Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Madam Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Speaker’s Observations

Parliamentary Library—Appointment of First Librarian

Madam SPEAKER: Members, it is my pleasure to inform the House that 20 September 2008 marks the 150th anniversary of the appointment of the Parliamentary Library’s first librarian, Captain F E Campbell. I am sure that members would wish to join with me in congratulating the library on this significant anniversary, and in acknowledging its historic and current role in supporting representative and parliamentary democracy. The occasion will be marked by the publication of a book, Parliament’s Library—150 years by Dr John Martin, which will be launched at a function in the Grand Hall this evening.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee, I seek leave for the debates on the questions that the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill be read a second and a third time to be taken together as a single debate of 12 10-minute speeches.

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

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Health Care—Access

1. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent reports, if any, has he received on the cost of accessing health care?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I have seen a recent report noting that under the Labour and Progressive Government the cost of visiting one’s local general practitioner has plummeted. The average cost of visiting the doctor is now just $26. Kiwi families are saving about $500 a year as a result of this Government’s approach to funding primary health care. By contrast the National Party said it would “knock it on the head”, and if general practitioner fees go up Mr John Key thinks the market will “fix the problem”, and that people will “go down the road”. It is no wonder Kiwis do not trust him or them.

Lesley Soper: Has the Minister received any further reports on the funding of primary health care?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As a matter of fact, just by coincidence I have. This is a report that says the National Party will continue funding primary health care “in the short term”. That sounds like the National Party’s pledge to sell Kiwibank “eventually”. The report is from the National Party’s health policy, which I just happen to have a copy of here. When the National Party says in public that it will keep funding health care in the short term, it is once again saying something else behind closed doors. National’s Jonathan Coleman just recently told a public meeting in Auckland that he thought “GP fees aren’t high enough”.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the member makes an assertion like that, he should back it up with proof, because that is completely untrue and a lie.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. There is a general debate coming up. I remind Ministers that their answers should be short, as should the questions. Are there any further supplementary questions?

Lesley Soper: Has he received any reports on alternative approaches to funding health care?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes, as a matter of fact I have. It is in the National Party policy. I have received a report suggesting that money should be taken out of the public health sector and put into subsidising the profits of corporate health insurers. The report proposes tax rebates for those who can afford private health insurance, effectively locking in a two-tier health system where those who can afford private health insurance are rewarded and everyone else gets left behind. Once again, that proposal came from the National Party’s health policy, yet to be released—except to us, of course—which we have. It is clear that National is more interested in creating profit-making opportunities for private health insurers than it is in providing public health-care services for the rest of New Zealand.

Lesley Soper: Can he confirm that tax rebates for those with private health insurance would do little to increase the quality of health care provided to the vast majority of New Zealanders and would, in fact, simply provide financial reward to those who already have access to the private health sector?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: What I can confirm is that for someone around age 70 who is on a retirement income, it costs $1,500 for health insurance, and the National Party is going to provide a subsidy for that for those who can afford $1,500 a year, and the rest of New Zealanders who cannot will have to fall around trying to get what is left of the public health sector, after those people have finished with it.

Lesley Soper: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that instead of funding prescription medicines through an independent agency such as Pharmac, political leaders should have a greater role in determining which drugs are available and which drug companies win contracts?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I would not go as far as to call them political leaders; I would call them politicians. But I have a report suggesting that the independence of Pharmac would be overruled by a future National Government. It seems National MPs think they know better than the medical experts who currently make decisions on which drugs to fund. The risks are pretty obvious to me: would you like the front bench on the other side deciding who gets drugs and who does not, or would you like the present system that this Government operates.

I seek leave to lay on the Table a report of Mr Jonathan Coleman’s remarks about supporting his leader, and his attitude towards private health-care.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters—Donations

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in July regarding the Rt Hon Winston Peters: “I’ve made it clear all the way through this round of allegations that I accept an honourable member’s word as his bond unless I have reason to doubt it.”, and does she consider, in the light of Owen Glenn’s statement to the Privileges Committee yesterday, that she now has a reason to doubt the word of Mr Peters?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by the statement, and I am aware of disturbing evidence given to the Privileges Committee last night, to which there is a right of reply.

John Key: Is it not clear that there is now enough evidence that Mr Peters has misled the public that, regardless of the Privileges Committee’s decision on the separate and narrow issue of whether or not Mr Peters should have declared a pecuniary interest, the Prime Minister should act to sack Mr Peters immediately?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mr Peters may be the hardest person in the country to insist on due process for, but I do think that any reasonable person would agree that he has a right to reply, tonight.

John Key: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by Mr Glenn yesterday, in regard to a meeting they had in February 2008, in which he said “I also told her of my conversation with the Labour Party president, Mr Williams, before I agreed to make that donation back in 2005. It was my understanding Mr Williams would have to clear this with his colleagues.”; and does she accept Mr Glenn’s account of this conversation?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mr Williams does not accept that version of Mr Glenn’s account. Frankly, I do not have reason to distrust my president’s word.

Peter Brown: Does the Prime Minister share New Zealand First’s concern that it is totally unethical for any leader of a political party to make statements day after day to the media, and to ask umpteen questions in Parliament—all with the assumption of guilt—about the substance of an issue that is before the Privileges Committee whilst the hearings are still in progress, and does she believe that that is turning the Privileges Committee into a kangaroo court?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have on a number of occasions in the House expressed concern about the extent to which the comments of the Leader of the Opposition have compromised the position of his party’s members on the select committee.

John Key: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House last week, when asked whether any member of the Labour Party was involved in the process leading to Mr Glenn’s donation: “Mr Williams has been clear on the public record that he has not had such a role.”, when she knew from Mr Glenn that Mike Williams certainly did have such a role—or is this just another secret she decided to keep from the New Zealand public?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Mr Williams has been very clear in his statements that he did not act as any kind of facilitator for that funding. Further, I am advised by Dr Cullen, who was at the select committee, that Mr Glenn was also clear that Mr Williams had not been a facilitator.

John Key: Is it not a fact that in February 2008, when Mr Glenn told Helen Clark, the Prime Minister, that Mr Williams had known all along about the donation because he had sanctioned it, that that was not new news to Helen Clark, because she has four conversations a day with Mike Williams, and in the last 2½ years I am sure he has popped that into the conversation?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I can absolutely assure the member that no conversation of that kind between Mr Glenn and Mr Williams was reported to me at the time.

John Key: Are the facts of the situation not that when the Prime Minister rang Winston Peters in South Africa in February 2008, she was not ringing him to ask whether he had accepted a donation from Owen Glenn—because she already knew that—but was ringing him to ask whether he had left a paper trail that would see both of them get caught, as they have been?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is really scraping the bottom of the barrel now—really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I have been quite clear about why I rang Mr Peters. It was because Mr Peters was being reported as denying that he or his party had received a donation, when it was being suggested to me that he had indeed received one.

John Key: Is it not as simple as this: the reason the Prime Minister has not sacked Winston Peters for taking a donation from Owen Glenn is that she would be sacking Winston Peters for a donation that was sanctioned by the Labour Party?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That is a ridiculous and wrong allegation.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister answer this question then: is Owen Glenn a liar? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I am reflecting on the use of the term liar in the House, in respect of a person who is not here to be able to defend himself. Maybe the member would like to rephrase his question.

John Key: Does Helen Clark agree with Michael Cullen’s assertion of the fact that Owen Glenn is a liar?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the member cared to consult the transcript of yesterday’s Privileges Committee meeting, he would find me saying that as far as I am aware, nobody has called Mr Glenn a liar. I certainly have not. I have once, in this House, in the open, in answer to a question, said he was confused as to whether his donation was to New Zealand First or to Mr Peters. He was confused about that.

Rodney Hide: I think the easiest way forward is for Mr John Key simply to ask whether Helen Clark believes that Owen Glenn is telling the truth.

Madam SPEAKER: That is very kind of you, but I am sure Mr Key is quite capable of framing his own questions.

John Key: Is Owen Glenn telling the truth, then?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I have said today, I have given both Mr Glenn and Mr Peters the benefit of the doubt. I frankly would compare honesty on this side of the House any day with Mr Key’s, because we have yet to have any honesty about what he talked to Lord Ashcroft about, what he talked to the Exclusive Brethren about, what he talked to the Spencer Trust about when he was raising money, and what he talks to offshore merchant banks about when he is talking about flogging off the State-owned enterprises. Let us have some honesty from Mr Key.

Peter Brown: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Owen Glenn’s lawyer, who was present yesterday and gave advice to Mr Glenn about how he should answer the majority of questions put to him by the committee, is none other than Geoff Harley who acted for Fay Richwhite during the wine-box inquiry?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: It is my understanding that indeed he was involved with the wine-box matter.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister think Mr Williams, who was described today by Owen Glenn as “wrestling with the truth over these matters” and “an unmitigated falsifier of veracity”, and who has previously tendered his resignation after making misleading statements about Mr Glenn’s financial relationship with the Labour Party, remains fit to be a person who is a director of four Crown entities and is earning a Government salary of $107,000 a year?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I think the comments made today are not atypical of the sort of hyperbole that flows when acquaintances fall out.

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister agree with my advice to Winston Peters—that is, to take an oath tonight, expose himself to perjury proceedings under the Crimes Act 1961, and tell the truth?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My understanding of the requirement of those appearing before the Privileges Committee is that they are acting, in effect, as though they were on oath in a court.

John Key: Why did the Prime Minister not just simply tell the New Zealand public back in February that there were two versions of events, and that she could not reconcile the statements from Owen Glenn and the version of events by Winston Peters; why did she keep the New Zealand public in the dark for the last 6 months?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That question was asked yesterday, and I replied as follows: I am not in the habit of going out and saying I had private conversation A and private conversation B. As far as I am concerned, that was at that time primarily a matter between Mr Glenn and Mr Peters, and Mr Peters and the news media.

John Key: Is it not a summary of events that 2½ years ago Owen Glenn checked with Mike Williams, who almost certainly checked with Helen Clark, that it was OK to give $100,000 to Winston Peters; that in February 2008, when Owen Glenn told the Prime Minister, she already knew about the donation and had known about it for a long period of time; that for 6 months the Prime Minister kept it secret from the New Zealand public, and the reason she has not sacked Winston Peters is that she is involved up to her eyeballs in that; and that what happened yesterday was that the truth jetted into town?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not believe there is a shred of truth in anything that member has said, and, frankly, from my knowledge of him, that would not be a surprise.

Rodney Hide: I seek the leave of the House to table legal advice that actually taking an oath at the Privileges Committee does expose a witness to perjury proceedings under the Crimes Act—

Document not tabled.

Thyroid Treatment—Eltroxin

3. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: Why has the Government not provided alternative medication for the more than 800 New Zealanders who have reported adverse reactions to a new formulation of the thyroid drug Eltroxin to the centre for adverse reactions monitoring?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: As we announced yesterday, the Government is looking at two new alternatives for people who are having adverse reactions to Eltroxin. We have been encouraging Pharmac and the ministry to act as quickly as possible. An announcement will be made by Pharmac and Medsafe at lunchtime tomorrow.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree with South Canterbury pharmacist Allan Campbell that the number of adverse reactions that have been reported to this medication make it “the worst in New Zealand’s drug history”, with the number of people reporting reactions to the centre for adverse reactions monitoring increasing every day; if so, why has it taken the Government 11 months to act after it first began to receive serious complaints of adverse reactions?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am advised that the adverse reactions in New Zealand remain somewhat of a mystery. Nowhere else in the world has the new formulation of Eltroxin caused this level of reaction. Mystery or not, however, we have been working to secure alternatives for new users and people who are suffering side effects. The Government has been encouraging the Ministry of Health and Pharmac to act swiftly. However, this Government makes drug policy decisions based on evidential systems and processes, and on health needs, not on the politics of the situation.

Sue Kedgley: Does he concede that alternative thyroid drugs have been available for the duration—the 11 months—that Medsafe does have a fast-track approval process that could have been used to get alternative medications quickly to people experiencing side effects, and that by failing to act sooner hundreds of New Zealanders have been forced to endure debilitating side effects such as heart palpitations, blurred vision, depression, and so forth; and by what date will he guarantee that an alternative subsidised medicine will be available for these people?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: My advice is that Pharmac, with the support of the Ministry of Health and Medsafe, has been asking the industry for a number of years now to offer an alternative to Eltroxin and no alternative has been offered on the market. Two are now being offered, and announcements on this matter will be made tomorrow. I am assured that within a matter of weeks an alternative to Eltroxin will be on the market.

Sue Kedgley: Is he concerned about the patronising comments that Medsafe has made publicly about those reporting side effects, even implying that it was all in patients’ heads; and why does he think Medsafe blamed the patients, dragged its heels, and failed to respond for almost a year to what was clearly a very serious case of drug reaction?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: No, I have no knowledge of those comments, but what I do know is that Medsafe and Pharmac have been working for some time now to get an alternative to Eltroxin on the market, and an announcement will be made tomorrow to show that it has achieved that.

Budget 2009—Available New Spending

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What is Treasury’s best estimate of how much is available for new spending in Budget 2009 after pre-commitments and future charges against it are deducted from the allowances signalled in the 2008 Budget?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): That depends on whether one includes only spending commitments formally made, or whether one includes an assessment of likely major pressures.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister give us an estimate, based on those expenditures that were committed to in the 2008 Budget, plus those that were not formally made but have to be paid—such as $200 million for teachers’ pay increases—and can he advise that it will leave him with something like $300 million of spare cash for the 2009 Budget?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In terms of the formal commitments in the Budget, I think the total was $1.14 billion out of $1.75 billion. Since then, however, there have been a number of further commitments: the police pay round is now under consideration by the police for ratification; there has been a pay offer to caretakers and cleaners, which I think is still out for ratification; and there are, obviously, the commitments in relation to the emissions trading scheme—the one-off payments in that case. There are also some issues, of course, around the acceleration of Treaty of Waitangi settlements. If all likely major pressures are included, then the operating allowance is pretty much fully committed for 2009-10.

Hon Bill English: If the allowance from 2008 for 2009 is already committed, before the Government has started making extravagant election promises, how does it intend to fund the undertakings it has made to the Greens, including a $1 billion insulation programme and $400 million for emissions trading scheme compensation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am sorry but I misunderstood the member’s question—I thought he was referring to the spending allowance for 2009-10. His latest supplementary question refers to, obviously, the contingency for 2008-09. There is still some room left in the 2008-09 contingency at this stage—probably around $20 million for 2008-09, and $32 million for the out-years.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen any proposals on alternative ways to raise additional revenue to provide greater opportunities for new spending in Budget 2009?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes, I have seen a proposal from National to scrap the research and development tax credits, which would cost businesses a very large amount of money, and to transfer that money from the private sector to the public sector. I have also seen, amongst proposals to somehow or other retain a cap on the number of bureaucrats, proposals for new Government departments, such as a new Department of Immigration, a new Environmental Protection Agency, and—apparently—a new office of chief scientist.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that he has advised the Public Service to find significant savings—or, to use the Labour Party term, “cuts”—in order for him to be able to cover the commitments he has made to the Greens, including a billion-dollar insulation programme and $400 million of emissions trading scheme compensation, and in order to cover the fact that the allowance he has left for the next Budget has virtually gone already?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot. The member appears to be having a conversation with me, when the conversation really seems to be directed towards his benchmate. Mr English is arguing that there is no room in next year’s Budget for large, new fiscal initiatives; well, that is something I have been trying to tell him for quite some time.

Families—Advocacy

5. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to ensure that the voices of families are heard in New Zealand?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Labour-led Government has supported the Families Commission to be an advocate for the interests of families. We are prepared to be clear about that, regardless of which audience we are talking to, unlike the leader of the National Party, who delivers what line he thinks will get the most applause.

Russell Fairbrother: What issues has the Families Commission advocated for on behalf of New Zealand families?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The Families Commission has consulted widely to identify issues that are of concern to New Zealand families. These include preventing family violence, supporting parents, and improving families’ work-life balance. It is not surprising that the National Party wants to axe—the Leader of the Opposition describes it as “rebalancing”—that kind of advocacy, because we know that it runs counter to its agenda on opposing paid parental leave, scrapping 20 free hours’ early childhood education, and dismantling Working for Families.

Sue Bradford: What does the Minister think of today’s calls from the Every Child Counts conference, which is happening here in Wellington, for children’s interests to be at the centre of Government decision-making; and will she support the establishment of a cross-party parliamentary group for children after the election?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I support, and have demonstrated as the Minister responsible for social development, having children at the centre of all policy development. I certainly endorse the comments that were made. In regard to the cross-party proposals, I have had a discussion with Baroness Massey about the way cross-party groups operate in the United Kingdom and I do not believe they have much that is dissimilar to what is already operating in New Zealand.

Judith Collins: What is her justification for the Families Commission spending $200,000 of taxpayer dollars on a summit and cocktail party to discuss “money, time, and relationships”, and does she endorse the Families Commission soliciting sponsorship for this vanity event by promising to help telephone companies to “capture potential customer details and the age of their current phone for replacement, provide assistance in developing a publicity plan that targets your specific consumer markets, and provide media access to top experts and celebrities”, including Rajen Prasad, and how does Rajen Prasad’s self-proclaimed celebrity status help everyday Kiwi families?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I will answer just a couple of points in the many questions that the member raised. I strongly support the comment of National list candidate Viv Gurrey, who said the Families Commission is the bedrock for the community sector. In regard to Rajen Prasad, I would put him up as our No. 12 candidate against National’s Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith as its No. 12 candidate any day.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer. She did not address the question, which was about her justification for this outrageous spending. She did not address that, at all. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask her to now address the question.

Madam SPEAKER: I listened very carefully to the member’s question, and a variety of thoughts were contained in it. As the Minister indicated, normally a supplementary question contains one thought, which then enables a response. The Minister chose to answer at least two of the thoughts in the question, so she addressed it.

Gordon Copeland: How can the Minister claim to listen to the voices of families when her Government gave its complete backing to the criminalisation of good parents, even though 80 percent of them voiced their opposition to that Draconian law, and, although 390,000 signatures were collected to force a referendum, her Government has put the referendum off until 2009, when it could have been held on polling day this year?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Again I will address just some of the questions contained in the member’s supplementary question. In respect of the first part of his question, the overwhelming majority of this Parliament voted against allowing a legal defence for assaulting a child. That is what section 59 of the Crimes Act was—a legal defence for assault. If people around the country had known that that is what section 59 was about, the referendum would not have gained any signatures, in my view, because I do not know a single New Zealander who supports assaulting a child. In respect of the latter part of the member’s question, I say that if the member was able to participate in question time more regularly, he would have heard the Minister of Justice address that issue on many occasions.

Emergency Departments—Pressures

6. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his recent statement that accident and emergency department performance is “pleasing” in light of the reported crisis situation in many of the country’s emergency departments?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, I am pleased that in the last period for which information is available, between 99.9 percent and 100 percent of patients in the most seriously ill category have been seen immediately. I am also pleased that in the second-most urgent category the proportion of people seen immediately has improved from 59 percent to 72 percent over the last 3 years. That is a much better performance in large emergency departments in particular, especially in Auckland and Christchurch. District health boards have been introducing improvements in the way they manage patients, and that, as I have said, is pleasing to this Government. It might actually be unpleasing to the shroud-waver from Whakatāne.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has the Minister seen the comments of the head of the Auckland City Hospital emergency department, Dr Tim Parke, in respect of the Minister saying he is pleased with the performance of accident and emergency departments, that the crisis in hospital emergency departments causes as many deaths as occur on the roads; and what will he do about that?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Yes, I have seen those comments. As I have said to the House, there has been a steady improvement in the number of people being seen immediately in emergency departments. Even if seeing more people in emergency departments faster is not pleasing to the member, it is pleasing to this Government because it evidences progress over any period when there was a Government of another persuasion rather than this one.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why does the Minister say it is “pleasing” that hospital emergency department waiting times mean that at Wellington Hospital emergency department a dialysis patient waited in excess of 20 hours, and that some patients were languishing on trolleys for 9 days—does he think that is pleasing?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There are always individual cases that members can raise in this House, and if they want individual answers on them they can put questions to me as Associate Minister or to the Minister of Health, and they will get them. What I actually said is that a lot of investment is going into steady improvements in patient management. The focus of most of that work is on making sure that patients can be quickly admitted to wards and not have to wait. That is the record of this Government—one of steady improvement—and any day the member likes to compare that to 9 years under National, he will be welcome to do so.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why has Labour broken Helen Clark’s promise that “If someone needs a hospital bed they will get it, and they will stay there as long as they need to.”?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: What I have said to the House is a reaffirmation of that commitment. More people are being seen faster and getting access to treatment faster than ever before, and that is a record that will stack up against anything National performed in 9 years.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister want to reconsider his answer in the light of the fact that official information from his own district health boards shows that patients at Wellington Hospital’s emergency department are waiting over 130 percent longer now than they were a year ago?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have given the House the national data that is most recently available, which indicates that right across the hospital system more people in serious condition are being seen faster than at any time in hospital history. Even if that does not satisfy the member, it is very satisfying to this Government.

Hon Tony Ryall: If this Government has spent so much money on new buildings, new emergency departments, new this, and new that, why are most of our major hospital emergency departments in code red, unable to sufficiently see patients so that they are languishing for days in emergency departments; and is that what Labour will continue to offer people in New Zealand?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: What Labour and its associate parties in this House have offered and are offering is a much more effective and efficient hospital system than we have ever had before. The member is so regularly waving shrouds in this House that he is beginning to look like one.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister really think the House will believe that the health system is effective when women in their 80s are required to languish on hospital trolleys under bright fluorescent lights for 4 days?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It does not sound effective in that particular case.

Hon Tony Ryall: That’s the point. It’s not.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I see—so we are going to measure the entire health and hospital system against the one case that Mr Ryall brings to the House every now and then! That is a ludicrous way of measuring the quality of the health system, and the member makes himself a joke to any health professional who knows it.

Hospitals—Bed Numbers

7. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Is he aware that public hospital bed numbers have declined from 2.48 per 1,000 people in 1988 to 1.56 in 2006 although our population has increased significantly in that time, and what is being done to solve the problems arising from this decline?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I am advised that the biggest decline in hospital bed numbers per head of population occurred during the 9 years of the last National Government. By contrast, this Government has been engaged in the largest hospital building and redevelopment programme in New Zealand’s history. We have built seven new hospitals, done eight major upgrades, and built 10 new specialist facilities, and seven more hospital redevelopments are almost complete or are under way. That record would stand against that of any Government in New Zealand’s history, and is in stark contrast to the pitiful efforts of the last National Government.

Barbara Stewart: Is the Minister of Health aware of estimates by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine that a 15 percent increase in bed numbers is needed, and will this increase be achieved under the Government’s hospital building campaign?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government has shown a commitment to investing in infrastructure. However, it is important to take a holistic approach to relieving pressure on emergency departments, and that work is currently under way at the Ministry of Health. The work will look at how we can make hospitals more efficient, and will look at the role of primary health care, where about 12 million people received treatment last year, to find out whether more resources are needed. If they are needed, this Government will allocate them in a way that the National Government never got round to doing in its 9 years in office.

Lynne Pillay: What is the Government doing to ensure that health infrastructure keeps pace with the increasing population and new ways of delivering health services?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As I have indicated, there have been new hospitals, upgrades, new specialist facilities, 1,000 more doctors, and 4,000 more nurses. The track record of this Government in health bears little resemblance to any track record of any other Government in recent history, so we can be very proud of that. Is it perfect? No, it is not. Is it in crisis? No, it certainly is not.

Barbara Stewart: How many existing hospitals, such as Kenepuru Hospital in Porirua, are currently underutilised, when they could be used to reduce the bed shortage?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I do not have information on exactly that, but I am quite sure the Ministry of Health and the district health boards are working together cooperatively and constructively to make sure they get the best use out of all the hospital facilities and resources that are available to us.

Hon Tony Ryall: If the Government has spent so much money and built so many more hospitals, why is the public health system lurching from crisis to crisis in the final months of this dying Government?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I think I have given enough facts before the House today to deny any kind of crisis in the health system. The alternative is that the health system is being well managed and is being invested in in ways that have never happened in recent years. The member tries to gee himself up, like someone in the dark yelling out to cheer himself up, but, actually, this Government has an incredible record in terms of health and hospital care, and we will stand on that record and not let the facts get in the way of our prejudice.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I seek leave of the House to table a graph that shows the trends in public health care over the recent period, under National and—

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

Conservation, Department—Re-branding Project

8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she support the re-branding project for the Department of Conservation to contract an agency as per the request for proposal that sets out the key elements of the project as a brand audit, research review, brand strategy, brand communication strategy, and an implementation plan?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation): I support the project by the department in so far as its goal is to promote the message that conservation is a must for New Zealand’s economic future, not a nice add-on. I was unhappy at supposed leaks within the Department of Conservation that circulated false information about the costs of the project. But Nick Smith should understand about leaks, having had his limp conservation policy announced by Trevor Mallard last week.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the department in the last year abolished the marine conservation group and laid off marine scientists, and at the same time established a marketing and communications group at a cost of $610,000 per year, and why are marketing and re-branding more important than marine conservation?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: That is absolute hypocrisy, actually. National does not even have a policy.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please withdraw the comment—

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I withdraw and apologise. I just want to add that the Department of Conservation’s marine science capacity has been retained. It is focused on implementing a network of marine-protected areas around the coastline, and it is working with local communities and iwi to achieve that. We have that in our strategy, as opposed to the conservation policy of the Opposition with no mention of marine conservation.

Moana Mackey: What other proposals has the Minister seen to reposition the valuable species recovery and land protection work done by the Department of Conservation?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I have seen a proposal misleadingly entitled “Net conservation benefit” that would instruct the Department of Conservation to trade off New Zealand’s national parks and heritage instead of protecting them. This was in National’s blue-green policy. It will still not deny that this is its real agenda for conservation, instead of the collection of copycat Labour policies released last week.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you consider whether the answer is in line with the frame of the original question in my name?

Madam SPEAKER: It was about branding. It was a general question, so I ask the Minister that in future when she addresses questions she does stick to that theme.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Minister justify the additional cost of the re-branding of her department, and the setting up of a new marketing and communications group, when at the same time, it is closing Department of Conservation offices like the Murupara office in her own Rotorua electorate; and does she support that choice of priorities?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: As to the first aspect of that question, conservation is fundamental to the economic future of our country; it is about the quality of our water, the air, our wildlife, and our land. My department is committed to both its advocacy and protection roles. This is not about changing our signs, or our letterheads. And in regard to the second aspect of the member’s question, it is actually the Ōpōtiki office, to clarify. [Interruption] No, Murupara is not. The Ōpōtiki office is an operational matter that the department is considering. However, the proposed reorganisation is not about removing resources on the ground. It is about improving the Department of Conservation’s effectiveness right across the country.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that she supports the funding and the contract for an advertising agency for a branding project; that she supports the establishment of a new marketing and communications unit within the Department of Conservation; and that she also supports closing of local offices, including Ōpōtiki and Murupara?

Madam SPEAKER: I just remind members that there are three questions within that supplementary question.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: As to the advertising agency, this is specialised work; it is standard practice for Government organisations to contract agencies, from time to time, instead of permanently tying up valuable resources for one-off projects. Specialist advice helps to ensure that communications are effective and targeted. With regard to the communication staff, this is not just about conservation staff doing advertising campaigns. Most staff, in fact, are working on the very things that National said that it wanted more of—corporate support for conservation-led projects, and community-led projects on private conservation land.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister agree with marketing consultant Owen Scott, who wrote in the Christchurch Press yesterday: “Government departments too often get carried away with ‘branding’ projects, when the value they deliver is only marginal, … DOC shouldn’t obscure the great work it does with this sort of muddled marketing thinking.”; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: I have not seen the article, but this is an outcome of the operational review the department has just undertaken that made sure the department’s resources match its strategic direction, including its commitment to advocate for conservation and to protect our conservation land. National, on the other hand, has made clear that it will water this down even further.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the brand refreshment project for the Department of Conservation.

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: As the Minister has not had time to read it, I seek leave to table the criticism of the department’s re-branding project, by Owen Scott, marketing consultant.

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

Treaty of Waitangi Clauses—Inclusion in Legislation

9. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Is it Government policy not to include Treaty clauses in bills other than Treaty-related legislation; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): No.

Dr Pita Sharples: Is he aware that the Māori Focus Forum set up by the Commissioner of Police called the absence of a Treaty clause in the Policing Bill a particular disappointment; if so, why did Labour vote against the Treaty clause put forward by the Māori Party for the Policing Bill?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I am not aware of that statement, but even if I had been, I would not have been inclined to alter my advice to my colleagues. These matters are dealt with on a case by case basis by the Government. It is not clear what a Treaty clause would mean in this instance.

Dr Pita Sharples: Does he recall the Minister of Immigration justifying Labour’s decision to vote down the Māori Party’s proposal for a Treaty clause in the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill by stating that Labour had consulted extensively with what he called “the kaitiaki of tikanga in the Labour Māori caucus”; if so, what was the advice of the Labour Māori caucus about Treaty clauses?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The advice I receive on that is that these matters should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Labour has a proud record of implementing Treaty settlements over recent times.

Dr Pita Sharples: Would he agree that the fact that Ngāi Tahu has taken a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal against the emissions trading scheme now makes that bill Treaty-related legislation; if so, why did the Labour Government vote down the Māori Party’s proposed Treaty clause for the emissions trading scheme bill?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. The tribunal would arrive at its own decisions. The fact that somebody takes a case does not make it a Treaty-related issue; otherwise, any case could be taken to the tribunal and halt any kind of action in that regard. In relation to the Ngāi Tahu situation, there are two quite separate issues. The first is whether, in any sense, the Government in the 1990s negotiated in good faith. There is a process to deal with that issue through an independent process. The second is whether any general Government legislation may at any point impact, in any fashion, upon any value of any property that resulted from a Treaty settlement. If the argument is that it cannot, then that is to set up a two-tier process of legislation in Government from this point on. In any case, the member and, I suspect, Ngāi Tahu have not fully taken account of the fact that emissions units and the value of those will apply to the land bought before 2002, and at a carbon emissions price of $23 a tonne, Ngāi Tahu actually is a net gainer from the transfer.

Government Appointments—Election Period

10. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of State Services: Does he stand by his statement of 29 July 2008, in relation to the convention that significant Government appointments are deferred in the 3 months prior to a general election, that “the Government has adhered, and always will adhere, to that convention”; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services): Yes.

Hon Bill English: How can the Minister possibly believe that nonsense, when yesterday the Government announced the appointment of five new members to the Waitangi Tribunal, which is clearly a significant and important body, and when the latest that the election can be held is just over 2 months away, not 3 months away?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We certainly have been consulting on significant appointments—

Hon Bill English: No, you haven’t.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, we have. The Tourism New Zealand appointments were consulted upon, and National is currently being consulted upon appointments to the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Those are but two examples.

Hon Bill English: If he is saying that the Government is adhering to the convention, and always will, why should anyone believe that, when the Government last week, within 2 months of an election, appointed an expert panel to inquire into electoral law, which is one of the cornerstones of our constitution and clearly of great significance; and does not the appointment of that panel inside the 3-month period show that Labour has learnt nothing, and continues its high-handed, arrogant, and totally partisan dealings with our constitutional arrangements?

Hon DAVID PARKER: With respect to the member, the question actually discloses his ignorance as to the principles that underlie the period of restraint. That restraint applies to significant appointments to bodies with decision-making roles and significant assets, and not to advisory bodies. Thus the appointments to the expert panel on electoral matters, which has an advisory role and not a decision-making role, are not covered by the principles.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the Government continues to support the tenure of Mr Mike Williams—labelled today by one of his friends as a liar—on a range of Government entities, including five State-owned enterprises and other Crown entities; why does the Government continue the appointments of that person?

Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s not on five SOEs. He’s making it up.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The member is making it up. The double standards of the National Party have to be brought to the attention of the House again. It was those members, when in Government, who appointed Mr Robert Browne of the Waitemata Trust as the chair of Transit. That is the same Robert Browne who, as a trustee of the Waitemata Trust, pumped $1.4 million into National Party coffers before the last election.

Hon Bill English: When the Minister appointed the new members of the Waitangi Tribunal, appointed the expert panel on electoral law, and made over 50 appointments to conservation boards and others, did he advise those people that because he had not consulted—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister of State Services does not appoint the members of the Waitangi Tribunal; the Minister of Māori Affairs is the responsible Minister for that purpose.

Madam SPEAKER: That is actually true. Would the member cast the question in terms of ministerial responsibility, please.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us whether, when he participated in the appointment of five new members of the Waitangi Tribunal, the expert panel on electoral law—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is a very clever way of rephrasing it, but it would make any Minister responsible for any appointment under the Government, because, of course, in the end all these appointments are passed through Cabinet. But the actual Minister responsible is the Minister who proposes these matters to Cabinet. I do not think that any of the appointments on the list that Mr English read out are actually the responsibility of the Minister of State Services.

Hon Bill English: Speaking to the point of order, I note that the Minister answered earlier questions about all those appointments, so this question must be in order.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That was because I was trying to save the House time by not raising points of order, to try to keep—

Madam SPEAKER: I agree, and I should have intervened at that point. I thought there was the one question, but it became a line of questioning, and, obviously, objection was taken. I apologise to the House for not ruling that question out of order at the appropriate time.

Hon Bill English: Will the Minister, under the convention for which he is responsible—that significant Government appointments are deferred in the 3 months prior to an election—ensure that all—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Of course, these are conventions that, in the end, lie in the hands of the Prime Minister—

Madam SPEAKER: That is true, too.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: —as the Minister responsible for the Cabinet Manual; the responsibility does not lie with the Minister of State Services.

Hon Bill English: When the Minister said he stood by his statement that the Government has adhered, and will always adhere, to the convention of not making appointments 3 months prior to a general election, will he follow through on it by making sure that all appointees are told that the Opposition would not be bound by those appointments, should it become the Government, and that they run the risk of an incoming Government not confirming those appointments?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The member again misrepresented the principle. It relates to significant appointments, not to all appointments. Given that there have been 50 appointments to conservation boards, one might actually conclude that those are not the sorts of high-level appointments to which the principle applies.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister not just confirm what the Labour Party is doing—that is, trying to stack public bodies with its cronies, before it is defeated in a tide of funding scandals?

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister has no responsibility for the Labour Party, but has a responsibility in terms of his ministerial authority.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that significant appointments to bodies with decision-making and funding powers, such as Tourism New Zealand, have been consulted upon, and that National is currently being consulted upon other appointments, including to the Independent Police Complaints Authority.

Housing Policy—Reports

11. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Housing: What recent reports, if any, has she received on housing policy?

Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing): I have seen a policy release from National showing that, aside from repeating its old answer to everything—which is tax cuts—it has flip-flopped on Labour policies such as income-related rents, as well as shared equity, and National now parades as good ideas those very things that it was vigorously opposing in the House just last week. It shows that when the National Party is not actively leaking its policies, it is busy copying ours.

Lynne Pillay: Has she seen any policies that would affect State housing?

Hon MARYAN STREET: Yes. I see that despite regularly railing against the waiting list, which National created by selling 13,000 State houses, National has confirmed that it will not be increasing the stock. Although Labour has created nearly 8,000 new State homes, spending $221 million last year alone in doing so, National is saying to those on the waiting list: “Give up now.”, and to those thinking about applying: “Don’t bother.”

Numeracy—Year 11 Expectations

12. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Education: Why did he state yesterday that he disagreed with the Post Primary Teachers Association’s views that the numeracy requirements at level 1 reflect “a very low level of achievement”, and that they are not “likely to match the community’s expectation of numeracy at year 11”?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education): The member, as usual, is distorting my response to her question yesterday. I was responding to her claim that level 1 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a school-leaver qualification. That may be the position of the National Party, but the Labour-led Government has always regarded NCEA level 2 as the minimum achievement we want all students to achieve.

Anne Tolley: Will he tell the House why he thinks he is right and the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) and teachers are wrong, when they have clearly told the public that the level 1 numeracy credits are so easy that students still at intermediate school should be able to pass them?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I do not disagree that we can always improve exam processes. Indeed, I announced in this House in June—and had the member who asked me the question been listening, she would know this—that we are doing a review of standards with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Ministry of Education. Indeed, we have done things like appoint 33 permanent moderators, whose task is to ensure that assessment in schools is of the highest quality. We have done lots of other things, like introducing achievement endorsements to NCEA certificates, and we have made national assessment reports available online to parents. Actually, there are lots of processes to improve the assessment process.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What progress has the Labour-led Government made in raising student achievement?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: It has made fantastic progress, and of course it would have done so, because Labour has doubled the amount of investment that has gone into education. In 2007 just 5 percent of students left school with few qualifications or no qualification. In 2002 it was 18 percent.

Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that question and the Minister’s answer are pretty wide of the primary question I asked, which was about the PPTA’s view that numeracy requirements at level 1 reflect a low level of achievement.

Madam SPEAKER: Can the Minister please try to confine his general answer to the specific question.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: What I am trying to tell this House, and am successfully doing with most members, but not, of course, with the Opposition—

Madam SPEAKER: There is no need for those comments. Just address the question, please.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The question that has been asked of me is whether the NCEA is a robust system of assessment. The NCEA is an internationally recognised assessment system; it is recognised by all British, Australian, and American universities. Assessment processes in New Zealand are being examined by educational specialists from all over the world. The MP who asked the question, National’s spokesperson on education, seems to despise what happens in our schools. I am proud of what New Zealand teachers are doing to educate the next generation of New Zealanders.

Dail Jones: Is the Minister prepared to take on the PPTA’s criticism and to liaise with the association to ensure that NCEA level 1 and, indeed, other levels of the NCEA are maintained at levels necessary to test the abilities of the relevant age groups; and, if necessary, is he prepared to increase those levels?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am always prepared to talk to anybody about education. I regularly meet with the PPTA and with many other groups associated with education. I would be happy to sit down with the member and hear his views on education.

Anne Tolley: If there is nothing wrong with the mathematical skills of our young New Zealanders and the PPTA and teachers are wrong, why is it that under this Labour Government the National Education Monitoring Project shows that from 2001 to 2005 there has been a “clear decline” in the ability of our 9 to 10-year-olds and 12 to 13-year-olds to deal with simple number facts?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: New Zealand students score extraordinarily highly in international comparisons. In the Programme for International Student Assessment scoring system or assessment process, which all 31 countries of the OECD submit results for, New Zealand students come out as being top in the English-speaking world in science, they come out as being equal with Canada’s students in literacy, and they come out as being top in the English-speaking world in numeracy. Those results speak for themselves. New Zealand teachers are doing an excellent job in our schools, and the National Party should be praising education, not condemning it.

Dail Jones: What action is the Minister taking to liaise with the PPTA on NCEA levels with regard to, for example, computer teaching, bearing in mind the great problems that are associated with that area?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I meet monthly with the PPTA. In addition to that, I regularly attend regional meetings of the PPTA. In respect of the particular area the member has raised with us about computer skills, I have met not just with the PPTA but also with the Computer Society in order to try to work through a process whereby we have standards that are acceptable to everybody.

Anne Tolley: If there is nothing really wrong with the maths of young New Zealanders and he thinks that the PPTA and teachers are wrong, can he explain why the ability of our 9 to 10-year-olds and 12 to 13-year-olds to count, do basic arithmetic and algebra, measure, and do geometry is either stagnating at 2001 levels or has actually declined since 2001, according to the National Education Monitoring Project?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Actually, I do not disagree with teachers. I think teachers are getting it right, and in most cases they are getting it very right. Of course, we have some students who could achieve much better than they are doing. That is why the Government is introducing the revolutionary Schools Plus programme into our secondary schools. But I remind that member and this House that New Zealand students stack up extraordinarily well against students in other developed countries.

Dail Jones: What assurances can the Minister give the House and the PPTA about NCEA levels 1, 2, and 3 in the field of technology teaching, where there has been considerable concern about the dearth of teachers?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I spend a great deal of my time visiting schools, and I am aware that schools are concerned about the number of teachers in the technology area. We are trying to recruit more teachers. We are making it easier for overseas-trained teachers who are suitable to teach in New Zealand schools to be registered. I am continuing to be in dialogue with the New Zealand Teachers Council, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the PPTA, and the New Zealand Educational Institute over these issues.

Anne Tolley: Can the Minister explain this to the House: we have teachers telling us that under Labour we are giving out numeracy credits to high school students for a test that is far too easy, and we have the National Education Monitoring Project backing that up and telling us that basic mathematical skills amongst our primary and intermediate schoolchildren are either stagnating or declining under this Labour Government, yet the Minister is still telling the House that everything is OK and the mathematical skills of New Zealand children are no cause for alarm?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I am not telling this House that things are OK; I am telling this House that things are very good. Of course, some students are not succeeding as well as they should succeed, which is why we are bringing in Schools Plus. But I can say that when a comparison is done with comparable countries in the OECD, New Zealand schools are shown to be world class. That member should be proud of what is happening in our schools, not rubbishing teachers and education.

General Debate

General Debate

JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Up and down the country New Zealanders are telling me they want a fresh start. You see, they are absolutely sick to death of this dying and decaying Government, and they are sick of a Government that is sick of them. They are sick of a Government that is preoccupied with scandals—a Government that just bounces from one crisis to another. And they know one thing, and it comes through loud and clear: it is time for a change. That is what is going to happen.

Up until yesterday the hardest question to answer when it came to the Winston Peters donation scandal was this one: why did Helen Clark not act when in February 2008 Owen Glenn told her that he had donated $100,000 to Winston Peters? Why did she not act? The Prime Minister, at least publicly, wants to trade on the illusion that she holds her Ministers to account, that she has a standard for them, that they are held to some sort of ethics. Why did she not apply those to Winston Peters back in February? You see, the Prime Minister could not reconcile the version of events between Winston Peters and Owen Glenn. Yesterday, the answer jetted into town. Yesterday Owen Glenn said he told Helen Clark in February 2008 that he had donated to Winston Peters. Well, you know what? Helen Clark already knew that, because Mike Williams would have told her in one of the four phone calls he makes to her every single day.

You see, when Mike Williams was told in 2005 he actually OK’d the donation; Owen Glenn asked for the permission of the Labour Party. What are the odds that Mike Williams never told Helen Clark in 2 years? I do not think so. This is the interesting bit. When Helen Clark rang Winston Peters in South Africa in February 2008, she did not ring him and say: “Winston did you take $100,000 from Owen Glenn?” She rang up and said: “Have you left a paper trail? They’ll get us caught.” And what he said to her was: “Don’t panic, everything is all right.” You see, Winston Peters misled Helen Clark all right, not about getting the $100,000 but about the hard evidence that he left behind. And if he gets sacked—and who knows whether he will—it will not be because he took $100,000 from Owen Glenn, because that was sanctioned by the Labour Party. He will not be getting sacked for any reason other than this: it is called stupidity. He allowed Helen Clark and himself to be exposed for what they were, up to their eyeballs in a scandal that will bring this Government down.

That is why New Zealanders are sick of the Government. What happened was that 6 months ago Helen Clark sat silent. She relied on the soothing assurances of Winston Peters that they would not get caught, and yesterday they did. Yesterday the truth jetted into town. You see, what worried Helen Clark yesterday was not what Owen Glenn would say about Winston Peters; it was what Owen Glenn would say about the Labour Party. That is the bit they do not like. What Owen Glenn said is what New Zealanders should know. He unveiled for New Zealand the real Helen Clark—the one who said that the means justify the end—“It doesn’t matter how much you keep them in the dark. It doesn’t matter how much you lower your standard. It doesn’t matter what you have to do to stay there: just stay there. That’s all you have to do.”

We have seen the real Helen Clark complicit with a scandal that is involving not just New Zealand First but the Labour Party. That is why they feel sick—because they know that is what it is and that is what it takes. Owen Glenn said something pretty interesting yesterday—well, he actually said a lot of things that were pretty interesting, I have to say. He said they are not his type of people. Well, I agree with him.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence): When it comes to credibility in this area John Key has absolutely none. Ten days ago, John Key was asked a straightforward question by Duncan Garner on TV3. Michael Ashcroft, the British billionaire who had donated to the Conservative Party and to the Australian Liberal Party, was in the country. Duncan Garner asked John Key this question: “Has anyone in the National Party met Lord Ashcroft over the past week?”. John Key said: “Ah, yes, I think they have.” Duncan Garner opened the trap a bit wider. He asked the question again, and what did John Key say: “Ah, yes, I think they have.” “They have”—somebody else had! John Key was not telling the truth. John Key knew that he had met Lord Ashcroft. He had met him in his own house at his invitation. As the trap sprung, Duncan Garner commented when he knew John Key had nowhere to hide, and Mr Key came out and admitted it. Why did he not tell the truth in the first instance? Why did he not tell the truth? What did he have to hide?

Then there was the John Key of the Exclusive Brethren fame—the John Key who got the email that stated: “urgent, important, and strictly confidential.” That is how the email was headed. John Key got it, Don Brash got it, and both of them told the country that they did not open it. Can anybody believe John Key about that? The answer is no. So the member should not come in here and show off his double standards with the accusations he makes about other members. You know, John Key. You know that you opened that email. You met Ron Hickmott a couple of weeks beforehand. You knew that he was promising a million dollars but you did not tell the truth.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know Mr Goff is desperate to get himself looking angry on TV, but he is not allowed to address a member of Parliament as “you”. That is a reference to the Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is quite right, but in this debate I have allowed another speaker to use that term. But Mr Goff is aware of that. Please continue.

Hon PHIL GOFF: So there are two examples. Mr Key did not tell the truth about the email that he got promising $1 million. Every campaign organiser for the National Party around the country knew that. Mr Key, who had met with the Exclusive Brethren and who got the email promising a million dollars, went out and told the country he knew nothing about it. Mr Key should come clean. Mr Key knows that that is not the truth. Mr Key knows that he did not tell the truth to TV3 when he tried to pretend that he had not met Michael Ashcroft. There is Mr Key talking about secret donations. The National Party, at the last election, got $2 million from secret trusts, anonymously—secret donations. The country wants to know who those donors were, what their commercial motivation was in promising you that money, and in giving you that money, and they want to know what the National Party and Mr Key promised in return.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Goff is even more desperate now to get himself on TV while yelling at the Leader of the Opposition. But the fact is you drew the matter to his attention. He now appears to be deliberately flouting the Standing Orders, and I suggest that he should not be allowed to do so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are right, of course, but he is not deliberately flouting the Standing Orders. But I give notice that during this debate any speaker who uses the term “you”, or refers to me—I do not wish to be involved in the matters—will be pulled up by the Chair.

Hon PHIL GOFF: There we have the double standards and the hypocrisy of the National Party—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order—

Hon PHIL GOFF: —$2 million in anonymous donations, not transparent, not open—

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very concerned that this member is continuing to speak when a point of order has been called. This is the third time I have risen to my feet on a point of order—both of the last ones have been valid—and this member is just continuing to shout. Everyone knows that when a point of order is taken in this House, the speaker is to be quiet and to sit down, because that is how points of order are dealt with. That is my first point. The second point is that he is not allowed to use that unparliamentary term. He might use it in the Labour caucus, but not here.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, I say, firstly, that the point of order had ended. Secondly, many times people have talked about other parties being hypocritical. I addressed it about the National Party. Mr English, and you, know that that is in order, and Mr English is embarking on a well-known tactic when he is under pressure, when he is under attack, and when he is feeling embarrassed—trying to interrupt another member’s speech that is just 5 minutes long.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are to be no comments or interjections during a point of order, but a point of order is not a point of order until the Chair acknowledges that person, and that was the case here.

Hon PHIL GOFF: So we have had that hypocrisy from the National Party. We have had Mr Key, who is up to his neck in hiding the fact that he knew about—

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There have been many Speakers’ rulings regarding the “h” word. Speakers’ rulings have not been suspended today, and the member is not allowed to use that unparliamentary term. That is the rule of this House. It is not discretionary; it is the rule of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw, please.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I withdraw. Then there are the National members who make comments when they think the public is not listening that are different from the comments they make in public. Mr English is guilty of that. He told us that Kiwibank was going to be privatised to the Australians, and he said that Working for Families would be cut. Mr English—“Mr 20 percent” at the last election—has egg all over his face because the mask slipped and he forgot what Crosby/Textor had told him.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As is typical with allegations from that member, none of those things is true.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking to the point of order, I say that not only were they true, but the whole country saw Mr English get up and apologise for embarrassing John Key by saying them. I rest my case.

Those are the double standards of the National Party, with its secret agenda, its secret donors—the people who are financing it. The National Party does not tell New Zealand what those donors’ commercial motivation is or what the National Party is promising them in return. It is the National Party that says one thing in private and another thing in public. It does not let the public know what the secret agenda is. It is the National Party that will have Michael Ashcroft paying for Crosby/Textor, the spin doctors, to try to keep the National Party’s mask from slipping. But the mask keeps slipping. Maurice Williamson promised $50 road tolls for each week, and Bill English told the country that he will privatise Kiwibank—nobody believes their denials.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): That speech shows why the public wants the rot swept out of the Beehive.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just make the point that that member broke up the previous speech seven times; he is going to get it back.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was close to a point of order, because it was procedural—yes.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Deputy Speaker, you just heard a threat. It was a threat to a member and a threat to the Speaker, and that is certainly out of order. I raised a series of points of order. No one here contested that they were valid points. Perhaps the last one could have been construed as a debating point, but the rest of them were dealing directly with breaches of the Standing Orders. It is absolutely outside the order of this House for Mr Mallard—who may want to take me out and punch me but who actually has to stick to the rules here—to threaten the Chair, and threaten a member, with disruptive behaviour.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would have been out of order, certainly, if the member had in any way threatened physical harm to another member. That was not the case. It was a threat, but in my view the threat was to use only what any member is entitled to use—that is, a point of order when the member thinks there has been a breach. Points of order have to be points of order. I know that the last point you raised was not a point of order, just as Trevor Mallard’s was not, either, so let us go on.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is another, even better, reason why the public wants the rot swept out of the Beehive. Why do I say “the rot”? It is because the chain of events around the Owen Glenn donation now makes it pretty clear that an arrangement over party funding, at the heart of the coalition between New Zealand First and Labour, was deliberately kept secret from the public.

You see, Helen Clark, who is apparently the world’s most competent Prime Minister, has made an enormous mess out of what should have been a straightforward issue. The fact is that she does not know what to do, and I will tell members why she does not know what to do. She cannot sack Mr Peters for taking the donation, because the Labour Party jacked it up. She cannot sack him for keeping it secret, because she kept it secret. She cannot sack him for misleading the public, because she has misled the public. The fact is that the person who has set herself up as the judge is a participant in the crime. That is why no one believes that she can hold herself at arm’s length from this process, say that someone else will sort it out, and say that it is nothing to do with her.

Let us go back to how all of this came to public light. I can tell members that none of it came to public light because of honesty on the part of the Labour Party—none. In fact, it has come to public light only because of the honesty of Owen Glenn, a man whom the Prime Minister of New Zealand has systematically tried to defame for the last 3 months in order to try to undermine the credibility of what he disclosed yesterday. Yes, Labour kept saying that he was a drunk who was losing his mind, but he is not. Let us understand how this came to light. Labour gave Owen Glenn an Order of New Zealand; Labour gave him a Queen’s honour. That was fair enough; he is a philanthropic Kiwi who has done a lot for his country.

Hon Darren Hughes: You rubbished it at the time.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, we did not rubbish it. Mike Williams, the president of the Labour Party, was asked: “Did Owen Glenn give Labour money in the last 12 months?”, and “Honest Mike” said no. What happened next? “Honest Owen” said yes. Is that not a funny pattern? Whoever says no is wrong, whether it is Mike Williams, Helen Clark, or Winston Peters; whoever says yes—who is always Owen Glenn—turns out to be right. Mike Williams denied the $100,000 loan, but then he had to say yes. That is how we found out. It was because Owen Glenn told us.

What was the next thing we found out? It was that the Prime Minister, under pressure, had to own up to the fact that she had always known. We saw a systematic and calculated set of mistruths in the media, and in the House, from the Prime Minister of New Zealand, that were designed to hide a $100,000 donation and her knowledge of it. That is the raw truth at the core of the rot in the Beehive. The Prime Minister of New Zealand misled the House, and misled the media, for a $100,000 pecuniary gain to her coalition—full stop! She has never denied it. She has never denied she misled the public. She has used a calculated mistruth. I—and I think John Key—had asked her in the House whether Mike Williams was any part of this transaction. We knew he was because his name was in emails, and Owen Glenn said he had spoken to him and checked it out with him. But what did Helen Clark say? She said Mike Williams was on the public record as denying it. She knew he was part of it, she knew his name was in emails—we must get a fresh start.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice): I tell the people of New Zealand that they have just been listening to a member talk nothing but a load of rot. In fact, Bill English has become Parliament’s “Mr Boo-hoo Cry-baby”. He is on his feet every minute that he can to take a point of order, because he cannot take the heat in this Parliament. He has never been able to take the heat in this Parliament. He will be taking a point of order in a moment, because he does not like the truth.

The behaviour in this Parliament over the past few weeks reminds me of the title of that book Through the Looking Glass. The public have been looking through that glass, and they are disgusted at the daily diet of cakes and circuses they are getting from the National Party.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wondered what happened to the big, brave threat from Trevor Mallard to disrupt my speech with points of order. Perhaps he is not up to it in the way that he used to be.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not in order to break up a member’s speech with a frivolous comment that is not a point of order. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member who has just tried to break up my speech will now disappear from this place, because he cannot take the heat. “Mr 20 Percent” led the National Party to its worst ever defeat in this Parliament—

Hon Darren Hughes: In 100 years.

Hon ANNETTE KING: —in 100 years. You know, the public of New Zealand are disgusted at the daily diet of cakes and circuses from the National Party. They are appalled at the attempts of people like John Key and Bill English to be the ringmasters who manipulate public opinion. They are sceptical of the claims of the National Party that although every other party in Parliament is on the take, National’s complicated webs of secret trusts, secret donations, and secret meetings are all lily-white.

Let me tell the House this. Everybody knows that Owen Glenn donated to the Labour Party. Everybody knows that, because he said so, we said so, and we declared it. But who donated to the National Party’s secret trust? Was it Fay Richwhite? Did it donate to National? Did people donate who were buying the policies that are now being leaked every day? Do we know what that money is for? We do not have a clue, because donations to National are so secret and so hidden that all one can say, when hearing from those members, is that it is nothing more than two-faced cant. We know that they received close to $2 million before the last election from their secret donors. Not one of those donations was disclosed to the public.

People out there see through the daily political farce from the National Party. They know the National Party needs the sideshows. It needs to have them featured on TV night after night, and on the talkbacks, because any scrutiny of its flimsy policy would have the public asking: “Change to what?”. That is what the public are saying. The public do not trust National. Members can just take the TV3 poll as an example. Fifty percent of New Zealanders do not trust the National Party not to have a secret agenda.

Ladies and gentlemen, National has a secret agenda; members should make no bones about that. Members heard from my colleague Phil Goff about John Key trying to cover up part of that secret agenda. John Key could not answer straight up and down as to whether he had met Lord Ashcroft. He had to um and ah about it. It took Duncan Garner three questions to get it out of him, but finally John Key admitted that he had met with Lord Ashcroft. Then he was asked: “Did you approach him, or did he approach you?”, and he replied: “Oh, I’m not sure of the answer to that. It was in my diary, so I just went. I saw him. I am not quite sure who set it up.” John Key also said exactly that about the Exclusive Brethren. He said the Exclusive Brethren had an appointment in his diary, he did not know who set it up, and he does not even remember whether he met with them.

John Key was then asked: “Do you recall whether Lord Ashcroft rang you, or you rang him?”. Well, of course, a question like that is a major question for the Privileges Committee at this very moment, but does John Key remember whether Lord Ashcroft rang him, or whether it was the other way round? He said: “Well, it could have been arranged by my …”—and he could not remember what the “my” was—and then he said he just followed what was in his diary. Well, can members believe that?

Today John Key accused the Prime Minister of knowing about Winston Peters’ donation. Well, let us just see what John Key said about donations to his own party when he was asked. He said: “I don’t know who donates to the National Party. Of course one knows who donates …”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I remind the House that that is the Minister who got on her high horse all last year demanding the need for openness and transparency around financial, big-business cheques, and who rammed through this Parliament the Electoral Finance Bill, at the very time the Prime Minister was complicit in hiding a $100,000 donation. You see, this Clark-Peters Government is so up to its eyeballs in muck that New Zealanders are yearning for a fresh, honest, and uncompromised Government that can get on and address the issues that matter to this country of ours. Let me canvass why Owen Glenn’s testimony has torpedoed any resemblance of honour or of trust in this Government. It is simply because MMP Governments stand or fall on agreements between coalition partners. The $100,000 payment from Mr Glenn, jacked up by Labour, was conditional on Mr Peters committing to prop up this Labour - New Zealand First Government for the full term. At its most basic, the Clark-Peters Government was stitched together by a tawdry backhander for $100,000. This is nothing less than our democracy being for sale.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not need to remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, given the experience you have had, that imputations of corrupt practice are totally out of order in the House, especially when they come from the only MP in the place to be convicted of lying.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say that the first thing is that the latter point is grossly untrue—grossly untrue—and, of course, the words the member used at the end of his point of order are strictly out of order.

Ron Mark: The first point—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not need much more help.

Ron Mark: The first point I made was exactly a correct point of order, and the member himself, a very experienced front-bench member and a former Minister, knows precisely what he was doing. I will withdraw and apologise if he would like to tell the House what he was convicted of.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will end this matter there. It is true that no member may make reference to the corruption or otherwise of a party or a member in this House. But the member who raised the matter ended his point of order on a similar note, so let us proceed.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence to the comment made by Mr Mark, which is disorderly and outside of the Standing Orders. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Ron Mark: I took offence at the imputation that my party stitched up a corrupt deal, so I say to Dr Smith that this is 30-all. I will withdraw and apologise for using the word “lying”, but if he would like to tell us what he got convicted of it would be easier.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: As the member knows, people make withdrawals and apologies in this House with no lead-in and certainly no follow-up. I will now ask Dr Nick Smith to withdraw and apologise, and I know he will do so.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. What has been exposed is the rotten underbelly—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will just ask Mr Ron Mark to withdraw and apologise.

Ron Mark: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order?

Ron Mark: Yes, sir. So that I do not make the same mistake again, would Dr Smith do me the honour and the privilege of telling me exactly what he—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that is—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I say that the issue the member refers to was in respect of a Nelson mum and dad who lost their child. The House might be interested to know that Ron Mark personally approached me and said he thought I had done exactly the right thing in standing up for that Māori family.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think all sides will be satisfied now. Dr Smith, your time is as it was.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This whole episode has exposed awful double standards. Members should remember that Labour and New Zealand First spent all last year ramming through this Parliament a tawdry law that was designed to screw the electoral laws as much as possible in favour of this Clark-Peters Government. We heard speech after speech from New Zealand First and Labour members demanding open transparency with respect to big-business donations. The duplicity was highlighted when Labour specifically amended that law to allow for overseas donations if it just happened that the overseas donation was from an ex-resident. That description just happened to fit Mr Owen Glenn. Labour’s principles are that big money from overseas billionaires is fine as long as it is going to Labour. That is as far as their principles go. We have seen a trail of dishonesty from Labour and New Zealand First over this whole affair. The first porky was when Labour Party president—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No point of order. I just ask the member to withdraw that reference.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw. The Labour Party president denied receiving any post-election donation from Mr Glenn, but subsequently had to admit that he had received $100,000. Labour then became complicit in February with Winston Peters’ denial that he had received $100,000. Not only did Prime Minister Helen Clark know that that was untrue; senior Minister Trevor Mallard was at the meeting where it was disclosed that $100,000 was paid. The question I have for the Government is: if Helen Clark has stood silently by at the sidelines, knowing that Winston Peters’ statement was untrue, how many other Ministers have been telling untruths to the public of New Zealand while she has sat silently by? All the transcripts show that both the Prime Minister and Mike Williams knew but denied knowing anything. It is no wonder Mr Glenn has today slammed the Prime Minister as self-serving, and the Labour Party president as dishonest. Here we have at the highest levels of Government dishonesty, and a complete breakdown in trust. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say today that she found Mr Glenn’s evidence disturbing and that she may now cut Mr Peters loose after the passage of the emissions trading legislation, but the reality is that she knew everything back in February and misled the public.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): We are a nation distracted. We are distracted from the vital issues of our times by the New Zealand First funding saga. I acknowledge to members that it is a distracting show and an important issue. I look forward to the support of National and Labour to reform campaign finance laws so that we can try to avoid these kinds of things happening in future.

But we need to remember what really matters. One of the things that really matters in this country is the calamitous pollution of our rivers, lakes, and aquifers. Environment Waikato has just released a report showing that three-quarters of rivers in the Waikato region are unsafe to swim in, and about three-quarters are unsafe for stock to drink from. These rivers have increased nutrient, faecal, and sediment loads, and nitrogen and phosphorous are increasing at a rate of about 2 percent a year.

Water pollution from intensive industrial dairy conversions is threatening the water supplies of Christchurch and Auckland. It is threatening the native species that live in and around our rivers and lakes. Our kids can no longer safely swim in our rivers, and even whitebaiting is becoming an endangered activity. The economic futures of tourism and the primary sector are actually endangered. Whitebait is a treasured and iconic cultural food resource, but this New Zealand institution is being eliminated in front of our very eyes by industrial dairy conversions. Only the Greens are speaking out about it and calling for action. Our rivers and streams are now so polluted and degraded that two of the species that make up the whitebait catch are actually endangered.

We would never let Parliament outlaw whitebaiting, but the parties in this House are perfectly happy to let the giant industrial dairy polluter CraFarm pour so much cow faeces and urine and fertiliser into our rivers that it kills the species that make up the whitebait catch. CraFarm are known colloquially as “CrapFarm”. We would never let a regional council stop people whitebaiting, but when the industrial dairy polluter CraFarm ends up in front of the Environment Court four times in a row for polluting rivers and groundwater with cow faeces and urine we just let them carry on doing it. When “CrapFarm” got pinged in the Environment Court with a $37,500 fine for polluting a pristine river in the Hawke’s Bay, it did not care. It did not care because it had a $5 million turnover on that property—it was a minor expense.

How stupid are we that we let “CrapFarm” sell its milk to Fonterra, which happily buys the milk—making a fortune for both—and then tells us how clean and green it is? Well, aside from being sick and tired of hearing about the New Zealand First funding saga, I am also sick and tired of hearing Fonterra make promises about being clean and green while continuing to collect milk from “CrapFarm”.

What is the Government doing about it? It has released the draft national policy statement on freshwater management. Let us see what is in it. The unenforceable preamble to the draft national policy statement states that one of the goals is to “meet the recreational aspirations of New Zealanders, including that Freshwater Resources are swimmable.” Well, I can go along with that; I agree with that. The objective section of the national policy statement waters this down a little—if members will excuse the pun—to “actions to ensure appropriate Freshwater Resources can reach or exceed a swimmable standard.” So if it is not an appropriate freshwater resource, if that river is not deemed appropriate, then “CrapFarm” is free to defecate in it and members’ kids will not be able to swim in it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not really want to interrupt the member; he is talking about one of the worst polluters in the country and a company that is very challenging to regulators around the country. However, I think he should refer to it by its proper name rather than the name he is calling it at the moment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thought that was the proper name. If it is not, the use of that word in this Chamber is unacceptable.

Ron Mark: I think the name that Dr Norman should be using is Crafar, is it not?

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: CraFarm.

Ron Mark: Well, that is not what we understand.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that a word that you are just using to describe this farm, Dr Norman, or is it the correct name of the farm?

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: The name of the farm is CraFarm; it is known colloquially as “CrapFarm” because it constantly pollutes rivers and streams.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. You may use another description but not that—not in this Chamber.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As long as a river is not deemed to be an “appropriate” freshwater resource then CraFarm is free to defecate in it and members’ kids cannot swim in it.

The policy part of the draft national policy statement, which is the guts of it, says that regional councils when making regional policy statements or plans must consider eight factors related to water, the eighth and last of which is: “The value of swimmability to the community.” This has to be weighed up against the seven other factors including the economic value of existing investments in irrigation—we all know what that means.

While the majority of our lowland rivers are so polluted that it is dangerous for our kids to swim in them, our whitebait is disappearing because of pollution and habitat destruction, and we are in the middle of a massive conversion to intensive dairy across the country, the Government’s response is to produce a toothless national policy statement that will probably take a decade to come into force anyway. So is it any wonder that the newspaper Rural News wrote recently “Fonterra must be sitting smugly on the back of its lobbying against the Government’s … hard line for the dairy sector”? It was a victory for what Rural News called “a powerful consortium of agriculture interests”. This powerful consortium is the new face of farming. Family farms that have looked after the land and rivers for generations are being replaced by huge dairy corporations.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development): There is no particular news that the National Party has been leaking right, left, and centre. In fact, the Opposition resembles a colander. What happens is that, if one looks a little more carefully, one sees the leaks come in two types. There are the unplanned leaks and the planned leaks. The unplanned leaks are the ones that are the result of the Opposition having something of a secret agenda, and those leaks began about a year ago. The planned leaks have a very different origin altogether. They are due to the splits and divisions that are within the National Party, and I want to briefly explore both of them.

The unplanned leaks began when Tony Ryall said, about a year ago, that National would ensure that the fees control system for general practitioners would be knocked on the head. That was repeated today, if we look at the fine print of the leaked health policy that Jim Anderton offered the House. The unplanned leaks continue. The leaking of the accident compensation policy originated in Australia, when one of the people who thought he or she would make a lot of money out of it started talking about it. The leak of about $50 a week for road tolls had its origin when Maurice Williamson got himself too excited on Agenda. The leak about Kiwibank being sold eventually had its origins in the secret tape-recording. The leak about employer contributions to KiwiSaver being ditched had its origins in a couple of backbenchers telling the truth for a change—and on it goes.

These are unplanned leaks that occur because a party sets out to try to ensure it has a secret agenda underneath the given agenda. That is why, as Annette King said, New Zealanders now believe, to the tune of about 50 percent versus 30 percent, that National has a secret agenda. In fact, a quarter of National’s own supporters believe the party is not telling the truth. That figure is from a Television One poll.

But it is the unplanned leaks that I think are the most interesting. I am referring, of course, to the National Party policy documents that have ended up in our hands. Someone, or some group, has planned for that to happen. Policy documents in their final form are not circulated widely before release, especially in the National Party, and the party’s leader, John Key, has said as much, but still the leaks have occurred. National says the documents arrived on our side of the complex all at once. They did not. Trevor Mallard said that if Mr Key knows which policies were in the bundle, then Mr Key would be able to list them. Mr Key has declined to list them, and he has declined because he does not know. He does not know because there is not one big batch.

So I ask members why there is a serial leak. Well, I do not know why, and I certainly do not know who from, but it seems to me that one or more people at the centre of the National Party do not want to win this time. Presumably, they do not want to win this time, and, presumably, that means they do want to win next time, and, presumably, that means there needs to be a change of leadership in the meantime. That may or may not be the motive of that person or those persons. I said that I do not know.

I do not know why Nicky Hager is able to say, long after the release of his book The Hollow Men, that he is still receiving emails from within the National Party. I do not know why those leaks or the leaks of policy continue. I do not know why, but I cannot come to a more logical conclusion than the one that I have given. One or more people at the centre of the National Party would prefer to win next time, not this time, and the only reason for that would be to change the leader in the interim. I ask members why that might be.

I ask why there might be such a strong feeling amongst one or more people at the centre of the National Party. Well, again, I do not know, but I ask members to remember that Bill English lost the leadership by one vote. I ask members whether they remember that, and that Bill English was surprised by his loss, and that Bill English’s colleagues went out and celebrated his victory the night before he was defeated. I ask members whether they remember that, therefore, someone in the National Party swapped his or her support overnight, and whether members remember the rumours as to who that person was—John Key. That may be what the leaks are all about. Maybe the National Party is more deeply riven and divided and ill at ease with itself than is first apparent.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): That truly depressing contribution came from the man who has been completely obsessed with leaks ever since he was the chief strategist for the Welsh Labour Party, and we all remember what happened to that party. I would really love to hear from him as to how there is a secret agenda if everyone knows the agenda, because we have released 27 policies and the Labour Party has released none—none, not one, zero. That is how many Labour has released.

The debates we are talking about this week are all about the heart of our democracy, because the scandal we have seen unfolding before our eyes has all gone to the heart of our constitution and the heart of our democracy. It is no secret to people, and it should be no secret, that I used to respect Helen Clark once, but now I know a lot more about her.

Christopher Finlayson: That was an error of judgment.

JUDITH COLLINS: It was an error of judgment, but a lot of other New Zealanders used to respect her, too. They did not necessarily like her; they did not necessarily like what she stood for; but they did, generally, respect her. They used to say that they did not like what she had in terms of policy, but that they respected her. Well, I do not respect her now, actually, because I know now that she does not put her country first. I know that she does not even put her party first, because if she did she would not put her party through this appalling situation. But I do know that she puts herself first. Helen Clark’s legacy for this country will not be about getting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD, because New Zealand’s ranking has now got worse, not better, despite the best commodity prices for generations. Helen Clark’s legacy will not be about improving the health of New Zealanders, because we know that despite a doubling of the health budget over 9 years, ordinary New Zealanders still cannot get treatment. Almost daily we hear about elderly people being left on trolleys in corridors in emergency departments while the Government says “Everything is going great, thanks very much.”

