count. They count in real dollars. In 2012 the New Zealand taxpayer is liable for real dollars for all of our emissions that are above 1990 levels from 1 January next year. Today, 3 months before that time, a proposal is before us to put a price on carbon through an emissions trading scheme—a scheme that will not be legislated for until after the first Kyoto Protocol period is under way, and will not come fully into force until that period is over.

The Labour Government’s emissions trading scheme is soundly structured and its principles are good. I have to give the scheme credit for that. If it had happened 10 years ago it would have really made a difference to New Zealand’s compliance with Kyoto and to New Zealand’s long-term emissions track. But compared with what we need to do today, it is rather tepid. And National must take as much responsibility for that as Labour, because for 9 years after signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1990 it did nothing either.

Rob Storey went to the conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and made a promise that New Zealand would reduce its emissions by 20 percent by 2000. Well, he had that knocked out of him pretty fast after he got back. Simon Upton negotiated the Kyoto agreement and started a consultation programme about whether we should have emissions trading or a carbon charge. Lots of New Zealanders participated in that process. A good summary was written, but Simon could not get either of the options through his Cabinet. The whole idea lapsed, and New Zealand went back to sleep.

Consequently, New Zealand’s emissions have the highest rate of growth of those in the developed world since 1990, and they are now 25 percent above what they were in 1990. Back in 1993—before Kyoto was even developed—on the basis of the framework convention, the Green Party proposed that there should be a price put on carbon across the economy. We proposed to do it through a carbon emissions charge, and to recycle the money into tax cuts. That ought to gladden the hearts of people who are constantly calling for those. But they would have been tax cuts to the bottom band of income that all taxpayers pay, not to the top band. Unfortunately, we were not in a position to implement that proposal. We can only reflect on what New Zealand’s emissions might have been like today if it had come to pass in 1993.

I give credit to the Government for the sound structural elements in its emissions trading scheme. It includes all sectors and all gases—but some of them very slowly. We will be trading in Kyoto-compliant units rather than some Monopoly money New Zealand unit, which some people were worried might be the case. That means that our units will be linked to the world market, and our price will be the world price. In terms of efficiency across the globe, that is very important.

The points of obligation—in other words, the entities that will have to purchase credits and remit to the Government—are roughly the same as the Greens proposed in our policy last March. They will be oil companies, electricity companies, and, probably, agricultural processors like Fonterra rather than farms. That is certainly the most efficient way to do it.

The scheme will reduce deforestation somewhat. The Greens proposed a replanting incentive for old forests that are becoming mature and being deforested at a fast rate. That is effectively what the Government is doing, by allocating them some free credits that they lose if they deforest. But instead of funding it out of the Kyoto credits that New Zealand earns for its forests, as we proposed, it is being funded by the taxpayer. So there is a large taxpayer payment to those old pre-1990 forests. That is because the Government has caved in to the very vocal post-1990 foresters who have been claiming that they have a property right to the credits that New Zealand earns. We absolutely reject that argument. We wanted them to receive a carbon payment for the carbon they had stored, but not the whole credit. That could have been done easily with the Government sharing the Kyoto forest credits among the post-1990 and pre-1990 forests, but, instead, the taxpayer will face a bill for $825 million as a subsidy to those old forests. It has to be done to stop them from being cut down, but there was a better way to do it.

The Prime Minister said that the scheme will be effective and fair, and we agree that those are the two criteria by which it should be judged. Being effective means that our emissions have got to level off and then trend down permanently. There is no other way it can be effective for the climate. I want to repeat what I read at question time today from James Hansen, one of the most respected scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He said that even continuing to increase emissions each year for just another 10 years guarantees dramatic climate changes, a different planet, no sea ice in the Arctic, worldwide repeated coastal tragedies associated with storms and a continuously rising sea level, and regional disruptions due to freshwater shortages and shifting climatic zones.

That was why I asked the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, David Parker, at question time how much our emissions would actually go down by 2012 compared with now. He said that they would go down. I repeated the question, because I could not believe the answer, and he said again that they would go down. I am very encouraged that the Minister believes that our emissions will go down by 2012, and that it is the purpose of the policy that they go down by 2012. But I cannot make the numbers reach that conclusion.

There is no way that our gross emissions will reduce by 2012. Transport is increasing by 3 percent a year—that is about 17 percent over the next 5 years—and it is stated in the documents that emissions trading will lower that by only 0.3 percent. So that is still a rise of 16.7 percent by 2012. Agriculture faces no price at all, so it will not be going down in the next 5 years; it will be going up. Electricity is growing by 2.7 percent a year, and for 2 of those 5 years it faces no price at all. So the Government must be counting on avoided deforestation to reach those numbers. It certainly cannot come from new plantings. After 5 years, new seedlings are so tiny that they absorb very little carbon, although they will be great in the future.

I cannot make the numbers for avoided deforestation add up to a big enough number to reduce our emissions over 5 years from where they are now. Then I hit on the answer. The Minister must be relying on the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, which will be announced next month, and on measures not like trading but like changes to the building code and standards for appliances, more efficient vehicles, better public transport, and more renewable energy. That must be what he is relying on to meet his target by 2012. That is good because I have been working very hard on those issues over the last 2 years.

Even with those best projections, though, I have difficulty making the figures go down by 2012. If the Minister has other figures then I urge him to supply them to the House. We will welcome them.

The Prime Minister says the scheme will be fair. Well, the first way in which it is not fair is that the taxpayer will still be covering two-thirds of New Zealand’s bill in 2012, not the emitters. The taxpayer is particularly going to be subsidising New Zealand’s most profitable industry—the industry that has just received a windfall of, on average, $250,000 per farm in increased milk payouts—which is the dairy industry. The dairy industry is responsible, with the rest of the farming sector, for half our emissions and it will not be in the scheme at all until the Kyoto period is over.

In addition to that, huge subsidies will help the industry transition to what happens after 2012, and when it does finally come in it comes in at 5 percent above its 1990 emissions and does not have to pay for anything up to that point.

The particular unfairness with agriculture is that it competes for land use with forestry. Forestry will face the full deforestation liability on 1 January next year, but agriculture will not face anything for 5 years. That is what the forestry sector has been most angry about recently. It is being treated very different from farming and it should not be.

The hard decisions have been left until after the election. There will be no electricity price rises until after the election, and the allocation decisions for the competitiveness-at-risk industries are also being left until 2009. That means that the Government can say to industry that if its competitiveness is at risk it will be protected, without having to say which firms will be protected and by how much until after the election. When the squeals come, and some industries that think they should be helped are not—because if everybody is helped then it will not help our emissions, at all—that will not happen until 2009.

This proposal could be fixed. It is a good start. First, we need to review the memorandum of understanding with the agriculture sector. The Minister said at question time that it is not on track to reduce its emissions voluntarily by 20 percent. Therefore, the sector should be brought in in 2009, even if it gets a higher level of grandparenting.

We should bring forward the energy sector to 2009 even if we have to exempt the vulnerable industries for another year while an allocation is worked out. At the least, most energy users ought to be brought in earlier than 2010.

We should stop protecting export coal. Underground coalmining releases methane emissions from the coal seams. They count under Kyoto, and New Zealand pays for them, yet the documents indicate that the coalminer will not have to pay for them. That is easy to fix and should be fixed. It should cost the coal industry for the effects it has on the climate.

Finally, we should make sure no low-income families are still living in cold, damp homes by 2012. We should make sure we build enough public transport so that as many people as possible do not need to use their cars to get to work but can leave them at home. We should also invest properly in a society and an infrastructure that makes it possible to lower people’s power and fuel bills.

For the sake of the climate, for the sake of the next generation, and for the sake of vulnerable people today, we can make amendments to this proposal that would make it more effective and more fair. That is what the Green Party will be advocating.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): I just want to reply to Jeanette Fitzsimon’s question about why I think emissions will go down overall. I think there will be a decrease in electricity emissions. I think that deforestation emissions will go down very substantially after this year. They will peak this year, because it is natural—I am not saying it is good; but it is natural—that people will try to beat these rules. So there will be a spike in deforestation this year. We will have some extra sequestration as a consequence of more trees being planted, but the member is also right in saying that that will not be substantial during the first commitment period. The member is correct that it will take a few years before transport emissions will be on a downward track, although we are starting to bend the line in terms of trying to improve the efficiency of the vehicle fleet. So I expect transport emissions will be on an upward track. But I do hold out some hope that agriculture will start reducing its emissions, particularly through the widespread use of nitrification inhibitors, which we know—it has been proven scientifically—are efficient at reducing nitrous oxide emissions from fertiliser and from livestock urine and are probably the cheapest way of growing extra grass. I think that the most substantial of those reductions in emissions will be reduced deforestation emissions, which will peak this year.

I want to talk about climate change policy in general for a start. Climate change policy at its heart is very simple. That is, we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no other way for the world to overcome this climate change challenge. I give credit—which is, I think, deserved—to those who have long held this view and have fought hard for it. I think of my predecessor Pete Hodgson, I think of Jeanette Fitzsimons, and I think of Simon Upton. But I would like to say that I think we also owe a debt of gratitude as a nation to our Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has taken a political risk here. She has put sustainability issues at the heart of the Government’s agenda, and she has said that we will be held accountable by what we do as a Government to reduce emissions, to turn downwards the upward track of emissions, which has been going up since industrialisation began in New Zealand.

I do think it is fair to reflect on the fact that APEC did have a good outcome this year. It was not a perfect outcome, but it certainly put APEC a long way ahead of where it was last year. I think it is fair to reflect on the fact that climate change was on the APEC agenda as a consequence of the previous year’s meeting only because our Prime Minister put it there. I think we should thank her for that.

To control climate change, we have to reduce emissions, of course. Today the focus is on emissions trading, but we ought not to forget that a lot of other Government policy will aid in reducing our emissions. Regulatory changes are improving building standards. As a consequence, a house built in accordance with the new building code will use 30 percent less energy than one built under the previous building code. That means 30 percent less energy will be used on space heating. That is a significant change.

We have promoted simple things like compact fluorescent bulbs. A few years ago there were very few of those in the country. Through schemes run by the Government, mainly through the Electricity Commission, and with good support from Kiwis who want to do their bit to improve things, we now have more than 10 million of those bulbs in our country. That will start to make a difference. The measures that are coming up in the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, which Jeanette Fitzsimons has been instrumental in, will help in that regard too.

There are new rules on the way, which we have said we are developing in order to improve the efficiency of vehicles in the fleet. Once a vehicle enters the fleet, it will be used until the end of its natural life. It is important that we improve car efficiency at the point of entry into the fleet and improve the efficiency of the fleet as a whole as we go.

We are investing a lot more money into research and development in agriculture. In fact, I think that one of the things that deserves a lot of attention as a consequence of today’s announcements is the increased investment in low mitigation technologies in agriculture, including investment in things that have been promoted by environmentalists but have until now been seen as fringe. I refer to things like research into biochar, which is a potential way to store carbon and indeed could remove carbon from the atmosphere in a way that is even more effective and more long-term than trees do, because a tree comes to the end of its life sooner than biochar.

People ask how the emissions trading scheme works. An emissions trading scheme works to reduce emissions by encouraging businesses to lower their emissions. We all know that business is about money. That is not a bad thing, but an emissions trading scheme makes it worth businesses; while to reduce their emissions. More emissions cost more and lowering one’s emissions makes one a profit. So more use of renewables and less use of coal is the outcome. An emissions trading scheme is about protecting our environment and our economy by reducing emissions. It seems increasingly clear that there is a building consensus around the world that the world needs to reduce emissions. So if we let our emissions grow unchecked, we would be increasing the future cost to the economy of reducing emissions, because we would later have avoidably higher emissions.

We are not alone in introducing an emissions trading scheme. Emissions trading is the way the world is leaning. Europe already has it. We can say “Europe” pretty quickly, but, of course, Europe includes Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, which are all large economies. It includes the border States that were part of the Soviet Union and are now in the European Union. Similar things are happening in the Scandinavian countries, like Norway and Sweden. Emissions trading schemes are being developed in various states in the United States, the most significant of which is the Californian model. Interestingly, the Californian model is similar to the model here in New Zealand, in that it proposes a cap on emissions rather than having an intensity-based emissions trading scheme. That differs from what is currently proposed in Australia, although Australia itself is proposing an emissions trading scheme.

So why are people pursuing emissions trading schemes around the world? The reason is that it is the right thing to do and it makes basic economic sense to do it that way. Just as it makes sense for businesses to be more efficient and waste less energy, we think it is the same for households. The Government is already helping people to lower their energy bills by efficiency measures, such as insulating homes and using more efficient light bulbs, appliances, and cars, and we intend to do more about this.

But we must not forget what lies underneath all of this ambition. We must not forget that the experts are telling us that climate change is serious. The cost of doing nothing is much higher than the costs that will flow to us, not just environmentally but also economically, if the situation gets much worse. We need just to look at the Australian droughts and the floods we had up north recently. The predictions are that if we do not get greenhouse gas emissions under control, we will get a lot more of this. What is currently a one-in-20-year drought event might be a one-in-5-year event. That would be very serious for the country.

And that is just the effects for New Zealand. The effects here are likely to be less directly severe than in other countries. We can see that people in countries like Bangladesh are pretty nervous at the moment. More people have drowned in Bangladesh since World War II as a consequence of flood events than died as a consequence of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs in World War II. I always find that a pretty shocking statistic, because those two events are writ large in my memories of childhood as to what were the worst things in the world that ever happened. Nagasaki and Hiroshima seemed to be those. Yet, with current sea levels, more people have died in Bangladesh since World War II as a consequence of floods. That is how close people in that country are to drowning. That is the reality. I was at a meeting recently where we were negotiating post-2012 arrangements, and after a couple of days of slow-moving negotiations—they moved a bit faster than they normally move, actually, but they were still slow moving—the Bangladeshi Minister stood up and said: “Hey, you guys, get real!” Do members know that if sea levels rise by 1 metre it is estimated that 30 million people in Bangladesh will have to be moved? Thirty million people would have to be moved because they would not be able to live where they currently live, in what is already one of the most heavily populated countries in the world, if not the most heavily populated country. We can see that the consequences for those people would be absolutely dire. But to have 30 million people on the move means that the consequences for other people, including us, could be pretty dire, too.

We are a country that is reliant on growing things, and it is in our best interests that we get this under control. Agriculture, of course, is threatened by climate change perhaps more than any other sector in New Zealand. The sector is at the forefront of dealing with climate on a daily basis, so there is an increasing consensus amongst our leaders within the agricultural community that we need to do something about it.

What are we doing under this emissions trading scheme? Well, we are bringing sectors in sequentially. The first to come in is forestry. We are proposing full devolution in forestry—full devolution of all costs and benefits, full costs and benefits in both pre and post-1990 forests. It is sometimes forgotten in the forestry debate that because of a decision that I think might have been taken by the previous National Government, we have already protected the owners of pre-1990 forests against the cost of lessening levels of carbon. Those trees are getting close to being ready to be felled, and in the next few years that class of tree is actually decreasing in carbon content. Because of a decision that the then Government rightly made, those foresters are protected from those consequences of decreasing overall carbon levels during the first commitment period, but they are not protected if they do not replant. So if they turn a big tree into a little tree, that is fine; they do not have to count any carbon emissions. If they completely cut down their forests and do not replant at all, that causes the country a cost, and we are saying that some of that cost should flow through to that sector.

In respect of the rest of the forestry sector, which is accreting carbon, those forests will be real winners under this scheme. Indeed, in respect of those forests planted prior to 1990, if we allocate deforestation permits as we are proposing, most of those foresters will be winners too, because they will have a deforestation permit. It is an emissions permit that they can sell.

In terms of subsequent sectors, we have transport coming in next in 2009, followed by stationary energy in 2010, which is electricity, heating for industry, and process emissions for industry. After that we have agriculture coming in in 2013. In terms of allocation issues, the most important principle is that there ought to be no free allocation of units to those that can pass the cost on anyway. That was a mistake made in Europe, and we can learn from its mistakes. Although I say that Europe made mistakes, it is actually ahead of the rest of the world. So I am not critical of Europe, but we can learn from its lessons. That means no free allocation in transport and it means no free allocation in electricity generation.

In respect of other sectors that are facing competition in their exports from competitors overseas that are not exposed to the price of emissions, there are trade concerns, so we are proposing generous levels of allocations of 90 percent of 2005 emission levels. This still creates the critical price for emissions at the margins. There is still a full cost faced by all sectors after they come into the scheme for their increases in emissions, and a full benefit to their pockets if they reduce emissions. That is how an emissions trading scheme is made to work. As a consequence, we predict that what is currently projected as our deficit during the first commitment period, 45 million tonnes, will cut back to 25 million tonnes, and that is good progress.

I want to say something about engagement with other parties, because we want to move forward positively and constructively with other parties on this. It is true that other parties have more recently started to talk about emissions trading and putting a price on carbon. The Greens have been talking about it the longest other than us, and National has recently been talking about emissions trading—although I do have to say that its initial steps were to be in electricity alone, but more recently it has also supported devolution, to some extent, in forestry. So I think there is a building consensus around this issue, and I am keen to build upon that.

In terms of the effect on consumers, we need to be careful not to exaggerate the price effects. We will get consumers worried if we exaggerate. There will be plenty of threatened, self-interested groups who will try to do exactly that. These costs are for some time in the future, and they are not enormous—4c a litre of petrol pales into insignificance compared with the approximately 40c per litre increase that we have had in the last few months. Indeed, those increases in petrol prices recently would be more than the amount that consumers will feel from both petrol price rises and electricity price rises into the future combined. Also, the Government intends to help people in that regard.

Finally, I draw this discussion back to the topic of carbon neutrality. We are advancing towards the aspiration of carbon neutrality that the Prime Minister mentioned. We will achieve carbon neutrality in the electricity sector by 2025, with a very modest level of offsets. We will be 90 percent renewable by then, too—in fact, more than that, probably. We will achieve carbon neutrality in the whole of the stationary energy sector by 2030, and achieve it in transport by 2040. That is a very difficult task, but I believe we can achieve it. To achieve it we will have to be one of the first adopters in the world of electrically powered vehicles. These really are charging ahead internationally, and, as a consequence, they will be very, very cheap to fuel. Thank you.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): The National Party has taken the view that the framework announced by the Government today is broadly in line with National’s thinking on the issue. This is not to say that there will not be a raft of difficult issues ahead for the Government and Parliament to deal with. Some of them are technical issues that will have to be resolved if New Zealand is to have a sensible carbon emissions trading system. For instance, there needs to be a high degree of confidence among those who are trading that the measurement of carbon is consistent and reliable. That is clearly not the case yet. There will be decisions to make about not only where the carbon is measured but where the credit or the debit is actually incurred. There is a range of views about where that should be.

The objective of further development of emissions trading systems should be certainty. Markets are used to factoring in variations in price, but they like certainty about the rules. Today’s framework is a step forward in respect of creating that certainty. Those in, say, the business and agricultural sectors will be supportive of the framework; it is what they have come to expect. If anything, we have had pressure from the business and the agricultural communities for politicians to get on with establishing a framework. A classic example would be those who are making investment decisions in the energy sector. They need to know what the rules will be, even if the price of carbon will be uncertain.

There will be some other issues, in addition to the technicalities of the trading system, that will warrant further discussion. The linkage with the European market and whether that is the kind of market that will work for New Zealand are among those issues.

To just step back from the detailed issues, I think we should record here today the rather remarkable outcome—which was probably hard to imagine 10 years ago—that across the political spectrum political parties have converged on the idea that one can have financial incentives and tradability as a way of achieving environmental outcomes. I expect that as a result of the progress made on the emissions trading system, we will see more of that type of thinking being applied to the environment. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that given the complex interaction between maintaining environmental standards and achieving economic growth, a market price will be about as good an instrument as one can get to transmit information about technological progress, about consumer preferences, and about the limitations or otherwise of Government regulation.

I want to step back briefly to make sure Parliament understands the long history of this issue, because we need to see it in context to understand that this is another step—a significant one—on a pretty long pathway. The previous National Government back in the early 1990s was heavily involved in negotiating the initial framework that anticipated carbon trading. I was pleased the Minister noted the contribution of Simon Upton, who was then, and probably still would be now, one of the pre-eminent environmental politicians in the OECD. It was actually Simon Upton and the New Zealand negotiating team that invented forest sinks. Until New Zealand put that idea forward it was not part of the framework; it was negotiated in by New Zealand, in New Zealand’s interest. I note that the Government, in its forecasts about carbon emissions, is relying heavily on about a quarter of a million hectares’ growth in forestry, which simply shows that across the political spectrum there is an understanding of the particular New Zealand characteristics of climate change, and of the kinds of tools that we need to have to deal with those matters.

Another step along the pathway occurred in March 1999 when the National Cabinet of the time decided that it preferred emissions trading systems over a carbon tax. That was a Cabinet decision made at the time. There was a lot of discussion then about carbon tax. It was not fully discussed in the public arena, but the Cabinet of the time demonstrated that the direction should have been towards emissions trading systems rather than the carbon tax. In 2002 that decision was then changed back to a preference for the carbon tax. Then in 2006 there was another change back to emissions trading systems. So I think it is fair to say that the emissions trading system has had almost 10 years of debate in Cabinet, and each Cabinet has found it difficult to get to grips with the technicalities and implications of the system. But it has survived that process and that on its own signals that it is sufficiently robust to warrant broad party support, and sufficiently robust to survive successive Governments, which is pretty important to make it all work.

From National’s point of view, we published a Bluegreens document last year that indicated further progress towards the emissions trading system. I think that an important decision, at least for us, was to move to the idea that it should be comprehensive and all sectors should be incorporated in it. The Government has outlined in its document a transition of sectors coming in, and I think that any of the sectors interested in it would consider it to be a pretty fair and reasonable transition, which is not to say there will not be all sorts of difficulties. The point I make to the Greens is that the transition will, of necessity, unavoidably mean that there are winners and losers as accidents of history. The issue is how to make that transition in a way that is fair, and how to make sure we get to an end result that will have the effect of slowing down, then perhaps one day reducing, carbon emissions.

There are a few implications from this that will work themselves out over the next few months. In my capacity as finance spokesman, I note that the fiscal liability associated with signing up to Kyoto back in 2002 remains substantially on the Government books. That is one implication. It may well be that there are not other better answers, but, if I can make something of a political point, the Government signed up to Kyoto in the belief that it would generate a positive benefit for New Zealand. This should be a lesson to Governments that analysis is not the only answer, because signing up to Kyoto has turned out to be a significant liability and one way or another the taxpayer will meet that cost.

We have made the point in a press release that we look forward to ongoing discussion about the issues, because there is a great deal of uncertainty out there amongst the public. I know that the Minister has made the point that the costs could be relatively small. That does depend on particular assumptions about the carbon price, which is a bit like the assumptions about the Kyoto liability—it could be wrong or it could be right; we simply do not know and we do not believe that the Government knows. But it will be important, for this framework to have credibility with the public, that we can get a reasonable degree of certainty about the cost impacts on them. I think I have heard Dr Cullen say that everyone is interested in climate change but no one wants to pay the price of changing the climate. That is a risk for the whole framework and it is important to make sure that the public understands it. We are also keen to make sure that the implications for growth in the economy are well understood and not unreasonable, and that is also a matter of dealing with the devil in the detail.