We know that Helen Clark’s legacy will not be about better educational standards for our children, because now we see that one in five New Zealand children leaves school with no qualifications. Many of those children do not even have proper literacy and numeracy skills. We certainly know it will not be about improved law and order, because we know that under her Government gangs that used to be just groups of thugs with tattoos on their faces—tattoos that are spelt backwards—are now suited-up, smart, fully organised criminals. Under her watch on law and order gangs are now fully organised international criminals—thanks very much to Helen Clark and her legacy.

What is her legacy apart from that? What we have is a flagrant disrespect and disregard for our constitution. The highest court in our land has been done away with by a majority vote in this Parliament. We have seen a flagrant misuse of taxpayer money. We have had a flagrant disregard for the rules of common decency—[Interruption]—which is something the member opposite, Trevor Mallard, would have some trouble with, too. And we have seen a flagrant disregard for the truth. We now know that the Prime Minister sat by in February, when Winston Peters said: “No.”, and that he did not know anything about this money. We now know that Helen Clark and the Labour Party knew all about Owen Glenn providing $100,000 to Winston Peters’ legal fees, because it was her president who put Mr Glenn together with Winston Peters—we know that. We also know that Mr Glenn told Helen Clark all about it in February, and we know from Mr Glenn today that Helen Clark already knew about it when he told her.

We now know that this Prime Minister has been more concerned about her position, about her power, and about her next position than about the standards of her Ministers. This Prime Minister has made a career out of cutting free people who became inconvenient. Do members remember her Crown driver and the great dash across the Timaru plains? Who was prosecuted? It was her Crown driver. What about the police officers who were helping her? Did she stand by them? No, she did not.

Hon Member: They had a whip-round.

JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, that is right, Government members had a whip-round to pay a few bucks towards their costs. That was appalling. This Prime Minister cut people like Dover Samuels free, apparently because of swirling allegations. Whatever did happen to Dover Samuels under this Government and this Prime Minister?

This Prime Minister has cut people free when they have become inconvenient. Now there is one other thing that she is going to cut free, and that is this country. She cut free this country when it became inconvenient for her, because she wants power, and that is what it is all about. Our constitution has, in fact, been laid bare. Our constitution, and the fact that it relies on conventions and that it relies on common decency, has been left free. This Government cares more about power than it does about us.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment): I think the only question about that speech by Judith Collins is how much Lord Ashcroft paid Crosby/Textor to draft it. That is the only question about that speech. I think it was pathetically delivered.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member has made an allegation of corruption about me by saying that Lord Ashcroft paid money for that speech. I take exception to that, and I seek your assistance to have the member withdraw and apologise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That barely turns what you have raised into a point of order. You are drawing a long bow to say that, in my view. I know a lot of members are offended, but I think it needs to be a little more direct than what Mr Mallard said. If you are really offended, and you say you are, I am sure Mr Mallard will withdraw.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw.

If I were Crosby/Textor I would ban that woman from using my lines. If I were Crosby/Textor I would not let her deliver my lines. Lord Ashcroft will be asking for a refund if that woman continues to deliver the lines that he is paying for. It is an outrage for Crosby/Textor, which is generally known as being a very, very competent right-wing spin-meister. It would hate to know that that woman is allowed to deliver the lines that Lord Ashcroft is paying a fortune for.

We can see, by listening to that member, why more than half of New Zealanders now know that the National Party has a secret agenda. It has a secret agenda, and New Zealanders all over the country are waking up to the fact. I say: “Thank you very much.”, to the National Party source who keeps on sending stuff to me in my office. I think it is absolutely wonderful that the National Party is leaking and that stuff is coming to my office. I want to say one thing. Information is not coming only to my office. I never got the health policy; it apparently went to Mr Cunliffe’s office, and then Mr Anderton’s office. So we now have, at least, a multiple methodology in respect of the leaking on the part of the National Party. I have never seen the health policy from the National Party. I have still not seen it, but I will be interested in seeing it later on, and, hopefully, I can get it from Mr Anderton.

If the National Party is so proud of its policies, why does it not put them out? National members want to do what Roger Douglas did in 1987, and that was to announce policies after the election. That is what Roger Douglas did in 1987. I want to make it clear that we will not let the National Party do that. If National members are too scared—if they do not have the backbone—to release their own policies, then we are absolutely prepared to do it for them. If National’s leader is not proud to stand up in front of an audience and deliver his policy, then the Labour Party is prepared to get it out there and make sure that the contrasts are available.

I am not sure who is responsible for this leak. I think Pete Hodgson got it right. It is someone who thinks that he or she would be a better leader than John Key and does not want to wait another 3 years. I think Simon Power is probably the next leader, but I am not sure he has got the nasty bones in him to actually do this, and that takes me back to thinking it is more likely that it is coming from Bill English. But in a funny way it might be Bill English, in the end, working for Simon Power. Not even the National Party believes Bill English any more. He is the person who wanders around saying that John Key does not understand the Working for Families package. He is the person who wanders around saying he wants to prepare Kiwibank for sale. He wanders around indicating that he knows John Key is not competent. So I say to Bill English, if he is the source of the things that are coming to me: “Thank you very much, but I don’t think it will work for you because your colleagues know you a little better than that.”

Nathan Guy: This is hopeless!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I agree with the member who is running for Ōtaki, who says that Bill English is hopeless. I agree that Bill English is hopeless, and, therefore, he will not be promoted. The member, who, I think, is a whip for the party, is showing no loyalty to Bill English at all. I agree with him that Bill English is hopeless.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave to table a document. That document is all of Labour’s policy in respect of the 2008 election, and it amounts to absolutely zero in terms of what it has announced today.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

GORDON COPELAND (Independent): On the eve of this year’s general election it is time to take stock of the social statistics of this country, as many of them have deteriorated during the 9 long years of this Labour-led Government. I want to give a list: violent crime, domestic violence, child abuse, youth crime is up by an amazing 47 percent, fatherlessness, single-parent families, teenage pregnancies, the number of abortions, the rate of home ownership—whoever believed it would get to this sorry state—truancy, misbehaviour in schools, and promiscuity. The time has come for change, because if we do not change nothing will change, and we will see those dreadful statistics continuing on their downward path. If we do not begin to change and address them now, we will leave a terrible legacy for our children and our grandchildren.

The Kiwi Party, which I am proud to represent, will have some positive policies to bring before this year’s election. First of all, we will stop the criminalisation of good parents by repealing the anti-smacking law, and appoint a royal commission to understand and address the wider causes of family breakdown, family violence, and child abuse. Secondly, we will invest in marriage preparation, marriage enrichment, and parenting courses through faith-based, charitable, iwi, and other third sector organisations. Thirdly, we will raise the drinking age back to 20 years, and establish detoxification and rehabilitation centres for those struggling with drug and alcohol abuse. Fourthly, we will put victims’ rights, including full restoration for property crimes, before criminals’ rights, with no bail, parole, or home detention for violent criminals. Fifthly, we will change the law and practice so that the number of abortions is greatly reduced, and require parental consent prior to under-age abortions. Sixthly, we will introduce income splitting for couples with dependent children, and we will reduce the burden of rates by removing GST. Seventhly, we will reinforce our democracy through regular binding referendums on controversial issues.

The Kiwi Party will establish a nationwide goal of home purchase affordability, for the medium price of a house, at four times the average annual wage. Currently it is about 6.6 times the average annual wage, which is totally and completely unacceptable. We will recognise parents as being primarily responsible for the education of their children, and ensure that funding follows the student. We will reduce hospital waiting lists through patient-focused funding involving both public and private hospitals. It is pretty simple. We will let the money go with the patient. It will be patient led, from top to bottom. We will protect every family’s recreational hunting and fishing rights, and we will ban the aerial application of 1080 poison. We will address injustices occurring in our Immigration Service and adopt more family-friendly immigration policies. I could go on and on. We will address the social consequences resulting from the Prostitution Reform Act. All of these are commitments and pledges that we will carry through.

When I talk to people across this country who have different ethnic backgrounds and different nationalities, and who speak different languages, they tell me that, although they love this beautiful country, they are saddened they have to bring up their children in a country that now has the second-worst social statistics in the OECD. In all those categories I have mentioned, this country is near the top of the list. We are either in position two or position three, and that is simply not good enough. We have drifted along. We have allowed the moral fibre of our country to be stretched to breaking point. We have systematically removed the moral signposts that used to guide our generation and previous generations in the way they should live their lives. We have allowed lawlessness and anarchy to reign in far too many areas of our society.

New Zealand has been the least corrupt nation in the world, which is something we should be proud of, but, sadly, this week we have begun to see corruption arise in so many different areas of our national life. When I sent my letter to the Speaker raising the question of the Owen Glenn donation to Winston Peters, I was not out to get Winston Peters; I was out to get to the truth. I say to this House that if we go away from that measurement of truth, then we as a nation are in big trouble. We need to get back to those good, sound values that have served our country for so long. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): There we have it! There has been a big storm going on in this House, but things have quietened down a bit. Today I saw a desperate National Party trying to divert attention from all the problems in its own ranks. It is not really surprising that leaks are happening, especially when we think of all those unhappy National MPs who have been sidelined by John Key. They have been left out and they have not been consulted about policy. They have come out and told the truth, and then they have just been sidelined, embarrassed, and humiliated in public.

Chris Tremain: Name one.

DARIEN FENTON: I will name them—Bill English over Kiwibank, Kate Wilkinson over KiwiSaver, poor old Maurice Williamson over the $50-a-week toll, and Tony Ryall over an increase in doctors’ fees. Soon there will not be anyone in the National Party who has not been ridiculed in public by John Key, as he continues to dumb down National.

How many National policies have been leaked in the last week? Is it two?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s more than that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Four.

DARIEN FENTON: Four?

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, five.

DARIEN FENTON: Five! That must be why National rushed out its housing and building policies yesterday, to prevent another leak—

Hon Trevor Mallard: But I didn’t have the housing one.

DARIEN FENTON: That is interesting, but that release was a little bit late. We have another day, another leak.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Another week, another two leaks.

DARIEN FENTON: OK!

Then there was the Lord Ashcroft cover-up. I am very interested in that, because that was leaked by a National Party insider. Lord Ashcroft is a massive contributor to the Conservative Party in the UK, and he has used his political connections to ruthlessly advance his own interests. Mr Ashcroft has a 50 percent share of the Belize shipping register, known as a flag of convenience. What is a flag of convenience? That is where countries can attract foreign shipping because of their poor labour and safety standards. So if Lord Ashcroft is giving money to the National Party, I wonder what the price is going to be. I notice that he also owns a large part of the Belize Bank—is that where Kiwibank would go? Is that who National might sell it to?

Hon Steve Chadwick: Belize?

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, to Belize. No one believes that silly story—that National’s policy papers were accidentally lost by an MP, but that does tell a story about the shambolic state of the National Party and its caucus.

Today it is the biggie—it is National’s health policy. What a scary document that is! It is a bit of a re-spinning of Tony Ryall’s admission that National would remove the cap on doctors’ fees. Instead we see that cheaper doctors’ fees and prescription charges will be “kept in the short term”. Well, that is really worrying. I feel worried for families. I say to the previous speaker, Gordon Copeland, that he should be worried for the families that he says he is concerned about. Families depend on lower doctors’ fees and prescription charges, and they will not be able to depend on them, by the sound of it, if National becomes the Government.

The other thing I will talk about in the health policy is something that Tony Ryall has gone on and on about, and that is reducing bureaucracy in the health system—using the usual offensive National Party term for hard-working New Zealanders. Today at lunchtime I met with some of the representatives of the 7,000 clerical and administrative workers in the public hospital system. Those 7,000 people keep our hospital system ticking over. They answer the phones, they meet the patients on arrival, they manage the booking systems, they keep the records, and they provide a valuable public service. If it were not for those clerical workers, health professionals would not be able to do their jobs. Those front-line staff—nurses and doctors—would not be able to do their jobs, because they would be diverted into administrative tasks instead of caring for people, and therefore efficiency in our public hospitals would dramatically decline. I doubt that Tony Ryall thinks about these things, because in National’s view these good women and men are faceless non-people, whom that party continues to demonise.

Hon Steve Chadwick: And attack.

DARIEN FENTON: I am really, really offended by National’s attack on these so-called bureaucrats, when we are talking about real people who carry out very real jobs.

We have said in this House today that John Key has a big problem. The public do not trust him. They think—in fact, they know—he has a secret agenda, and they can also see that he has no conviction. They know he will just say whatever it takes. Even in his own electorate of Helensville, which I have a small interest in at the moment, he is not fronting up. Genesis wants to build a monstrous great thermal power station in their backyard, and the residents are very concerned about it, but John Key was too busy to meet with his constituents. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

RON MARK (NZ First): When I came into Parliament in 1996 one of the issues that I was determined to fight for was the New Zealand Defence Force. It was natural for me to want to do that, because I had 20 years’ experience in the military—15 years with the New Zealand Army and then, as a result of being recruited by British officers, 5 years serving in the Sultan of Oman’s Armed Forces in the Middle East.

When I came into Parliament, I took part in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee Inquiry into Defence Beyond 2000. I undertook to fight for extra pay and extra resources for defence, and I can say proudly that I forced the then National Government, by embarrassing it, to increase immediately the allowances paid to our Defence Force personnel who were deployed to East Timor. I pointed out that the allowance those troops were getting per day was less than the allowance MPs were getting per day for coming to Wellington.

In 1998 I asked the National Prime Minister about pay rates. Jenny Shipley’s reply was that Defence Force personnel are given free dental care. I was able to focus National members’ minds when I tabled a payslip from a junior soldier in Waiōuru, which revealed he was getting only $13,000 per annum. In 1999 we had a change of Government, and over a period of about 5 years there was a change in the direction the Defence Force was taking and we saw about four small increases in pay.

New Zealand First does not agree with everything that the Labour Government has done with defence forces. We were always opposed to the purchase of 105 light armoured vehicles. We were always and still are—unlike the National Party—opposed to the disestablishment of the air combat wing, and we want to see it reinstated. National has flip-flopped on that issue and turned its back on the air force personnel whom it promised would get back their air combat capability. We saw a number of things change for the good, but recently, with the release of the Ministry of Defence annual report, some issues of concern have been raised. They were headlined by the media as “Can’t sail, can’t fly, can’t fight,”. It was quite humorous to listen, on the radio programme Morning Report, to the Minister of Defence, Phil Goff, fighting National’s “Mr Mainwaring”, its spokesperson on defence, Wayne Mapp—he is widely known throughout the country now as National’s “Mr Mainwaring”—because it was a bit of a one-sided battle.

Some things that have happened in defence are not wrong—they are good. The long-term development plan is a good plan. The Defence Sustainability Initiative gives surety and security to defence funding. But the issues that fundamentally underlie the problems the Defence Force faces today are around one simple area: attrition and retention—the loss of highly experienced personnel. New Zealand First has consistently said for a long time now that the only way we can solve these problems is firstly—obviously—to recruit but also, more important, to retain the high-calibre, highly qualified, highly experienced middle-management personnel that we are bleeding. But still we do not see a serious addressing of that issue.

On 28 August I had a briefing from the Defence Force in regard to the new military remuneration system. New Zealand First says it is a good system. The problem is that it has taken us 12 years to get to this point, that this remuneration system will not be fully implemented for another 5 years, and that unless we see a massive injection into the Defence Sustainability Initiative that allows the Defence Force to boot up pay and salaries—in the same way that teachers have had a kick-start and nurses and the police have had an increase—we will not stem the bleeding. It is no good for the Minister of Defence to tell everyone that our recruiting targets are up and we have an extra 1,000 people in the Defence Force; we cannot say we have seriously addressed the attrition problems by recruiting 1,000 new people who do not necessarily have experience and who in the main are raw recruits.

The Defence Force is doing some good things. It has recruited from the UK some good, highly experienced people. But the only way that we will stop headlines such as “Can’t sail, can’t fly, can’t fight,” is to put extra funding into the Defence Force pay system, in order to give our Defence Force personnel a substantive increase to stem the outflow now.

I am proud to be standing as the candidate for Rimutaka, and I pledge to those Defence Force people at Trentham that New Zealand First stands with them, that we will always stand with them, and that we will fight for a substantive pay increase for them. We pledge that.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Waste Minimisation Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 27 August.

Clause 1 Title

NICKY WAGNER (National): As the Committee knows, after lengthy debate and a series of successful Supplementary Order Papers, National supports this bill. But we are concerned that the title does not go far enough in signalling an important change to the way that people, organisations, and businesses think about waste. The title, the Waste Minimisation Bill, states what the bill does. It focuses on waste minimisation, which is admirable. But National would prefer to see a similar emphasis on resource recovery, so that the Act would become the “Waste Minimisation and Resource Recovery Act”. I seek the support of all parties for my Supplementary Order Paper 217, which adds “and Resource Recovery” to the title, and I think we will get that support.

Most people believe that we have to move beyond just waste minimisation; we have to understand the importance of recovering all resources from the waste stream. Indeed, Steve Chadwick herself, who was the chair of the select committee that looked at the Waste Minimisation Bill for most of that time, spoke about wanting a name change during earlier debate on the bill, and Nandor Tanczos who of course was the original proposer of the bill, was very supportive of a change. It will be only when the public realise and understand the value of the waste stream that they will fully focus on the recovery of all resources. It is only when they understand the value of the waste stream that we will have sustainable businesses mining those resources.

During the select committee process MPs visited waste management, waste recycling, waste recovery, and special treatment, plants. We were really impressed with the innovation and entrepreneurial skills that were being used to deal with the problems of waste. There were lots of new ideas, there were lots of new methods and new processes, and new ideas were being implemented everywhere we went. Some of our waste was actually being processed and exported overseas—something that had actually come from the waste stream was becoming very profitable and was adding to our export drive. Just today I had a phone call from a business that was increasing its focus on recycling, and was doing very well. The owner was keen to tell me that similar businesses in his area were struggling, but the shift in his business to increased recycling was underpinning the success of that business. When we have organisations and businesses that are seeing recycling and the recovery of resources as a means of running their businesses successfully, that is when we will be very happy.

It is hard to believe that a country that is so small and so far away from others has organisations that are innovative enough, and that are lean, mean, and efficient enough, to be able to export resources that would normally have gone into the tip in the past. In saying that, National is very conscious that this bill cannot be allowed to add costs to these pioneer recycling businesses, because for these businesses to be sustainable they must be able to operate as cheaply and efficiently as possible. It is really important that they can continue to get those markets overseas, and that their businesses can be profitable, because without profit those businesses will not be sustainable. National is also keen to highlight the success of these businesses and to focus on the value that can be derived from processing waste effectively.

If we really want to create long-term successful waste minimisation, we need New Zealanders to make a shift in their thinking. They have to shift their thinking from simply minimising waste—although of course that is very important—to looking at waste and to actively recovering as much as possible. I think that shift in thinking would be helped by changing the name of the bill from the Waste Minimisation Bill to the “Waste Minimisation and Resource Recovery Bill”. Once again, I seek support of all parties for my Supplementary Order Paper 217 to rename this very good—now that it has been thoroughly thrashed over—bill. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I call John Cla—oh, I nearly called you John Clark—John Carter.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): Well, I answer to a good number of names, so another one would not matter. Hone Carter—

Hon Trevor Mallard: He has had occasions in this House where he has been much funnier than John Clark—a stunning member.

JOHN CARTER: Well, occasionally, that is true—how nice is that! Only a few of us would understand that, I tell Mr Mallard. But I think Eric Roy would; he was in the Chair at the time, I seem to remember.

It is a great pleasure to talk to the Waste Minimisation Bill. I start firstly by congratulating Nicky Wagner on all the work she has done. She has done a tremendous amount of work on this legislation, and she deserves to have that noted and to be congratulated on that. I also say to the select committee itself that it was a pleasure to work with all members of the committee, and with the staff and officials who worked with us on it, as well. As I have said before in this Chamber, but it is worth repeating, I approached this bill with an attitude developed from wearing a black bush singlet out the back of the Hokianga, thinking “Here’s a tree-hugging, greenie waste of time.” I must say my attitude has changed absolutely. As we went further into the bill, I realised that this issue deserved this House’s time and indeed the focus of not just the Parliament but of the country, and in that sense the Greens are to be congratulated on bringing this legislation into the Parliament so that it can be debated.

Having said that, I say that the bill is virtually a complete rewrite of what it was originally. I think the Greens also acknowledge that, as well.

Hon Trevor Mallard: A very good Minister.

JOHN CARTER: We certainly cannot congratulate the Minister in the chair, the Hon Trevor Mallard, on his input into this bill. I think it is fair to say that the Minister in the chair did not take a lot of notice of it until very recently, and only then did he start to change his attitude in the same way I did.

There are a couple of points that need to be debated and Nicky Wagner talked about what is probably the main issue around this bill. One of the problems and challenges in the select committee was that we continually talked about waste. The problem with that is that it sends the wrong signal. This is not a bill concerning waste, or a waste bill; it is about a resource. It is about finding a way to address the resources we have that others have finished with or want to dispose of. One of the challenges was trying to find an appropriate title for the bill. One of the titles we came up was the “Resource Management Bill”, but then we thought that probably would not go down too well, given that we already have a Resource Management Act, and it would conjure up a whole lot of negatives in people’s minds. It was not appropriate to call this bill the “Resource Management Bill (No 2)” or some other take on that title. There is a need for us to shift people’s minds to understand that we have a tremendous amount of resource that we continually just throw away, and that is stupid, quite honestly. The committee took a lot of time to try to find ways to address this.

Of course, what happens at the moment is that waste management, or resource waste management, or whatever we are now going to call it—waste and resource management—has become the responsibility of local government. As a consequence, it is the ratepayers of this country generally who end up footing the bill. That means it is the end-user, or in a lot of cases not even the end-user, who ends up carrying the financial responsibility. An argument has been put forward, and it is one I support, that the cost should be up front. The reason is that we would then get a total change in attitude and responsibility. It means that the people who are producing a lot of the stuff that currently is called waste would suddenly take a different look at it. One of the things we have talked about is product stewardship, which has become a major issue that this House and this Parliament need to address—and we have addressed it, to some extent, in this bill. But the fact is that those people who produce and make the products—the wrapping, all the stuff that is associated with current waste—need to change the way in which they address it.

To be fair, a number of manufacturers who came before the select committee suggested they were quite happy to become involved. I remember the car manufacturers, for example, came before the committee to say that they would be quite happy if a voluntary levy—$500 for a start—was put on each new car they sold. That levy could then stay in a fund somewhere during the life of the car, and when the car finally reached the end of its life, instead of it being taken into the bush, chucked over a cliff, burnt out, left on the side of the road, or whatever, it would have a value that the final owner could go and redeem. The vehicle itself then would be recycled and reused. That, to me, makes a whole lot of sense. It means that several things would happen. All of a sudden there would be a fund of money to help us to be involved in better investigations, science, and the systems around waste management and resource recovery. It would take the pressure off local government so that ratepayers were not responsible for it. It would also mean that the resource now had a value, so that the end-user, the final person who ended its life, had something of value. But just as important, the country would have an opportunity to utilise the resource, and lots of businesses—probably smaller businesses—would be established. It would mean, in that particular case, giving financial security to the people who are in the resource-recovery game. That, to me, is the nub of this whole debate. We would be ensuring that those good people who are already in the system have the financial means, the cash flow, to ensure that their businesses are sustainable. It would also mean that we can encourage others to get involved in resource recovery.

For that reason, the title suggested by Nicky Wagner makes a whole lot of common sense. Nicky and I took the opportunity to go to South Australia to look at the system there. I must confess that I certainly was impressed with their system, and I think Nicky learnt a lot from that visit as well, as did a number of the officials who went with us. It showed that the system could work. We discovered in South Australia that, for example, the Scout Association—just to name one organisation—now has a turnover of some $13 million a year and it has made a profit of about $2 million a year out of the system it has. This is all based on the fact that it has a product stewardship system and a levy that allows for that financial recovery to be made. Those things are important in this legislation. We will continue to debate those things as we make progress on the matter, and as it becomes more acceptable in this country. It already is acceptable, but it still has a way to go. We will find that those sorts of attitudes will become part of our society.

The one thing that the committee was concerned about, on the way through, was that we did not just set up a system that would develop another bureaucracy. The last thing we need in this country is more bureaucrats, and we certainly do not need them in this area. One of the things that we were very careful to try to achieve was that we did not set up a structure that became over-bureaucratic. We did not want to also put in a system that caused more cost to local government. I think that at this stage we have found a happy medium with this bill. I think that, as we move forward in this debate, and as the bill is implemented and reviewed from time to time by the Minister who is in charge of it—whoever that may be—we will find that further amendments are necessary. This will not be because the bill does not work, but because it is time to expand the bill, and this will become the norm for us. I think that is a very good thing indeed.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I should perhaps first explain why the Waste Minimisation Bill, which began as a member’s bill in Mike Ward’s name, then continued in Nandor Tanczos’ name and in my name, is now a Government bill. Basically, on the last members’ day the Waste Minimisation Bill could not get through in the allotted time. Although we tried to minimise waste, National unfortunately wasted a lot of time and we were not able to get the bill through. The Greens have been very supportive of National members’ contributions to this bill and have thanked them for their contribution throughout, but it would have been much better had we been able to get through the bill in members’ time so that it could have stayed as a member’s bill with all parties behind it. But we also appreciate what the Government is doing in picking up the bill and making sure that it gets through. Although we would have preferred that the bill stayed a member’s bill—which would have been, I think, the best way to get it through—none the less, we appreciate that it is being picked up as a Government bill.

In terms of the title change that is being proposed, I tell the Committee that we do not support that change. We just do not think it is necessary. We think that the definition of “waste minimisation” in the bill includes resource recovery. “Resource recovery” is also not defined in the bill, so to put those words in the title is slightly confusing for that reason. We define “recovery”, but we do not define “resource recovery”.

In terms of Mr Carter’s argument, which I certainly subscribe to, that one of the purposes is to shift minds—that is, to win people over—I am not sure that changing the title of the legislation will necessarily do that. Although we in this Chamber may like to think that people out there spend a lot of time reading the title of the bills we pass through the House, I suspect they do not. [Interruption] Well, I think that what we actually want to do is shift people’s minds away from waste and towards resource recovery, and I do not think that changing the title of the bill will make a lot of difference to that. So at this stage I do not see any particular reason to support the title change.

In terms of the broader picture, I tell the Committee that we want to get this bill through before the election so that it can be up and running. That is our key approach at the moment, and we look forward to the support of the House so we can get it going.

MARK BLUMSKY (National): I was disappointed to hear Mr Norman say he is not going to support this name change, because I believe he gave an assurance to our member Nicky Wagner that he would, and I find that lack of integrity disappointing. I also find it interesting that Mr Norman stood up and said that it was sad the bill never made it through on a members’ day, because I can remember sitting here not too long ago on a members’ night and hearing both him and a certain Minister in the chair filibustering quite obviously through that members’ night to prevent us from getting through the Committee stage. That was disappointing and is probably why we are here now still in the Committee stage of the bill and not debating the third reading and completing its passage.

It is interesting also that Mr Norman talked about the fact that the bill is now a Government bill. It was probably damn near a year ago—it seems like it was forever ago—that we on this side of the Chamber suggested that the bill should be a Government bill. That was probably the time when the big changes were made. From memory, that was in 2006—no, that was the first reading. It was the time when the changes were made so dramatically that we suggested it should become a Government bill. We felt there was a lot of work that should be done on the bill, including cost benefits, and so on. To be honest, when a bill is a Government bill it has a lot more resource thrown at it than a member’s bill has, and we felt this legislation was important enough to have that resource thrown at it.

All that aside, I actually thoroughly enjoyed the process of this bill. I enjoyed working with the bill and the interaction with the other members on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I enjoyed the way the public became so involved in the bill and the fact that we went out and about and saw and learnt so much. We learnt a heck of a lot about waste and waste minimisation. As I said, I applaud the public who are so passionate about this area and about the environment. It was a pleasure to meet and see them. I suppose it is because of the passion and commitment of those who came before the select committee that I totally buy into the fact that Supplementary Order Paper 217, put forward by Nicky Wagner, should be voted on and approved.

Most of the people who came before the select committee talked about the recovery of waste and how a resource once used should be ready to be used again. So many of those people talked about ways they could reuse the waste and do something constructive with it—how they could utilise the waste and even make money out of the waste rather than the waste going into the big bad landfill. National members on the committee took significant notice of the way those people talked about waste. The submitters were using the word “recovery”; they wanted to recover the waste and reuse it. Hence the Supplementary Order Paper put forward that should, I hope, be supported by the Committee. In going through my notes from the select committee, I found I had a comment from a gentleman by the name of Professor Storey from Victoria University who came before the select committee. I wrote his words down, and they were: “Waste is just a resource in the wrong space. The trick is to find a way to divert and support it.” Waste is just a resource in the wrong space, and when we think about waste in that way we understand the power of the word “recovery” and the need therefore to support Nicky Wagner’s Supplementary Order Paper.

Also, whilst we were out and about looking at various submitters’ and other waste minimisation sources and uses, we visited the factory that Nicky Wagner referred to. It is called Astron Plastics in Christchurch, or maybe it was Auckland. Anyway, it collects waste plastic, smashes it, granulates it, and separates it out. It was fascinating to see how it could take plastic in many different forms, granulate it, pack it up, and ship it off. The fascinating part of that was that the factory had to buy it from Australia because not enough plastic was being collected and recovered from the streets in New Zealand. So it buys plastic from Australia, processes it, then, lo and behold, sells it to China. So here we have this factory in New Zealand buying plastic from Australia, granulating it, then selling it to China. Now, if that is not helping the carbon credits, I do not know what is. That is just superb.

The other factory that led us to support the name change Nicky Wagner proposes on her Supplementary Order Paper is a company in Christchurch called TerraNova. This is an incredible company that literally collects waste in the big trucks and after it arrives at the factory big metal-crunchers and machines very cleverly separate out various parts of the waste. The factory sorts the plastic, utilises it, and literally makes money out of it. It recovers an asset out of the waste and uses it to make itself a fine profit.

The examples of those three who came before the select committee gave us the confidence, if you like, to propose a name change, to put the Supplementary Order Paper forward, and to say that the bill is all about recovery. It is what the public, the Waiheke Islanders, the small community set-ups, and the passionate people who were doing it for their community were calling it. They were doing their bit—putting their mark in the sand, if you like—for the environment. They were so proud of the fact that they were recovering household and other commercial rubbish and using it. They were so proud of it. Our support for those people is in the amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper put forward by Nicky Wagner, which I hope will be picked up by the other side and voted on accordingly. And I hope that Mr Norman sees the error of his ways and actually understands the trade-off, and the deal that was done, and the integrity that should be shown in respect of Nicky Wagner. Nicky has dealt with this bill in a very positive way. She has been positive and has tried to find a path through this bill—which has been complicated—that actually meets the requirements of all of us. So I think the Greens’ support for this would be more than fitting. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): We know that the Government is falling apart at the seams, when we have these sorts of desperate—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Clause 1.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The member will take his seat, please. I want to say this very clearly. This is a debate in the Committee. It is a very limited debate on clause 1. [Interruption] Do not talk while I am talking. It is a limited debate on the title. So far it has been carried out with integrity. Please may that continue.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My point is simply with respect to a very important amendment that has been put forward by my colleague Nicky Wagner that attempts to amend the title of this bill. Now the Leader of the House, Dr Cullen, has informed the National Party that Labour will vote for the amendment if we stop the debate. I ask the members opposite whether the principles of this Government, the desperation of it falling apart, and the basis of it voting or not voting for amendments, have now come down to the desperation of the Government wanting to shut down the debate. I just think that that is the most extraordinary thing that I have seen in 18 years as a member of Parliament. This Clark-Peters Government is falling apart at the seams, with deals being offered across the Chamber about amendments.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Is the deal about the bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes it is. It is about an amendment, Madam Chair, if you had listened.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I have listened. Take a seat please, because I really am concerned at the games that are being played. This bill has been worked out in such good spirits that to have this last speech about whether one is taking leave, and not concentrating on the arguments about a change or no change to the bill, but on process, is actually taking away the intent of this argument. I ask the member to come to the intent of the argument—[Interruption] Sorry, sit down please, because I am still ruling. Would you come to the intent of this debate, which is about whether we should have this change, and not on the process to close down the debate.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You are engaging yourself in the debate. The facts are absolutely clear. Nicky Wagner has moved an amendment. Dr Cullen has informed National that it will vote for that amendment if we shut down the debate. It is perfectly proper, in debate, for me to refer to that sort of deal, because I think it is a very poor way in which this Parliament should pass the law of the land.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am not involving myself in debate.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: You are.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Withdraw please. Do not tell me what I am or am not doing.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): No, I am on my feet right now. You actually criticised me while I was on my feet responding to your point of order. Please take a seat. I have been reading the Standing Orders quite carefully, and the Speakers’ rulings. My job is to maintain the rules of the House. The rules of the House state that in Committee we debate what is in front of us. We do not debate process. You are bringing in—and I could see exactly what was happening—a debate on process. The debate that is before the Committee is an amendment by Nicky Wagner on the title of the bill, not on the reasons for who is voting for that title, or why, but on the actual title of the bill and the arguments behind resource recovery or waste minimisation. I ask you—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Could you clarify, in the light of what I think would be a unique ruling from the Chair, in a debate about whether Nicky Wagner’s amendment is passed, reference to a deal that has been offered by the Government that it would support that amendment if National stopped taking calls is a perfectly proper thing to refer to in debate? It seems to me that it would be extraordinary if the Chairperson is now to rule that such matters of fact—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Thank you, take a seat please. I refer to the argument’s relevancy. In the Committee of the whole House it is the Chairperson’s job to allocate and to rule on relevancy. I say that a debate on procedure is not relevant to this particular debate, and my rule is final.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I just think we have an extraordinary state in Parliament where we have—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It is always extraordinary for you, Nick!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, we know that Dr Cullen’s Government is falling apart, and we know that this New Zealand First - Labour Government is in serious pickle with the events today. We know how desperate the Government is to try to advance the last bits of legislation. National says to the Government that the principle over the title of a bill has now come to the point of simply the casual deals that Dr Cullen, in his dying days as Leader of the House, is trying to advance.