I note that the hard decisions have been left until after the election, as the Greens have pointed out. There are only benefits before the election and there are hard decisions after it. It was not going to be any different, but the Government needs to understand that if it is very committed to climate change, it may have to give more indications about the decisions it would make if it survived as a Government, because the public will be just a wee bit sceptical about that particular distribution.

The last point I make is that if we go into carbon trading, that should actually mean less emphasis on regulatory solutions, not more. The whole point of having a price is to get dynamism and innovation, which a regulatory system cannot deliver. To all those who will be subject to this regime, we need to make it clear that they will not be subject to both systems—both a carbon trading system and whimsical regulation on the part of bureaucrats and politicians who want to get their photos taken.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Let me assure the House at the start of my contribution that New Zealand First understands climate change. We recognise that there is a problem and we are prepared to cooperate with the Government and the Minister to a very reasonable degree. We will do our bit to encourage businesses and households to make more efficient use of energy—we will encourage that wherever we go, wherever we speak. We will encourage people to use their car less or to change their car to a smaller model; to switch off their appliances when they are not in use; to turn off the lights, which I suggest is a particular failing of many teenagers; to use more public transport; and to insulate their homes and to take advantage of the Government’s offers in that regard. We are particularly encouraged by the announcement that the Government wants to do more to encourage the use of the electric car. I think I saw a statement that in so many years’ time, owners of electric cars will be able to charge up at the kerbside, or something along those lines—that intrigues us.

There is little doubt that New Zealand First will support the legislation that will put the emissions trading scheme into being. We will look at it positively. But, having said all that, I point out that we have three major concerns. One is the price of carbon. The Minister indicated that it would raise the cost of petrol by 4c a litre. My understanding is that if the price of carbon comes into being at the same level as it is in Europe, the cost of petrol will go up close to double that, if not slightly more than that. [Interruption] Does Dr Cullen dispute that? [Interruption] I cannot quite hear Dr Cullen, but I understand that the current cost of carbon in Europe is about $30 a tonne.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, if we were buying at the moment we would need to pay just under 16 bucks a tonne.

PETER BROWN: I will take the Minister’s word. He is more au fait with it than I am. Nevertheless, it will mean an increase in the price of petrol, and that is bad enough for the average household. More particularly, though, is what the price of electricity will be after this all comes into being. The Government has announced that there will be compensation measures to assist the low paid, or those on a moderate income. We will be reminding the Government of that obligation extensively, because right now, for retired folk, the cost of power, the cost of electricity, is a very worrying issue, and this will put up that cost, but by how much I do not know. I am aware that a stockbroking firm, I think ABN AMRO Craigs, suggested that the price of electricity could go up by 20 percent. Where it got the information from to produce that figure I do not know, but it has documented that.

The other issue is that we have to convince the public. I have in front of me a survey taken today—it would not have been a very scientific survey—in which, in answer to the question: “The government is unveiling details of its climate change policy today. Are you doing anything to help limit global warming?”, 40 percent say, “No—I’m not convinced.”, and 8 percent say, “No—it’s too difficult.” That is 50 percent of that survey, effectively, not even cooperating, and not even considering cooperating for one reason or another. So on the strength of that survey there is a huge selling problem for the Government. Many people tend to think that doing their bit by using their car less, changing their light bulbs, and using public transport, walking, or cycling is all they have to do, but, in fact, they will have to pay for it, as well.

The underlying concern I have is that doing all this, by taking this issue by its horns, so to speak, and addressing it, in reality is making New Zealand little more than a good global country and making New Zealanders little more than good global citizens. The issue of addressing climate change revolves around the big nations—the Americans, the Indians, and the Chinese. While China is putting on stream two or three coal-fired power stations a month, and we are protesting about our one, Huntly, then, in a global sense, we are not achieving the desired results of addressing climate change.

That is not to say that New Zealanders should not be doing anything; I hope I have given the impression that New Zealand First believes we should be doing something. But we are concerned that some of the measures that are being proposed to be introduced could adversely impact on low-paid New Zealanders and moderately paid New Zealanders far in excess of the damage they are doing.

We note that the Minister, I think, in a response to a question today, said the main offenders—I forget his exact words—behind the increase in carbon emissions are mainly from the agriculture sector and the dairy sector. The problems there, as I understand it, will be addressed financially by the taxpayer for quite some time before farmers have to put their hands in their pockets. I am not terribly impressed by the attitude of farmers in recent times. I saw one of their spokesmen on television advocating for the 23 percent increase in the price of butter. He simply said that it had to go up because that is the world market price. I think it was the same person on television a few months ago asking for the Government to bail out farmers when their pastureland was flooded.

New Zealand First is supportive of the measures being adopted by the Government—I want to emphasise that—but we do have concerns about the impact they will have, particularly on low-paid and moderately paid people. In the House today the Minister could not, to my mind, answer a question satisfactorily on what compensation measures will be put in place for these folk. I am not sure how that situation will be addressed. One suspects that it will be through the community services card or something like that. [Interruption] The member over there is muttering; I think he should take a pill. I think that New Zealanders need answers to those sorts of questions about how we will address the low paid and how we will address the problems of the household that is scratching along on a modest income. Then we have the other side of the argument, which is that if we are to bail those people out, so to speak, then what effect will that have on their attitude to using electricity and energy? It is a question with an answer that is a double-edged sword.

In summary, New Zealand First is concerned about the climate change problems this world is experiencing. We believe that New Zealand should do its part, but we are concerned that some of the measures might well lead to punishing New Zealanders and New Zealand business in excess of what is fair. So we will be watching with interest. We will cooperate with the Government and we are prepared to play a positive role. We are prepared to sit down and discuss the options, but I would emphasise that we do have some concerns about how the cost of all this will impact on the average New Zealander.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa. The Māori Party has often spoken out in Parliament about the urgent need to take comprehensive action on climate change. We are very concerned that New Zealand is the fourth-highest nation amongst developed nations in the emission of greenhouse gases, and that New Zealand’s emissions are growing significantly faster than those of Australia. We have raised the alarm at the reality of carbon emission increases outstripping population growth and GDP, and in effect this means that it leaves us in the dubious position of having emission levels more than twice the world average and well above the OECD average. All of us have a responsibility to do what we can to ensure that we here in Aotearoa are not putting more carbon into the atmosphere than we are able to offset by other means.

Indigenous peoples across the globe understand their role and responsibility as being unique in conserving mother Earth, but it is not the exclusive duty we hold. The Māori Party believes that if we are to reverse or halt any of the catastrophic climate change impacts currently threatening Papatūānuku, then urgent and specific attention must be accorded this issue by all peoples of this land. So with the announcements today that everyone can have sustainability, we have absolutely no argument. Having suffered major flooding myself at home in Whanganui and the Rangitīkei, and knowing also the impact of flooding in the Bay of Plenty and Gisborne, and of droughts in the Hawke’s Bay, Otago, Marlborough, and Tasman, the impact of human activity upon Ranginui and Papatūānuku is something I am acutely aware of.

We know that the Government has been challenged to look at the impact of climate change policy on the indigenous flora and fauna claim currently before the Waitangi Tribunal—Wai 262. We also know that the tribunal has been looking into the issue of carbon credit allocation when Crown-owned forests are growing on Māori land. These are hot issues on our party policy agenda, and we are delighted that the contribution of the New Zealand forestry industry and the Federation of Māori Authorities has helped the Government to see the light of day.

The New Zealand forestry industry’s six-point plan, which the Māori Party endorsed earlier this year, called for landowners with Kyoto-qualifying forests, and those replanting non-Kyoto forests after harvest, to benefit financially from the value of the carbon their forests remove from the atmosphere. Although we are disappointed that it took the Government 6 months to agree with this stance, it is still very positive news that it has reversed its decision on the allocation of carbon credits for forests. Tangata whenua have been vocal in their criticism of the Crown in claiming ownership of the carbon credits of Māori-owned forests on Māori land, and of Crown-owned forests on Māori land. In particular, we commend the initiative of the Federation of Māori Authorities, which has taken a case to the Waitangi Tribunal to challenge the Government’s carbon credit confiscation.

I endorse what the co-leader of the Greens raised earlier—that the hard decisions have conveniently been left until after the elections. We are also cautious, in light of advice from Greenpeace, that major polluters, the big energy users, stand to benefit from windfall profits under the scheme, with free subsidies. Climate change is too urgent, too critical for the big industry polluters to make money from business as usual. We really need to start seeing our economy as part of our environment and not continue to see the environment as part of our economy. The obsession with growing the economy as an indicator of human success, while at the same time destroying our environment, is insane. Everyone needs to contribute, and everyone needs targets in place immediately to achieve a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We need progress in offsetting emissions and reducing emissions, and it is a call that all of us must respond to.

I was pleased to see earlier this afternoon that Charlie Pederson, on behalf of Federated Farmers, has welcomed the view that agriculture has been given more time to find ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions before joining an emissions trading scheme. Clearly, there have been economic pressures impacting on the Government, which would no doubt imagine that less production for agriculture, as the largest industry and export earner, means less income for rural communities, provinces, and city people, and less in taxes for the Government.

Well, the Māori Party does not believe that economic imperatives should be any excuse for failure to make genuine progress in improving the efficiency of the whole natural environment. New Zealand must invest in alternative solutions that can help farmers to reduce their on-farm methane and nitrous oxide emissions. I have been very interested in learning about programmes in which biological principles are applied to balance the chemistry and enhance the biology in the soil. Through such schemes, fertilisers are more efficient, less is lost through runoff and leaching, soils are less vulnerable to compacting, and the nutrient-holding capacity is increased. Applying biological agriculture perspectives and methods results in higher mineral and antioxidant levels in produce; increased soil fertility, yields, and storability; reduced erosion, fertiliser use, and input migration; and fewer insect, weed, and disease pressures.

Through the impact of biological and sustainable farming, we have seen that we can increase both the soil humus and carbon levels, along with improving the nutrient density in foods. Such initiatives can lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions, more carbon sequestering, and better profits. It is a win-win all around.

The Māori Party is pleased that Labour has responded to the call issued in September 2005 to take a collaborative, united approach towards the most critical issue facing our future sustainability, and we thank the Minister for coming and advising the Māori Party on where the Government was going on these issues. We welcome the announcement from the Minister of Māori Affairs that he will be establishing a Māori reference group to provide leadership on all of these proposals. We would hope, given that we occupy four out of seven of the Māori seats, that we will be invited to provide names of people who might join that team.

The Māori Party is also committed to assisting whānau, hapū, and iwi as tangata tiaki, to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure the well-being and future health of the environment. Our environmental policy begins with the challenge: “Ki te pai te manaaki ka manaakitia.”; if we care, nurture, and respect, we too will be cared for, nurtured, and respected. These are sound words for all of us—industrialists, users, consumers, polluters, farmers, whānau, hapū, and iwi—and we can all sign up in the transition to a sustainable Aotearoa.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister): I thank members for their contribution to date; obviously there are still some more contributions to come. We are trying to follow this debate between meetings over in the Beehive.

I particularly welcome the fact that we clearly have a cross-party basis for moving forward on discussion around the details. As Bill English rightly said, the technicalities in this are extraordinarily difficult. That means, therefore, that it is extraordinarily difficult to get them right, and we need a lot more work, discussion, and feedback in the process of finalising some of these details. Equally, we need to try, as far as we can, to get a high degree of certainty around the outcome, because these policies are ones on which businesses and many others will be making decisions that will affect them for many, many years to come, and therefore they wish to have some degree of certainty that the framework, once in place, will be sufficiently robust and not need major changes from time to time.

There is, of course, still a degree of scepticism around the whole issue of climate change, and one sees that that scepticism is receiving, perhaps, rather more publicity than it really deserves, given the current state of the science. That scepticism takes various forms. One form is to accept that there is global warming but to argue that there has been no effective input from human activity to cause that global warming. I think that that argument really falls down very firmly, because the nature of the connections, and the mechanisms in relation to the connections, are now so well established that it is quite clear that human activity in terms of greenhouse gas emissions has contributed significantly to global warming over the last century, or so.

The second is the more complex argument that I have seen quite frequently. This argument is that the global warming we have seen is well within the known range of global variation in temperatures over the long run, and therefore it is nothing to worry about. When one considers that sea levels have been many hundreds of metres higher than they are at present, on occasions—and many hundreds of metres lower; let us remind ourselves the British Isles, for example, were connected to Europe as recently as about 9,000 years ago—this is actually reasonably cold comfort, particularly for people living in a Pacific Island State or Bangladesh, given that not much of Bangladesh would be left if the sea levels rose some few hundred metres.

That brings me, I think, to the more important point. Modern civilisation has arisen in the last 10,000 years during a period of quite long climatic stability, by long-term historic standards. It is probably one of the factors that has enabled civilisation to emerge. We have now developed intense economies, highly populated, and often based very close to the sea. Therefore, climate change poses a kind of threat, which when we were simply small numbers of wandering tribes—as we all were not many thousands of years ago—was nothing like as great then as it is now, had there been this kind of global warming. But faced with the world as it is today we face a very different situation, one that has a tremendous geopolitical context. I referred to Bangladesh before, but can members imagine what would happen if 50 million, 60 million, or 70 million Bangladeshi saw their country disappearing underneath them? Where would they go in the meantime? What would happen? Who would take those people in? We can take in a relatively small number of Pacific Islanders who might be affected should their States completely disappear, but it is quite different when looking at some other countries around the world.

Let us look even at our own case. I live, as probably Mr Tremain well knows, about 1.5 metres above sea level in Napier. Quite a lot of people in Napier live about 1.5 metres or 2 metres above sea level. A lot of people in east Christchurch live at about that level above sea level. It does not take much change to have very significant impacts upon many New Zealand cities, potentially by the end of this century on current forecasts. Let us remind ourselves that the data, as it comes out, is emphasising that the change is happening faster than previously thought, as the recent data on the Greenland ice cap seems to be suggesting.

So this is an issue that has to be addressed. We could say we do not need to address it in New Zealand because we are only a little part of the problem; therefore, we can be only a little part of the solution. But of course that will not work. In the end, the developed countries have to take the lead on this matter. We have contributed most of the problem; we have to contribute most, in the first instance, to the solution, and in doing so, to lay the ground for a more comprehensive international agreement in the future that will have the Chinas, the Indias, the Brazils, and other countries tied into those kinds of solutions. It is significant that at the recent APEC conference it was the Chinese President who was one of those leading the discussion around climate change, because China is recognising that these issues are of considerable significance for itself, as well.

It is clear, I think, after all the work, that the emissions trading system is the best approach. It is the most comprehensive, and it is the one that provides the clearest economic signals. A carbon tax was much simpler to implement. The emissions trading system is on the one hand much more complex to implement than a carbon tax, because it involves issues of allocations, free allocations, and a market system being required to be set up in some way or another. But on the other hand it probably most effectively enables economic instruments to operate and decisions to be taken.

Of course, some relative prices will move; that is of the essence of the system. That is what it is designed to do—to send a signal that we need to increase energy efficiency, and that we need to invest in renewable energy because we have changed the price of thermal generation and made it more expensive. So we have changed the decision at the margin in terms of choosing between thermal and geothermal or other forms of renewable energy, such as wind or hydroelectricity. And, yes, other measures need to reinforce that, such as measures around the building code recently taken, and so on, and so forth. But the reality is that we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and we need to start doing that relatively quickly.

I was fascinated at the press conference where journalists thought there had been no reaction to the increase in petrol prices that has occurred over the last 2 or 3 years. I simply ask people to look at the shift in the nature of new cars being bought over the last 2 or 3 years. All those Suzuki Swifts, Honda Jazzes, and all the rest of them are being bought, rather than large 6-cylinder cars as was the case only a few years ago. People do react to those kinds of price signals and we do see motor manufacturers again, for the first time for generations since the oil shocks, starting to look at ways of improving fuel efficiency in their motor vehicles. We can change those motive powers. That is where I disagree so strongly with Jeanette Fitzsimons, who seems to assume the motor vehicle is a thing of the past and that roads will not be required. What will change will be the energy source for motor vehicles. People will still want to have motor vehicles into the long-term future, and to have the freedom and the pleasure they bring to ordinary people. We are not going to revert simply to wandering around the country on foot, as we did up until a couple of hundred years ago. What will change is how we drive our motor vehicles, not the fact that we have them.

I think that brings a very important point. I think a false trade-off is often made between economic growth and these issues. What I think climate change is going to persuade us to do—and what the announcements today are part of doing, and only part of doing—is to shift to a different form of economic growth that is far less resource-intensive but nevertheless is economic growth and economic development. We do not need to put on hair shirts and cover ourselves with ashes, and pretend that what is required of us is to somehow go back hundreds of years in terms of our standard of living. If we sell climate change to people on that basis, we will be lucky to get 5 percent support for the measures that are required to halt climate change. The best modelling we have is that over the next 5 years the measures we are proposing today will knock off perhaps 0.1 percent or perhaps 0.2 percent of total growth over that 5-year period. But in the longer term, increased productivity and increased efficiency, of which the climate change measures are part, in practice may well lead at least to a stronger rise in our real and genuine standard of living, and one that is far less reliant upon unsustainable resource use, compared with our forms of economic growth over the last 150 years.

In that respect, the important thing now is a broad range of consultation and discussion, both within this House between parliamentary parties, and of course with the wider stakeholders. I think, particularly, there are issues specific to Māori that we need to ensure we have a good understanding of and common ground on, before we move forward to final decisions in this area.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): National broadly supports the Government’s announcements today on an emissions trading system. They strongly replicate what we had stated in terms of the benefits of an emissions trading system in our discussion document A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand, which we released a bit over a year ago.

Four major debates have been going on around the issue of climate change. One of the first of those is that an economic instrument is a better way for Parliament and the Government to send the right signal to New Zealanders than a whole lot of regulatory options or the Government necessarily choosing any particular technology, whether it be electric cars, forestry, or all the range of alternative responses there are to climate change. So I think there is a broad consensus that an economic initiative that sends a price signal should be the primary policy tool in responding to the challenge of climate change.

The second debate is the one between a carbon tax and an emissions trading system. In Cabinet in March 1999, National had a very intense debate and decided that an emissions trading system was the best of the economic instruments in terms of a way forward. Around this issue, the big challenge is that everybody likes the idea of reducing emissions but nobody wants to pay. So the challenge is to come up with a system that will get the maximum benefit at the least cost. The reason National has consistently supported an emissions trading system is that we believe it is the way in which, at the least cost—but it is a cost—we can get the most environmental gains.

In 2000 the current Government decided it preferred a carbon tax over an emissions trading system, and that remained Government policy through until 2006. We now have a position where Labour has said it too now backs an emissions trading system, and I think that is an important step forward and shows a convergence between National and Labour over policy in that area.

The third key debate has been around the issue of forestry. The forestry argument is incredibly important to New Zealand. If we want to look at how sensitive New Zealand’s Kyoto balance is around the issue of forestry, I note that the projected deficit for New Zealand through until 2012 is 40 million tonnes, and 34 million tonnes of that is in respect of deforestation. We have consistently argued that the best way in which we can get landowners to plant trees is to give them a clear business signal that they will get the benefits of those carbon credits. That was the view that Simon Upton advised in Kyoto that New Zealand would take—that we would allocate those carbon credits and debits to the landowner. That was a position we held, and in fact Labour confirmed it in June 2000. We were very disappointed that Cabinet in July 2002 reversed that decision. We do believe it has contributed to a loss of confidence in the forest sector in recent years that has seen quite significant loss of forests.

It is a very significant decision by the Government today to allocate those Kyoto credits to the forest owners. Let us not pretend—it is not a free lunch. Those forest owners will also get the debits. The reason National believes it is right and proper to allocate both the credits and the debits to the forest industry is that landowners will be provided with the incentive to do the right thing by climate change: to retain forests, and to plant new forests. National believes it is a substantive step forward that on this key issue of forestry we also have a convergence of views.

There is a fourth issue that has been equally difficult, and it is that for New Zealand the most challenging of the sectors is the agricultural sector. I am sure Labour MPs will have been lobbied as hard as National MPs have been as to why the energy sector might be exempted or the agricultural sector might be exempted or the transport sector might be exempted. There has been a pretty intense debate. Again, I think there has been a sensible convergence towards the acknowledgment of the fact that if an emissions trading system is to work, it needs to include all sectors and it needs to include all gases. There has been, and will be, some debate around the question of what the right order is. Again, the level of consensus that has developed is surprising. I think everybody accepts that the challenge for the agricultural sector, which is so vital to the New Zealand economy, is probably the hardest in regard to the issue of climate change. So we support the Government’s decision that the agricultural sector should be the last to enter an emissions trading system.

I think that the debate between the transport sector and the energy sector is a pretty difficult game. We said in our blue-green paper that the energy sector should go first. The Government has decided that the transport sector should go first by a year. We are not going to argue over that. My view is that it is a pretty balanced call. There is a difference, but I would not want to exaggerate its importance.

I think it is also important to reflect that the tough decisions are still down the track. It is very easy for us in Parliament to have an academic argument about emissions trading being a good idea, but the rubber hits the road when the consumer hits the price. I think that the decision by the Government to defer beyond 2008 and the next general election is so that another Government takes the heat about what those price impacts will be on consumers as they fill up their cars at petrol stations and as they receive their power bills.

Also, there are very difficult decisions to be made about industries like the steel industry, the cement industry, and the aluminium industry, which are affected by international competitiveness. The Government has said that there may be some compromise and some deal with them. Again, those decisions have been deferred on to the next Government. So the hard decisions are to be made further down the track.

I think it is also important to reflect this afternoon on New Zealand’s actual record of emissions, because it is not one of which we can be proud. Since 1999, emissions have gone from 69 million tonnes a year to 77 million tonnes a year. That increase of 8 million tonnes a year in our greenhouse gas emissions represents an increase of 12 percent. The figures released today by the Government show that a 20 percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions will have occurred over the 9 years of this Government. Those figures are the eighteenth worst in the OECD in terms of percentage growth. Those figures are substantially worse than our major trading partners. Looking at that growing surge of greenhouse gas emissions should motivate all of us to be determined to try to implement measures that will constrain them.

National also would want to reflect on the differing and interesting definition of “carbon neutrality”. I think the Government has been a little inventive in this area. The Government is effectively saying it wants carbon neutrality but it would exclude agriculture. In a funny sort of way—and I do not want to be political about this—I do not think we are too far apart on this issue. National has said that it wants a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 based on 1990 figures, which is actually about a 65 percent reduction. Labour is saying with its announcement today that it wants to be carbon neutral—if we can call it that—excluding agriculture, which is 50 percent of emissions, by 2040. Well, it is within a bull’s roar, and we should not judge the outcome in terms of claiming what emissions might be. I do believe, though, that calling that “carbon neutral’’ and excluding half our gases does not seem completely correct.

The one key area where there remains some difference between National and Labour, and an area in which New Zealand needs to make progress—and I would challenge the Government on it—is around renewable energies. The real challenge with the Resource Management Act is how long it is taking for renewable energies to be able to be introduced, whether it be hydro, geothermal, or wind generation. If we really are going to make progress we need to have a far more concise process for dealing with consents. We need only look at the options of the West Wind project in this city to see how dragged out those proposals have been. Again, National says this is a good starting point. There has been a convergence of views. We believe that an emissions trading system is the right way forward for New Zealand in terms of the important issue of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate on climate change. I must agree with my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who said that there is indeed a broad consensus with regard to the Government’s announcement of its emissions trading scheme.