Nathan Guy: The gagging clause!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is the gagging clause, as my colleague Nathan Guy would want to present it. This Government really is in its dying days, and it goes into this compromising of standards over an amendment! We should be having a debate about the merits of my colleague Nicky Wagner’s amendments—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I agree.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I would be interested, but the Government has not taken a single call. Its members have simply told us they will vote for the bill if it is advanced as quickly as possible.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Would you come to the point, please.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, the point, Madam Speaker, is this—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Madam Chair!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Madam Chair, Nicky Wagner has done an outstanding job as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee and during the Committee stage of this bill, to knock this bill into legislation that will be workable. National seeks the support of the Labour Party for Nicky Wagner’s amendment, not on the basis of some backroom deal, but on the basis that it is a perfectly sensible and proper amendment. This amendment from my colleague Nicky Wagner is about including the concept of resource recovery. It is National’s view, and an important part of implementing this bill, that in the regulatory processes being put in place around product stewardship, around the waste levy, and the like, we take care not to cut across the very good work that is going on all over New Zealand both by local government and small business.

By changing the title of the bill and making it plain that it is about resource recovery, as well as waste minimisation, we think that is a constructive change to the bill that this Committee should adopt. We want an approach around this legislation that actually supports and does not undermine the efforts of many of our councils. It is interesting that many of our smaller councils have taken a far stronger lead around issues of waste in supporting the efforts of many enterprises, like those in the scrap metal industry that are doing very good work around resource recovery.

So I tell Dr Cullen that I seek the support of the Labour Party for Nicky Wagner’s perfectly sensible amendment. We seek its support on the basis that the amendment makes a better bill. We do not seek that support on the basis of some procedural issue that Dr Cullen wishes to wind up in respect of the Committee. So I say that Nicky Wagner’s amendment is one of which this Committee should support—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: One of which we should support!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes it is; she has advanced—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: You should study the English language—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Order!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh well, it is interesting that the Chair thinks that such interjections about the—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I said “Order.” I called for order; please continue.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I thank you for that. Nicky Wagner has advanced a whole series of very sensible amendments to this legislation, and we would like to get the support of the Committee for this further amendment to the title that will include the concept of resource recovery, which we believe is the right sort of philosophy to adopt when advancing law in this area.

I hope that members of this Committee will choose to support Nicky Wagner’s amendment and ensure that we give this bill the best title possible.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I would like to take a short call on clause 1. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee for a small part of the time that this bill was being considered. I note that Dr Norman says that it was National’s delay that caused this bill to take some time to come back to the House. But I think it must be almost a world record that the bill has had three sponsors. Mike Ward was the sponsor of the bill during the period when I was taking unplanned sabbatical leave and was not in the House, so there was certainly a period then that it could have been advanced if it had been adequately drafted.

I spent 1 year on the select committee, and I do not recall that we spent very much time on the bill during that year. We were dealing with other matters, and then, subsequent to that, it took a couple of years to get it here. I think comment has been made that the bill, in the form that it was originally drafted, was not gathering a great deal of support. However, in the caring, sharing environment of the select committee, and with the good work of Nicky Wagner, it has been made into a bill that we are happy to vote for.

I approach this whole matter, I guess, from a pragmatic viewpoint. One cannot help but look at history and look at civilisations that do not—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Not all of history, please.

ERIC ROY: Does the Chairperson not want to hear my contribution and the relevance of it?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I do not want to hear the entire history. We are debating clause 1, and we are talking about an amendment.

ERIC ROY: For goodness’ sake! The point is simply this, Madam Chairperson. One looks at civilisations that no longer exist—the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Mayas, the Incas, and a whole range of others—and one has to ask whether history will look at the age of industrialisation and mark it down in the future as a time that might have lasted for a significantly shorter period than some of these other civilisations. That is the point. That is why we cannot continue to utilise or to waste resources that we are harvesting and mining from the ground, and to expect that to go on ad infinitum. This bill is a common-sense approach, but in a way it does not embrace what is required as a resolution of the issue of how long the industrialised age will last. When we consider this we realise that recycling and waste minimisation are just two items. There is also the use of sustainable inputs, the modifying of lifestyles, and a whole raft of things we need to embrace.

This bill is but a step forward. What I like about Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Nicky Wagner is that it says we should actually embrace the issue more widely and treat waste as a resource. That lifts the game a little bit more in terms of broadening our application of practices that will make the industrial age more sustainable. That, quite frankly, is the point I start from when we consider this legislation.

Throughout the Committee stage I have said a couple of times that although I am happy to embrace the bill and say we are voting for it, I feel that it tends to be, in places, a little bit prescriptive from a central government point of view and that it does not do enough to sell the package of engaging local bodies and individuals. In some places the setting of fees and levies is certainly very prescriptive, and it is my view that more progress could be made if local government and individuals and businesses were required to consider just their responses.

I grew up reading the writings of Alvin Toffler, Rachel Carson, and a whole lot of writings that really impressed upon me the need to respond as individuals and as a nation, and this bill does a little bit of that. It is important that we embrace practices that will make the industrialised age something that looks after us into the future and continues to provide for us. Our continual harvesting and mining of resources out of the earth, and our expectation that that can go on ad infinitum, cannot continue.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The question is that the question will now be put.

Nathan Guy: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry, I began—

Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Either you are drinking or you are walking around a corner. I am sorry; that was a reference to another time we had.

Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I cannot believe that you are addressing a member of this House like that. I take offence at that comment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry. Could you sit down and I will explain. When I have started a process and then put the question, twice now you have jumped up. Both times you have used an excuse: either you had been drinking a glass of water or you had been moving around the seats. That was the slightly humorous point I was making to you. It was not a necessary point, but the thing is that you do not actually get in before I speak. I took a deep silence, I then moved, and then you called the point of order. I am sorry, but when I start to move the motion, that is it.

Now, I am putting the motion—

Nathan Guy: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): No, I am putting the motion. I am sorry; it is as I explained it to you.

Nathan Guy: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. Under Standing Order 137(3) my understanding is that it has to be reasonable for the Chair to put the motion. I have been listening to the debate today; we have made very good contributions on this Waste Minimisation Bill, and we still have further comments to make on the title. I would like you to please acknowledge that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am going to continue to put the motion. The reason, as I have already explained to you before, is that I take notes. I have taken notes throughout, I have given a number of people extended periods to talk, and I have not finished off their speeches right on 5 minutes so they could complete their arguments. We have covered the point about resource recovery versus waste, and we have given a number of examples that have been repeated.

The question is that the motion will be put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 217 in the name of Nicky Wagner to clause 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 70

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill, the Public Transport Management Bill, and the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. This motion is moved so that these bills can be passed before the House rises for the 1-week adjournment.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 68

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 50

New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill

Recommittal

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill be recommitted to the Committee of the whole House to consider the amendments to clause 28, clause 43, and new section 68 standing in my name.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 13

Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field.

Noes 107

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill

Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill

Third Readings

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. New Zealand has a proud history of advances in environmental, economic, and social policy. It is a history that proves that Labour Governments have led the vast majority of important reforms this country has seen. So I am proud that today, with this legislation, New Zealand has risen to meet one of the great challenges of our time—that of climate change. We are taking our place among the large number of countries that are adopting emissions trading schemes as a measure to control climate change. Already, 27 nations in Europe, plus Norway, Sweden, and Scandinavia, have emissions trading schemes. Various states in the USA, Australia, and South Korea are developing them.

Our scheme is advanced in that it includes all greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol, and, over time, it will encompass every sector of the economy. This is sensible and avoids distortions within the economy. The emissions trading scheme does not create costs; rather, it minimises the cost of reducing emissions in accordance with our Kyoto commitment. It does so in a fair and effective way by charging the polluter for increases in emissions and rewarding decreases. It will save New Zealanders hundreds of millions of dollars between now and 2012 alone.

Since New Zealand signed the Kyoto Protocol a decade ago, this country has debated ad nauseam how to price emissions. Consultation and debate on the issue have been exhaustive, and, as many commentators have said, it is now time to get on with it. We in Labour are not afraid to make decisions on the emissions trading scheme or on other sustainability issues. We have passed legislation to support biofuels and reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels. We are committed to having 90 percent of our electricity generated from renewable sources by 2025, and this legislation puts a 10-year restriction on extra baseload electricity generation from coal and gas-fired sources. It also allows for a $1 billion package for household energy efficiency, which is part of the biggest boost to energy efficiency that this country has ever seen.

It does National no credit that time and again it has opposed every single piece of legislation that promotes a sustainable New Zealand. Right from the start National has been reluctant to participate in the climate change debate, which is why, when it comes to doing something concrete about meeting the challenge of climate change, National members inevitably prevaricate, obstruct, and call for delay. In the end they do nothing. The so-called six principles underlying National’s opposition to the emissions trading scheme crumble under close analysis. They are just six excuses to do nothing.

This week, on 8 September, the Gisborne Herald reported the National spokesperson on agriculture, David Carter, telling a local conference that to include agriculture in the emissions trading scheme would be economic folly. That is the opposite of what his party has said in this House. Whom are we to believe? National has not been able to point to any fundamental flaw in the emissions trading scheme. Instead, it has resorted to exaggerated criticisms about process. At least the ACT party has had the honesty to say it has not supported this legislation because it does not support the science of human-induced global warming. In the end, we have worked with parties that take climate change seriously—the Greens, New Zealand First, and the Progressive party—and I thank them for their support.

This scheme will help to get our emissions down, at the lowest possible cost. It will help us to meet our international obligations under Kyoto, and it will help to improve the productivity of our businesses. It clearly puts New Zealand on the path to a sustainable future. These are goals we should all aspire to, and I am confident that this legislation will assist us to achieve them. We in Parliament have the responsibility to make this decision. We should not delay any longer. I therefore commend this legislation to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It is with considerable disappointment that National comes to the third readings of this legislation, which is about what I think is the most challenging issue facing not just New Zealand but the globe. The emissions trading legislation is not in a state for us to be putting it on the law book. It requires additional work if it is to be workable legislation that we do not end up amending over and over again in future years.

This issue is such a big issue that I was optimistic that we might be able to build enough cross-party support to ensure that instead of the legislation being passed with a very slim majority in the dying days of a Government, it would have broad community and parliamentary support. That is why I want to briefly recite the history of the debate on emissions trading. Back in 1999 the then National Cabinet made a decision in principle that the best way for New Zealand to respond to the challenge of climate change and to the Kyoto Protocol was to put work into the development of an emissions trading scheme. When Labour came to office in 2000 it abandoned that work, and for 6 years it went down the road of a carbon tax. When the Government abandoned the carbon tax proposal, I wrote to David Parker on behalf of my National colleagues to say that we were open to constructive dialogue on an emissions trading scheme for New Zealand. We did not even receive the courtesy of a response.

Every action that this Government has taken over the last 2 years has led me to the view that Labour wants National to vote against this legislation. Let me give members a few examples. In respect of the release of the discussion papers, National received them after the media did. When it came to the introduction of the original Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preferences) Bill, National had absolutely no advance notice of it; however, we acted in good faith and voted for its first reading. During the select committee process there was absolutely no attempt by the Government to engage with National. In fact, it tabled a thousand amendments to the bill the day before, in effect, the deliberation on them—the day before we had to vote on those amendments. Furthermore, the Government announced a major change to the emissions trading scheme—the delay of the liquid fuels sector—in the middle of the select committee process, without any consultation with the select committee, at all. Then during the Committee stage the Government, just last Tuesday, tabled 785 amendments without any consultation, and National members were forced to vote on them that day. I put that information to the House to show there has been absolutely no endeavour by the Government to build the sort of cross-party support that is needed for this sort of very major reform.

National’s key concern about this legislation is that it is being rushed through the House. We have had hundreds and hundreds of amendments. The Minister in charge of the legislation, David Parker, may dismiss them as minor, technical issues, but they go to the core of the issue of whether this legislation will work. I can only conclude that Government members, in their own minds, are trying to gain credit for introducing the biggest, most ambitious “all gases, all sectors” emissions trading legislation in the world, and are passing this legislation in the hope, almost, that they will not have to deal with its complexity. It is my view that this legislation in its current form represents a hospital pass for whichever party forms the next Government.

National has six key areas of concern about this legislation. I want to work through them because they are substantive.

The first is the issue of balance. It is National’s view that this legislation is driven by the Prime Minister’s objective of New Zealand being a world leader on climate change. The problem for Labour is that in its 9 years of Government our emissions have actually gone up faster than those of any other country. This Government has the 38th worst record when it comes to growth in emissions. Far from the 20 percent reduction in emissions by 2005 that it promised, emissions have in fact gone up by 20 percent. The difficulty is that, every step along the way—whether it has been the carbon tax, the animal emissions levy, or the negotiated greenhouse gases agreement; whether it has been any one of those measures—the Government has had poor process, it has blustered ahead in a gung-ho way, and the policies have fallen flat on their faces. The tragedy of this legislation is that the Government has learnt nothing from 9 years of failed climate change policy. National wants a policy that is balanced. If the Government is honest about wanting a world-leading climate change emissions trading scheme, it should be honest with the public and say that it means having world-leading petrol prices and world-leading electricity prices. If National is given the chance to amend the legislation, we will put in it a more balanced objective of a 50 percent reduction in New Zealand’s emissions by 2050.

National’s second area of concern about this bill is that it is a massive cash cow for the Government. The Government’s officials have advised that the Government expects to make a profit of $23 billion over the timetable of this legislation. Climate change is not an excuse for Michael Cullen to get his fingers deeper into the pockets of New Zealand businesses and New Zealand families.

The third area of concern is in respect of our maximising alignment of this scheme with that being developed in Australia. The European Union has an emissions trading scheme covering the 24 countries within it. There may be areas of difference between Australia and New Zealand, but it is National’s long-term view that if we are to deal with climate change, then surely New Zealand, with all our commonality with Australia, should be able to more closely align our emissions trading scheme with that of Australia.

We also have concerns that this legislation will export both jobs and emissions. National is interested only in climate change measures that will make a difference. We are not interested in the provisions of this legislation that will encourage the relocation of some of our heavy, energy-intensive industries overseas. It is also our view that this legislation needs to be changed in respect of the way it deals with small and medium enterprises, which are discriminated against. We oppose the rigid timetable for the phasing out of industry support, and we want a more flexible regime in which the phasing out moves in line with what occurs in international negotiations.

I also have to express concern about the detailed provisions for forestry. This Government’s dealing with forestry in this legislation has contributed to the greatest level of deforestation since records began in 1951. National members are not satisfied that we have got right the provision of incentives to plant trees, which is one of the least-cost ways that New Zealand can rise to this challenge. We have concerns about the issue of flexible land use. We put amendments in the Committee to provide for the offset rule to apply in respect of forestry, and we are disappointed that the Government has not seen the merit of that approach, which would not have posed any difficulty in terms of actual emissions but would have resulted in a lesser cost to the economy and more efficient use of New Zealand land.

I also express concerns about the fishing sector, which is discriminated against in this legislation.

In summary, National says that New Zealand needs a well-balanced and carefully designed emissions trading scheme, but we should not underestimate how important and how difficult that challenge is. The gung-ho approach that we have seen from the Minister and the Government will cost New Zealand dearly and will not address environmental issues. National members will address them. National will amend this important legislation so that we get a price for carbon on 1 January 2010, but the legislation in its current form does not deserve National’s support.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): Today marks the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, which will empower the establishment of a comprehensive emissions trading scheme covering all sectors and all greenhouse gases, and the third reading of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill. This legislation represents an important step forward for New Zealand.

National objected to the legislative process undergone by the original bill—the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. We have just heard National’s latest recitation of excuses for not supporting it. As chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which heard public submissions on the bill, I find that set of excuses offensive. The claim that the bill was rushed and that inadequate time was given to submissions is just nonsense.

The facts are these—because what actually happened bears repetition in the record of the House. The Finance and Expenditure Committee received 259 written submissions and heard 96 oral submissions on the bill. Over 58 hours of hearings took place, and another 16 hours were spent considering the detailed provisions of the bill after those hearings. The committee heard recommendations and advice from a number of expert groups and officials, such as the Emissions Trading Group, and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Furthermore, prior to the submissions process, as we were advised and kept informed by the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, more than 100 public meetings and hundreds of stakeholder meetings were held concerning the issues raised by the bill.

All the matters dealt with in the bill and in the amendments, both in the Finance and Expenditure Committee and in the Committee of the whole House, have been well rehearsed for over 9 months in the context of the emissions trading scheme. Despite the attempts of the National Party’s climate change deniers to delay the bill, it is high time to progress this legislation. I am pleased and proud that we are now doing so.

I will turn to some of the key changes to the legislation The Finance and Expenditure Committee did deliver, in my humble opinion, a comprehensive package of improvements to the original legislation, but, clearly, there is always scope for improvement, especially in our MMP environment. The key change that I want to mention relates to the provision of additional financial assistance. This includes financial assistance to households to compensate for some of the increased costs they will face under the emissions trading scheme, and also the establishment of a household energy fund to encourage investment in energy-efficient products, which will reduce both energy consumption and the power bills of households.

An innovation fund will be established to encourage the deployment of innovative technology that will significantly reduce or avoid emissions from industry. The fishing sector will be compensated with a one-off free allocation of units, equal to 50 percent of the impact of the emissions trading scheme on the sector’s liquid fossil fuels. Support will be given to electric buses and trains to offset the increased cost of electricity. These are all matters that the select committee heard extensive evidence about but, for one reason or another, was not in a position to address. I welcome them, especially the complementary measures such as the incentives to deploy energy-efficient technology.

We heard evidence in the select committee that it is this combination of a well-designed emissions trading scheme and comprehensive measures to promote energy efficiency that will deliver the best long-term gains to New Zealand, as far as long-term emissions reductions are concerned. This is a historic day for our Parliament and for our country. We finally enshrine our Kyoto Protocol obligations in law, and it is good law. I commend the legislation to the House and to the people of New Zealand.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National): This is a historic day, but it is also a very sad day. I say to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues that he should be ashamed of himself for progressing this legislation in the way it has been progressed. The Minister sent an invitation to me late last night, by email, asking me to drinks after the conclusion of debate on this legislation. I will not be attending. I thank the Minister for his invitation, but I do not think the legislation is anything that anybody should be celebrating. I say that because there was an opportunity to pass legislation in this House today to give New Zealand an efficient emissions trading scheme, and it could have been done on a consensual basis with all major political parties. However, because of the Minister, this legislation will be passed tonight only because of the support of New Zealand First. I think it is a pity we have not been able to develop a well-balanced emissions trading scheme that would have delivered the important behavioural changes necessary in this country to do our bit for climate change. This one will not work.

We could have had a general consensus. We certainly could have had the National Party and the Labour Party on the same page, because in December 2005 we wrote to the Minister, offering our support to work together to develop an emissions trading system that would have been workable and accepted by significant consensus. The response we got from that Minister was no response, at all. Mr Parker arrogantly ignored an offer by National to work with the Government to develop a scheme that could have been before Parliament tonight and probably would have had greater than 80 percent acceptance of this House. I say to Mr Parker that that would have given enduring legislation—but, no. As a result of the Minister’s attitude, this legislation is now seen to be a political football. I say to the Minister that I guarantee to him that this legislation will not be enduring.

The second point I make to the Minister and the House is about the inclusion of agriculture in an emissions trading scheme. I want to be absolutely clear that agriculture should be included in a well-balanced emissions trading scheme. As an emitter of 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from New Zealand, there is no way agriculture should be exempted, but to include agriculture in this emissions trading scheme, we had to develop and debate the extent of its inclusion. We had to be accurate about the facts. The first thing I say to the Minister is that on this basis no other emissions trading scheme developed anywhere in the world includes agriculture.

I will include the Australian Government’s position on this issue. After releasing its green paper, the Australian Government said “The Government does not consider that it is practical at this stage to include agriculture emissions in the trading scheme at commencement.”, and “Accordingly, the Government has decided that the earliest that agriculture should enter the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would be 2015, with a final decision on inclusion or exclusion to be made in 2013 in the light of progress in overcoming practical difficulties and after extensive consultation with the industry.” Is it not a pity that the Labour - New Zealand First Government was not also prepared to take such an attitude?

It is a common view around New Zealand that agriculture should be included, but the difficulty of including it and forcing it into legislation in a dogmatic fashion, as this Government has done, is that the Government is refusing to acknowledge there are practical difficulties in monitoring, measuring, and reporting. I say to David Parker and Helen Clark tonight that the best interests of New Zealand should have been paramount. This issue should not have been based around personal agendas and the ticking of a few more boxes for CVs that might be needed in another couple of months. Yes, Mr Parker should include agriculture, but not to the extent whereby he risks the very viability of New Zealand farming operations and, more important, of the economy of this country.

On a number of occasions throughout the select committee process I attempted to get a true indication of costs. The quality of the answers that we received at the Finance and Expenditure Committee were at best evasive, and in many cases totally inadequate. The homework had simply not been done, to the extent that the Minister himself—David Parker—said in the House last week that there was no evidence that the scheme would have an adverse effect on agriculture. That is what the Minister was reported as saying in the New Zealand Herald of 3 September. He had only to look at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry paper, entitled Projected Impacts of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme at the Farm Level, which was released earlier this year. It states explicitly that, as expected, all farm types will suffer adverse profit effects. It is time the Minister was up front with the facts.

If this emissions trading scheme had been designed properly, its financial aspects and implications for agriculture could well have been recognised, but now, in a world that is demanding more and more food, we will put our production base at risk and we will achieve nothing for global warming. The world will still demand the production of that food, which will simply be moved to other countries. The Minister has been totally irresponsible, because he knows as well as I do that in New Zealand we have a farming system that is relatively efficient in carbon emission terms. So the Minister will actually be shifting production from New Zealand to countries in South America, such as Uruguay, that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Those farming systems are far less carbon-efficient than the farming systems he is attempting to replace in New Zealand, so the net effect will be that global emissions from methane will actually increase, which will do nothing for global warming. The Minister should be aware of that.

The final point I make concerns the chaotic fashion in which this legislation has been progressed right through the select committee process, under the appalling chairmanship of Charles Chauvel, and more recently through the House. We have gone in and out of urgency, because of a weird agreement with the Greens whereby this legislation was not actually to be considered in urgency. So we have done a little bit of it, then we have gone into days of urgency. We came back tonight to do a little more of it, only to be told half an hour ago by Dr Cullen that we will be going back into urgency tomorrow morning. I remember when the late Rod Donald used to rile against having any urgency, but, no, with the agreement of the Greens we are in and out of urgency, in order for there to be some sort of cosmetic appearance that the emissions trading scheme is getting a fair crack and is not going through under urgency.

This was meant to be flagship legislation for the Labour Party but it is just shambolic, and Mr Parker has done his party no good, at all, in entering into such a shambolic process. But the more important thing is that when this legislation is passed later on tonight, with the support of the Rt Hon Winston Peters and his team, it will not be enduring regardless of the election result. I say to Mr Parker that this legislation will not endure. It will be back before the House before too much longer, because it will not take long for the people of New Zealand to realise that the legislation will bind the economy, cause the standard of living of all New Zealanders to decline, and achieve very little—or nothing at all—for climate change.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney): We now head towards the end of the third reading of this hugely important legislation and the passage of what I would go as far to suggest is probably the most important legislation to go through this House since the GST legislation was passed in the mid-1980s. It will have a very profound impact on all households in New Zealand and on all businesses. It has been estimated, for example, that households face in just their electricity prices an increase of 20 percent at a carbon unit price of $25, but recently prices have gone higher than that, and estimates suggest that the price of carbon could go up to $100 a tonne by 2012. That could increase the price of electricity by anything up to 40 percent.

Hon David Parker: Rubbish!

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I hear the Minister saying “rubbish”, but these are not my figures. These figures have been estimated by other people trying to get a grip on what is likely to happen to households’ electricity prices. Businesses will all face significantly higher costs of production. Food, which has already gone up in price, partly because of the biofuels interest and production, will, of course, go up very significantly again. One of the worries is whether the public of New Zealand understands this. Does the public understand what we are passing through this House right now? And although there has not been a lot of research on this it is interesting to note a Stuff poll that came out just recently—one should not give too much credence to those, but it did have almost 7,000 votes recorded on it. Of those 7,000 votes, 12.4 percent said they did understand what the emissions trading scheme legislation was all about, 62 percent said they did not understand what it was about, and a further 25 percent did not even know what the question was about—they did not know what the scheme law was actually about. A total of 87 percent of people did not even understand what on earth we are doing with this legislation. That is a worry when it will have such a profound impact on their lives.

My colleague David Carter has already expressed concerns about the fact that this legislation leads the world in involving all sectors. We want to make it very clear that National supports an emissions trading scheme—we have always made that clear. But our concern is that this legislation is getting out so far ahead of the rest of the world, and ignoring so much representation from New Zealand businesses that drive our economy—ignoring what they are saying this will do to them.

One of the reasons why it is so unwise to get out so far ahead from the rest of the world is that technically it is very difficult to do what this legislation will require of New Zealand businesses. Let me take the technical aspects of it with which I am most familiar—those relating to agriculture. One of the reasons it is unwise to get out ahead of the rest of the world, bringing agriculture into such legislation, is that one cannot measure the special emissions from agriculture. Sure, agriculture’s energy utilisation, and all that, will be included in the scheme, and no one argues about that—the use of electricity, the use of energy in agriculture, of course that is the same as for anyone else. But agriculture has special emissions, like methane and nitrous oxide. One of the challenges with this kind of legislation—and I want members of this House to understand this—is that the scheme does not propose that one measure methane emissions from ruminant animals, because one cannot easily do it. It is technically extraordinarily difficult to do it, and the Minister acknowledges that.

So what we do with this legislation is that we estimate the emissions, and if that could be done reasonably well, that would be fine. But we need to understand how the Government proposes to estimate those emissions. The way it proposes to do this is to take the number of relevant ruminant animals—sheep, beef and dairy cattle, and deer—apply the feed intake measured in terms of dry matter intake per head of those animals, and then apply a conversion rate from that dry matter intake to methane. In the case of cattle, for example, that methane conversion rate is 6.5 percent of gross energy intake.

That is how it is proposed to estimate the methane emissions; it is by the number of animals multiplied by the feed intake—the dry matter intake per animal—and then the methane conversion factor is applied. The next problem is that one cannot measure the dry matter intake of our ruminant animals in New Zealand. It cannot be done here. It could perhaps be done in some countries where they feed animals in stalls, but in New Zealand we cannot do it. Can you imagine trying to measure the actual dry matter intake of pasture of 10,000 sheep grazing out on a farm, or 1,000 dairy cows grazing on a farm somewhere? How does one actually measure that dry matter intake? It cannot be done. So what does the Government propose? It says that one estimates how much dry matter intake there is, under this legislation, by looking at how much is produced. So we take the number of dairy cows we have got and look at the amount of milk or meat that has been produced. From that amount of milk, meat, or wool that has been produced, one works back to how much dry matter must have been consumed. That is how one works out how much dry matter animals must have consumed. From the amount of milk produced and the number of animals, one can work out in theory how much dry matter has been consumed.

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

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Prior to the dinner break I was emphasising the concerns we have about Labour getting ahead of the rest of the world by passing this legislation. I was focusing particularly on the problems the legislation will cause for the agricultural sector in terms of the measurement of methane emissions that are a very large part of the problem for New Zealand. The Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, David Parker, acknowledged that we cannot at the moment measure methane emissions, so the Labour-led Government’s proposal is that they should be estimated. The emissions are estimated by calculating the number of animals and their dry matter intake, then applying a conversion factor for methane from the gross energy intake. But, as I was pointing out, a further problem is that we cannot measure dry matter intake either—it has to be estimated, as well. So we now have two estimations.

And the problem with that is that it is proposed that dry matter intake be estimated from what sheep, cattle, and deer actually produce—so from the amount of milk, meat, or wool they produce, we would work back and estimate the amount of dry matter they had consumed. But I want the Labour, Green, and New Zealand First members who are supporting this bill to understand that there will be a variable percentage of digestibility in the dry matter intake an animal consumes, depending on the quality of feed the farmer uses. The calculation does not recognise that.

What is more, once that feed is digested, an animal of high genetic worth will utilise the metabolisable energy differently. An animal that has produced more milk or meat, for argument’s sake, could be an animal of higher genetic worth to which a farmer has also fed a more digestible diet. So we could have a situation whereby less methane has been released into the atmosphere for the production of meat or milk. But the system will not allow for that. The system will punish the efficient farmer and the animals of high genetic worth that produce more for a given amount of metabolisable energy being utilised. It will punish the farmer who feeds the more highly digestible diet. So we will see the exact opposite from what is intended. Because intake is based on production, it will punish those who feed higher-quality diets and have animals of higher genetic worth. That is the first problem.

The second problem is that, because all the figures are estimated, the variability—the error within those estimates—is so high. I am running out of time, but, for example, a farmer who has been estimated to produce 1,000 units of methane, and therefore should purchase carbon units to cover those, may well have produced 500 rather than 1,000, and the accuracy of those two figures would be equally likely. We could not be certain that the figure of 1,000 was any more accurate than the figure of 500, yet we would expect the farmer to purchase the carbon units to cover those 1,000 units. That is simply unworkable. I predict that if this scheme goes ahead as it is, then, unless we get the scientific breakthroughs—and this is where the research effort should go—there will be civil disobedience. Labour is sacrificing New Zealand’s future to its political ends, and that is bad for New Zealand.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green): Tonight we pass legislation that is a small step towards getting New Zealand’s carbon emissions under control. I pay tribute to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues, David Parker, who has pursued this incredibly complex legislation and set of issues for 3 years. Although the Greens do not agree with everything about the design of this bill, I really believe that Mr Parker has done everything he can, in the current political environment, to take this first step towards reducing our emissions.

The important thing is not to get the idea that, because we now have an emissions trading scheme, climate change is fixed. Price has only ever been part of the story, and whether it be a carbon charge or an emissions trading scheme, there is a great deal else to do. This scheme does not even cap our emissions in New Zealand. It allows us to grow our emissions as much as we like, as long as we pay others to limit theirs. Although that may be all right in the short term, we cannot expect the rest of the world to compensate for our rising emissions forever.

So what do we need to do now in climate change policy to build on the emissions trading scheme and to make sure we have genuine emission reductions? First, the Greens believe that we need to sign up to the international target—about which there is increasing consensus—of limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees. People argue about whether that equates to 450 parts per million in the atmosphere or somewhat more. Hansen, one of the most prestigious climate scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) says that it equates to 350 parts, and we are already past that. At any rate, we need to sign up to that target. Then we need to adopt real targets within New Zealand.

The most important target of all is the date at which our total emissions level off and start to fall. That turn-round point is incredibly important. The later it happens, the more ground we will have to make up in the future. I believe we should set a date, gazette it—under the new provisions in the legislation that the Greens have negotiated, targets will be gazetted—set a reduction path to 2050, and gazette that too. Then we will all know where we are heading and we can look at the mechanisms to achieve it.

In terms of international negotiations, we need to spend less time on special deals for New Zealand and more time on strengthening the agreement, finding ways to get the United States and the larger developing countries into it, and finding ways to include soil carbon, which offers one of the biggest opportunities for carbon sequestration in the future but is not counted at the moment. We need to use our influence internationally to verify properly the environmental integrity of the units used to meet Kyoto objectives. The Greens are proud that the environmental integrity around Russian hot air is improved—it is now in the bill—but we need to turn our attention to some of the Clean Development Mechanism credits, which are questionable, to say the least. I know that the Kyoto partners are trying to deal with that issue, and we need to support that.

What do we need to do at home? We know that price will not do it all, despite advice from Treasury and the beliefs of many gung-ho industry people, and we know that because if price would do it all, then we would not still be ignoring hundreds of millions of dollars of cost-effective energy savings out in the community. In fact, if price would do it all, then our economy would be perfectly energy efficient at the current prices—but it is not. We need to intervene in a number of ways to capture those savings and reduce our emissions.

In terms of transport, the obvious, easy first thing to do is to improve the efficiency of vehicles coming over the border. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, which Cabinet approved and was released a year ago, provides for vehicle fuel efficiency standards for vehicles coming into the country. There is, so far, no legislation to provide for that, and that, I think, is an immediate urgency. We need to invest in rail, public transport, and safe cycling, because a tax on petrol will not encourage people out of their cars and on to public transport if public transport is full and people cannot get on it at rush hour. We need much greater provision of services in that respect.

We need better urban planning so that it is not so far to travel from home to work and school. We need to create a better investment environment for renewable energy. Ernst and Young has just released, yesterday or today, a report that is astonishing. New Zealand has the best resources in the world for renewable energy, but we are languishing at 20th place in the world in terms of our attractiveness as a country for renewable energy investment. Urgently we need to investigate why that is and do something about it. One reason seems to be that there are no feed-in tariffs here, and that is something we need to consider for the future. Also, as long as we are wobbling around as to whether there will be new gas-fired power stations, we are discouraging investment in energy efficiency because gas-fired power stations will always crowd renewable investments out of the market.

We know that heaps of energy efficiency is available in the economy. The Electricity Commission has identified real reductions, and we need to access those. The $1 billion green homes fund will leverage real reductions in energy in households, as well as improve health. We know that households use about a third of our electricity. Households could have a water heating standard that said people could not heat their water any longer by just sticking an inefficient coil in a tank, but would need to have one of the more efficient technologies: solar, hot water heat pumps, wood-fire wet-back—there are a number of them; we will get there one day.

Then the next step will be zero-energy homes—homes that are initially so efficient they do not use much energy, and then homes that generate their own energy and feed it back into the grid. Grid-connected photovoltaics is the technology that is coming along, down the track. It does not make sense to use that until we have homes insulated and up to scratch, but it will be the next step. The UK already has zero-energy homes in its building standards. Its building code provides for a transition towards zero-energy homes.

The rest of the programme needs more research and development for the technologies that are not quite here yet, particularly methane and nitrous oxide reductions in agriculture, marine energy—and we have made a start with wave and tidal power—and second generation biofuels. Those biofuels—from waste wood and from algae growing on sewage—are extraordinarily important, and they will help us as oil becomes increasingly expensive. I started this long process over the legislation by saying that it needed to be made more effective, more fair, and more urgent. In our negotiations with the Government, the Greens have achieved progress against some of those criteria, but not all of them.

One outstanding issue of fairness, which arose for us too late to be incorporated into our negotiations, concerns the issue of iwi who have received, in Treaty settlements, forests whose value has been seriously eroded by this scheme. We were under the impression, through our negotiations, that those iwi had reached agreement with the Government and were happy with the conclusions. They are not, and it is disappointing that it was not possible to do something today, in Part 1, to provide for that in the legislation. Nevertheless, there is a process under way at the moment to consider the extent of that loss and whether iwi were given all the information they should have been given at the time they purchased those forests in good faith. We expect the Government to operate in good faith when that survey is reported, and to restore value to Ngāi Tahu and other iwi who have lost value, if their cases are proven. We will be watching particularly to see how that process delivers.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Let me assure members that New Zealand First supports this legislation, and let me assure the Minister that we are supporting it in the right spirit. But having said that, I have to say that New Zealand First does have some concerns. I will explain.

Our concerns first started when we learnt that New Zealand produces 0.2 percent of the greenhouse gases in the world—0.2 percent. We have 0.065 percent of the world’s population, but we produce 0.2 percent of its greenhouse gases. Then we learnt that half of that 0.2 percent comes from animals—from agriculture, if you will. So we had to ask what effect that would have on the weather, what effect that would have on global warming, and what effect that would have on climate change. I think that many of us, if not all of us, thought that it would be fairly negligible. But these were some tough questions we had to ask ourselves. Then we learnt that the European Union’s emissions trading scheme embraces only carbon dioxide. It does not include methane, nitrous oxide, or any other greenhouse gas; it simply revolves around carbon dioxide. So the question became: well, why do we need an emissions trading scheme, or, at least, why should we—we being New Zealand—be first off the block? Why should we be a world leader in this? Why should we be ahead of Australia in introducing such a scheme? To get those answers, all seven of us genuinely listened to the debate. We opened our minds, and our ears, and listened intently to the debate.

One thing became clear: there was going to be an emissions trading scheme whether it was with Labour, the Government, or whether it was with National, currently the Opposition—which thinks it will be the Government in a relatively few weeks’ time. So we knew there was going to be a scheme. The question New Zealand First itself had to address was: would we be best to stand outside that scheme and let Labour do what it wanted to do, or, in a few weeks’ time if National had the Government benches, to let National do what it wanted to do and have us stay outside that. But we thought that the issue was bigger than that. We knew that the scheme would have an adverse impact on the people we represent—the elderly, in particular, and the vulnerable, who are the people we have genuine concerns for—so we started a dialogue with Labour people to see what we could achieve with a scheme that addressed the concerns of those people we represented. It was obvious to us that a scheme was coming, and we wanted to soften the blow on the people we have real concerns about—the low-paid, the elderly, and the people who really need some help in this society. As I say, at that point we opened discussions with the Government.

We are in support of the deals that have been struck between New Zealand First and the Government, and indeed of those between the Greens and the Government. That is not to say that we are entirely happy. We looked at the option, as I said, of holding off and waiting for the National Party’s scheme at a later date, but National itself ruled that out. As much as we detest somebody coming along with a tape-recorder to secretly record messages, we learnt a valuable lesson then—that is, that the National Party says one thing but is prepared to do another. I will not go into the details of those tape recordings, but when we hear senior members saying that sometimes they have to swallow dead fish to get what they want, we know there is a secret agenda. We do not agree with the way in which those discussions were tape-recorded; I want to make that quite clear. But I tell members that they were caught on tape. And as if that were not enough, we know what they did to the Hon Maurice Williamson, and we learnt a lot from the way in which those people treated him. I am the transport spokesperson for New Zealand First, as members well know, and I do not agree with the Hon Maurice Williamson in some of the things he advocates for transport. I know his views on tolls and on public-private partnerships. He echoed those views on TV and he got his hand slapped—or more than that—by his leader, publicly, for saying what he believed and, as far as we understand it from the National Party, what the National Party was supportive of. He was treated—

Sue Moroney: Dare to say it out loud.

PETER BROWN: Yes, he was treated—I cannot think of a polite word—

Hon Mita Ririnui: Shamelessly.

PETER BROWN: Yes, that is it—thank you. I thank the member. That is a polite word; I could not think of one.

We learnt a lot, and the question we asked ourselves in New Zealand First was whether we could wait and trust that crowd. Could we wait, if that crowd got the Government benches, and trust them? The answer was a firm “No”. We wanted the best deal we could get for households, for elderly folk, for families, for whomever. We achieved that deal by dealing with the Minister and the Labour Party. We do not think it is the best deal, but at least we have established one thing—the precedent that must be considered in the future. I challenge the National Party—I have listened to its speakers—to say whether they will rescind it should they get the Government benches. Will they rescind the—

Eric Roy: Which part?

PETER BROWN: The financial assistance to households and families—will the member tell us now? He is saying no, but they would not have put it in. I guarantee they would not have put it in. I have listened to National speakers tonight, and I say that National would not have made any concessions at all to the elderly, and whomever. [Interruption] It is a considerable amount of money. That was a very important factor in New Zealand coming together as a team to support this legislation. The Minister is well aware of this. I am not telling the Minister anything that he is not aware of it.

New Zealand First will support this legislation tonight. We will support the third readings. We say to the Minister, with due respect, that we think this is a move in the right direction. It is not completely right. There will need to be some amendments. I will not go as far as David Carter did when he said that this is not enduring legislation, and give the impression that it will fall over in a matter of months. I do not believe that. But I believe it will have to be addressed on a number of occasions to get it right, and I know that before agriculture comes in, before transport comes in, there will be quite some discussion. It will have to go through Parliament and get the seal of approval. In essence, New Zealand First is supporting this legislation because it has the framework there. It will be modified. It will need to be modified, in our view, but it is a move in the right direction and it has the support of New Zealand First. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): Firstly, I acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Hone Harawira, who has deferred his speech to allow me the opportunity to speak.

I listened to a very confused contribution from Mr Brown of New Zealand First. He said that New Zealand First is supporting the legislation but he is not sure why, and that it will need to be modified.

Peter Brown: I didn’t say that. The member will need to listen from time to time.

ERIC ROY: I listened carefully, and the member said that it will need to be modified.

I want to state something again. Out there, if one dares to criticise anything to do with climate change, one is termed a naysayer—that is the call. I have said it before in this House and I will say it again: I am not a naysayer; I certainly believe that the climate is changing. I believe that there is a natural cycle, and I believe that human activity is chasing it along, making it go faster than would occur naturally. I am concerned about that, and I have made several speeches on it. I do not want to be accused of being a naysayer. In that respect, I should say that I think this legislation has one thing right: there needs to be a market for carbon, driven by market forces, and that is, essentially, what this legislation does. But there is a list of things about it that give me some angst and some concern, and that is why National is not supporting the legislation.

The first concern is the process. Yes, a very committed group of officials worked for a considerable time to work up a bill to come before the House. We were presented with a tome of I do not know how many pages—several hundred. It is one of the bigger bills to go through Parliament, but there is nothing wrong with that; it just shows that this matter is complex. It requires proper scrutiny and proper assessment, and we need to make every endeavour to get it right. Well, how can National members sign off legislation on something as important as this when, in the Committee stage, 780-odd amendments were dumped on us before we even had a chance to read them? So my first concern is the process of this legislation, which will imprint itself on the business culture of New Zealand and on the quality of the impression that we give internationally. We are a world leader on many aspects of this legislation, but National members are not able to sign it off.

That is the first point. It raises three other questions. Will it work? Is it practical? What is the cost implication? Those are the issues I want to address to some degree in the third readings of this legislation.

I have said that it is important we have a market price, and I come to the reason why we need to have it. I have mentioned that I believe that human activity is increasing the rate of climate change. But whether or not one is a naysayer, if New Zealand as an exporter of products to the highest-priced markets in the world does nothing, we will be caught by consumer resistance to buying products from countries that do not conform. Right at this time, all three main food retailers in the UK are embracing a greenhouse-gas branding process for their food products. Tesco is reputed to be spending between £400 million and £500 million on branding 110,000 different food items. Is it doing that because it wants to save the planet? I would suggest that it is not. Tesco is doing that because it wants to earn another pound. That tells me we have no alternative but to respond.

We come to the question of whether the legislation will work. We could introduce something that is a placebo, and, to a degree, this legislation is a placebo, because we have not given it enough scrutiny to be sure it will work. We have an emissions trading scheme and it is in legislation, so we can hold up our hand and say that, yes, we are responding. But there is a little issue that concerns me, and in the Committee stage I raised quite a bit of detail about it. You see, the measurement is not of where we sit in the world; the measurement is being done on the basis of per head of population—not on the basis of world’s best-practice. If we have a higher agricultural profile per head of population than other countries, then we show up as, in our case, 50 percent. If we have one aluminium smelter per 4 million people, then our aluminium profile is higher. China has 23 aluminium smelters, but its profile for that stuff will be much lower. And China is a category 3 country, so it will not count for a long, long time.

The issue is that if this legislation does not embrace world’s best-practice, it will drive industry, it will drive agriculture, and it will drive dirty industry in particular to countries where the system of estimation of their carbon imprint is lower. The higher the population of a country, the more dirty stuff can be crowded into it. Well, this problem is a global problem, and, quite simply, that approach is nonsense, and to a large extent it is one of the dangers of this legislation. Let me give an illustration. Rio Tinto has very, very carefully considered its responsibilities in this matter. Initially, we were called to get back to 1990 emission levels, and I think—and someone can correct me—Rio Tinto is the only significant energy emitter in this country that has got itself back to 1990 levels. [Interruption] There is another one; I thank the member for that.

Hon Member: They’re actually below 1990 levels.

ERIC ROY: I think the aluminium smelter is, too; I think Rio Tinto is, as well. We hold up our hands in horror, because when we measure the smelter’s emissions against our population it looks bad, and because for every tonne of aluminium produced, the smelter releases 2 tonnes of greenhouse gases. We can get carried away about that, but if the plant at Tīwai was to close down, Rio Tinto would most probably move its production to a country such as China, which to my understanding now has 23 aluminium smelters. The average greenhouse gas emission of those 23 smelters is, I am told, 7.9 tonnes for every tonne of aluminium produced. So how clever is it to introduce a system that has the tendency and the propensity to drive those sorts of industries from New Zealand, where they use world’s best-practice, to a place where environmental consideration is not worth the paper it is written on?

Hon David Parker: But it won’t.

ERIC ROY: I am pleased the Minister is seriously confident about that, because I am not.

Let me raise another matter that this legislation does not address. Various colleagues have made this point. We have heard about the chainsaw massacre of trees. Sequestration is important. By any measurement we have gone seriously backwards because of the way in which we have embraced our response to the Kyoto Protocol, and this legislation largely does not correct that. It does not allow tradability of forestry within New Zealand in order to have the best use made of land. Significant catchment areas in the North Island are crying out for forestation, yet we cannot transfer that land to what would be best-practice, or even go for two-for-one use of it. I am sure we could wear that—putting 2 hectares of eroding land back into trees.

Then there is the cost factor, and I want to make this point. When we impose a cost it is always the producer who picks it up. It cannot go anywhere else. Everybody else is cost-plus all the way through—in the servicing of it and in the transport of it—so the cost comes back to the producer. This House might not have noticed, but large sectors of the agricultural industry are not in a position to absorb any more costs into their production systems—none whatsoever. There is a paucity of information on how the producers can mitigate those costs. I would say that even putting a date on this system embracing agriculture is something National members were seriously concerned about.

We need to have all those answers before we are prepared to support this legislation.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Earlier today the Māori Party tabled three amendments to the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill that spoke to the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in Treaty settlements. We sought to insert, under clause 28, a new section that made reference to any iwi that received redress under any Treaty of Waitangi settlement. Under clause 43 we sought to insert a new section referring to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and asserting the need to maintain the integrity and value to iwi of Treaty of Waitangi settlements and to have redress under those settlements. Finally, we sought to insert in clause 68(4) the words, “the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act of 1988,”. We sought leave to table those three amendments because they were a simple but intelligent contribution to matters of fundamental importance to our nation. Today the House chose to vote down those Treaty amendments, and those parties and those politicians who voted them down must live with that decision, and with the shame that attaches to them for their part in doing that.

The Māori Party has always taken the view that every issue is an opportunity to recognise and honour the Treaty in word and in deed. So it is with emissions trading as it is with everything else. Treaty settlements are the instruments of national reconciliation. They are opportunities for Governments to begin to redress the wrongs of the past so that we can build a pathway forward together. Yet in this, as in far too many cases, decisions have been taken to undermine, to oppose, and to threaten that very path to reconciliation. This legislation affects all Māori, because it fails to pay due regard to the place of the Treaty in our nation, and it breaches the good faith in which five Treaty settlements have been reached—settlements that the people believed to be fair and based on principle, settlements negotiated and accepted by the people whose ancestors carried the fight for justice across generations, settlements that should have been treated as solemn pacts, and settlements that should be respected and protected by the Governments of the day.

Today Ngāi Tahu have told us that this emissions trading legislation represents the most direct assault on the integrity, finality, durability, and purpose of Treaty settlements since Treaty settlements began. This legislation is an attack on the integrity of Treaty settlements, because it is an attack on the so-called good faith the Crown said that it had in entering into Treaty settlement negotiations. Lack of good faith, as every iwi can tell us, has deprived iwi of the opportunity to develop, and has resulted in generations of iwi existing in poverty. Our Supplementary Order Paper was not just about Ngāi Tahu, and the massive loss they will be forced to suffer because of this bill, but it was also about other iwi in a similar position, who will also suffer loss because of a lack of good faith by the Crown.

The emissions trading legislation is also an attack on the finality of Treaty settlements, because it will wipe millions of dollars off the value of those settlements, so Ngāi Tahu’s situation clearly highlights the dangers of this bill for Māori. In 2001 Ngāi Tahu relied on the Crown’s promise when it purchased forestry lands at market value, only to have that promise withdrawn when the Government signed up to the Kyoto Protocol less than 12 months later—an act of betrayal that will lead to a loss of millions of dollars from the value of the Ngāi Tahu settlement. That loss comes directly as a result of the non-disclosure by the Crown at the time Ngāi Tahu were encouraged to purchase forestry lands, and the fact that the Crown must have known in 2001 that the Kyoto Protocol it would sign up to in 2002 would lead to a significant destruction of the value of Ngāi Tahu’s forestry purchases. Had Ngāi Tahu known of Kyoto’s implications, they would undoubtedly have made different decisions to ensure the future prosperity of their settlements, or, as Ngāi Tahu themselves would say: “Mā tātou, ā, mō ngā uri a muri ake nei.”—“For us and our children after us.” Any erosion of good faith inevitably impacts on the durability of the agreements reached between Māori and the Crown—the first in 1840, and the second in the Treaty settlements—and in this situation the Government’s failure to disclose its lack of good faith in its Treaty settlement negotiations actually prevented Ngāi Tahu from making choices otherwise available, and created the grounds for a second claim of a Treaty breach.

Yesterday Te Ohu Kaimoana added its voice to this issue, noting that the durability of iwi and pan-iwi settlements is vital to sound working relationships between Māori and the Crown. Chief executive officer, Peter Douglas, commenting on the concerns of both Ngāi Tahu and Ngāti Awa regarding emissions trading, summed it up when he said: “If the early wave of settlements are considered by their people to be at risk, then the certainty and finality of all Treaty settlements is put at risk as well.” The settlements affected here are those from the early wave of settlements, and the risks that have occurred have taken place within but 10 years of their conclusion. Ten years is too short a time, within the life of a so-called perpetual agreement between Māori and Crown, for such risks to have emerged.

I want to make it quite clear that we knew that the amendments we sought to table would not cure the loss—they would not remedy the lack—of good faith today. All we wanted to do was to allow for these issues to be reconsidered by this House. As Te Ohu Kaimoana said yesterday: “We do not expect that Treaty settlements should have special immunity from the consequences of change, but we do expect the Crown to engage in good faith with iwi over changes which will affect the nature of those settlements.” This is not just about Ngāi Tahu having to deal with a change in policy; it is about their being misled and making decisions on the basis of poor information provided by a Government that knew otherwise. I hate to say it but I am not surprised by these actions, for they simply replicate Crown behaviour against Māori over the last 170 years—behaviour that has been in repeated breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and behaviour that demonstrates the Crown’s failure to honour its obligations to its Treaty partner.

Today’s amendments were a modest and reasonable approach by iwi to national, international, and environmental considerations. Today’s amendments were an opportunity to consider the Ngāi Tahu situation in the context of the national interest. Today’s amendments simply asked that in terms of the settlement process and the integrity of the emissions trading scheme, Parliament should have the option to reconsider its views. But it seems that that is not to be the case—that this House is not yet ready to deal honestly with Māori issues, and that this House is not genuinely committed to the reconciliation of our nation.

Although we are on different sides of the debate on this bill, I again thank the Green Party for their continued support of the Treaty. But in closing I again say how absolutely devastated we are to see that Labour’s Māori MPs, including Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta, Mita Ririnui, Mahara Okeroa, Dover Samuels, and Dave Hereora, have again chosen party loyalty over the Treaty, and again chosen to vote down the Treaty when they had a chance to finally make a positive stand. That is a point that Māori people all over the country will remember when we go to the polls in a few weeks’ time. Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I am very pleased to stand and take a short call in this historic debate, the third reading of this legislation, and it will be a historic moment when it is passed. I think the debate is actually quite enlightening this evening, because here we see one of the many defining issues between Labour and National. On this side, Labour is prepared to take leadership and to actually have a vision to go forward. On the other side, the National members are wringing their hands over not having 100 percent certainty over everything that moves, and therefore they are not prepared to move forward because they cannot have that absolute certainty. This demonstrates the leadership being displayed on this side of the House, and the absolute lack of vision over there—the absolute lack of vision—and the lack of commitment to moving forward. Any excuse will do to stand still with National. Well, that is not the vision that Labour has, and I am very pleased to support this legislation at the third reading.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki): I appreciate having the opportunity to take what I hope will be a shortish call on the legislation, and to speak against it. One of the things that prompted me to take a call was listening to the appalling effort of the deputy leader of the New Zealand First Party, Peter Brown. In many ways the contribution of that member to this third reading debate sums up exactly what is going wrong with this legislation. He had nothing at all to contribute in terms of the merit of the legislation or what it will mean for New Zealand, and he chose instead to indulge in a diatribe against the National Party. I have one little bit of advice for Mr Brown. It must be terrible for the member sitting here in the House, trying to keep his head down, and freezing every time his cellphone rings. He must be wondering whether the call is from Serious Fraud Office employees to say that they want to talk to him and that they suggest he bring a lawyer.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): The member will come back to the legislation.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

When National members spoke during the Committee stage, member after member, myself included, asked a question that the Minister never ever answered: why the rush? What is the hurry? This is the most fundamental, profound change to New Zealand’s economic system to be legislated through this House in some 20 years. What are we doing? We are not sitting back and reflecting on its significance. We are not examining the implications for New Zealand in any detail, at all. What we are doing is rushing this legislation headlong through this House, and Opposition members cannot understand why. But one does begin to get a little bit of an insight when one listens to what—

Peter Brown: Will the member take a question?

ALLAN PEACHEY: I think Mr Brown’s cellphone is ringing. He had better answer it.

I listened to the previous contribution from the junior Government whip, Sue Moroney. She talked about this legislation being a defining issue between the discredited socialists who sit over there and the National Party—

Sue Moroney: One of the many, because there are plenty!

ALLAN PEACHEY: Yeah, right! I guess there is some distinction between the two major parties in respect of this legislation. The first point of distinction, and this will not be lost on the people of New Zealand, is that on the Opposition side of the Chamber we do things properly. The Government is not doing this properly. It is bent on driving this legislation through the House. Why? I repeat the question to members opposite: what is the hurry? Where is the analysis from Government members? Where is the understanding of the potential harm to the New Zealand economy that this legislation, as it is currently structured, will cause?

The Government—known now as the “Clark-Peters Coalition”—is showing no respect for, and no understanding of, the New Zealand business community, and even less respect for the agricultural sector. Surely the Government and its coalition mates would at least show sufficient respect for the agricultural sector, the backbone of this country for generations, and take a little bit more time—and less rush—to consider the legislation and debate it in the House. How can one drop on this House, as happened last week, some of the biggest legislation that I have seen in my short time here—

Chris Tremain: And the most complex.

ALLAN PEACHEY: —and certainly, as my colleague Mr Tremain says, the most complex—then throw in 785 amendments and expect New Zealand to take this House seriously, as we rush it through? This legislation is being rushed through because that Government’s coalition partner, New Zealand First, part of the Clark-Peters cabal that has run this country for 9 years, wants to get it through. We did not receive any explanation in the Committee stage, and I have heard nothing in this third reading debate, as to why the New Zealand First Party is so keen to help that crowd to get this badly structured legislation through the House before it rises.

When the country goes to the general election in, I suspect, fewer than 2 months’ time, the electorate will make a judgment. But there is still time for this House to step back and acknowledge the validity of what this side is saying, which is that the legislation is rushed, that it is far too complex to be given such a short time for consideration, and that it is full of 785 amendments. There is still time for this House to vote this legislation down, which would give us time later on to introduce considered and constructive legislation that will not rip the heart out of the New Zealand agricultural sector and therefore our economic system.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): For the benefit of members of the public who do not know this, I say the member who has just resumed his seat is called Allan Peachey. He is a National member of Parliament from somewhere, who thinks we are rushing through this legislation. He should know that this legislation is a result of a discussion document, a result of hundreds of public meetings up and down New Zealand, and a result of a select committee process where 259 written submissions were made and 161 oral submissions were heard, and where there were over 58 hours of hearing time. There was a landowners’ forum, there was a Māori leaders’ group, and there were four technical advisory groups all inputting into this legislation. That was a do-nothing speech from a do-nothing member of Parliament.

I am very proud to be supporting the passage of this legislation, and I wish to acknowledge the leadership of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen in steering it through the parliamentary process. I particularly acknowledge the leadership of the Minister responsible for the legislation, David Parker. I also acknowledge the integrity and hard work demonstrated by the other parties in their discussions about their support for and commitment to this legislation. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges that we face. It is important that New Zealand continues to play a leadership role and shoulders our share of the responsibility for it. This legislation completes that process.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): [Interruption] I am sorry, there have been 12 speeches and National has had six of them.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Bills read a third time.

Bills

Public Transport Management Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 9 September.

Part 2 Regulation of public transport

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 13 to omit subclause (1)(h) is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 14A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): An amendment to clause 15 has been ruled out of order as being subject to a financial veto. That was an amendment by the Hon Maurice Williamson.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 15A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 16 be agreed to:

to add to paragraph (a) the following subparagraph:

(ix) the purpose in section 3;.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 16 be agreed to:

to omit subparagraph (a)(viii).

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 16 be agreed to:

to add the following subclause:

(2) Nothing in this section limits section 12(1).

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 17 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (3) “the” and substitute “an”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 17 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (3) after “commercial public transport service”, “or from a prospective operator of a commercial public transport service under subsection (1)(d) or (2)(g)”.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 18, to omit and substitute subclause (2), is ruled out of order, as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 18 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (6)(a) after “consultation”, “under section 16(2)”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 18 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 18A be agreed to:

to omit subclauses (3) and (4).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 18A be agreed to:

to omit subclauses (7) and (8) and substitute the following subclause:

(7) If the Agency discloses information it receives under subsection (1) to those persons specified in subsection 4(a) it must require those persons (in a written, enforceable form):

to keep any information they receive confidential; and

not to disclose the information to any other party other than the Agency.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 19 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) before “The following written”, “Subject to section 12(1)”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 19 be agreed to:

to add the following subclause:

(4) A control may incorporate material by reference only if referencing to or incorporating, in whole or in part, with or without modification, a standard, requirement or rule (related to the subject matter of the control) of—

(a) Standards New Zealand; or

(b) a comparable organisation in a jurisdiction other than New Zealand.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 20 be agreed to:

to add after “effect”, “and if the amendment or replacement material is of the same general character as the material amended or replaced”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 23 be agreed to:

to add to subclause (1) the following paragraphs:

(c) allow a reasonable opportunity for persons to comment on the proposal to incorporate the proposed material by reference; and

(d) consider any comments those persons make.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 25 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (2)(aa).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 25 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (2) the following paragraph:

(da) passenger capacity of the public transport service; and.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 28 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (1)(aa).

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 28 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) the following paragraph:

(da) proposed passenger capacity; and.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 29 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraphs:

(aa) that has the clear demonstrable purpose of disrupting the contracting of public transport services; or

(ab) that will have a substantial material adverse effect on the sustainability of the funding of contracted public transport services; or.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 29 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 30 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1)(b) after “person or by”, “a”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 32 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (1)(aa).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 32 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) the following paragraph:

(da) the passenger capacity;.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 33 be agreed to:

to omit subclause (1)(b) and substitute the following paragraphs:

(aa) that has the clear demonstrable purpose of disrupting the contracting of public transport services; or

(ab) that will have a substantial material adverse effect on the sustainability of the funding of contracted public transport services; or.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 33 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1)(d)(iii) “resolves to tender” and substitute “calls for tenders for”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 33 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 34 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1)(b) after “person or by”, “a”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) after “council”, “reasonably”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1)(b) before “conduct”, “after giving reasonable notice to the operator;”.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1)(c) before “inspect”, “after giving reasonable notice to the operator;”.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1)(d) before “inspect”, “after giving reasonable notice to the operator;”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (4) after “he or she is”, “reasonably”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to:

to insert the following subclause:

(4A) An authorised person must not, in carrying out monitoring under subsection (1) or exercising the power in subsection (4), disrupt the operation of the commercial public transport service.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (5)(a) after “mode of transport”, “where required”.

A party vote was called for on the question, The amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 35B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (5)(a) after “he or she is”, “reasonably”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to suggest or move a motion that we take the principal clauses as one vote, rather than do all these little subclauses. New Zealand First is totally supportive of the Hon Maurice Williamson’s amendments, but I think it is quite obvious that the voting has been lost now. If suddenly everybody changed their mind and voted for the amendments, it would be a mishmash bill. All these subparagraphs and subclauses interrelate, so I would like to suggest or move a motion that we take the clauses as one vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, if you could proceed by seeking leave for that.

PETER BROWN: I seek leave to do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection. Thank you, Mr Brown.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 36 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1)(b)(i) “90” and substitute “180”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 36 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1)(b)(ii) “90” and substitute “180”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 36 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2)(a) “90” and substitute “180”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 36 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2)(b) “90” and substitute “180”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) after “failed”, “to a material extent”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (2)(a)(i) after “transport service”, “materially;”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (4)(a)(i) after “comply”, “materially”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (5) after “comply”, “materially”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (6)(a)(i) after “failing to comply”, “materially”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 38A be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (7) after “in person or by”, “a”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendment to clause 38A(9) in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson is ruled out of order as it is the same in substance as a previous amendment.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 39A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40A be agreed to:

to add the following subclauses:

(2) An operator of an existing service may appeal against any decision of a regional council under section 13 to require that operator to provide information to the regional council on the grounds that the regional council has not complied with section 13 in requiring that information.

(3) Nothing in this section affects the operator’s right to apply, in accordance with the law, for judicial review of the validity of a control.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 44AA be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 40B(1) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) after “a control”, “or a decision under section 13”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) “15” and substitute “20”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) after “section 11(1)(b)”, “or the decision under section 13”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new subclause (1A) in clause 40B be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 40B(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new subclause (2A) in clause 40B be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (3) the following paragraph:

(aa) order compensation to be paid to the operator in respect of application of the control to the operator;.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 40B(3)(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (3)(b) after “the control”, “in the case of an appeal under section 40A(1)”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 40B(3)(c) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland, Field.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to omit “material” and substitute “potential” in clause 40B(3)(c) is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B be agreed to:

to add to subclause (3) the following paragraph:

(d) Overturn or modify the regional council’s decision, or require the regional council to reconsider that decision subject to directions of the Court, in the case of an appeal section 39A(2).

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 40B(4) is ruled out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 40B(5) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to:

to omit from the heading “to continue in force” and substitute “suspended”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to:

to add to subclause (1) after “section”, “40A;”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) “continues in force” and substitute “is suspended”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) “and no person is excused from complying with a provision of this Act on the grounds that an appeal is pending”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) “may suspend” and substitute “or, as the case may be, the Environment Court, determine that”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (2) after “decision”, “continues in force”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 43 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) “not” and substitute “otherwise”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 44 be agreed to:

to omit from the heading “on questions of law”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 44 be agreed to:

to insert the following subclause:

(1A) Despite section 299 of the Resource Management Act, only an operator of a service who lodged an appeal under section 40A or the regional council whose decision was subject to the appeal under section 40A, who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Environment Court on any ground may appeal to the High Court.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to subclause (2) of clause 44 is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 45 be agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) after “parties”, “eligible”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 45 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) “an”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to 47 be agreed to:

to insert in paragraph (b) before “varies”, “materially”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 51 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1) “financial records relating to revenue or expenditure;”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 52 be agreed to:

to insert in the chapeau after “regulations”, “for any matters that are contemplated by, or necessary for giving full effect to, the provisions of this Act or for its due administration”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The amendments in the name of Peter Brown to clause 52 to insert words and omit paragraphs (a) to (d) are ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 52 to omit paragraphs (a) to (d) is also out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to clause 54 be agreed to:

to insert the following subclause:

(3A) If a contract between a regional council and an operator entered into before the commencement of this Act provides for the re-registration by the regional council of commercial public transport services operated by that operator immediately before the contract was entered into, and those services, or equivalent or replacement services, are or were provided by the operator under the contract, the regional council will re-register those commercial public services in accordance with that contract, despite this Act coming into force.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Independent: Copeland.

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 248 in the name of the Hon Annette King to schedule 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

PANSY WONG (National): That long voting process was very necessary. The reason is that this bill is an outrage. The Public Transport Management Bill has turned into the “Public Deception Bill”. That long voting process was necessary to show that National would never let the deceptive Labour-led Government get away with it.

Before this bill was introduced into the House it was subject to extensive consultation. Three options were put up for consultation: option A was the status quo, option B was to give public authorities like the regional councils more control over public transport planning and regulation, and option C was to empower the regional councils to prohibit commercial services. The explanatory note of the bill that was tabled in the House—the bill that had been agreed to by the Labour Government—had this to say about option C: “Prohibiting all commercial services in a region will reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses, thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.” When the bill was introduced into Parliament, submitters taking part in the public consultation process had the undertaking of the Labour Government that option C would not be introduced.

Well, we now know that that promise of Labour was as good as the promises made by Labour and New Zealand First to Mr Owen Glenn in return for his generosity towards those two parties. He gave half a million dollars to Labour and $100,000 to the Spencer Trust. And what did he get? As Mr Owen Glenn said, he is expendable. That is how Labour is treating passengers in this legislation.

That was the first deception. When the bill was introduced into Parliament, the submitters were promised that option C would not be adopted. So the submitters who came before our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee made detailed submissions for or against option B. They had done a lot of research, and they had gone to great lengths to make a submission for or against option B. The only submitters who were—and probably still are—in favour of option C were, without doubt, the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Of course those organisations would support option C; which public authority would not support being given the total power that option C gives them? They have full control. They can remove bus operators that, through the years, have developed routes into being commercially viable. Option C enables those authorities to remove their right to operate. That was the first deception: the explanatory note of the bill stated that option C would not be introduced.

Towards the end of the select committee process, the chairperson, the Hon Mark Gosche, told the select committee that it would be a good idea for the select committee to amend the bill to include option C. That came as a total surprise to the National members on the select committee, because option C had not seemed remotely possible; the submissions we heard were debating option B. We asked the officials whether it would be possible to amend the bill to introduce option C. They were under huge stress, and they explained to the select committee that, given the time line, it was not possible to amend the bill to introduce option C. At that point, the Hon Mark Gosche informed the select committee that it would not be a problem, and that it would not be out of scope, because the Minister of Transport had agreed to it. I presume that was the same Minister of Transport, the Hon Annette King, who took the result of the first public consultation to Cabinet, which decided on option B. So that was interesting. Because she could not convince Cabinet to adopt option C, she was introducing it through a back-door measure, through having the select committee adopt option C. Well, even New Zealand First members can come to their senses once or twice in a term; they decided against it.

What happened instead? When the bill was being debated by the full Committee of Parliament, the Green Party introduced an amendment to introduce option C. Talk about the tail wagging the dog! Apparently, that was not the first time that happened. Mr Owen Glenn also said that he thought Mr Peters was using his power over Labour. His personal opinion was that “Mr Peters is well aware of his position in terms of leverage with the Labour Party and I think this has probably gone to his head and he feels he can get away with almost anything.” I think the same thing applies in this case. The Green Party understands its power, so it brought in an amendment to change the legislation, which we had understood favoured option B over option C.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

(continued on Thursday, 11 September 2008)

Bills

Public Transport Management Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

PANSY WONG (National): Last night we had started to debate the title, which is the Public Transport Management Bill. I suggest that a more appropriate title would be the “Public Deception Bill”. The reason for that is very clear. When the introductory version of this bill was brought back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee after a round of consultation, the great majority of the submitters had opted for a tightening of control on public transport and for giving authorities more say in terms of obtaining information from commercial operators, etc. Even the Government stated in the foreword of the bill that it supported that move, instead of going towards the extreme option C, which is that a regional council or authority can remove commercial operators from bus services that do not require a ratepayer or taxpayer subsidy. It was very clear in the introduction to the legislation that adopting that option would undermine business confidence, so we thought it was good that Cabinet had signed off the bill in the form it had when it was introduced to the House and referred to the select committee.

But here we go in the Committee stage, away from the submitters, and the Labour Government is actually backing Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Greens to reintroduce option C, which has been rejected by Cabinet and the majority of the submitters. That is incredible. Not only has the Government reintroduced an option that should not be there but also it is trying to rush this bill through under urgency. This legislation could be used to confiscate private property rights. Many bus operators who came before the select committee argued and demonstrated that they have worked long and hard to build up their businesses, but under this last-minute change, the legislation will give regional councils and some public transport planners a free hand to organise and dictate how things should be going.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I will carry on from the very good speech my colleague Pansy Wong made. I guess first of all, for the benefit of the adoring listeners out there who tune in on a regular basis to hear my wonderful oratory, my almost Barack Obama - like oratory on this matter, I think it is clear that we should—[Interruption] We will not go into pigs and lipstick; we will just stay well clear of all of that. That can best be left for another day. What I will run past the adoring listeners and the public out there is just simply what this bill is about and what its title should be. I think that the public who have been listening—and thousands of them were listening last night to this debate—have been confused about what option A, option B, and option C, or what option B+ are. Really, it is simply this. In any one particular jurisdiction—let us take Auckland, for example—there are public transport operators. They may be ferry or rail operations, but in most cases we are talking about bus operations. On some routes on some days and at certain times there are enough patrons of those services for the companies to be able to operate them as straight commercial businesses. They can go out and buy their buses, they can pay for them, they can mark them up in whatever colours they like, they can publish fares and a timetable, and so on, and they can go about their business, just as one would if one was starting a taxi company, a courier company, or whatever. Then there are other services in that same city, on other days, at other times, or on other routes, that simply do not have enough people using them to make any commercial operation viable. But it is clear that those services should be provided in order to try to keep a public transport network going.