Right at the outset, I acknowledge some of the outstanding contributions made by members of this House over the years. In that acknowledgment I include the Hon Simon Upton; the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who, of course, has been a champion of this issue; and Jeannette Fitzsimons, who has for years been a very visible figure in New Zealand regarding the issue of climate change. We may not necessarily agree with everything that Jeannette Fitzsimons has said or with the methods she has been keen to employ, but nevertheless she has been a loud voice.

The fact that there is a broad consensus gives us a lot of cause for optimism here in New Zealand. Although, as both the Hon Bill English and Dr Cullen have pointed out, there are technical difficulties associated with introducing a carbon emissions trading scheme, undoubtedly this option is technically far superior to the other option of a carbon trading scheme. We must remember, of course, the Hon Pete Hodgson’s promise to New Zealand only 3 or 4 years ago that the Labour Government, on ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, would more or less be the recipient of a half-billion-dollar cheque for New Zealand. It is a very salutary lesson that the calculations now are that it will cost the New Zealand taxpayer in the order of $800 million to satisfy the conditions of that ratification. Nevertheless, I think it was Dr Cullen who once again pointed out that there is still a degree of scepticism around the science. I think that most of the scientific community, however, has an overwhelming view that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are related to climate change.

I have a very vivid spectre deeply impressed on my mind, and that is the picture of Beijing that came across on TV the other day, where cyclists, traffic, and pedestrians could hardly see their way through the streets 1 year out from the Olympic Games. The local authorities have been reducing the traffic substantially in order to reduce emissions and to see, hopefully, whether it would be feasible within that time to clear the air. It is not a very salutary thought to think that the Olympic Games could be held up because the contestants will have difficulty in contesting. There are examples of various asthmatics who are deeply worried about whether contesting will be possible. I think that is a very realistic vision of just how important it is that we get control of carbon emissions throughout the world.

David Parker pointed out that moving 30 million people in Bangladesh would almost be an absolute human impossibility, and here, closer to us in the South Pacific, we have countries such as Kiribati and the Tokelau Islands that could easily disappear under the sea if some of the worst predictions were fulfilled.

One of the things that gives us hope is the fact that there is this broad consensus, because inter-party collaboration is one of the ways through this. We know that whatever happens, nothing will happen fast. Long-term planning and long-term research and development will be absolutely fundamental, and to switch from one thing to another will be just totally unsatisfactory. It is important to get the basics right, whether they are the economic tools in terms of emissions trading or whether they are the scientific research and development programmes to see whether we can improve the technologies.

It is certainly in the technologies that, again, we have a great deal of hope. The other day David Parker unveiled the electric car at Waikato University. It will be taken to Australia to, hopefully, win a magnificent prize for the length and speed of distance that it can travel in that competition. That just shows the enormous gains we have had in electric car development over the last few years. One of the great things, to my mind, is the fact that electric cars are not only emission-free but noise-free. If one goes to places like parts of London—

Shane Jones: The car needs to be shown to Mr David Bennett, if it is noise free!

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Well, maybe it does, but there he was championing the car in Hamilton East, and, after all, it is his electorate. Mr Jones will be glad to know that it was David Bennett who has been highly supportive of Waikato University developing that electric car.

The last thing I want to mention is the importance of this debate for New Zealand’s agricultural sector. This time the Government, quite rightly, has been much more subtle about its approach to the agricultural sector, which is so important to New Zealand—we are so dependent on it for our livelihood—after it made the extraordinary mistake some years ago of bringing out the “fart tax”, then withdrawing from it. Hopefully, the Government will have learnt its lesson. It is incredibly important that we work closely with the agricultural sector, and it is incredibly important that we carry out the appropriate research and development, of which New Zealand could take a leading part. We have very few ruminant physiologists and scientists in this country, but the fact that we have more of these than there are elsewhere means that we have a leading start, and that is one area we should be able to extend and take a leading role in. We should also be in a situation where we can use the existing technology such as nitrogen fixers, which were developed by Lincoln University and the Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative. That is an excellent example of a combination between academics and industry.

Finally, the other issue we must be aware of is that of the carbon miles debate. Our farmers are producing goods much more efficiently than are farmers in Europe, and it is very important that we continue to make sure that the rest of the world is aware of that.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration.

As the House is well aware, Statutes Amendment bills are a useful vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. They allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all members of this House.

The House has only recently dealt with the Statutes Amendment Bill. The reason for the second bill being introduced so soon after this is primarily to regularise the annual timing of the Statutes Amendment bills, following requests from members of this Parliament needing to plan their consideration of the proposed amendments within their annual parliamentary schedules.

I thank members for their feedback on the Statutes Amendment bill process, and for their cooperation with the revised process, as all members had input into it. I also thank members for their consideration of the amendments proposed for this bill, and for expressing their support for the amendments included in it. I acknowledge the splendid work of the various officials coordinating the administrative aspects of the development of the bill, and those who have provided very valuable support and information for members while they have been considering the proposed amendments.

The bill as introduced amends 14 Acts administered by eight different departments. Proposed amendments include an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 to correct and remove a reference to the death penalty, which was abolished some time ago, and an amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 to substitute the term “video record” for the outdated term “video tape”. This change in terminology is to reflect the definition in the Evidence Act 2006, which is broad enough to cover digital video recordings. An amendment to the Historic Places Act 1993 amends a drafting error and removes ambiguity in a provision that creates an offence of, and imposes a penalty for, the damage or destruction of a property under the control of the Historic Places Trust. An amendment to the National Parks Act 1980 removes an incorrect statutory reference and corrects a drafting error. An amendment to the District Courts Act 1947 removes subsections that also reside in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, to clarify in which court certain proceedings should be brought.

Amendments to the Veterinarians Act 2005 close a gap in the legislation that permits people who hold a recognised veterinary science degree to be registered only on the basis of their qualifications. Veterinarians will now have to satisfy the Veterinary Council of New Zealand of their fitness to practise in order to be registered. This change brings the Veterinarians Act up to date with comparable legislation for other professions—for example, lawyers and teachers. I particularly want to thank the Green Party for its support of these amendments to the Veterinarians Act 2005 being included in the bill.

To conclude, I point out that the examples of amendments I have mentioned that are included in the bill demonstrate the value of Statutes Amendment bills as a regular vehicle for advancing technical yet important amendments to current legislation. I again thank members on all sides for their support of the bill, and I commend it to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): National will support the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and will support its referral to the Government Administration Committee so that the matter can be dealt with as quickly as possible. My friend the junior Opposition whip did interject on the Minister Clayton Cosgrove and ask why it was necessary to have two Statutes Amendment bills, and I do not think I heard an answer—or, if I did, it was not in any way adequate.

I do not think this is a good way of legislating. Indeed, I refer members to an excellent paper, which has just been published by the Law Commission, called Presentation of New Zealand Statute Law. It is worth reminding the House when we deal with these sorts of bills that there are certain fundamental principles about legislation, and it is necessary to emphasise the importance of access to legislation. As the learned authors of this text say: “It is a fundamental precept of any legal system that the law must be accessible to the public. Ignorance of the law is no excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law.” If I can interpolate there, one sees that this is indeed the law if one looks at section 25 of the Crimes Act, which states: “The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence that may be committed by him.”—or her. As the authors of this report go on to say: “That presumption would be insupportable if the law were not available and accessible to all. The state also has an interest in the law’s accessibility. It needs the law to be effective and it cannot be if the public do not know what it is.”

As the Law Commission also says, it is notorious that New Zealand’s statute law is untidy, and one of the reasons for that is that we have to pass this kind of legislation— and I am prepared to say that we do so all too frequently. Mistakes are made and slip-ups occur when they should not occur, and it comes back to that important issue of accessibility to the law, given that the citizen is presumed to know the law and that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Indeed, the Law Commission report goes further to state that where there are substantive amendments to legislation, given that New Zealand’s legislation is amended very frequently, it should be necessary to revise the legislation. Well, these are not substantive amendments. They are, as the Minister said, in the nature of minor amendments, but that does not mean to say that the principle I have outlined about the need for this place to take greater care in legislating, and about how those who advise the legislators need to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, does not apply.

With those comments I turn to this bill. There are a number of reasons why one has a Statutes Amendment bill, and they have been outlined by the Minister. The first is to correct minor errors that may have crept in, and I refer to Parts 5 and 9 of this bill. A second reason will be to deal with minor changes to ensure consistency with other legislation—for example, Parts 4 and 12 of this bill. The third reason will be to make minor improvements that were overlooked when the legislation was being dealt with; I refer members to Part 7. Finally, some minor changes may be required consequent upon administrative acts—like, for example, a name change—and I refer members to Parts 8 and 10 as illustrative of that principle.

With those general comments in mind, I will now make a couple of comments about aspects of the bill. I do not intend to comment on Parts 1 and 2, but I will say something about Part 3 because it does illustrate the point I have been making about the need to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, and the tendency of this Parliament to be sloppy. Part 3 deals with an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961. It amends section 35(a) of that Act by removing an outdated reference to an offence punishable by death. As the explanatory note states: “Offences punishable by death were repealed by the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act”—an Act that came into force on Boxing Day 1989. I simply cannot understand why it has taken almost 20 years for the draftsman, or some official in the Ministry of Justice, to come to the conclusion that section 35(a) needed to be amended. Section 35, “Arrest of persons found committing certain crimes”, provides in paragraph (a) that any person—not just a constable, but any person—may arrest another person where he or she finds that person “committing any offence against this Act that is punishable by death or for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years’ imprisonment.” So it is obvious that that provision should have gone many years ago.

Part 4 amends the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The changes there are simply to insert a definition of “video record” that is the same as the definition of “video record” in the Evidence Act 2006. Not too much can be made of that. The Evidence Act was the subject of a lot of work last year, and that definition should be standard throughout the statute book.

I will not dwell on Parts 5 and 6, but a couple of changes have been made in Part 7 that I will dwell on for a minute. The changes are amendments to the Historic Places Act, and they are examples of amendments that should have been dealt with last year when we dealt with legislation amending the Act. As far as I can recall, we were dealing, in particular, with the constitution of the Historic Places Trust. Clause 26 proposes to insert after section 43 of that Act a provision dealing with extraordinary vacancies to the board, and I suggest that this is the sort of thing we should have dealt with last year.

Parts 8, 9, and 10 are of no great moment—nor are the other parts—so I will not take the time of the House in commenting on them. They are in the category of minor changes, or fall into one of the categories I mentioned earlier in the course of this speech.

But I come back to the fact that I do not think it should be necessary to have two Statutes Amendment bills following on from one another, as they have here. I agree with the Law Commission that New Zealand’s statute law is untidy. I think that Statutes Amendment bills should be the exception rather than the rule, but at times in this place they seem to be the rule. At the end of the day, bearing in mind the obligations on all citizens to know the law—because ignorance of the law is no excuse—it is absolutely essential for legislation to be accessible to the public. When minor amendments such as these are introduced by Statutes Amendment bills, that important issue of accessibility to the law can be compromised. With those comments in mind, I reiterate that National will support this bill through its first reading and going to the select committee, but I certainly hope we do not have another Statutes Amendment bill this year.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ā, tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. In considering this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), I am reminded of the fact that, like this bill, the Westminster style of Parliament is an exercise in precedent and ritual established over hundreds of years, which is expressed nowhere more obviously than in the movie Amazing Grace.

The move is about a British politician, William Wilberforce, who over a period of 20 years led a fierce political battle to abolish slavery and its trade throughout the British Empire. His campaign culminated in an impassioned speech by Lord Grenville in the House of Lords, during which he criticised fellow members for “not having abolished the trade long ago”, and argued that the trade was “contrary to the principles of justice, humanity and sound policy”. That was followed by a second reading in the House of the Slave Trade Bill, the bill passing by 283 votes to 16, and the Slave Trade Act gaining Royal assent on 25 March 1807.