The first of those services are called commercial services. They can be run by anybody in the private sector and those operators can make a really good return on their investment—and they do. The others are called contracted services, where the regional council has put in some of its own money and a very big chunk of the Government money coming from the National Land Transport Fund to go out and buy a subsidy. The Government decided that there was too much, I think, funny business going on from some of the bus companies and so on, which were getting too much power in the negotiations and were playing some silly bugger games, and it decided that it was time to give the regional councils a better balance about how they could negotiate those services. The Government, quite properly, set about consulting and negotiating with the various people in the industry. It negotiated with the Bus and Coach Association, which is the representative body of the bus and coach industry, and with a number of other players. Those players all reported to me at the time that they thought the talks had gone well, the consultation had gone well, and that everybody had come to an agreed position called option B.

Option B was the halfway house. It is the old George Gair line: if one is given two solutions, one always goes for the one in the middle. So option B” was that one in the middle that would be a compromise by all parties. Everyone could live with it. The bus companies were a bit upset, as they thought that it went too far, and I think that the Government thought that it had about the right balance, and everyone said that they could live with it. If we look at the Cabinet paper from February 2007, we see that it lays out a whole series of decisions that one could easily map with one-to-one mapping, using isomorphic mapping on a one-to-one basis, to show what option B was. It was a great Cabinet minute, and when the industry saw that Cabinet minute come out, it was pleased.

In the introductory copy of the bill when it was finally introduced to Parliament, the Minister’s own foreword stated that the Government had looked at option C, but it had ruled it out as being unworkable. It is not the National Party’s view; this is what the Minister stated in the foreword and in the records of this Parliament. And we agreed. But what the bus and coach people were then quite concerned about was the legislation that they had before them did not do quite a one-to-one mapping of option B. It was sort of an option B on steroids. It had a bit more added in a few little places, which made quite a difference. So during the course of the select committee hearing, we went through, I think, a process of trying to bring that legislation back and getting it to line up.

The title of the bill, the Public Transport Management Bill, should now, quite rightly, I think, be the “Public Deception Management Bill”. Those people were told: “This is what you will get.” The Minister’s foreword to the bill said that the Government rejects option C. Then, out of the blue, something really, really interesting happened. We found that New Zealand Bus Ltd had got a very, very highly qualified lawyer in the form of Professor Taggart. We found that Professor Taggart had gone to the Regulations Review Committee and raised some quite serious concerns. The Legislative Advisory Committee, which is headed by Geoffrey Palmer, had raised those same concerns about Parliament and its delegation of powers down to a body underneath the level of Parliament. What we did not know at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as we considered this bill, was that the Regulations Review Committee, when it heard that advice, had some serious concerns about it, so much so that that multiparty committee decided to write to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and point out the areas of the bill it had some serious concerns about and wanted addressed. As I have said during the debate on earlier parts of this bill, if that advice had simply been “tick the box” stuff, “remove clause C, add clause D, take out clause E”, then I guess we would not have needed to have any consideration of it because it would have been a case of following the dots and doing it. But part of the advice was that the committee should give consideration to how it would best manage it. It was a very wide and open brief to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about what its members should do to tidy up the legislation. I repeat that. It was not “tick the box, follow the dots” stuff. It was a more wide-ranging brief that needed some consideration.

It turned out—it was somebody’s fault; I do know whose fault it was, and I do not think we will ever know—that that letter from the Regulations Review Committee never got to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. So while we did the whole consideration and deliberation process on the bill we were blissfully unaware of that issue. Only after the committee had completed its consideration and then its deliberation, and reported the bill back to this House, did it become clear that something was wrong. So the National Party did, I think, what is the only logical thing that should have happened to this bill—and a lot of anger has been created because it did not happen—and that was say that the bill should come back to the committee. It was not the Minister’s fault or the Government’s fault. Somebody in the bureaucracy had screwed up. The committee should have been given a chance to take account of that advice, incorporate it into the bill, and bring the bill back to the House. I know that Labour members then got into a tailspin because they were running out of time and did not know how many more parliamentary days they had. I said I would give them a watertight commitment. I want the Minister to ask the chairperson of that committee, if she wants to, whether we have ever reneged on any commitment we have ever given. We have stuck to our word—watertight. We said: “Bring that bill back for 1 day—

Hon Annette King: You were given a week’s notice.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No. We were not given any. The Minister says we were given a week’s notice, but we were given no notice at all. We said: “Bring that bill back for 1 day to the committee, and we will work to get whatever the Regulations Review Committee wants done to it, and then we will report it back.” But, oh no, Labour members voted that down. They said: “No way.” So there is democracy—gone. So this could be a breach of any democratic process. The title of the bill could be the “Breach of Democracy Bill”. Then the Government members said it did not matter because they had fixed it up.

Hon Mark Gosche: That cheque from Infratil must be a big one.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The Government said it did not matter because it had fixed it up. That is what Mark Gosche says. So when a select committee, which is supposed to consider and scrutinise a bill carefully, supposed to scrutinise it carefully, and supposed to look at all the advice—including advice it had not yet received from another committee—and then make decisions about what it incorporates and what it does not, Mark Gosche says: “Don’t worry about that. We’ve got this under control. We’ll do it unilaterally, and by the way, we’ve done a cosy little deal with the Greens in return for a whole lot of other things that are going on around this place at present, in terms of support.” And the Government members will wheel back, under the guise of some Supplementary Order Papers in the name of the Greens, option C.

How can we stay with the title Public Transport Management Bill? My colleague Pansy Wong is desperately right. This bill should be called the “Public Deception Management Bill”. Labour said in the introduction speech, in the explanatory note of the first bill, that it rejects option C because it is unworkable. That is what Labour said. Only because there was one submission from the Auckland Regional Transport Authority that was absolutely adamant, under the chairmanship of the Auckland Regional Council’s Mike Lee, who would love to own the bus company again, did the Labour Government decide that.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I rise to support my most excellent colleague Maurice Williamson and I totally agree that the bill should be called the “Public Deception Transport Bill”. It is being rushed through under urgency, which is extraordinary, but we need look only at the purpose of the bill to understand why. The purpose of this bill epitomises the way in which this Government likes to operate, and that is about absolute power and control that is tantamount to a dictatorship. That is what the purpose espouses by conferring on regional councils powers to set standards for commercial and public transport, to provide for regulation and registration, and to help regional councils and the agency obtain the best value for money in achieving affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, etc., public transport. But, essentially, it screws the scrum.

This is not an equal situation where people sit down and negotiate the best outcome. This is a contract situation where the regional council can virtually dictate what it expects, and then it is up to a transport provider as to whether it wants to enter into that agreement with the regional council. Why would it? We will not get people stepping up to the plate and wanting to support regional councils if they are going to try to take advantage of this legislation to have a much more powerful position in the contract negotiations. That is what this bill is all about. This is the sort of legislation that epitomises this current Government. It does not do its homework, and that has been quite clearly espoused by Maurice Williamson. He has shown quite clearly that the Government has failed to do the proper work and the proper analysis to get the best outcomes for all those involved, and particularly for the people who are trying to be best served by a public transport system.

The Government continues to fail the people of New Zealand, and further, poor legislation like this is just a constant glaring example of the Government’s failure to do its legislation correctly. We have only to look at the bill to see all of the changes that have been made, and then we can look at the two Supplementary Order Papers, which are quite substantial as well. That completely underscores what Maurice Williamson has been saying. The Government has not been doing its homework. It should have gone back and taken the opportunity to address the bill, particularly when it did get a letter sent to it from the Regulations Review Committee. The Government had the opportunity to go back and address the bill, in light of that letter coming to the fore, but it did not take that opportunity. There can be no more glaring example of the Government’s failure to uphold the democratic principles that we want to see espoused in this Parliament.

This happens time and time again in legislation. There is poor problem definition, which means that the Government does not come up with the correct solutions to deal with those problems and we get convoluted legislation, which the Government just does not understand the ramifications of. Another glaring example, I have to say, is the Electoral Finance Act and that has been declared unworkable.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Come back to the bill, please.

SANDRA GOUDIE: I am giving an example of yet more legislation that is just a constant mess. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and explain why the democratic principle of making sure that all those matters pertaining to the bill was not dealt with. I am talking about the Regulations Review Committee’s letter to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and perhaps Dr Michael Cullen might like to explain to the Committee why the step was not taken to readdress that matter through the select committee, as espoused by Maurice Williamson. I think it is incumbent on the Minister to get up and explain her Government’s position in regard to not going back and doing the job properly. I think that would be eminently responsible. But, no, we will not see that. We will not see why option B was not dealt with appropriately, and once again that has all been explained very well by Maurice Williamson.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is an interesting day when we are discussing legislation in regard to public transport. If we look at the history of this legislation and at some of the other issues that are going through the Parliament at this time, we see they have a very similar background of corporate involvement in decision making beyond what we would expect the parliamentary process to engage in.

In this case, we had an agreement between the major parties involved in the issue. The public transport providers—in essence, the bus companies—the major regional provider, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, and other regions were involved. The Government of the day had made a purely commercial decision, as one would expect, in the sense that it was agreeable to all the parties involved. That decision was never followed through, even though it got Cabinet approval. The Minister may like to deny that and say it was subject to some kind of formality, through the consultation of the parliamentary process, but that is not the reality. The parties involved understood that they had a commercial decision, and that was the expectation of everyone involved. Then, when it comes to the reality of passing the legislation through this House, the Government has changed its mind and goes against that commercial decision and does what it thinks is expedient, to satisfy its supporters.

That is very much the theory of what we are seeing in the Winston Peters saga, as well. It just shows the whole nature of this Government, that it cannot be trusted on its word. It will go against the people it has made agreements with in the past, it will do what it feels is right at one particular time to achieve political advantage, and it has no concept of what the public wants. It is not governing in the interests of what is best for New Zealand. The parallels between this bill and what we are seeing in the Winston Peters saga are very similar.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Please come back to the bill.

DAVID BENNETT: This bill is a very convenient example of the way this Parliament is being used by the Government to keep up its profile, in legislation that is not appropriate. Let us look at what Parliament should be discussing; it should be looking for a solution that is in the best interests of public transport users. A solution was provided, and agreed upon. Why will the Government of the day not continue to uphold an agreement that was made in good faith by parties sitting around a table and negotiating in the best interests of public transport users? Public transport is an issue that we have to deal with, and there needs to be some solutions. Auckland is the prime example of where we need public transport solutions. The parties involved need to include the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, to the effect that it does transport issues in Auckland. We need to include the bus companies, which have a big role to play in the Auckland public transport network. We also need to include the Government, because the Government of the day has an important role in providing the solutions.

But we cannot allow the Government of the day to use legislation just to pay back its mates. We cannot allow the Government to use legislation in a way that does not achieve the purposes of public transport, and this is what we are seeing from this Government today in this Chamber. Why does the Government need to do this legislation under urgency, in the last weeks of a dying regime? That is the question the public will be asking. The public will want to know why this Government would not stick to its word, and why it had to move away and do what it felt was expedient just to satisfy its supporters at the last moment, before going into an election campaign. That, I think, is what members of the National Party were so aggrieved about in the select committee process. We went into it in good faith. We went in there looking for a solution that would solve public transport problems and help public transport users in Auckland, and we looked for an objective solution that would be appropriate. We were encouraged to find that the parties had actually come to an agreement at some point in time and that Cabinet had actually supported and approved it. There was no approval subject to any political process. The Minister in charge of the bill, Annette King, is just making that up at this stage to try to get away with the fact that the Government changed its mind.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I will complete my comments with regard to how the Public Transport Management Bill actually got to where it is at. As this bill came back to the House and we then began the Committee stage, the whole breach of process along the way has become clear.

The Government puts great store on consulting. It had consulted widely and had got to an agreed position, but the bill that is currently in the Committee is not anything like that.

Hon Annette King: Quite wrong.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The Government put it through Cabinet, and the Cabinet minute shows the position that was agreed to. So when Annette King says “Quite wrong.”, she should tell us why Cabinet made the agreements that it made. They were things that people could live with and that National would have voted for. There we are: National would have voted for the Labour Cabinet’s decisions. I make it clear in the Committee now that National would have voted for the Labour Cabinet’s decisions.

Then it gets worse. We ended up with the bill going through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, where one submitter, the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, was furious in wanting option C. We did not get that through. The Labour members did not have enough of a majority for that, and Peter Brown, I think quite sensibly, would not support option C, so the Labour members did not get it. But, in terms of the title, before National hammers it home that we think this is the “Public Deception Bill”, I ask the Minister this: who wrote these words? Who wrote these words in the explanatory note of the bill for its introduction: “Prohibiting all commercial services in a region would reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses, thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.”? I can only assume the Minister wrote that. It is her bill. It is in her name, and I can only assume that the Minister—because of the way that legislation goes—put that out.

We can imagine how aggrieved the industry feels when it was consulted and was told that no, the Government was going to go with option B. The industry saw the Cabinet green come out in February 2007, and it was in favour of option B—a one-to-one mapping of all of the issues in exactly the way the industry thought they should be addressed. When they saw the bill they found it had gone way beyond option B to “Option B on steroids”. They try to get that reined back. My amendments were, as best I can tell—and if the Minister had ever wanted to, she could have pointed out why this was not the case—my best attempt to try to bring the bill back to being a one-to-one alignment between, a one-to-one isomorphic mapping of, option B, as agreed to by Cabinet, and what the bill should have said. Labour voted down every one of those amendments, so it clearly will not do what it had committed to the industry it would do, and it will not deliver what the Bus and Coach Association (New Zealand) Inc. had thought it was going to get. Then it turns out that a grubby little deal had been done whereby the Greens put up Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons, which was probably written out of the Minister’s office or with officials’ help to get it to where it is at, and which brings back option C—absolutely in full force it brings back option C.

If this is not the “Public Deception Bill”—and if that is not the title the bill should have—then I do not know what is. How can people have any confidence in the Government after consulting it, getting to an agreed position, seeing a Cabinet minute come out, being told: “This is where we’re going.”, and saying: “OK. Well, we can live with that.”, only to find out they are to get their throats cut by a deliberate deceptive process? It was a process whereby even one of the select committees of this Parliament, after writing advice about something, did not have that advice incorporated in the consideration of and deliberation on the bill by the relevant subject select committee. If that does not qualify the bill for being called the “Public Deception Bill of the Year”, then I do not know what will. In fact, it will go to the awards show next year as the greatest example of public deception.

So I agree with my colleague Pansy Wong that the title Public Transport Management Bill is wrong, and I say that people out there in the public transport sector will be very worried if this Government ever consults them again in the future. What was the point of doing that? What was the point of the consultation? If the Labour Government had wanted to do what Mike Lee and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority people wanted, why did it not just go ahead and do that to start with? Why did the Government not actually cut out the middleman and the select committee—well, it actually did that in the end, because we did not even deliberate on or consider the stuff from the Regulations Review Committee—and just bring in option C, bang it through under urgency on one day, which is what we are doing to the bill now, and say: “There you are. Forget democracy.”? At least that would have been an honest way of doing it.

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 70

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 248 in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to omit and substitute words in clause 2 is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee of the whole House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading forthwith.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have the Order Paper from Wednesday, 10 September. If there is a new Order Paper out, I would like to see a copy of it. I have not seen it—it has not been made available to us—but there may be one. On the Order Paper I have, after the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill, there is the Public Transport Management Bill, Committee stage only, and then the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I do not know how members are supposed to function in a House with an Order Paper that is supposed to tell us what the order of legislation is but does not. The third reading of the Public Transport Management Bill is not listed on this Order Paper, nor has there been an Order Paper printed for us to see a change. I would really like to know how that process works.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I realise the member is a relatively new member, but the motion moved last night was for urgency to include the remaining stages of this bill. It is a motion that has been moved in that form in this Parliament, I think one could say, since time immemorial, and it enables the House to move from the Committee stage to the third reading. That is the effect of urgency, apart from extended sitting times.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Did you publish the urgency motion?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for raising that, Mr Williamson. That has been covered.

Third Reading

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Public Transport Management Bill be now read a third time. This bill enables regional councils to require improvements to New Zealand’s public transport system. Regional councils will be empowered to impose greater controls over commercial non-contracted public transport services. The bill also provides a mechanism enabling regional councils to require that some or all public transport services be provided under contract.

This bill does not tell regional councils how to run their transport systems; it simply gives them the tools to run them as effectively as possible. Regional councils will be able to set longer notice periods for commercial public transport providers in commencing, varying, and withdrawing services. This will allow providers more time to respond to changes and ensure the continued delivery of services to communities.

Regional councils will have greater access to information such as detailed patronage statistics. This will enable more effective planning of public transport, and the development of regional public transport plans. Where this information is commercially sensitive, strict requirements will be in place to govern its release. The bill will also give regional councils greater monitoring powers to ensure that commercial services are meeting controls. Regional councils will be able to set quality and performance standards, enable the integration of services, ticketing, and fares, and, where justified, require the bundling of services. To ensure that any controls set by regional councils are justified, the bill also includes an oversight mechanism to allow existing commercial public transport operators the right to appeal to the Environment Court. The role and process for the development of regional public transport plans has been improved and clarified. The New Zealand Transport Agency will be producing guidelines to assist regional councils with the new requirements for regional public transport plans. The bill defines the transport disadvantaged, outlines clearly accessibility standards that may benefit them, and recognises that accessibility issues go beyond simply the ability to get on to a bus or ferry.

Finally, the bill enables regional councils to require that some or all public transport services must be provided as contracted services. Councils will be able to discontinue commercial services and operate what will be known as a contracting regime. It will be up to each region to decide whether it adopts a contracting regime, and already in New Zealand we have a range of contracting options carried out by local authorities. For example, in the Tauranga area, where Peter Brown lives, there is a fully contracted model, which allows those regional councils to use whichever tool they would find best for their region, after putting in place a plan and consulting to get the best possible deal for passengers.

I have to say that missing in this debate from the National Party was any mention of passengers. The whole debate from that party was about bus operators, and I think that that shows the difference between the members and parties who support this bill, and those who oppose it. This debate is about getting the best deal we can, with ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money, for the passengers we want to see travelling on public transport. But what we heard from the National Party was a whole series of ideas—about the development of the bill, deals made, and a whole range of other fanciful things out of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—cobbled together as National’s approach to this bill. There was almost more voting on mindless, meaningless amendments from Maurice Williamson than there was debate on the bill. The public of New Zealand sat through hours of mindless voting in this Parliament—to make two or three changes to the title of something—in an effort to delay a bill that will advantage passengers.

I say four-squarely—and I place it on the Table today—that we stand for the passengers of the public transport service. I know that operators will be getting a good deal from this Government, because in the whole time that Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport, he spent the grand total of no more than $40 million a year on public transport.

Hon Mark Gosche: Five years.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Over the 5 years, or whatever it was, that he was the Minister of Transport, he could not get himself out of the groove of putting money into roads and ignoring passenger transport.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Say something nice!

Hon ANNETTE KING: I will say something nice about Maurice Williamson—I certainly will. I think that he speaks the truth about the National Party’s transport policy, and when he tried to, he was hushed up. He was taken out of the job and Bill English took it over for a couple of weeks until the party could trust Maurice again.

I say in conclusion that this bill will have a significant effect on operators who have existing commercial services discontinued. Regional councils are required to consider a number of factors when adopting a contracting regime. A lot of safeguards are built into this legislation, but the bottom line is that it will be good for the travelling public of New Zealand who want to use public transport services.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): Let me start from the very outset by assuring the Minister that the National Party does care about passengers and about a public transport system that works. That is why we made the offer, we continued to make the offer, and we would still be making the offer today, if it were an option on the Table, to vote for what the Government had originally decided to do. That is why. If we were opposed to it, if we did not care about passengers, or if we did not think anything needed to be done, then we would not have been prepared even to support the option B that was canvassed, consulted on, and agreed to in the Cabinet minute of February 2007.

Let us make that clear to the Minister straight away: National thinks that some improvements to the public transport regime were needed. We think that the consultation was a meaningful process, we think that the original decisions the Cabinet of this Government came to were the right ones, and we tried as hard as we could through the process not to make “mindless” and “meaningless” amendments to the legislation.

The Minister never once took up my challenge—never once took up my challenge—during the Committee stage to show where any one of the amendments I had proposed was not in line with the originally agreed option B. If the amendments had not been in line with that option, and if they had been just frivolous or vexatious, then the Minister could have said that National was just time-wasting. But every one of those amendments was intended to try to bring this bill back into line. However, we were attacked and accused. I think the Minister said that we did not care about integrated fares and integrated ticketing. Well, my typewritten amendments are quite clear. There is a whole range of amendments about how important integrated fares and integrated ticketing are, and because they were to be a complete mirror-mapping of option B, they would have allowed for that process to occur.

Actually, I am interested to know why the Minister thinks we need legislation; integrated fares and integrated ticketing are happening around the country already in some jurisdictions. If we go to Christchurch, we see that a phenomenal operating system is going on down there already. But I think that says more about the local authorities in Christchurch, and their bus companies and their cooperative spirit, than it does about those in Auckland, which do not seem even to agree on which side of the road buses should drive on. I have seen them drive on both the left and the right. So for that reason I do agree that legislation was required.

When the bill first reached the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I sat down and had a quick read of it. I read the explanatory note. I was delighted to read in the explanatory note after the bill’s introduction to find that the Minister had completely ruled out option C. She stated in the explanatory note: “For this reason the Government rejects it.”, and I thought that that was good because it went too far. Option C will give unbelievably unfettered powers to the contracting authority, on an almost “take it or leave it” basis—“Do what we say or you do not get.”

I say that in any contract negotiation he who pays the piper calls the tune. When it comes to contract negotiations, the regional council will have the money, so it will be able to be very forceful in terms of what it lays out as its specification for its contract. When it does a request for a proposal for contracting for services, it will be able to be very specific about what it is seeking. The bus companies will have to say either that it is too tough or that they do not think it is fair, but in the end if they want the council’s money—because that is how the contract works—they will have to comply with what it is putting out in a contract. I think that is an absolutely fair basis for it, and that is what option B would have been.

But now the regional council will have the power to drag all the commercial services in here as well, and maybe even take away an property right that a private sector operator may have built up over decades.

Hon Mark Gosche: Only one decade—this one.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Well, Howick and Eastern Buses is a company in my electorate that was started by the Dalbeth family. They built up a phenomenally good and well-patronised local bus company. It is just not fair to say to those people: “Yes, you have spent years putting your sweat and toil into building a bus company, but we will now not only come in with a contract but also we feel we have absolutely every right to demand what you want.”

Again, if a person was contracting for someone to build his or her house, that person would lay out the specifications, tell the architect and the builder what he or she wanted, and negotiate what that price would be. But that person would not have the right to say: “Well, I will also have a say over somebody else’s house down the road and tell that person what colour it will be and how big the bathroom will be.” One would not have the right to do that, but option C will give regional councils that total power to come in across the top of the contracted services, quite properly, and to bring in the commercial operators, which is not quite proper, and say: “Take it or leave it. We do not care how much sweat and toil you have put in and how much property right you have built up in your business. We will do it.”

If I am wrong, then the Government would not have gone with option B at Cabinet, it would not have gone with option B-plus when the legislation was brought in, and it would not have put in an explanatory note stating: “For these reasons we reject ‘Option C’.” So when the next Labour speaker gets up and says that Maurice Williamson is wrong, I want the listening audience—which, I have been informed, is quite small; in fact, it could be named, so I will say to John, Peter, and Mary, the three of them who are listening—

Hon Annette King: Peter, Paul, and Mary.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I think Peter, Paul, and Mary are the three people listening out there. I say to those three listeners that if the Government was serious about what it was saying at the beginning, then the legislation would have reflected the consultation and reflected the agreed position. In that case, we would have been debating this third reading 2 or 3 days ago, because National would have given this bill its full support and we would not have taken as much time as we have done. We would have agreed to put option B through in the legislation, and everybody could have lived with it. The regional councils would have had some real power, but they would not have had absolute power, and they would not have been able to abuse the power that would allow them to be in a position where they could say “take it or leave it.”

This is driven by an ideology. The chairman of the Auckland Regional Council, Mike Lee, is clearly of a mind that it would be far better if the regional council actually owned the buses again. He is from the left, he openly admits to being from the left, and that is where he comes from. He thinks that Auckland would have a way better bus service if the regional council could own the buses again.

I did a survey in this House, and I need to report it to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, because I am not sure that you were present. It was a very, very good survey. I asked the House—a number of members were present on that night, including the Greens; I think Metiria Turei was here to witness it—how many people thought that Auckland had a good bus service when the Auckland Regional Transport Authority owned and operated it.

Hon Mark Gosche: Lots of people.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Mark Gosche has just changed the vote. We had nobody saying that the other night, but now I think he has said that lots of people did. This is excellent! When the Auckland Regional Transport Authority owned it, it was the most despicable, dreadful operation going. That is what there was, and Mike Lee would love to go back. He was unable to convince the Government this time, although now that it has bought back Air New Zealand and KiwiRail, who knows? Maybe the bus companies are next on the agenda to be bought back and nationalised.

Pansy Wong: And supermarkets.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yes, we will be having the Labour Government supermarket chain next.

Mike Lee was not able to convince the Government to buy back the buses this time, but he got the very next best option. He has now got the total and absolute control through this bill to say: “Not only do we have the right to negotiate for the bits that we want to buy from you”—and quite properly so—“but also we will take total control of your operation and we will actually force you into obeying our rules, to the point of even taking away from you some commercial services that you may have built up.”

I think the Minister’s words in the explanatory note of the bill were absolutely right. Annette King got it absolutely spot on: “For these reasons the Government rejects ‘Option C’.” What have we gone and done now? We have gone in through a grubby little set of arrangements around the traps, whereby the select committee did not even get to have all the evidence considered and brought into the bill, and then some Supplementary Order Papers were drafted and put in at the last minute by Labour to outflank its coalition partner New Zealand First.

New Zealand First did the right thing. Peter Brown sat and listened to the evidence. He listened clearly and decided he would not support option C. I understand, from everything I have heard, that Peter Brown went out and talked to lots and lots of people in the industry—to lots of the players, including the Bus and Coach Association—and came to right position. That cannot have been an easy thing for Peter Brown to decide, especially at this time, with all of the other bits and pieces that are going on with his party. But he did the right thing.

Peter Brown must feel a bit gutted about this. He did the right thing. The select committee would not vote for option C—it was voted down. I found it interesting that the Labour members on the select committee put in a minority report in the select committee’s report.

For those reasons I say that National does care about public transport. We do care about passengers. We would have supported option B, and I say today that we would still support it. If members want to put forward option B now, then we will vote, sit down and shut up, and it will be all over.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie): This is a very pleasurable day for Labour politicians and for other politicians who are here to pass public transport legislation that will improve the public transport system in leaps and bounds. We have seen over the last 20 years—since, I think, 1989 when the legislation that the Public Transport Management Bill replaces was first bought in—a very rapid decline in public transport use, largely driven by the fact that the National Party froze the public transport subsidies for 5 years at around $50 million. In Auckland that was $18 million. Ordinary people trying to get to work in Auckland were forced into cars because there was no decent public transport system, the trains were dilapidated and ready for the museum or the scrapyard, and buses were not purchased by bus companies in the private sector because there was no incentive to do so. It was a recipe for disaster that would require any future Government to spend billions of dollars building more and more roads because there was no alternative.

Driving around Auckland, as I do regularly, I have seen a dramatic reduction in the congestion that Auckland has suffered for a very long time. There are two good reasons for that. One is that people are deciding not to drive cars as much because of the price of fuel, and the other is that there is an alternative, and it is called public transport. That public transport system may be groaning at the moment, but it would have been completely lost if we had had a National Government for the last 9 years. The reason it has been able to improve is that we have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into it. But the accountability for that spend is not there, the ability to plan better is not there, and the ability for the regional council and the local authorities to work with the private sector in a fair manner is not there. That is why we have this legislation.

Members on the Labour side of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee listened to the submissions, heard what people had to say, and promoted the idea of improving the legislation by adding option C. Why did we do that? Well, we did not just listen to the bus companies, who have an enormous vested interest in seeing the taxpayer and the ratepayer pour more and more millions of dollars into public transport without necessarily getting the results. The results are now starting to actually plateau because more and more money alone will not fix the problem. We need planning.

The select committee had an excellent submission from a representative of the consumers. He happened to be, I think, the Auckland Green Party representative. He came along to the select committee and those who listened to him were just blown away. He lives in the central city, somewhere around Herne Bay or Ponsonby, and he goes to work in Manukau City by public transport. It takes him 2 to 2½ hours to do that by bus and train. Is it connected so that the buses that he gets from Ponsonby into the city and then to the train station, and then from the train station in Papatoetoe out to Manukau are all linked up so that they meet at the same time? Can he use the same ticket? Can he guarantee himself that the fare will be cheap because he uses the same integrated ticket? Not on your life! It is a shambles. He came along and showed us the shambles that is Auckland’s public transport system, which cannot be put straight without this bill being passed. It was an embarrassment. It was crazy—he would get off the bus one stop before the train station in Papatoetoe because the fares actually went up if he stayed on the bus until the last stop. They did not even coordinate the fare system. He could not get off at the train station without having to pay the next full fare as if he had travelled the next section. What a ludicrous situation!

The private sector says that that situation should be left as it is, and that nobody who pays the bills should be allowed to tell them what to do. Well, hang on. Where does that happen in the world? Sixty to 80 percent of the revenue for those bus companies comes from the ratepayer and the taxpayer. The National Party says we should leave it that way, we should not give them any controls, and we should not allow them to see the books and see how the money is spent and see whether they are getting results. Oh, no! The National Party says we should leave it to the market. That is what the National Party says. It put up some pathetic Supplementary Order Papers written by the bus companies—that is how they do policy work over there. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune—I heard Maurice Williamson say that. That is what happens with the National Party’s policy—whoever pays the piper gets to call the tune. For the National Party it is about putting up the industry’s submissions in this House as Supplementary Order Papers. That is how it works over there. It does not work that way over here. The other interesting fact is that every regional council—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Excuse me. Can we just have one person speaking instead of an argument across the Chamber?

Hon MARK GOSCHE: Every regional council of substance in this country that runs subsidised public transport systems supports this bill and the addition of option C. The select committee got letters from the regional council here in Wellington, from Christchurch, and from Auckland, and they said that they support the fact that an option should be added and a region should get the choice of having option C.

I have to say that Mike Lee does not control the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The people who sit on that board are appointed by all of the territorial local authorities. Last time I looked John Banks was not a left-wing politician. I actually like John—I think he has a good heart—but I would not describe him as a left-wing politician. He is one of the people who appoints the Auckland Regional Transport Authority board, so is Bob Harvey, so is Len Brown, and so is the Mayor of North Shore. They appoint the board for their commercial nous. I am sure many of those people on the board do not vote for me or for the Labour Party, because they are there not for their politics but for their commercial nous. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority has said that it needs this to fix up the problems if it is to go forward and continue to improve public transport.

The Auckland Regional Council is very busy at the moment—not purchasing buses, but purchasing trains to replace the clapped out rubbish that was left to us by the private sector, which did not invest a single cent in a new train in this country in all the time they owned them. Everybody in Auckland knows that. If Maurice Williamson has this fantasy that the Auckland Regional Council has a secret plot to go out and buy buses, I tell him that I think it has its hands full at the moment trying to get the trains to replace the private sector rubbish that was left behind. So we will see improvements in public transport in Auckland and we will see improvements coming because the private sector and the public sector will work together. That is the sort of thing we hear over there. We heard from private bus companies that asked to be given option C because it was good for business. They said it was good for business to have contracts that they could go to their bankers with and say: “Look, we’ve got a guaranteed revenue stream, we’ve got a long-term contract, and we want to improve the bus fleet. We can now borrow money.” That is what will happen.

In terms of the pathetic excuses the National Party used about the process, I will say that the letter from the Regulations Review Committee—which I am happy to table if need be, although it is a public document now—was followed absolutely. We changed the Public Transport Management Bill according to the requests of the Regulations Review Committee. It was not a big fuss. It was an annoying problem that the letter got lost, but the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee met again, and we sought to do a special report to the House. That report would have said that we agreed with the Regulations Review Committee and we had changed the bill accordingly, but the National Party denied leave for that to happen, so it has been done by the Minister of Transport after we wrote to her as a committee and asked her to do it. There was no fuss, no bother. It was not big stuff; it was just sensible regulations review changes that were passed in this legislation by way of amendment.

I am enormously proud of this legislation. As an Aucklander and as somebody who grew up catching the train and the buses, and as someone who is now representing working people who need to do that every day of the week, I am very proud that in the last few days I will be able to speak in this House as an MP, this bill will be passed as amended. I know it will make an enormous difference to everyday New Zealanders’ lives. They want a public transport system that is reliable, and they will have that through a cooperative relationship between the private sector and the public sector. I trust regional councils because regional councils are elected by the people. No bus companies were elected by the people to administer the $900 million of public funds that we put into public transport in this country, compared with the $50 million that the National Party used to put in. No, we actually care about public transport. This bill will deliver a very good result for the public.

PANSY WONG (National): What a good sentence that Labour member, the Hon Mark Gosche, ended on! He said his speech was one of his last in Parliament. The Labour Government is going to have its biggest electoral defeat, because it holds the New Zealand people in contempt. It rushes through the House the Public Transport Management Bill, and it introduces last-minute changes that Cabinet itself rejected.

Let me remind listeners—who have now increased to five, because Maurice Williamson’s spouse and mine have joined the three other people who are probably listening to this debate—that we have just heard a very confused speech from the Hon Mark Gosche. On the one hand, he gave praise and said he was enjoying the fact that people in Auckland were using public transport services. He was enjoying the fact that public transport services are available right now. So I ask him why the Government introduced this legislation. Then he told us the reason. It was because one Green Party member came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee; suddenly, a bill had to be passed to enable the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and the Auckland Regional Council to plan the whole public transport service around one Green Party member’s needs. That is a mightily expensive exercise.

I hope the next Labour speaker will explain to us why, if things are so bad, it has taken the Government so long to do something. Why does it take 9 long years before this Labour Government, in its dying days, rushes this legislation through the House? I have some bad news for the Hon Mark Gosche. My parliamentary secretary used to use the train to come to work in Wellington, but the number of fare increases has driven her back to using her car. Using the train has simply become too expensive. So although the member is trying to defend the Labour Government’s record on public transport, it simply does not stack up.

In relation to the talk about an integrated ticketing system, Wellingtonians are talking about their new Snapper system. Christchurch has already implemented it. It makes one wonder why legislation needs to be rushed through the House under urgency, just to enable an integrated ticketing system to be adopted in Auckland. I understand that Auckland is making very good progress on it, anyway.

It was really interesting to hear the Hon Mark Gosche say that he rejected the view that it was a case of “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” I thought that was so true coming from a Labour member, because in the last few days, weeks, and months we have heard about poor Owen Glenn, who donated half a million dollars to Labour and who certainly did not get his money’s worth. He was betrayed and attacked. I do not know what dogs have been let off in order to get him.