The surprising thing for me, though, is how in 200 years Parliament has hardly changed. There is the same layout of the debating chamber with tiered rows, the gallery up above, the Speaker of the House, the heckling, the back-door deals, the speech-making, the practices, the processes, and the rituals. Indeed, apart from the wigs and the dress, it seems that little has changed at all.

I raise the matter of the history of ritual and procedure, because it seems that the process of getting to the first reading of a Statutes Amendment bill is something of a ritual in itself—one of those rare occasions when the full cooperation of the House is apparent. Eulogies and events of national and international significance are the other occasions.

The process gives me cause to raise another matter of international significance that had widespread national support from within Māoridom, but no support whatsoever, it seems, from either the Government or indeed the Labour Māori caucus. I am talking about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—a declaration emphasising the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures, and traditions. The declaration is supported by 143 countries of the world and opposed by four, including this Labour Government.

In line with the efforts of those slaves, freed men and women, parliamentary speakers, and community leaders who fought for the rights of all men, women, and children of colour to be free from the bonds of slavery, I am mindful also of the efforts of our own indigenous leaders who spoke up for the declaration over the past 25 years.

As we give thought to the historical processes behind the acceptance for bills such as this one, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), I would like us to consider the fact that although Nanaia Mahuta spoke against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, history will tell us that Sir Robert Māhuta and, indeed, Te Atairangikaahu were both strong supporters of the declaration.

Again, as we debate the historical development of change in legislation that gives rise to the amendments suggested in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), I would like us to consider also the fact that although my whanaunga Shane Jones spoke against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, history will also tell us that Shane’s and my whanaunga, Sir James Hēnare and Dame Mira Szaszy, were noted supporters of the declaration.

In a final reference to the history behind the technical changes to legislation necessitating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), I would like us to consider also the fact that although Mita Ririnui is recorded as a member of the Government that opposed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, history will also tell us that the late Whakahuihui Vercoe was a member of an indigenous delegation that travelled to the United Nations to support the declaration.

Indeed, historical references that give us the background to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) also enable us to reference the historical support given by other individuals such as Sir Paul Reeves and the late Syd Jackson, as well as organisational support from groups such as the Māori Women’s Welfare League, the New Zealand Māori Council, and the National Māori Congress for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in the face of opposition to the declaration from the Labour Government and the Labour Māori caucus, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mahara Okeroa, Mita Ririnui, Dover Samuels, and Shane Jones.

On the eve of the 2007 Māori Women’s Welfare League conference, I am happy to note that its support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the same as that given to the declaration by the Māori Party.

There are a couple of very important amendments to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) that I would like to speak on. I note with horror but no surprise, being a Māori, that section 35 of the Crimes Act still includes reference to the death penalty, which was supposed to have been abolished nearly 50 years ago, for heaven’s sake!

We have a history in which New Zealand carried out legalistic and ritual murder from 1842 to 1957, a history in which New Zealand legally executed 83 people, and a history in which Māori people have featured disproportionately—again, to the surprise of no Māori. It is a history of death by formal execution that began with the killing of Maketū Wharetōtara, son of the Ngāpuhi chief Ruhe of Waimate, but it did not end there. It is ironic that at a time when England was fretting over its new colony, peopled by lawless, pox-ridden, land-grabbing white whalers, sailors, traders, double-dealers, thieves, mongrels, and scum of the white nations of the world, the first person who was executed happened to be Māori. Why are we not surprised at that?

This history includes the execution of Te Whakatōhea chief Mokomoko and four others, Heremita Kahupaea, Hakaraia Te Rāhui, Horomona Poropiti, and Mikaere Kirimangu, for the murder of the missionary Carl Völkner. Yet, for Mokomoko, as for many other Māori, execution was only the middle punishment. Prior to that, colonial militia had been allowed to rampage through Te Whakatōhea territory, looting, pillaging, and burning villages and crops, in order to smoke out Mokomoko and his comrades. After the execution, the land-grabbing white settler Government proceeded to steal thousands of hectares of Te Whakatōhea land as a further reprisal.

Others in the list of those receiving the death penalty that is referenced in this bill include: Maroro in 1849, Tāherei in 1863, Ruarangi in 1864, Nikotema Okoroa in 1864, Whakamau in 1869, Hāmiora Peri in 1869, Kereopa in 1872, Nūtana in 1875, Te Mohi in 1877, Tuhiata in 1880, Wīremu Hīroki in 1882, and the list goes on and on to Edward Te Whiu in 1955.

I have called out that roll of 17 names deliberately, to remind us of our shameful history of racism, and to remind us that in taking steps to remove the words “punishable by death”, we do not forget the history of legitimised murder and land theft that is part of our colonial history.

On a personal note, I say that in 1981 a number of us were picked up and jailed in Mount Eden Prison during the Springbok Tour, including Shane Jones’ relations, such as Haami Piripi, Mangu Awarau, my brother, and myself. Following a revolt against prison regulations we were split up. Haami got left in remand, I got sent down to the separation wing, Mangu got sent to the pound, and my brother Arthur was put in a cell where they used to hold guys just before they hanged them. It was a freaky experience, he tells me, and a good note on which to end that part of my kōrero.

The Māori Party will be voting for this bill, to enable the necessary changes to be made to tidy up legislation. But we remind the House that in doing so we must never forget the history behind many of the cruel, bigoted, intolerant, and unfair laws that have blighted our history, and we must never forget the role that this Government and the Labour Māori caucus have played in making a cruel, bigoted, intolerant, and unfair decision that will blight our future, in voting against the rest of the world’s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to make my party’s contribution to this debate. I should say from the outset that New Zealand First will certainly support this bill going to the Government Administration Committee. We have always believed it is important that the people of New Zealand should be given the opportunity to express their views on any legislation and what it might be all about. By referring the bill to a select committee we give the people of New Zealand that opportunity. I know that a number of people around the country are interested in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). These people include Barry Hegley in Howick; Mr and Mrs Jim Stewart, who are also in Howick; and Reene Peach in the Piako electorate. They all seek the opportunity to have a say in the formulation of the laws of our land, and by referring this bill to a select committee we give those people, and everyone else, that opportunity.

I note the citation from the National Party speaker in regard to the Law Commission’s comment about statute law being untidy. I am not in a position to question that comment, and I certainly do not question the Law Commission, but if an august body like the Law Commission should make comments about the statute laws of New Zealand, then it is certainly incumbent on this Parliament to do something about it. I think this bill addresses that concern—probably not in its entirety, but it is certainly going in the right direction.

The bill amends a number of Acts, and I am particularly interested in one or two of the statutes that this bill seeks to amend. I make reference to the Fisheries Act 1996 and the amendment that will allow the Minister of Fisheries to make a decision in terms of particular species, particularly where those species are under threat. I hope that as part of the select committee process, the issue surrounding the authority that is intended to be extended to the Minister—over and above his present authority—will be discussed and given due consideration by the committee.

The other amendment that I am particularly interested in is the one regarding the Veterinarians Act 2005. It is good to know that the amendment intends that those wanting to enter the profession will not only have to have the qualifications but also have to satisfy the profession’s own council before being able to practice.

I do not have too much to say on the bill other than that it will help to keep our laws up to date, thus, hopefully, making our legislation more appropriate and relevant to today’s needs. On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that we support the bill being referred to a select committee.

NATHAN GUY (National): For all those people now out there in their vehicles heading up the Kapiti coast, snarled up in congestion, I am taking a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). They will interested in the comments I want to make, as will the farmers listening out there in their cowsheds while they milk the cows. I am sure that they will be interested in the comments I am about to make because I wish to cover Part 6, which talks about the Fisheries Act; Part 10, which talks about the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act; and quite an important issue in relation to Part 14, the Veterinarians Act 2005.

Dr Richard Worth: Quite a panoramic sweep.

NATHAN GUY: Mr Worth is right, it is very panoramic indeed. This legislation is very much a tidy-up bill. Mr Finlayson made a very good comment before in relation to the third reading last week of a Statutes Amendment Bill. We now have the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). One would think that if the Government were on to it, it would have had this all tidied up in one bill. But, once again, the Government Administration Committee will have to sort that out.

The bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996 and provides that the Minister will be able to determine that stock or species subject to the permanent moratorium will not be subject to the quota management system. The important thing to realise here is that apart from tuna species there are only very small aspects that are not in the quota management system. It is really just a bit of a tidy-up around the Fisheries Act 1996, which National supports.

Part 10 relates to the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act. In essence this provision encompasses the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation, New Zealand Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation, and New Zealand Berryfruit Growers Federation and brings them into one collective that will be called Horticulture New Zealand Incorporated. Also, a big part of this provision is that it will allow the New Zealand Nurserymens Association to be rolled into and encompass the Nursery and Garden Industry Association of New Zealand. I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a very passionate gardener on the weekends, will be interested in this part.

In essence I want to talk about the horticulture industry because it is an industry that is very important to our primary production. It exceeds about $4.7 billion, and it does a very, very good job in terms of industry-wide issues. It is an important lobbyist for the 7,000 commercial fruit and vegetable growers in New Zealand. The big issues they have at the moment are environmental and employment issues. The Government is very keen to attract employees from overseas into New Zealand to help pick our fruit and vegetables. I am interested to see that they will be paid more than our New Zealand workers because they will have their accommodation supplied and their transport costs supplemented. Also, half of the cost of their air travel will be paid for. Those are the issues that this industry has to come to terms with. It is a very, very important primary produce industry that nets about $4.7 billion into our economy.

The other provision I wish to touch on relates to the Veterinarians Act in Part 14 of the bill. In essence, this will do just a bit of a tidy-up in relation to the registration and disciplining of veterinarians. I dug out the annual report of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, and I looked at just how many complaints the council has in a year. It says that there is a chance that a veterinarian will be involved in a formal complaint at some stage in his or her career. When I delved into this a bit, I thought it was interesting that New Zealand veterinarians—Massey University has the only veterinary school in New Zealand—are likely to be complained about more than veterinarians from overseas. I thought that probably deserves a bit of comment. In essence, that is because overseas veterinarians are here for a shorter time than New Zealand veterinarians.

We have a shortage of veterinarians in New Zealand. Interestingly, in the Primary Production Committee earlier in the year we heard from the Minister for Food Safety, Annette King, about how we were trying to attract veterinarians from around the world. One would have thought that we should have been able to attract more people to be trained as veterinarians at Massey University here in New Zealand. But what are the Government and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority doing? They are going on trips to London to try to attract veterinarians to New Zealand.

Those listeners who are hosing down their cowsheds at the moment or who are out there in the drive time snarl-up and congestion on the Kapiti Coast will be very interested to know that, from 14 to 20 October 2006, the Government spent $30,000 at an expo in London trying to attract 10 veterinarians, and it struggled to get those 10. Then, from 1 to 10 July, it spent $21,000 on a programme trying to attract 12 veterinarians and it got six. So there is a huge cost involved in our trying to attract veterinarians to come to New Zealand, even though I think, fundamentally, we have a very good qualification here in New Zealand at Massey University. We should be doing more to attract students to get involved in becoming veterinarians for New Zealand.

Just to sum up, this bill is really just a tidy-up. National will support it going to the Government Administration Committee, which will have to do some work and explore some of the things that Mr Finlayson and I have raised here today. National supports the bill, and we have some questions that need to be touched on, particularly on Part 14 with regard to the Veterinarians Act 2005.

SHANE JONES (Labour): Ā, kia ora anō tātou, Mr Deputy Speaker, tātou katoa e noho nei i roto i tō tātou Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Tēnā anō tātou. Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and greetings to those members who are upholding the principles of parliamentary democracy by ensuring that debate travels across the House on legislation that wends its way through the House without there being a great deal of knowledge of it amongst the community. This bill reflects one of the key functions that our Parliament is required to fulfil; that is, it turns its attention, using its exclusive lawmaking powers, to ensure that the law changes, the law evolves, and the law reflects the vicissitudes or the challenges of the time.

Earlier today we heard from Mr Finlayson. I must say that when Mr Finlayson—whom I came across before I came to Parliament—stands and addresses our House, I am reminded of the many orations and deliveries he gave in the High Court. There is a certain High Court quality, a certain clipped quality, to his delivery, which reflects the man’s profession. That is permissible because we are a plurality of strengths and weaknesses in this House.

On the question of weaknesses, I have to turn to a diatribe that, unfortunately, came from the member from the far north, from Tai Tokerau, Mr Harawira. Amongst other things that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) deals with is the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act. I am wondering whether, in correcting whatever redundancies there might be in that legislation, a sample ought not to be taken from that member. He has frothed at the mouth. Spittle has been sprayed around those members who sit near him. I actually feared for their health as he stood and repeated falsehood after falsehood in relation to the document that the United Nations dealt with. I do not know quite why he was allowed to do that, but given that he enjoyed that entitlement, I will continue it.

Mr Harawira seems to believe that because that particular declaration was not agreed to by the Government, it will never find its way into the pages of our law—and long may that prevail. Such a document was, firstly, non-binding. Secondly, it was 24 years in its construction, as if it were conceived in some sort of dinosaur fashion and went through a dinosaur-like gestation period. When the declaration finally enjoyed a vote, matters that we are proud to celebrate in New Zealand that pass for our race relations had long since moved on beyond the issues that consumed the attention of the people at the UN and the small group of Māori advocates that trooped off to the UN.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to clarify an issue raised by Mr Jones. I am a member of the Aupōuri tribe. He is the one from the diatribe.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a debating matter. Thank you.

SHANE JONES: I thank Mr Harawira for pointing that out. The Aupōuri tribe has the senior line; the junior line is usually the one chipping in when the senior is on his feet. However, I will overlook that faux pas for this period of time, and I shall come back to the debate.

Without doubt this issue, in terms of the status and place of indigenous rights in our legal landscape, is an ongoing debate, and one day it too will find a place on a Statutes Amendment Bill. But there will never come a time when the United Nations decision-making processes, largely supported by bankrupt nations such as Zimbabwe and Libya, should find the moral high ground to come to our country, lecture us, or lay down the huarahi, the pathway, that we should follow as New Zealanders deriving our own remedies. We are world leaders in terms of race relations and addressing the grievances of the past, and we need no lesson from Gaddafi or Mugabe, which is why I share not a sliver of doubt as to the wisdom of the choice we have taken.

I look forward to going out next year and explaining to people that it is about time we celebrate and enjoy a sense of pride about the things we achieve in this country, rather than look for a bunch of nations that hover around the United Nations to come over to colonise us, in terms of telling us how we should address indigenous rights. Those nations look to us as an example throughout the world of how harmony and organic developments can take place, as people come together and search for common purpose and common ground.

As part of this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) there is a Historic Places Act amendment. Of course, the delivery that came from my whanaunga Hone Harawira will one day be treated as part of a historic place, as well; it is reflective of a point in time of Māori and Pākehā history that we have moved beyond. His delivery reminds people not only of the gulf of difference when we look back or look ahead but also that we cannot seize on small, relatively innocuous events such as the vote he referred to, which is something that 99 percent of New Zealanders know nothing about. Really, in the daily lives of New Zealanders the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is probably as relevant as the changes that have been made to the rear end of the National Parks Act, the Reserves Act, and the Radiocommunications Act. They are all very important parts of New Zealand’s lively economy, but in the bigger scheme of things those changes are only infinitesimal steps forward, just as his speech represents a biased account of a vote that is largely irrelevant to the days and lives of Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Property Law Bill

Third Reading

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice: I move, That the Property Law Bill be now read a third time. The Property Law Bill is of significance to New Zealanders in their everyday lives. Most people at some time buy or sell a house. Many run a small business, which may involve borrowing money and leasing commercial premises. These dealings can involve mortgages, and guarantees to secure loans. The property law rules apply in all of these situations, and it is vital that these rules are up to date, clear, and accessible.

When the Law Commission completed its review of the existing legislation in 1994, it recommended a new Act to restate and update the rules. The Law Commission at the time noted that although property law could never be described as glamorous in comparison with other areas of legal practice, it is fundamental to the workings of our society. The Law Commission’s work on the report, and its contribution to the introduction of the Property Law Bill, has made this important revision of property law possible.

I am grateful to the Law Commission for its assistance with the Property Law Bill, and I particularly acknowledge the role of Justice Blanchard, who wrote the Law Commission report and who has contributed greatly to the development of the Property Law Bill. I also thank the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their valuable contribution. The committee made some valuable amendments to modernise and improve the language of the bill, and it also recommended a number of sensible changes to improve provisions in the bill and the practical application of its rules.

The Property Law Bill will improve the standard of legislation on our statute book, and make the law easier to understand for most New Zealanders. The bill deals with many complex, technical rules that apply to dealings in real and personal property. It modernises and simplifies these rules to provide more certainty in their application, which better meets people’s needs and protects people’s property rights. The bill provides a regime of property rules of general application, and it clarifies the relationship of these general rules to the special property rules contained in other specific statutes. To the extent that the substantive law on property is modernised, the bill is largely based on the Law Commission’s report, with some changes that reflect the passing of time since then. The bill partly codifies some common law principles relating to mortgages, leases, and agreements for sale and purchase. The bill also makes a large number of small reforms to the rules that, collectively, will improve the effectiveness of the law. Property law underpins the property dealings of New Zealanders. This bill promotes clarity and enhances certainty in property dealings, which will make property law work better for everyone. This bill is a major achievement in ensuring that the rules in place are fair and enhance certainty.

The Government has demonstrated its commitment to implementing a number of Law Commission proposals. Amending legislation covering wills, succession homicide, arbitration, trustees, and, of course, property law, have all arisen out of Law Commission reports. All of them modernise key areas of law, and make the law more accessible. The manner in which this important area of law reform has been conducted is of credit to this House. I wish again to acknowledge the valuable input of both the Law Commission and the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Property Law Bill, and also of members on all sides of the House who have made a positive and constructive contribution to the passage of this bill. On behalf of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, I commend this bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I join with the Minister in congratulating the Law Commission on a job well done. I particularly thank Justice Blanchard who, when he was a law commissioner, undertook this huge task and did it very well indeed. I am delighted that the Ministry of Justice, at last, has picked up the Law Commission’s report on property and has ensured that this legislation be introduced, referred to the select committee, and passed through its various stages because, as the Minister said, this is the first major reform of property law for 55 years.

There have been some minor amendments to the Property Law Act 1952 over the years, but this is the first major reform for 55 years. That is not as dramatic as reform of evidence law, which took about 98 years, but it is none the less a very lengthy period of time between the Property Law Act 1952 and this reform in 2007. I do not think, notwithstanding the Minister’s praise for everyone, that that reflects very well on the New Zealand Parliament. Although there may be reform at last, it should have occurred a long time ago, and too many important, black-letter, non – party political contentious laws are ignored by this Parliament and are not given the prominence they deserve.

The worst example of law that is out of date and cries out for urgent reform is limitation law, which has not been properly studied and reviewed since 1950. So although we may praise this place in 2007 for getting on with property law reform, the reality of the matter is that our record in law reform—particularly, as I say, non – party political law reform—is very, very poor.

It is beyond the scope of a 10-minute speech to go into the detail of this legislation. I think the Minister accurately and succinctly summarised it. It deals with all aspects of property law from mortgages to leases, to deeds, to steps that may be taken by the courts when dealing with landlocked land, or where neighbours have problems with trees, and so on. It covers a huge number of important matters that affect the daily lives of New Zealanders, and that is why it behoves this Parliament to keep such law up to date.

The only thing I want to focus on—mainly because it is a subject of great interest to me, and particularly as I have read the Law Commission’s recent report on presentation of New Zealand statutes—is that, with the passage of this legislation, some ancient law inherited by this country from the Westminster Parliament will be repealed. In 1988 this Parliament passed the Imperial Laws Application Act. The first schedule to that Act records imperial enactments in force in New Zealand. A large number of those enactments relate to property, and if one reads clause 360, one sees that legislation that goes back to 1267 is going to be repealed.

So this is, in imperial law terms, quite a dramatic change, and when one looks at the first schedule in the light of some changes to the law over the last few years, one sees that there are very few imperial enactments that will remain in force after this legislation comes into force. There will be a couple of constitutional enactments including, interestingly, the Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement, and pieces of legislation that still underpin our constitution. The Royal Marriages Act 1772 is another, but there will be very few other pieces of legislation still in force. So this is, in its own way, another sign that we are moving on from Westminster and are developing our own statute law without the need to rely on Westminster statutes. In fact, it is surprising that there are still a few statutes that remain, other than the constitutional ones.

The only other point I would make about this is that from time to time these ancient statutes are referred to in the course of litigation, so I hope that, notwithstanding the passage of the law, these statutes will be accessible, because if one looks at the Property Law Bill, one sees a couple of references, for example, in clauses 231 and 232, to the Grantees of Reversions Act 1540. It could well be that from time to time the courts will want to go back to that legislation in the course of interpreting the new Property Law Act—as it will soon be—in order to obtain some guidance as to the way in which they should go. That is not an uncommon event in litigation. I refer, for example, to a decision of the Supreme Court in Lai v Chamberlains, which was a case about barristers’ immunity.

In the course of their judgments, their Honours needed to consider law practitioners Acts that went back to 1854. Closer to home, when dealing with land law, I refer to the Registrar-General of Land v New Zealand Law Society—a decision, actually, of Justice Blanchard in the Court of Appeal. The issue in that case was whether conveyancing could be carried on by anyone other than a barrister and solicitor, and the Court of Appeal needed to go back to the original Conveyancing Ordinance of 1842 and trace through various statutes. So too with Attorney-General v Ngāti Apa. The Court of Appeal needed to consider a range of historical Acts in deciding the issue of whether historical legislation had extinguished any Māori customary property in the seabed and foreshore—and, of course, the court found it did not. So historical legislation is important and, notwithstanding that, we are soon to pass into law the Property Law Bill. I certainly hope that some of the statutes that I have referred to, which are shortly to be repealed, will, none the less, be still accessible for the reasons that I have outlined. So enough said on this issue.

The National MPs have enjoyed taking part in the debate on this legislation. It is fair to say that the National MPs made a substantive contribution to the debate, particularly in the Committee stage. By contrast, the Government MPs said nothing. The only comment I would make about that, other than to reflect on the laziness of the Labour MPs, is to say that there is an obligation on members of Parliament to debate these issues.

In the old days, of course, there used to be a clause by clause analysis. The Property Law Bill is one of those bills that could have profited from a clause by clause analysis. But the reason we do it, and the reason we should take our job as legislators more seriously than the Labour MPs do, is that from time to time courts can have recourse to Hansard if there is an issue about the intention of Parliament. If, of course, the courts refer to the speeches made by National MPs, they will obtain excellent guidance. If they refer to the Labour MPs, they will not find anything, because the Labour MPs never spoke. The Labour MPs throughout the course of this legislation have really been, shall we say, suboptimal. In the select committee, their contribution was, perhaps, a little bit better than that.