The passage of this legislation under urgency is a total outrage. It was introduced into Parliament under a disguise. People understood that this legislation would give the regional councils and authorities that control the funding of public services for which a subsidy is required more power to ask for information, etc. The Government left those people in no doubt by stating in the explanatory note of the legislation that it would not go all the way and adopt option C, which would empower the regional councils and authorities to prohibit commercial services. Throughout the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearings, every submitter who appeared before the committee had the understanding that he or she was making submissions on a bill that would adopt option B, which would give more power to the planning authority and the funding authority, but would not go the whole way and allow those authorities to prohibit commercial operators.

But then the chairman of the select committee, Mark Gosche, tried to twist the arms of the committee members. Even though the Labour Cabinet had rejected going all the way and adopting option C because, according to Cabinet, it would undermine business confidence and would stifle the introduction of innovative measures, the chairman wanted the select committee to adopt option C. The select committee members questioned the officials. We said that surely it was outside the scope of the legislation to introduce such a major amendment. The chairman quickly put that concern to rest: he said that the Minister of Transport had agreed to it. She could not get that option through the Labour Cabinet, so she tried to bully the select committee into adopting it. Even the New Zealand First members could see the nonsense of our changing the legislation in the last minute with such a dramatic switch of direction, and they rejected it.

The select committee members also questioned the officials as to whether it was viable and practical for them to rewrite the legislation to introduce option C. We could tell by their reaction that it was not possible for them to make sure that it would be good legislation and that there would not be implementation problems caused by such a major change being rushed through.

I think that by the end of the select committee process all the submitters understood that option B was no longer the original option B; additional controls had been introduced. But they decided to accept it as it was. One can imagine one’s shock when, as the bill was going through the Committee of the whole House, a major Supplementary Order Paper was introduced by the Green Party. Owen Glenn has told us that he understands that New Zealand First has control and influence over Labour, because Labour needs its support to pass legislation. But now Labour has looked past New Zealand First to the Greens. Supplementary Order Paper 249 was introduced, and the Minister would not take a call during the Committee stage to reassure us as to how a small party could accomplish the task of introducing such a major Supplementary Order Paper, with the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed, when the officials had expressed to the select committee the difficulty in introducing last-minute major changes.

This legislation will come back to the House. Lawyers will be lining up—they will be laughing all the way to the bank—because of the loopholes and technical problems in it. The select committee and the officials were never given a chance to comment on the huge change in direction. The Labour Government and the Greens hold the New Zealand public in contempt, and they will learn the result of their holding the New Zealand people in contempt. The people do not appreciate the Government promising something, then changing the whole direction during a parliamentary process without public consultation. Labour went against its own Cabinet decision, and it deserves to have a huge defeat at the ballot box.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): During the term of this Parliament, New Zealand First, when it comes to transport, has had a very good working relationship with the Minister of Transport and the two Associate Ministers. I would say that it has been a first-class relationship when it has related to our working together, but on this issue we disagree. On this issue, New Zealand First takes a different view from the Government. I will explain why. The Public Transport Management Bill is really attempting to address an Auckland issue. Everywhere else in the country, public transport, when it comes to buses, is working, if not very well—

Hon Judith Tizard: Adequately.

PETER BROWN: —adequately well. It does not need a great deal of legislation to improve it. It is true that in many places public transport is operating under a full contract model, and the Minister acknowledged that that is the case in Tauranga. In Wellington public transport is largely contracted, but it is still working very well. In Christchurch, and I think in Queenstown, it is a mix of contract and commercial operations, and it is working very well.

When this bill came before the House in its initial instance, it looked a very simple, straightforward bill. There were three options. Option A was the status quo, and I think that most people, although we recognise the issue principally as an Auckland issue, or almost totally an Auckland issue, recognise that the status quo was not working in Auckland. Option B seemed to be the favoured option because option C was ruled out, in the explanatory note of the initial bill—and quite firmly. It was not just that it would not be considered by the Government; there were good reasons why it had not been considered. So it came down to a bill that I, at least, thought revolved around just option B, as proposed in the bill. But when the submitters, particularly the bus company submitters, came to us, they told us a different story. They told us that another option B had been agreed to between officials and bus companies, and that it had gone to Cabinet and been signed off. That was the understanding I at least had, and I believed that the option B in the bill was a modified version of the option B that had been agreed on.

New Zealand First understands the concerns of the bus companies. We believe that bus companies have a role to play. They look after the passengers, they carry the passengers, and it is up to them to provide the services. So we believe they have a positive role to play, and it should not be a role that puts them into some sort of subservient position where they are told: “You will do this, or else.” New Zealand First does not agree with that attitude. Although some of the bus companies—the minor companies, I have to say—agreed with option C, the big players, which carry thousands of people, were committed to the option B version that had been agreed to before the bill came into being.

I have to say that when those bus companies’ representatives came before the select committee, I had never seen such enthusiasm, such determination, and such desire to provide a service. It sort of sprang out at us; they were passionate about their cause. They were not doing it just for the money. I cannot believe for one moment they want to run empty buses around the town, just to collect the subsidy; they want to provide a service. They told us that in Wellington they had taken chances by putting on services at a financial loss, and over a period of time they had built up the services they referred to, and made them profitable—but only just. Enthusiasm, determination, and competence are needed to run a bus company, and people who know how it all works and ticks together are needed. Equally, innovation and investment are needed. But we all know that this regime—even though the Minister has said “Oh, well, it will be optional as to whether Auckland people introduce it, or not.”—will come to pass, and that is why the lobbying has been so extensive. If we bring in a regime that says: “You will do exactly what I want because I know better, even though you are running the bus company.”, there is a real chance of dampening that enthusiasm, and of dampening that investment and innovation. In other words, there is a good chance that a second-rate service will be imposed on the Auckland public, whereas if we encourage people to do their thing—what they are fully aware of and know the facts and figures for—the chances are we will get a far better service because they are in there to service passengers.

In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I listened intently to the bus companies’ representatives, and I spoke to them privately—as the Hon Maurice Williamson referred to—before New Zealand First made a decision whether to support or oppose the bill. We certainly thought the bus companies had a case worth supporting. There are five categories of bus service. Earlier on in the House I said there were four, but the Hon Maurice Williamson has added the fifth, and that one is very important. To run an efficient bus service the service has to be reliable, convenient, comfortable, and affordable, and, as the Hon Maurice Williamson reminded me, it has to be safe. I had taken that as read. So there are five attributes—

Hon Maurice Williamson: You haven’t ridden in buses in Auckland then?

PETER BROWN: Clearly, I have not for some time. Those guys know what they have to do to deliver an efficient bus service. New Zealand First says they should have been given their chance with the introduction of option B—as agreed behind the scenes—before the bill arrived in the House for its first reading.

What disturbs me—and I will not talk too much about it because it has been well canvassed—is the regulation review issue. The issue came up in the select committee, but a certain letter did not get to that committee. We addressed the issue as speedily and efficiently as we could, and I believed that the issue had been taken care of. But I have since found out that the Ministry of Transport engaged an independent consultant, who consulted the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, did a financial analysis, and then wrote a report to the ministry. But the report did not come to the select committee and the bus companies were not consulted on the report.

I have a copy of the letter written to the Minister by the Bus and Coach Association, and it is quite worrying. Obviously, I cannot read all of it out. It was copied to me in my role as transport spokesperson for New Zealand First—if you like, a support party for the Government. I will read out a segment of the letter to the House, because it is worrying: “Our concern regarding the MOT report—the financial analysis and the disregard for due process—raises serious issues about equity and objectivity. The main points are summarised below:” I will read out two of them: “The data provided for the analysis came from ARTA without reference to the industry, when ARTA has a vested interest in the findings of the financial analysis.” That concerns me immensely. The letter goes on to say: “The analysis is based on a bus scheduling exercise conducted by ARTA officers, using a selected sample of commercial registrations and associated contracted services where ARTA assessed the relative efficiency of operating these services on an all-contracted or mixed commercial/contracted basis. These results were then provided to MOT without any reference to the bus industry.” I will stop there, on the letter.

I say that that analysis should have gone to the select committee. It is not good enough for that committee to make a decision to send the bill back to the House, and for us to have the Greens produce a Supplementary Order Paper to bring the bill back to option C, which was never agreed to, by anybody, in the first place. New Zealand First opposes this bill.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I will start the Greens’ contribution to the third reading of the Public Transport Management Bill by giving some thanks, particularly to the MMP parties—to the Māori Party, to ACT, to Jim Anderton’s Progressive party, to Taito Phillip Field, and indeed to the Labour Party for supporting the Greens’ option C proposals, which were debated in the Committee last night. It is important for the public to note that these are the kinds of times when MMP truly delivers its benefits for the public of New Zealand. What we have done with this collective of parties in Parliament has been to make sure that there is a real, constructive option for councils when dealing with the public transport needs that are so clear in their cities, and in Auckland in particular.

Probably I ought to give some thanks to National members too for spending all of their time in the debate on the bill in this House on giving the Greens the credit for option C. Of course, we are most happy to accept credit for option C, because it is, in fact, the best outcome for the community and for public transport. At times, and at this time in particular, when our most vulnerable communities are suffering from the rising cost of food and fuel prices, alternatives must be made available to them so that they can get out and do their daily business in an easy, financially useful, accessible, and cheap way. Option C and this bill will provide that option for our communities. We are absolutely proud that option C has been supported by Parliament.

Option C was supported by all of the Auckland councils, by all but one regional council, and by those operators in the public transport arena who were unable to break through the legacy of incumbency and monopolistic behaviour established by the previous National Government’s policies on public transport, which were developed in earlier times. Those policies essentially entrenched the capacity for commercial operators to continue to lock out other operators from the public transport sector. We are very pleased to be able to break the monopolistic policy that was proposed and supported by National many years ago, and to be able to reform and transform our public transport system into one that truly works for the community as a whole.

I think that enough has been said on this bill and that that is all that needs to be said. We are very pleased that it is passing into law. We are very pleased to have delivered this outcome for the community of Auckland in particular, and also for other communities around the country. I am pleased to see this bill passing into law.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa e huihui mai nei i tēnei rangi.

[Greetings to you, Madam Assistant Speaker, and to us all gathered here today.]

Hon Maurice Williamson: This’ll be interesting.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: This will be interesting. Ten days ago a cloud descended over Wellington. Well, to be more precise, tension spread through the Metlink buses, trains, and ferries as commuters came to grips with a price increase of between 50c and $1 per trip. To compound the situation, the extra costs come from paying for the privilege of jostling for a seat and fighting for space, with only the ticket collector game enough to run the gauntlet between the crowded crush of the commuter traffic. The one consolation for the passengers was that at least they were not in Auckland—

Hon Maurice Williamson: This is more a novel than a speech.

Dr PITA SHARPLES: —it is—for those who live north of the Bombay Hills, like I do, are now rushing to grab that bus or train in far greater numbers than ever before. Patronage of the Infratil buses, for instance, has increased by about 7 percent in the last year. In real terms, that is an extra 6,000 trips. We celebrate this congestion as a marker of the further development of public transport systems and initiatives to reduce road traffic. It is a tangible measurement of the way in which we are lessening the nation’s dependency on oil and reducing carbon emissions. It gives us hope that we as a nation are making humble efforts to address the peak oil and global warming crises.

But there is little to celebrate if we, as a Parliament, are not doing what we can to make life easier for those choosing the option of public transport. We must make it a credible option. We must make public transport fulfil the expectations of people that it will respond to their needs in terms of frequency and capacity, and in terms of public transport services. I remember 5 years ago, in June 2003, when the Britomart transport centre was officially opened, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei officiated, with the kaumātua Takutai Wikiriwhi blessing the site and the station platforms, and we had a dawn service. The first train arrived at 5.40 a.m. on 23 June, and, from what I have been told, it commemorated the historic moment 73 years earlier, when the first scheduled train set off from downtown Auckland. As the train arrived, a large crowd gathered and a lone piper released the call. As passengers disembarked, the kapahaka group of Te Puru o Tāmaki and Ngāti Whātua let forth a haka and a waiata to truly herald the moment.

Some of the less informed among us may ask why we would have a dawn ceremony for a train. I say: “Why not?”. It is entirely appropriate to clear the way and to embrace the new dawn that we envisaged would come from the opportunities that come with more comprehensive public transport. For many of our whānau, before they embark on a journey, they have karakia to ensure safe travels ahead. In much the same way, opening Britomart at dawn—te ata tū—is imbuing the provision of public transport with that same significance. It is about ensuring that the population is safe, protected, and able to travel well.

This bill continues that goal. The bill will enable regional councils to adopt controls on commercial public transport services in order to implement any policies that can meet the unique needs of their region. Although we would assume that the regional public transport plans would take into account issues of vehicle quality and service reliability, and the provision of integrated systems such as ticketing and fares, we would also expect them to consider special provisions for the people they service—provisions that will enable them to respond sensitively and appropriately towards passengers who are elderly, disabled, children, and all groups that may require special service.

The aim of this bill is also to help regions obtain the best value for money in public transport. Although it makes particular mention of the impact of competition for commercial operators, we would hope that the balance weighs in favour of efficient and effective services for customers. Attracting and retaining new passengers is a challenge that regional public transport services must turn their minds to. There is no point in having a competitive and efficient market in place if value for money is compromised or if services are congested, slow, and unreliable. This bill will enable regional councils to decline registration of a commercial service if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the service will not meet the controls specified in the regional public transport plan. The bill will also force services to deregister for non-compliance. These are all positive initiatives that are about improving the quality of existing public transport services. We have heard speakers in the House describe how Aucklanders were forced into cars, and it is that culture we are trying to break in order to put people back on public transport. But in the space in the market that appears from the deregistration of non-compliant providers, we would expect other initiatives and other alternatives to be introduced, which will fill the gap.

Many members will be familiar with the overhead call that echoes through the station platforms in the London Underground: “Mind the gap”. It has in fact become so popular that Transport for London even sells T-shirts with the branding: “Mind the Gap”, to remind passengers of the dangerous gap between the train door and the station platform. This bill must also mind the gap. We in Parliament must mind the difference between what is real and what is not real. We must look beyond the limitations of what currently constitutes our public transport system and think creatively around ways of achieving an integrated, safe, and sustainable public transport system that will make immediate progress in lessening our dependence on oil. We must do everything we can to mind the gap between public perceptions of the problems of public transport and making it a viable option.

The Sustainable Energy Forum has recommended that one possible positive intervention the Government could take up would be to increase present subsidies for public transport, even to the point of making public transport free. We believe that this option should be investigated further. It may well be useful in considering this further to apply an analysis based on the genuine progress in the next genuine progress index. In such an analysis we would envisage that the whole-of-economy costs would be weighed. The health and environmental costs of allowing private transport to continue unabated must be recognised as a significant constraint.

The unequivocal truth is that New Zealanders are almost totally oil dependent for transport. We cannot delay action in terms of the developing public transport options. The ability to register services commercially provides opportunities for operators to establish innovative public transport services that would not otherwise be provided. We encourage all those in the transport sector to take risks, to be bold, and to stretch our thinking in terms of achieving an integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable public transport system. Opting to explore the electrification of public transport, or rationing schemes to respond to short-term fuel projects might be other projects that are worthy of further review. We need to prioritise urban design around walking and biking, and this is just the start.

I believe that what happened at Britomart 5 years ago was right. We are at the dawning of a new era, and we must engage all our energies into planning for our future. The Māori Party supports this bill.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I thank the member from the Māori Party for that last contribution on the Public Transport Management Bill, but I think that when people look at public transport, they need to look at the reality of the situation we have in New Zealand and the reality of what will happen in the future in transport. Public transport is often seen as having a clean, green image and as providing us with the best mechanism to transport people in an environment that is dependent on oil. There is a big news flash for those political parties that believe that, and it is that in 5 or 10 years’ time we will not be dependent on oil. The technology is there now. It is just a matter of making it commercially available, and that will happen in a very short period of time. The world is moving away from oil, and that movement is accelerated by the problems in accessing oil from the Middle East and also by the cost of that product relative to the new technology.

It will be only a matter of time before people will be looking at roads and cars as providing the most green, efficient form of transport we can have, because public transport will still be very highly dependent, in a lot of cases, on fossil fuels. Some public transport will also run on electricity, but that public transport will probably be more expensive to run than smaller cars that are run on electricity. So when we look at the public transport debate, we see that people need to be realistic about future transport options, and that the future is in electric vehicles—especially electric cars, which are not far away, at all.

The debate that centres on public transport as offering some kind of universal panacea that will provide our transport solutions in a clean, green way is incorrect. The reality is that modern transport mechanisms and scientific advancements will mean that we will see some of the traditional forms of transport actually become the clean, green method of transport. I think the public need to be aware of that in this debate, because it is something that is lost out there in the community. We have the notion that public transport is the only answer. Well, it is not the answer. The answer will come from technology, and the technology is here. The commercialisation of that technology is probably a couple of years away, but it will happen in a very quick period of time.

So when we look at this legislation, it is important for us to remember that public transport will probably have its biggest effect by reducing congestion in places where there is large-scale transport of people or products. Public transport works best where there are concentrations of people, and it will be relied on to move people in a quick and an efficient manner in places where, possibly, people could not do that through their own ability. When we look for situations like that, we see there are probably only a few places in New Zealand where that applies on a population density basis.

One of those places is Wellington, which is served by a very efficient public transport system that has been there for a number of years. Auckland also has a public transport system, and as the city develops it is turning into much more of a consolidated urban environment with bigger population densities around the central city, and, therefore, more need for public transport in the central city area, unlike the spreading city that we have had in past generations. So we do have a public transport issue in Auckland, and it needs to be addressed. Auckland has our biggest population concentration, and it will get bigger. There will be issues about congestion and about moving the people of that city around.

But the bill before us today is not the answer on those issues. The answer is to get a common solution that the parties involved in public transport agree upon. We had an answer like that. The bus companies, public transport users, Government, and regional government came together and came to a concise solution that was workable for all parties. They agreed upon it, and expected that agreement to be implemented through legislation passed in this House. But what do we have here? We do not have that agreement. We have a Government-mandated change that the Government believes is a better solution than the one agreed upon by the parties involved.

The Minister said there was no agreement—that we agreed in principle only—and that through the political process things can change. That is not good enough. What gives the people in this room the ability to change what the professionals, the people who know about the business of servicing Auckland’s transport needs, have agreed upon? What gives the Government of the day the ability to know better than Aucklanders what they need for their public transport solutions, and to know its solution is better than what they have decided on? There is no reason for that. Nobody in this room has the ability to make a better decision than the people of Auckland can make. The people of Auckland made a call, and we should have supported that call. We should not be in this room, changing it on a whim to something that we think is better. That is what is happening through this legislation, because option C is not what the parties agreed upon.

The Government of the day believes option C is the best solution. It is engaged in making a decision on an ideological basis. It has come to the conclusion that it knows better than the people involved in the industry, and it is providing what it thinks is the best solution to this issue. That is simply not good enough. It simply will not work. Adopting option C means that some of the other players in the industry, namely the bus companies, which New Zealand First has been very staunch to support in recent months, will turn. They will say option C will stifle private sector involvement in Auckland transport issues. This bill will stifle innovation. It will stifle any investment that the private sector may have wished to make into addressing Auckland’s public transport issues.

What will we be left with? We will be left with the Government having made a decision on the basis of what it thinks is best, and with a solution that does not involve one of the key components in any viable solution to Auckland public transport issues: the private sector bus companies, which have a vital role to play. Theirs is not the only role to be played, but it is a vital one. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority also has a vital role to play. It should be encouraged and helped in its process, as well. But there needs to be a consensus agreement whereby the two parties, through the Government, can come together and arrive at a workable solution. This bill does not contain that workable solution. The Government has a mandate to implement what it thinks is best for the people of Auckland, but this bill is not what is best for the people of Auckland, because it cuts out one of the big players in the process. This decision will come back and bite the Government in a very short period of time, because the other player, the private sector bus companies, will not want this legislation to go through. The companies will see it as being detrimental to their ability to serve Auckland City’s public transport needs.

That problem now lies with the Government. By making this decision, the Government is effectively saying it will take control of public transport in Auckland. If the Government is to take control of public transport in Auckland in that way, then it has to fund it. The Government has not put up the money, it has not put in the innovation, and it does not have the ability to do that. The Government will find that it has lost the opportunity to work with the private sector, and has missed out on the innovation and increase in service that the Auckland users of public transport will demand.

So when we look at this legislation, it is important for us to note that we need to have a strong public transport sector, and that that may be for reasons other than those that political parties in this House currently see as underlying public transport requirements. Those reasons may be based more on issues of congestion and city development, rather than on the use of fossil fuels. But there is a need for a consensus approach when coming to these solutions. We were very fortunate to have reached a consensus in the agreement that went to Cabinet, but we are not fulfilling that agreement through this legislation. The Government has got itself into a dilemma now, by changing its mind after it had an agreement and not fulfilling the requirements of that agreement. The ultimate losers from that will be public transport users in Auckland.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate on the Public Transport Management Bill. I might perhaps be the last speaker, I suspect, but I say to the previous speaker, David Bennett, that in all the years I have been in this Parliament I have seen a number of interesting things, in terms of transport legislation. The member can look to his colleague on the front bench, the Hon Maurice Williamson, who was wise enough—and it is rare that I pay this tribute to him—to have listened very carefully to the submissions made in a select committee some years ago on the issue of cockpit voice recorders. The Government put up legislation at the time that intended one particular aspect in regard to prosecutions and using that information. Following the hearing of strenuous submissions, not from everybody but from some, that said: “We think you’ve got this spectacularly wrong and you need to rethink.”, Maurice was strong enough, brave enough, and wise enough to listen to those submissions and to go against what Cabinet had decided. The wisdom in that case was not with Cabinet; the wisdom was with the submitters. We face the same situation today, and far from it being from one particular aspect, several submitters supported option C.

I find it quite unusual to be speaking against my friend and colleague Peter Brown from New Zealand First, because he and I usually substantially agree on transport matters. But in this particular case I think New Zealand First has got it wrong. A number of submitters very strongly supported option C, which was the decision of the select committee. And these supporters are not minnows. They include the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, the Auckland Regional Council, four Auckland territorial authorities, Local Government New Zealand, Auckland Sustainable Transport, and three public transport operators—one of which includes Veolia Transport Auckland—which run all the suburban rail transport in Auckland. These folk were not about saying: “Hey, look—our narrow commercial interests.”; they were saying: “For the greater good of the area.”, which is precisely what the previous speaker was talking about.

What a pity that the wisdom of Sir Dove-Myer Robinson many years ago was not actually more widely accepted. He proposed to greatly expand the public transport network, not because of fuel costs at the time but because of the development of the city. Thank goodness an earlier person with a Dutch name in this Parliament—a guy called Julius Vogel—had the wisdom to go against popular sentiment at the time—

Hon Judith Tizard: And commercial.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: —and commercial sentiment, and actually develop New Zealand by putting in place strong transport networks, and this Government has done exactly the same. This Labour-led Government is committed to providing high-quality public transport systems throughout the country, because we believe that improved public transport is not only vital to achieve our goal of sustainability but vital in the interests of our communities. This bill will improve the tools available to local authorities for providing public transport services to a set standard.

As I mentioned in my speech in an earlier stage of this bill, if members opposite would like to research a company called, I think, Carrington Bus Company—a short-lived public transport operator in the New Plymouth area—they will see that the tools in this bill are needed in terms of the countervailing powers of larger operators operating commercially but saying: “Here’s how we’ll commercially deal to this company. We’ll drop our fares on their routes to zero until they go broke.” And that is what happened. Two larger operators dropped their fares to zero to put a commercial operator out of business. The National Party is very fond of saying that it is the party that supports business, understands business, and knows about business, but the unfair commercial practice that was operated in that instance caused a very good local company to go broke in a matter of weeks. Why? Because the other companies operating on those routes were able to cross-subsidise from their other operations, subsidised by the local community.

This Government, far from what the previous speaker said, has put a huge investment into public transport, not just because of the oil prices—we began this long before oil prices rocketed up—but because we see congestion as a huge impediment to business in Auckland, to the normal commercial operations of the city, and want to encourage people, particularly those in Auckland, to use public transport, as Wellingtonians have done for many years. Central government is putting funds—something in the order of $640 million in this current financial year—into mostly public transport. Some of that is the purchase price of new electric units. On top of that, local government is putting around $270 million into public passenger transport. On top of all this is the electrification plan for Auckland suburban services. One would have to say that well over $1 billion of public money goes into commercial and contracted passenger services throughout the country.

If we look at what is trying to be achieved in this bill and the reason for going to option C, we see that anyone who analysed this thoroughly would see that the purpose is to give more tools to central and local government, particularly to local authorities, for providing public transport services to good standards to meet the demands of the community, and to actually plan for, prepare for, and provide for the future. The bill will give regional councils greater powers over non-contracted—that is, commercial—services in order to help regions get the best value for money and to achieve an integrated sustainable public transport network.

The history of how commerce works is really worth looking at. If, as the National Party believes, the market will provide, let me recommend a book called The Great American Streetcar Scandal, set in Los Angeles in the 1930s. It shows how commercial interests demolished what was to have been the best public transport system in the United States at the time. They absolutely demolished it. The streetcar system in Los Angeles was effective, wide-ranging, and provided transport for a huge number of people, but it was demolished by commercial enterprise because the state of California did not have a bill like this to protect it against unfair commercial operation. I am a strong believer in providing a framework in which commerce can flourish and operate in a way that helps the beginning company but also protects the interests of the public.

If members can find the people who own the Carrington Bus Company and explain this bill to them, I guarantee when they see the provisions they will say they wish they had had this at the time. One of the members opposite said “What about the Commerce Commission?”. Well, the Commerce Commission said: “If a bus company wants to reduce its fares to zero on a particular route, then that is entirely fine.” That is what happened, because the bus companies that Carrington set up in competition with were able to reduce their fares to zero on that one route in order to knock that fledging company for a six and put it out of business.

I am pleased that this bill will enable local councils to set quality and performance standards for commercial public transport services—things such as emission standards or minimum periods of operation. These sorts of things are vital when one specifies public transport network conditions. The bill will also allow councils to require operators to integrate services, fares, and ticketing, in order to serve the needs of the community. I think that integrated ticketing is a huge facet of this, which we should not ignore. I have talked about it for a minimum of 15 years and I think it is absolutely vital to the success of public transport operations in major cities. Thank you.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport): I am delighted to take a short call on this very important bill, the Public Transport Management Bill. Auckland has been calling out for this legislation for many, many years. There have been numerous attempts since the 1950s to get an adequate, comprehensive system that Aucklanders can use with confidence in terms of times, cleanliness, efficiency, and value for money for the taxpayers and the ratepayers of Auckland. I am delighted to be part of a Government that has listened to Auckland and has said that, yes, we do need to finish the roading network but, just as important, we need to provide public transport so that Aucklanders have an alternative, so that we can continue to improve the air quality in Auckland, and so we can provide value for money for Aucklanders.

I am very sad to see the National members attacking this legislation. Following on from the very good speech made by my colleague the Hon Harry Duynhoven I ask National what they are talking about when they say that Aucklanders should be paying $50 a week in tolls but that they are opposed to public transport. I asked Jim McLay, a former member of this House, who is now the principal of Macquarie Bank, and who is advocating toll roads in Auckland, and advocating public-private partnerships where all the risk falls on Aucklanders, whether he is advocating this policy that the National Party is pushing. National is attacking public transport while promoting Aucklanders having to pay a levy of $50 a week, at least, on toll roads, and people will be forced back into their cars as there will be no adequate public transport. What is National’s interest in this? That is my question to National members, because, in my view, this legislation is absolutely vital.

We have seen Stagecoach—the main provider, I will concede, before Infratil took it over—declaring major bus routes as commercial routes, so there is no subsidy on them, and forcing everybody else, who might need some support, off those routes, particularly those who link other suburban routes and are not the main carriers, and then, halfway through a contract they just say: “We’re not going to do this any more.” So suddenly the Auckland ratepayers needed to find, I believe, about $5 million, as did the taxpayers, to meet that. I say we need some security as taxpayers and as ratepayers that we are getting value for money, and this bill is the first major step towards Auckland getting a really good public transport system that is value for money.

It is my great pleasure to support this bill. I congratulate the Greens on their initiative in this. I believe that no carrier, no public transport provider, interested in providing a service, and not interested in skimming the top off a service that is not comprehensive, has anything to fear in this. It is about time we got proper comprehensive public transport in Auckland. It is part of our plan to provide sustainable value-for-money and fuel-efficient services that all Aucklanders can access, so that we can do the intensification we need to do in people-friendly areas that are not cut through by motorways that are not working efficiently because people just sit in cars, idling, wasting fuel, and wasting time.

Everyone in Auckland talks about at least a billion dollars being the cost of congestion. That is people’s time and wasted fuel. Maurice Williamson is talking about that, and he wants to add another $50 on to that impossible cost that many Aucklanders are already facing. This bill, the Public Transport Management Bill, gives Auckland the tools it needs in local, regional, and central government to actually provide value for money for taxpayers and ratepayers as well as for motorists.

This bill is supported by the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, which was set up to finally deliver rather than have the constant political ping-pong we have had. Labour Government supporter Sir Dove-Myer Robinson had his policy on public transport; Rob Muldoon and the National Government came in and threw it out. The fourth Labour Government said it would work with Auckland and look at a decent public transport system; Ruth Richardson and all her cronies came in and chucked it out. It is time we had some sustainability in service provision and some value for money. That is what I am standing to support, and that is why Labour-led Governments are delivering for Auckland and delivering value for taxpayers across New Zealand.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 59

New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections): I move, That the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. First, I thank Sue Bradford for bringing this bill into the House as a member’s bill, and I also thank the Law and Order Committee for the very bipartisan way in which it addressed the issues in the bill, and for the thought and work the committee members put into improving it. This bill is being moved for a third reading by me because it is now a Government bill.

The bill is really about acting in the best interests of the children of women offenders. It is about improving the life chances of some of our most vulnerable citizens. I welcome the clarification of that purpose through the proposed amendments that the committee endorsed. I also thank Sue Bradford and Parliament for supporting the amendment that I moved, in Supplementary Order Paper 174.

Back in the second reading of this bill I raised concerns not about the bill’s purpose but rather about the costs of implementing the changes required by it. When I consulted with the Department of Corrections, its officials advised me that to fully meet the needs of women prisoners with children up to 2 years of age, it would require an additional 24 places in three prisons, which would have to be specifically designed, and they put a cost on that of more than $1 million per place provided. When we look at that level of cost, then we have to consider questions of priority against other needs, including the benefits that, for example, that level of expenditure might deliver if directed to areas such as preventive work—to keep women out of prison in the first place—or programmes to prevent reoffending.

I went back to the Department of Corrections, and I asked it to come up with a more affordable way of delivering on the purpose of this bill. I also met with Sue Bradford at that time, and we discussed together the options that might be available but that were less prohibitively costly, and that would allow us to move quite early on the implementation of steps to deliver on the bill and have more immediate, positive outcomes. We came up with a proposal to provide eight places in Auckland and Christchurch women’s prisons, at a total cost of about $2 million in capital, and with an ongoing operating expenditure of around $1.5 million. To implement that alternative required an amendment to the bill, and Supplementary Order Paper 174 amended subsection (1) of section 81C, as inserted by clause 5, to make the construction of accommodation, for women prisoners with children who are less than 2 years of age, subject to the availability of resources. That amendment means that the Government can now implement the bill in a more considered manner, and ensure that the best interests of children are adequately protected.

The amendment also allows for consideration, firstly, to be given to the impact the new community-based sentences are having on judges’ sentencing decisions, and to the number of women being sent to prison. We now have the option of electronic monitoring—the ability to have people serve detention within their own homes—and, in the case of those women with children who do not constitute a risk to the community, this is obviously a preferable alternative. Ideally, the new sentences will mean that fewer women offenders with dependent children will receive a prison sentence. Indications are that judges are using community-based sentences more, when convicting women offenders. Between May 2007 and April 2008, 4.5 percent of women convicted received a prison sentence. That is significantly down from a peak in 2004-05, when 7.4 percent of all women convicted received prison sentences. In the meantime, it will be possible to provide a total of eight places at the Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility and the Christchurch Women’s Prison. The amendment allows us to take the time to assess the ongoing benefits of allowing children up to the age of 2 years to reside in prison with their mothers, and how best to run the programmes that will surround that.

This bill is a response to Parliament’s awareness that when women with dependent children are sent to prison, their children may suffer as a consequence. The children are innocent, yet they may be the victims of their mothers’ crimes well into their adult years. Children deserve better than that. The Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill is one way to reduce the impact of maternal imprisonment on children, and it is supported by the Government for this reason. Again, in finishing, I acknowledge the strong cross-party support for this bill and commend it to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): On behalf of the National Party, I speak in support of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the work that Sue Bradford has done on this bill, and I thank her for bringing the issue to our attention. I also thank my colleagues in the National Party for the support they gave me and my colleague Katherine Rich when we took this bill to our caucus. I know that many National Party supporters will be a little puzzled that we think that this bill is worthy of our support, but we live in the real world, and we know that the world we live in is not quite as lovely or as safe for children as it should be.

I would like to acknowledge at this stage that we have a dead police officer in Māngere, and another one shot and fighting for his life. I am overwhelmed to find out that there was a young child in the house concerned. I understand that that is the real world for some people. When we think about a child spending any time in prison, I ask, frankly, who in his or her right mind would think that that was an ideal situation, but the sad truth is that for some children it is significantly safer to start their lives in prison rather than in the homes in which we allow them to be brought up in.

Under this bill, should the whole thing go ahead—and I note that rather than there being a set date, the commencement date is to be decided by the Governor-General by Order in Council—babies will be in prison with their mothers if their mothers comply with certain requirements. The requirements are that those mothers are drug-free, that they look after their babies properly, and that they are being good mothers. Those are the sorts of things we would like for all of our children—that their mothers are drug-free, are not into alcohol, and are looking after them. There will be parenting assistance, which will be of extreme value in these situations. Let us be frank: how many mothers do we know who end up in prison for a long period of time? There are not very many. As Mr Goff has said, we now have home detention, and it seems to be the preferred sentence for most offences, but unfortunately some women will end up in prison, and we need to give some thought to those of them who have young babies or who are expecting.

This measure is not a new and outrageous situation. In fact, I have in my hand a booklet put out by Her Majesty’s Prison Service in the UK entitled All About Mother and Baby Units. In looking through it, we see that a lot of the issues in the bill are addressed in the booklet. It is about accepting that unfortunately mothers end up in prison, sometimes for extended periods of time. They are the mothers of little babies. The fact that they are in prison does not necessarily mean that they are bad mothers, but it does mean that we can give their children a start that they may not otherwise have.