I say in conclusion that I think it is a good day for the Parliament as we are shortly to pass the Property Law Bill. It is very timely. It should have been passed some time ago. But I do end by saying that although this is a good day for the New Zealand Parliament in property law terms, there is other legislation that is crying out for reform, and I certainly hope the Government gets on with the job, particularly in the area of limitation.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute, for a few moments, to this debate on the Property Law Bill. It was wholly appropriate that Mr Finlayson launched a vicious attack on the indolence of the Labour members. But I do not want to dwell on that. I would just say that it is an excellent outcome that we have a reinvigorated Law Commission with only the occasional Homeric nod—I think most recently of the Sentencing Council and the work that was done there, and unfortunately taken up by this Parliament.

I am sure that if Justice Blanchard were in this Chamber today he would be delighted to see now the fruition of his work that extended over a substantial period and was followed by a very substantial delay before the Government introduced this legislation and, with the unstinting support of National, as Mr Finlayson has said, advanced it very much to the near-final stage. For what lies beyond this? It is little more than the Royal assent, and then the passage of this important legislation into law.

It is not easy legislation. There is no doubt about that. It was a substantial stumbling block for many students in the course of their careers at the universities when, after a heavy night of partying, they were forced to endure the trickiness and complexity of property law. Some did well; others perhaps did less well. I would like to start with the comment that the Law Commission made in its preliminary paper, The Property Law Act 1952, and this observation on the nature of the then property law legislation: “The Property Law Act 1952 contains a collection of miscellaneous rules relating to property of all kinds, including land. It is not a code, more a repository for legislative supplements to or corrections of judge-made law. Where it has been thought that the rules of common law or equity had fallen short of producing a sensible solution to a problem concerning the creation, disposition, or control of property interests, legislative attention has been given to the problem by way of a section in the Property Law Act or one of its predecessors.” And so it was that Justice Blanchard commenced work on drafting a model statute, which the Government substantially plagiarised and today this current legislation reflects.

I would say in the short time I have, because I am conscious that others want to take a call before Parliament adjourns for the evening, that one of the most important objectives of the bill is to set out rules of property law accessibly and in a manner that, allowing for the subject matter, can be readily understood. Some of the provisions of the 1952 Act, as I have made comment on earlier occasions, have survived from as long ago as the Conveyancing Ordinance 1842 without redrafting. So major work has been required here. I could make comment on relationships with other Acts, but I think I am more drawn to the comments that Mr Finlayson made in connection with the imperial legislation. The bill repeals just about all of the imperial enactments relating to property, which were preserved in the first schedule to the Imperial Laws Application Act. Some of those provisions continued for a substantial period of time and had real thrust and real impact. I think of sections 83 and 86 of the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 and section 6 of the Statute of Frauds Amendment Act 1828, which we grew to know and love as Lord Tenterden’s Act. So the new Act addresses in modern language such of these provisions as require continuing attention.

May I just close, though, in noting that there are substantial issues of sweeping change in the bill, such as assignment of things in action, the warning before the exercise of mortgagees’ powers, the application of proceeds of mortgagee sales, the continuing liability of the assignor of a lease, and agreements for sale and purchase. But perhaps most important, there is some specific retention of the rule in Hopkinson v Rolt. Mr Power and I were talking about the significance of the rule in Hopkinson v Rolt before this debate occurred.

Simon Power: Most Tuesdays.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: He says that most Tuesdays it is the topic of discussion.

I certainly hope in the future that those discussions on that important rule will not cease. In any event, under that rule, any advances made by a prior mortgagee after notice of the existence of a subsequent mortgage rank behind the subsequent mortgage in priority—except in circumstances where the first mortgagee was compelled to make those further advances. There may have been a case to abolish entirely the rule in Hopkinson v Rolt. It is interesting that the rule in America has been seen as appropriate in regard to securities in relation to land, and has been maintained in that jurisdiction. I think that it was a wise move by the Government to preserve the rule and set it out in statutory form but to limit it only to land and registered ships—although ships have a Torrens style of title system under the Ship Registration Act 1992.

So here we are poised to enact this important legislation with all the substantial benefits that will flow to the legal community and those it serves.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou i te Whare. I asked to be on the Justice and Electoral Committee because I have a genuine interest in understanding how Parliament deals with bills that may impact on Māori rights and the rights of others in Aotearoa. I note the committee’s comment on this Property Law Bill: “We are disappointed at the paucity of submissions we received for the bill, especially from the legal fraternity. The bill represents the largest single change to property law in the past 55 years …”. I ask myself what it was about the 365 clauses, 7 schedules, and 55 years of history that meant we received only nine submissions and heard only six. I mean, what is there not to get excited about when considering the changes to clause 60(2) to refer to “the time” fixed for a lease rather than “the date”, or the movement within the subclause of clause 267A(1)(a) to give more priority to the wording “on reasonable terms”? Seriously, when the legislation is as riveting as this, is it any wonder nobody bothers to write in?

If this bill had taken a look at the property law references in Article 11 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it would have been a matter of great interest. Article 11 of the declaration states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs.”

Now, that makes a lot of sense to me. So I had a look to see how the Property Law Bill stacked up with the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. To no one’s great surprise, it does not. A search of the 284 pages of the bill does not come up with too much on intellectual, religious, or spiritual property interests, except for a reference to Māori cultural values in Part 6, clause 331 on page 205. Funnily enough, on the day the Government announces initiatives on climate change, we find that the word “cultural” pops up in this bill around trees—specifically, under clause 328, which requires that a court have regard to Māori cultural values when determining an order for the removal or trimming of trees. Now, that may seem kind of minor, but in fact it is a radical and significant step, coming as it does from a Government that stole the foreshore and seabed from Māori, cancelled support for Māori students, took the Treaty of Waitangi out of the curriculum, voted to delete Treaty principles from legislation, passed laws to take Māori off various boards, and voted against the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Being Māori in the new millennium is tough when all of your cultural values are being subjected to ridicule from rednecks, and rejection from the Government, and there is no support whatsoever from Māori MPs in Government, either. Long-held concepts about our connection to the forests through our whakapapa connections to Tāne Māhuta are difficult to promote in an environment where members of the Labour Māori caucus are happy to dismiss those very concepts, and to laugh about indigenous rights. We need to hold on to those concepts, because they give us a deeper sense of who we are, where we have come from, where we are today, and where we might be tomorrow. They give us a deeper sense of our obligations and responsibilities to care for this world, because we are an integral part of it and not just the rapacious landlords that Western culture might have us believe.

It is important that we, as Māori, recognise and pay due respects to our origins and to our place in Aotearoa, and to the stories that tell us of Tāne Māhuta separating Papatūānuku and Ranginui so that our world might have light; of Tāne Māhuta providing sustenance through food, shelter, and clothing; of the importance of trees for whakairo and as the source of rongoā; of the traditions, rituals, and ceremonies for selecting and removing trees; of protecting and preserving the tapu associated with particular trees; of the need to take seriously our responsibility to treat the resources of the forest with the care and respect they deserve; and, of course, of the great father of the forest, the 4,000-year-old kauri named after Tāne Māhuta himself.

Unfortunately, however, this Property Law Bill has precious little else of direct relevance to Māori until we get to schedule 7 and see the amendments to a whole host of Māori Acts related to housing and lands, such as Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the Maori Trustee Act. But instead of protecting Māori property rights, these amendments unsurprisingly continue down the path well trodden by colonial Governments of doing their best to separate Māori from their land. I note that under the suggested amendments in this bill if a whānau decided to mortgage their Māori land and failed to make payments, a mortgagee sale would be carried out as if it were general land. In this way the restrictions on the sale of Māori land under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, to keep Māori land from being lost to Māori hands, would not be able to be used.

In the same way that it is often difficult to talk about Māori cultural values in a world attuned to disrespecting anything Māori, so too is it difficult to talk about Māori connection to land in a place where land is nothing but a consumer item to be purchased and sold to the highest bidder. So I will not. In closing, though, I will say that in a Parliament where the Government refuses to honour its obligations to Māori in Aotearoa and to indigenous peoples anywhere else in the world, the Māori Party accepts with great humility its role of defending Māori rights and promoting Māori interests for the benefit of all who live in Aotearoa. The Māori Party will support this bill at third reading because, for all its flaws, it is compatible with our commitment to kaupapa Māori and our responsibility to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious, and spiritual property. Tēnā koe; kia ora tātou te Whare.

KATE WILKINSON (National): In speaking in support of this Property Law Bill at its third reading, it is interesting to note the introductory remarks of the Law Commission report some 13 years ago that recommended way back then a new Property Law Act. It basically stated: “Although property law could never be described as glamorous in comparison with other areas of legal practice,”—and I have to have an aside here to say that I practised in the area of property law for 28 years—“it is nevertheless fundamental to the workings of our society, dealing as it does with transfers, leases, mortgages and similar transactions. … The new Act which accompanies this Report is intended to replace a statute which is now over 40 years old and was itself very largely a compilation of provisions introduced many years before, … [It] is not intended as a complete codification of property law, much of which will continue to be governed by the common law. It will, however, provide a convenient statement of some of the common law and it will modify portions of it which are no longer thought to be satisfactory.” I would have to say that that is pretty much what it does.

So 8 years later we have this new Property Law Bill. It is a Government bill that has, I must admit, the trademarks of being a Government bill. If one talks with practising conveyancing lawyers and asks them what their biggest bugbear is in relation to property law, most would say shared ownership of land—in other words, unit titles, composite, freehold, or leasehold ownership. In fact, the Law Commission produced a report back in 1999 addressing some of these very issues and difficulties. This new Property Law Bill would have been an ideal vehicle to deal with these issues, but, unfortunately, it is silent.

If we really need to codify our property law, then surely it would make sense to consolidate it as much as possible into one statute. The Law Commission report back in 1999, Shared Ownership of Land, said about the consequences of inaction in relation to cross-leases: “It is important to be clear about the consequences of not grasping the nettle of reform … It is surely better to try and sort out such potential problems now, than to shut one’s eyes to them.” Then, in relation to unit titles—a statutory code enabling ownership of strata estates held by proprietors in defined shares—the commission reported 7 years ago that this scheme needed refining. In fact, it recommended 14 changes to this scheme alone, all of which have been ignored. If this bill really is intended to restate, reform, and codify our real estate law, then it has done only part of the job.

Apart from what the bill does not cover, I have some concerns from a technical point of view about some of what it does cover. For example, it provides that an attorney executing a deed must have been appointed by deed. We have just had the third reading of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill, from which members will be aware that some attorneys appointed under that legislation are actually appointed by court order, and not by deed. So any such attorney appointed by court order and not by deed would be unable to sign a property agreement for sale and purchase under the Property Law Bill.

When we read through the original 1994 Law Commission report and compare it with this Government bill, it is important to note and understand why some of the proposals have been disregarded or ignored. I think the release of assignors from a lease of liability has been mentioned. That is a somewhat well debated and well discussed issue. It is well established that the liability of an assignor of a lease continues until the end of the lease term. The commission’s report refers to the difficulty caused someone who is assigned a lease and subsequently finds that there remains a continuing and open-ended liability. Several solutions—some of them arbitrary, admittedly—were proffered, including putting a cap of, say, 5 years on that liability. I have to say that, as a matter of practice, when negotiating a lease, a clause is often inserted that puts an end time or a date on that liability. I would suggest, however, that it is of sufficient concern in the property market to have considered this liability and provided for it in the current bill.

This bill is an important bill. It covers laws that affect all homeowners in New Zealand. It is interesting that in relation to easements, which are a pretty important part of property law because they involve rights of way, sewerage, drainage, and things like that, this bill proudly proclaims that we no longer have prescriptive easements, but the Land Transfer Act 1952 made that same proclamation. In some ways, this bill is much ado about nothing, merely because it repeats our existing, well-known, and understood property law. It assists some areas by clarification, and it repeats some other areas. In some areas it is surprisingly silent, and in some areas it does not go far enough. It would have been useful had it dealt with shared ownership of land and unit titles, but it has not. It is a start, and it is worth supporting.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.