As a mother myself, I can say that the bonding between a mother and her baby is surely the most important consideration. We know of many instances in our own lives where that bonding has not occurred. We see how the baby can be affected by that, and we see that the mum will never be the good mum she wants to be. We also know that both the mother and the father are important in the bringing up of a child, but we cannot have mums, dads, and babies all together in the same prison—that would be going a little bit too far.

It is incredibly important that we stick to the provisions about testing for drugs. It is incredibly important that we accept that these mothers are our most vulnerable mothers, and our most challenging mothers in many cases, and that their babies will be our most vulnerable babies. If we simply allow mums to have babies in prisons, and we do not put in place really sensible parenting programmes, and really good schemes to make sure they come out of prison not only better people but better mothers, then that would be a shame and a waste.

I am concerned that this bill does not have a commencement date. We had assurances from the Minister of Corrections, Phil Goff, during the Committee stage that the matter would be addressed. In fact, I recall the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, making that clear. I do not know whether Ms Bradford has had any update on that. I am also concerned that there is no actual requirement that parenting facilities be put in place. The mother and baby units will be available only if they are built and the provisions are in place. I think that is something we should give some thought to. How can we introduce legislation that provides for mothers and babies in prison, without having a real commitment to provide those services? I hope Ms Bradford, who obviously is in discussion with the Government, can tell us all about that.

Breastfeeding is incredibly important for babies and for mothers, but, let us be frank, not many mothers breastfeed these days. It is very difficult for a mother to start to breastfeed when she has been shoved out of hospital within 24 hours of her baby being delivered. It is incredibly difficult to get any sort of system going. It is very, very difficult when Plunket does not even know that the mother has had a baby, or if it does know, it does not know where the mother is. It is very, very challenging to expect that breastfeeding will suddenly happen for mothers with babies in prison, and we are probably being a little bit hopeful in that regard.

One thing I think we can say is that if this measure is done properly, if it is supported by will rather than simply law, we can ensure that, for at least some months in a baby’s life, the baby has a chance. We can also ensure that a mother who does not have the skills to be a good mother gets some assistance to change. I think that is really important. If we are going to try to rehabilitate people, we have to give them hope. I cannot think of a better reason for a mother to have hope for the future than to have a child to look after. I cannot think of anything better than that. It is the one thing that will change some of these women’s lives.

I am also aware—and Ms Bradford will no doubt remind me—that not all mothers in prison are there because of really bad situations. I think Ms Bradford reminded us of the times when she was arrested for protesting and was put in prison—but not for very long periods of time. Having said that, we accept that not everybody is there because they are evil people, but, rather, because they have got themselves into situations that they should not have been in.

This situation is unusual in that we have multiparty support on the matter of mothers and babies in prison. I think it is an acknowledgment that we understand that life is not perfect. People often talk about crime, prison, and prisoners, and about how terrible it all is, but if we look a little more closely, we see that most families have either somebody in prison or somebody who has been in prison at some stage; it may be a member of the wider family, but for most families there is some connection. Actually, we are not all perfect; families are not perfect. As I say to people, we can choose our friends but we cannot choose our family—fortunately, I like my family. But that is just the way it is. People have to live in the real world.

In conclusion, the National Party is proud to be able to support this bill. We would like—if it is the will of the people—to have an opportunity to implement it, to take it from being just words and to actually put it into practice.

SUE BRADFORD (Green): I am really pleased to see the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill making its way through its final stages in the House just before we rise at the end of this term of Parliament. I acknowledge the Minister of Corrections, Phil Goff, and Judith Collins for the contributions they have just made, and for their personal support and the support of their parties for this bill. It is fantastic.

Although this bill marks a very small reform within the context of our whole problematic prison system, it is certainly a change whose time has come. We had the first reading debate on this bill way back in June 2006—now over 2 years ago. It has been a much longer haul than I expected for a bill that has been nowhere near as controversial as, for example, trying to change child discipline laws or to abolish discriminatory youth rates.

This bill achieves a few comparatively simple things. First, once it comes into force some mothers in prison will be able to keep their babies with them for up to 2 years, rather than the 6 months currently allowed. At the moment there is also at times a grace period of up to 9 months for some mothers—that is, there is an extension of 3 months on top of the current 6 months. There may also in future be an extension on top of the 2 years in certain circumstances.

Secondly, in some circumstances mothers who are on remand or who are sentenced prisoners with a high security classification will, for the first time, have the option to have their babies live with them in prison. Thirdly, the new law will provide more of a mandate to prison authorities to ensure that if a child in a mother’s care is being breastfed, she will be given the opportunity and space to do so. At the same time, the bill does not discriminate against mothers who cannot breastfeed or who are not breastfeeding. They will have the same option of keeping their baby with them, as circumstances allow.

There were two major reasons for my placing this bill in the members’ bills ballot in the first place. I was first of all struck by stories from groups working with women in prison of mothers being refused any chance to breastfeed their newborn baby and of prison authorities, in some cases, using the right to breastfeed as a way of keeping women in line, to be granted or denied at the will of corrections officers. At a time when health authorities around the world and our own Government here at home are promoting breastfeeding as giving the best possible start in life where mothers can manage it, it seemed unbelievable that the best interests of the child could be served so poorly and in such a cavalier fashion within our corrections system.

On this matter I will quote from the commentary to the bill, signed up to by all members on the Law and Order Committee, which states, among other things: “When there is no other reason to terminate the placement [of a baby with an imprisoned mother] we expect that removing access to breastfeeding will not be used as a tool of prison management or discipline.” I hope this message will be sent very clearly throughout the corrections service right away. It does not require special budgets or the building of new facilities. I also hope that there will be more encouragement within the corrections service for mothers to feed and bond with their babies, breastfeeding or not, even where they are unable to keep their babies with them full-time.

The second primary motivating factor for my putting this bill forward was that I have for a long time been moved—as any one of us here today who has breastfed and nurtured their own children would be—by the torment suffered by mothers who either suddenly find themselves without their baby, or have their baby removed as a result of imprisonment or of the rules around their security classification. I had also at one time in my life, in the wake of the Springbok Tour, gone through a High Court case where the risk of possible imprisonment was high, at a time when I was breastfeeding my own newborn daughter. On the day the eight of us involved were about to be sentenced, I realised the full horror of what it would mean to be separated from my baby Katie for months or years. I will always be grateful to that judge, who gave us all a suspended prison sentence.

There are heartrending stories, some of which we heard during the select committee process, of mothers who went through the emotional rollercoaster of being told while pregnant that they could and then could not keep their baby with them—on again and off again—in a way that was emotionally absolutely devastating and traumatic. We heard of the grief of mothers who had their baby taken from their arms after the allocated time was up. We heard of women who had turned their lives round after being allowed the privilege of keeping their baby with them. Evidence came to us that for some women, the opportunity to keep their baby in prison was life-changingly positive. We have also heard of the opposite impact, which happens when one’s baby is torn away—it has the reverse impact on rehabilitation and on one’s chances when one gets out of prison again.

The bill we are passing today will not solve all the problems of all mothers with babies in prison, but it will certainly improve things for some. Its priority—and this should be noted—is to put the interests of the child first, and to ensure that mothers who are enabled to keep their babies with them are fit to do so. Babies will be placed with their mother only if she wants to have the baby with her and if she signs a parenting agreement with a wide range of conditions. Mothers will also be able to keep their babies only if suitable facilities are available in the prison system for mother and child.

In the final stages of the bill the Government made it clear that there are fiscal limitations—as Minister Goff has just pointed out—on how fast the corrections service will be able to develop more suitable housing for babies and mothers, both in terms of babies staying in until they are up to 2 years old, or even 2 years and 3 months old, and in regard to the way in which different classifications of prisoners are required to be kept separate from each other. It is for this reason that the Green Party accepted the Minister of Corrections’ Supplementary Order Paper 174, which was introduced during the Committee stage. It means this legislation will be applied only as and how facilities exist and are developed, but I have also accepted the Minister’s assurance that money will be invested immediately to begin to extend the facilities available. Because of the substantial cross-party support for this bill, it is my sincere hope that whichever combination of parties forms the next Government, this commitment will continue and grow to allow more and more mothers, where possible and desirable, to keep their babies with them.

I realise that with a member’s bill like this it would not be realistic to expect a huge Budget allocation in the first instance, given the pressures on Government Budgets in general and on the Department of Corrections in particular, but at the same time, without any financial commitment at all, the bill would have been meaningless. I offer hearty thanks to Minister Phil Goff for his understanding of and support for what is being attempted here, and for that initial Budget allocation.

I also extend my sincere thanks to the parties in this House that are voting for the bill, and have done so right through from beginning to end. Labour, New Zealand First, United Future, National, the Māori Party, and the ACT party are all, I understand, voting for this bill. I think this support is a tribute to the compassion of the MPs and the parties concerned, and to their understanding that this bill is, above all, about the welfare of babies, whose need and right to bond with their mothers from birth, if at all possible, should be paramount in our thinking.

I further acknowledge my fellow MPs on the Law and Order Committee that dealt with this bill and who are not a crew with whom I normally work. I thank all of those members, but particularly Martin Gallagher from Labour, who chaired the committee, and Simon Power from National, who proved to be an astute voice and sounding board for many of the issues arising from our consideration. I thank also the select committee staff and Government officials who helped with all the backroom work on the bill.

Similarly, I give a big thankyou to all the submitters. We had 58 submissions in all, which is quite a large number given the small size of the bill, the lack of controversy around it, and the fact that it deals with only a tiny segment of the population. However, my remarking that this bill was not particularly controversial is not to say that it does not have its critics. I was particularly struck by submissions from some who said we should not have any mothers with babies in prison at all. I agree with them, but, unfortunately, the Green Party has not so far been in a position to be able to champion things like the piloting of habilitation or community justice centres outside prison walls, much less many other much-needed reforms to our corrections and justice systems.

I see the measure we are taking today as just one stage on a much longer journey towards the progressive reform of our prison system. Once again, I acknowledge all those who have helped us take this small but critical and much-needed step forward.

KATE WILKINSON (National): I rise today with pleasure to speak also in support of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Like other parties in this House, the National Party has supported the bill through all of its stages, and continues to do so at its third reading.

We have heard that the bill amends the Corrections Act 2004, extending the time that mothers can keep their babies with them in prison from 6 months up to 2 years, with a 3-month grace period. It brings New Zealand in line with other international jurisdictions, and is certainly not out of step with current trends. Of 27 countries, including 8 Australian states, I understand only Slovakia does not allow children in prison with their mums, and in its case, Slovakia defers imprisonment of a pregnant woman until the baby is born. Upper age-limits vary from 12 months in places like Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Malta, and Sweden, to 6 years in countries like Germany and Spain, whilst England’s upper age-limit is 18 months and Scotland’s is 6 years. New Zealand is looking at 2 years. Mothers will be able to look after their children for that time even though they may be in prison, so that care, bonding, and feeding can be maintained and continued throughout that time. Two years is considered an optimum time for separation given the circumstances of average sentences, ability to visit, alternative care, and whether the mother with the baby is able to access programmes and tuition to learn proper parenting skills.

One of the biggest debates has centred on the idea that prison is not a suitable environment for a child or a baby. I think that everyone in this House will agree that prison certainly is not the ideal place to raise a baby, and, given the choice, I am certain that no mother wants to bond with her new baby in a prison cell. It is an unfortunate situation but it is one we are none the less faced with in this country as the number of women in prison continues to grow, according to the Ministry of Justice 2006 forecast. According to that forecast, the women’s prison population is expected to increase to 532 women by 2014. However unsuitable an environment prison is, we also agree that the health, safety, and well-being of the child are paramount. If we agree on that then surely we must also agree that to house a baby with its mother, even within the confines of the prison walls, where that baby is warm, fed, and cared for by the most important person in its life, really is in the child’s best interests.

Current statistics have been gathered from a couple of snapshots as at 31 January 2004 and again in 2006. In that period only 22 female inmates had babies with them in self-care units. The female prison population doubled from 186 to 370 in that period. The number of female prisoners older than 40 years increased from 14 percent to 24 percent of the prison population, but the greatest growth was in the 14 to 29-year-old age group, which now represents some 46 percent of the prison population. Inmates with children aged 2 years or under totalled 160 in 2006, with 140 of those children being aged from 2 to 5 years. We were told that 36 percent of inmates served short-term sentences, being less than 2 years and becoming eligible for release at 12 months. Of the 43 percent of those serving long-term sentences, half are sentenced to 3 years or less, and are eligible for parole at one-third of that sentence. So the vast majority of children will be in prisons for less than 12 months.

I want to relate a situation that I did speak about in Committee stage, which actually reflects the good intention and purpose of this bill. It was a true story in Central Otago. A young mum offended. She had a 3-month-old baby. One of the local lawyers there told me that at every court date the judge struggles with what to do with dependants such as these that really fall through the cracks. The judge stated in his judgment that the defendant should have been given a sentence of community detention, but because it was not offered in that area he could not give her that sentence. She had a 3-month-old baby. She had no family outside Central Otago, because she had grown up there, and so she had no support outside Central Otago. That mum was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. She has to serve the entire 4 months. The baby has now been left with her grandmother. The mother was still breastfeeding the 3-month-old baby who was left with her grandmother. The lawyer, quite rightly, stated at the time that that situation was outrageous. The Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill will go some way to ameliorating that situation.

Although we can criticise the fact that community detention is not available in all areas, and was not available in areas such as Central Otago—we understand because of the lack of cellphone coverage—this is a real-life situation that demonstrates how this bill can do great things for that mum with a 3-month-old baby. Certainly the mother had offended, but the offence was to the extent that the sentence was only 4 months’ imprisonment, and her baby had to be left with her grandmother, even though the mother was still breastfeeding. In this sense it was a bit of justice by geography, but the judge had no choice. The judge admitted it was deplorable, and after the enactment of this bill, hopefully, that situation will not occur again.

I think it is fair to say that nobody believes that prison is the best place to bring up children, but there are situations like that Central Otago case where this is the only fair and reasonable thing to do. At the end of the day, what is the alternative? The alternative is where children and babies are separated from their mothers for an extended period of time, and often get shipped between family members or foster homes, from one house to another. This benefits no one. Under this bill parenting agreements will be set in place, setting out obligations of the mother with the Department of Corrections for as long as the mother is in that programme—obligatory conditions that arguably provide conditions in upbringing considerably better than that child may have otherwise received in the home.

National believes that mothers and babies deserve this chance to bond in those first few months of life. This sentiment was shared by a number of submitters, including the Families Commission, which said it is vital that babies form a strong attachment to one person within the first few years of life. From this grows a sense of security and trust, self-esteem, and the capacity to form loving relationships with other people. Developmental experts advise that children should not be separated from their primary care giver between the ages of 6 months to about 2½ years to 3 years, for this reason. The effect of successful bonding is so profound that it relates to nearly all the aspects of the child’s future life. The interest of the child was National’s main concern in making decisions about the placement of children of prison inmates. We feel comfortable knowing that by allowing mothers to have their babies living with them in prison, we are providing the opportunity to encourage those families to build stronger relationships, which will hopefully continue to flourish once the term of imprisonment ends.

Historically, the vast majority of women have received short sentences, and most continue to receive prison sentences of less than 2 years. The average, I understand, is about 11½ months. Currently those who are serving a sentence of 2 years or less are automatically released after serving half of their sentence. Therefore, the number of children separated from their mothers will be kept to a minimum, and through this extension we are significantly improving the status quo.

There are some exemptions. There are some mothers who will not be eligible to apply to bring their children into prison. These exceptions include those who have committed unforgivable crimes against children. Those mothers will not have their applications approved, and this is entirely appropriate.

We have heard that significant changes to New Zealand’s three women’s prisons will be required in order to accommodate children under 2 years of age. But this is a cost that I am sure will be outweighed by the benefits to our society. We are protecting the safety and the well-being of our children. We are reiterating the importance of bonding, and attachment between mothers and babies. We are helping to move towards the rehabilitation of the mother, and quite possibly we are reducing recidivism.

It is also important to remember the general consensus that during the toddler years the child will have no idea of its surroundings. It will have no recollection of time spent growing up in prison. It will not care. However, that baby will know who its mother is. This change brings New Zealand into line with most comparable Western jurisdictions, and focuses on the best interests of the child while potentially being very beneficial to their mothers, and also to our country as a whole.

I am pleased to stand and to continue National’s support on this bill. I also congratulate the original promoter of the bill, Sue Bradford, on bringing it to the House. We are pleased that it has had such wide cross-party support, and we are certainly pleased to continue our support for this bill.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise to speak to this third reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. The ACT party will be supporting this bill. Before I begin to speak to the bill itself, I will take a moment to thank and to congratulate the bill’s author, Sue Bradford, on both her initiative and her efforts in promoting this very worthy cause. If we are to improve the outcomes for children born into families under often less than ideal circumstances, and if we are to improve the outcomes for the benefit of society, we must look to this sort of initiative.

The ACT party sees this bill as a win-win situation for those involved. Firstly, it is a win for babies, who will now have the opportunity to spend those very important first few months and years of their lives with their mothers, when that opportunity might previously have been denied them. Secondly, it is a win for mothers, who will now have the opportunity, as I have just outlined, to form that bond with their babies. Thirdly, we hope in anticipation that it will be a win for the greater society, in terms of the benefits those children will have for their futures.

One aspect that ACT was particularly concerned about was striking a good and clear balance between promoting what was best for the child and ensuring at the same time that the mother’s obligation to society—the reason for her being in prison in the first place—was met. Some key amendments to the bill have resulted in that balance being struck. ACT believes that the parenting agreements, for example, which create a code of conduct, are vitally important in that area. Furthermore, it is important to note the amendments to the bill to ensure the safety of the child, while also allowing for increased support for the mother. Those include new section 81A(1), inserted in clause 5, which ensures that screenings for mental health and substance abuse issues are completed, in order to evaluate the mother’s ability to look after the child as well as to create the potential to offer the mother extra support in the future, and that screenings identify that the mother has no previous convictions for an offence involving sexual or violent offending against children. As Sue Bradford outlined in her speech, the parameters are reasonably rigorous, and ACT supports them.

More flexibility has been introduced into the process, in that non-biological mothers and non-breastfeeding mothers are still eligible for the programme. While we recognise that the World Health Organization recommends that a mother breastfeeds her child exclusively until the age of 6 months, and then up to 2 years after that, we know that it is important to allow mothers not to feel boxed into a corner and pressured to breastfeed in order to be eligible for this programme.

Retaining a parent’s choice about the best option for the family’s circumstances is paramount, and something that is important to the ACT party. Too often children have been used as a tool in the behaviour patterns and decision-making processes that go on in prisons. There is less scope now for that to occur, due to the obvious clause that allows children to stay with their mothers until they are 2 years of age. But that provision has been furthered by introducing clauses such as that requiring a child development specialist to be involved in the consideration of ending a placement, rather than this being the role of solely the chief executive of the Department of Corrections. The provision creates a more robust decision-making process, which is of very high importance when it involves the potential separation of a mother and her child.

The international standards and experiences surrounding that very issue are also of particular interest to ACT. Article 2.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child deals, in part, with discouraging the unnecessary separation of children from their parents. It follows that this applies also to the separation of babies from their birth parents. Article 3.1 of the convention also establishes the key principle that the best interests of children shall be a primary consideration in any decision concerning them. Naturally, all of this would be lost if a baby were unnecessarily separated from its mother after it was born because the mother had an obligation to serve out her sentence in prison. International experience indicates that it is frequently considered to be in the best interests of both the child’s health and development, and the rehabilitation of the mother, for the child to be accommodated with the mother in prison for a period of up to 2 years, or more. In fact, a study in the United Kingdom has shown that the detrimental impact on the behaviour of children deprived of parental care through parental imprisonment, is greater—greater—than the impact on children who lose, or who are separated from, their parents in other ways. That just demonstrates further how important this bill is.

The bill, in fact, allows New Zealand to catch up with the rest of the world in relation to this issue. I note that many other countries’ time periods far exceeded our own status quo of 6 months. In particular, the time varies in Australia from between 6 years in Victoria to 1 year in Tasmania. The time period is 4 years in both Malaysia and Canada; 3 years in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Thailand; and 2 years in Indonesia and Viet Nam. Korea has a time frame of 18 months, as do the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom; and it is 1 year for Japan. To my mind, we are doing absolutely the right thing here in Parliament today by extending the right of mothers to retain their babies with them in prison until the children reach the age of 2 years.

At a very practical level, and as outlined by Judith Collins, some children who will now have the ability to stay with their mothers in prison in their early years, will actually have a better and a safer start to life. ACT has always promoted mentoring as the best possible way to assist families at risk. Hopefully, this bill will assist mothers and babies in this way, with both perhaps having more support than they would ever be likely to have had if that early start had been in their own homes.

This issue is something that I feel strongly about. Simply being confused about the situation is no excuse for not doing something about it. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights stated: “There are no simple solutions, but the complexity of the situation cannot be an excuse for failing to protect the rights of children who have a parent in prison.” The ACT party agrees with that statement and agrees with this bill. We happily give our support to it.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the third reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Firstly, I must congratulate Sue Bradford on her success in getting this very important member’s bill, now a Government bill, to this stage. It is a very important initiative and one we are pleased to support. It is good to see a bill like this having considerable support from right across the House. This is also an opportunity to show that we are serious about ensuring that all children get the best possible start in their early years—far better than perhaps some of those babies would have had when their mothers were in prison.

The Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill provides for a prison environment—unfortunately—that will support a child’s health. It will reduce social hazards, and all of the conditions that affect a child’s well-being, such as poverty, gambling, smoking, or drug abuse. This bill has generated a very worthwhile debate. New Zealand First will be interested to monitor the results, because it will ensure that any mother who is imprisoned with her baby will be able to continue bonding with, and caring for, that baby in a very controlled, very secure environment, with some supervision and oversight of the health and welfare of the baby. We can see that the benefits for the baby will be great. It is excellent that the baby will be able to bond with the mother.

New Zealand First believes that this area needs to be carefully monitored so that mothers, as a condition of having their babies with them, have to attend parenting classes regularly if they are to continue enjoying having their child with them. The early years are very, very important, and many of these mothers would not have attended any parenting courses at all. This is an opportunity for this group of people to learn those very important parenting skills in a controlled environment, and also for them to form a secure attachment to their child. Prison will be beneficial—unfortunately—for this group of vulnerable people, with no drugs or alcohol, with nutritious food, with support for the mother and the baby, and with well child checks being carried out, which we believe is absolutely essential. With regard to those mothers who choose not to have their babies with them, we say that that is their choice, as well. We know that it is not compulsory.

I was talking with my colleague Ron Mark and he reminded me that some groups of people do not necessarily agree that this scenario—a baby in prison with its mother—would benefit the child. Their argument is that a child is raised by a village and the wider whānau, and that it was not unusual for the whānau to take a child from the mother when that was the best option, given the mother’s lifestyle and/or drug or alcohol habits. This is a very valid argument, and it reinforces the fact that a choice can be made. New Zealand First recognises that the well-being of children is absolutely paramount and that all children deserve the best possible start in life. It reminds me of a quote that we often heard from the Hon Brian Donnelly, who was responsible for teaching children. He said that the future we give our children determines the future we receive.

All of the reports we have read emphasise the advantages throughout life of having a mother and her child bonding. New Zealand First has some concerns about the separation of the mother and child when the child turns 2 years of age. It can be far more traumatic for a child to be separated from his or her mother at 2 years of age than as a baby; and, as a mother, I know that this separation will have to be very carefully managed for both the mother and the child. We believe that we have made a step forward, but it may very well be that the age limit will need to be reviewed and even extended—and I can see that Sue Bradford actually agrees with that.

It is unfortunate that children are the innocent and unfortunate victims in these cases. It has been mentioned previously that some young women may deliberately get pregnant prior to going to prison, so that they will have an easier term in prison. Well, that is definitely not a factor that any law can control in any way, but it is to be hoped that if that is the case, then both the child and the mother will benefit from the controlled environment they find themselves in, and that the outcome will be far better than it otherwise would have been.

We are pleased that Minister Goff has announced and ensured that there is a budget to support this legislation. We are aware that resources are needed, and we understand, too, that there may be a brief lag between the passing of this legislation and its implementation. It is an unfortunate fact, as earlier speakers have said, that life is not perfect, but this is an opportunity whereby some babies can have a better start in life than they might otherwise have had in some environments. We are pleased to be catching up with the rest of the world. We have had the statistics quoted to us and we are aware that we are behind in this area.

So, in conclusion, I just say that New Zealand First supports this bill, and it thanks Sue Bradford for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, ā, kia ora tātou katoa e noho nei i roto i te Whare i tēnei rangi.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us all seated about the House today.]

Unfortunately, my co-leader Dr Pita Sharples has been called away, but he has provided me with some words that he would have said with regard to this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. In offering up this kōrero, I acknowledge the work that Pita has prepared for the House today. According to Dr Pita Sharples, this is what he believes—and what we in the Māori Party believe, I might say; I had better say that.

I heard a story yesterday about a girl called Sally. Last summer Sally decided school was not for her. She just did not want to go. It turns out that when the class went swimming she had been put into the embarrassing situation of having to tie her shoelaces, a task she was not prepared to perform. After having suffered the shame of being taunted about having a parent in prison, she just did not want another hassle in her life. Teaching her to tie shoelaces had been just one of the things that slipped by as the family coped—or did not—with the situation of incarceration.

I have to admit that this bill has wreaked a little bit of havoc on our normally serene caucus. We have been literally torn apart by the complexity of associating children with prison. We all know that children who suffer the fate of losing their parent to prison feel vulnerable, stigmatised, and at risk. They experience the full gamut of emotions from embarrassment and shame to rebellion and anger. They live with the grief of loss. They feel the fear of the unknown, unable to protect their parent, who is now caged beyond prison walls. Being separated from our loved ones is sheer and utter hell. If we as parents suffer the misfortune of being kept away from our families because of the job we love, just imagine how hard it is for children to be separated because of crime.

I want to acknowledge the amazing work of PILLARS, Ngā Pou Whakahou, which goes on year after year with approximately 12,000 children every year who are sentenced to separation from their imprisoned parent. Despite this, PILLARS suggests that the children of prisoners remain largely invisible. PILLARS has a simple statement that sums up this bill: “Paying for crimes they did not commit.” What crime did the newborn baby, born to a woman who finds herself in prison, commit? What crime did the 6-month-old baby commit that rips the baby from the breast of his or her mother? What crime did the 1-year-old child commit that is punishable by separation? I think of my mokopuna, and the absolute last place in the world I would wish them to be would be prison. I think of my children, and if any one of them had the misfortune of being imprisoned, I can but imagine the agony they would experience in being torn from their children.

The dilemma we face with this bill concerns how one evaluates the true impact on a child of losing a parent to prison. We simply do not know. We know that since the self-care units have been established at Arohata Women’s Prison, the floodgates have hardly opened. There were four women in 2004, six in 2005, and four in 2006. That is 14 in all—hardly enough to get excited over. Yet, clearly, the Minister of Corrections got pretty excited. The initial costings to meet peak periods of demand were estimated at approximately $19.6 million in capital expenditure and $6.5 million in annual operating expenditure. The facilities must be pretty flashy at that sort of costing. Faced with the multimillion-dollar proposal, the Minister then came back and responded that the women could make do with existing accommodation. What he said was: “subject to the availability of resources.” We have all heard that before. The Minister may as well say: “No means no.”

We in the Māori Party asked for further clarification about the financial projections for this bill. We asked whether it included medical facilities for the mothers and babies, and whether the facilities were of the dormitory type, individual rooms, cells, or independent living facilities à la flats. We asked whether there were shared flatting arrangements. We asked for details on staff numbers, specialist services available, and the types of rehabilitative programmes available. We did not get a response, but the questions still remain. Really, that is symptomatic of our collective view of this bill—the questions remain.

If our aspirations are for children to be nurtured under the protection of their mothers, would not our efforts be put to better use in promoting the increased use of community sentences? Surely it would be preferable for children to be raised in their own homes with their mothers serving home detention than to have the violent, brutal prison environment inflicted upon them? We wonder what the international empirical evidence says. Will adults remember that they were born and raised in a prison for the first couple of years of their lives? Will they remember the bars, the guards, and the prison walls? Or will they remember being nurtured, breastfed, held, and loved by the person who brought them into the world? Much of what shapes these formative years may well be alleviated through design and attention to detail. Many of the women’s prisons across America have taken on a major transformation in their visiting rooms. Instead of children paying for crimes they did not commit by being ushered into dark, cold, unattractive corridors, they are playing freely in rooms decorated with Disney characters, toys, books, and child-friendly decor.

We can all accept that the early childhood attachments are crucial for child development, but the jury is out on how best to support and promote that early bonding experience. In New York there is a correctional facility for women where their babies are allowed to stay with mum until the age of 2. At that time, the child is transferred to the extended family or the State while still continuing to have the benefits of visits with mum. The research from that facility indicates that these children have a much higher chance of being healthy than if they were removed and raised in a home where the early nurturing did not take place. There is no room for absolutes and certainties. Some children are far better off being cared for by family members. Some children fare far worse through being nurtured in a home limited by poverty and economic hardship. Other children flourish in environments where there are consistent, caring adults assuring them they are loved and secure. The point is that there must be opportunity for children to be nurtured, to have access to support, and to enjoy all the experiences that build strength and vitality.

Is such an ideal possible in prison? The Government clearly believes so. Is it possible that a prison can provide safe, abuse-free, and secure environments for children to grow up in? These are just some of the many, many questions our caucus has struggled with throughout the consideration of this bill. Ultimately, however, we know that every child born is a child born into whānau, hapū, and iwi. We know that those same whānau, hapū, and iwi must each, in turn, ask questions of themselves as to what is the best possible outcome for their babies, their mokopuna. The bill sets in place a process by which the mother enters into a parenting arrangement. Our preference would be that these parenting arrangements are agreements with the wider whānau, giving credence to the premise that our children are truly at the heart of the family.

Finally, we congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing this important issue to Parliament. Today, I can tell her that we have three votes in favour. For far too long these children have been ignored in the public debate, a debate that tends to focus on crime and punishment rather than the fate of dependent children. What we say is that if our way of life fails the child, it fails us all.

Koinā te kōrero o te Tākuta Pita Sharples.

[That is what Dr Pita Sharples said.]

That is an offer of congratulations to Sue from our co-leader Pita Sharples, who is not here today, and also on behalf of the party. On a personal note, although we have some issues in respect of the whole notion about babies in prison, at the end of the day we did some research and touched base with people who have been at the coalface—some who have been in that situation. They confirmed that having children in prison at an early age is far better in some ways for many, but of course it depends on the individuals involved. It was a very difficult issue for us to come to grips with, but at least today I can say that the Māori Party is with the member, and we offer our congratulations. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe, huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.

[Congratulations to you of the highest order, and to you collectively throughout the House, greetings, thank you.]

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation): I am pleased to take a call on the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I was not involved with the bill at the select committee, so it has been fantastic to hear the contributions from all parties to the debate today. We congratulate Sue Bradford. This is a bit of a Green day today. I say well done on the very issues that drove her into Parliament. This was one issue that was of great concern to me too, from my background, and to hear her story shows the pragmatic, grassroots approach that she has to politics that is leading her to make a difference in this House to people’s lives.

I used to be in the maternity care profession, and I recall very clearly that three issues used to concern me: firstly, the age of young mothers having their babies; secondly, adoption where we were party, in my practice days, to young babies being removed from their mothers and put into care, pending the arrival of the adoptive parents; and the third issue that had a profound effect on me was when mothers who were in prison came to the maternity unit to give birth and then had to return to prison, without their baby. It was something that profoundly moved me. There was that moment when the mother, like every mother, holds her child—with a partner there in most instances—and she wanted to invest everything to make sure that that child, with her parenting, would break the cycle of the life of dysfunction, hopelessness, and no opportunity that she had had, and then we took the baby away from the mother to find a family member who would care for it while the mother returned to incarceration.

It is great to see 20 years later that members in the House across the board are supporting this bill today. I congratulate all parties on their attitude and their contribution to this debate.

I want to look at the number of women who are involved here—4½ percent of women who are convicted receive a prison sentence. Although we, too, agree that prison sentences are not the best approach for these women, in this case it is the judge’s decision that they require incarceration in prison. I think that this bill now makes sure that the child is central to the family, and the child’s interests are of paramount concern, and that fits with the approach of the convention on human rights and the articles that we as a country are signatory to. Labour believes that every child counts, and deserves the best opportunities for the best start in life. This folds in with many other initiatives that we have focused on to make sure we build strong and resilient families that can take the knocks that society will deliver to some. We are not calling them vulnerable families, but some people do not share the same opportunities along life’s pathway.

This bill goes a long way towards making sure that children start to have the bonding and attachment that will give them the resilience to endure some of the knocks they will have, and towards making sure that that fierce instinct of motherhood remains, in terms of attachment, because mother and baby have not been separated. It is as simple as that. We know that all the indices across life, including physical and mental health, academic achievement, social skills, employment, and, for the children themselves, the risk of offending, and not being able to break that cycle themselves because of the circumstances of their birth, will be dealt with by this bill.

Labour is proud to be part of this. We know that women carry out most of the primary caregiving responsibilities for their children. They have a stronger attachment, by the mere process of carrying the child and giving birth, and the strong instinct of protection of their child that gives them the natural advantage over good fathers as to attachment at birth, which is quite a fierce instinct that we have.

Women are also much more likely than men to be sole parents. They are also more likely to face greater difficulties in finding alternative caregivers for their children. The family unit is much more likely to break down when the mother is in prison than when the father is in prison. We are looking at the integrity of the family unit wrapping around the child. Of course it is so much better to have babies with their mothers in prison, and we all seem to have reached that same conclusion, which is really great. We need to ensure that our children do not become lost in the system, and disadvantaged and victimised by it.

I heard Te Ururoa Flavell mention prison sentencing. I absolutely agree with him that we should be looking at home detention, community detention, and intensive supervision. Those three new sentences came into effect as from October 2007, and that is great. I hope judges will take them into account when they are looking at sentencing women offenders who come before them in the courts. They now have new tools to change the thinking that incarceration is the best approach.

I am really pleased, too, to see parenting agreements mentioned in the bill. It is about mothers learning that they may have to undertake parenting classes, just like the SKIP classes we provide out in the community. Those classes are a wonderful opportunity for women to share in the collegiality of other mothers in prison, to learn about the fundamentals of parenting, good nutrition, diet, exercise, and how mothers need to parent. They may never have been exposed to educational parenting programmes.

Other things that are absolutely essential for children who are literally incarcerated with their mothers are access for the other siblings in the family and for their fathers, and having a rehabilitation programme when the mother and child leave prison. It is not just about providing the right environment around these mothers while they are in prison.

I want to make a correction in terms of the capital and operating costs—funding that has been put in place as a result of this bill. There will be eight places in Auckland and Christchurch women’s prisons at a capital cost of $2 million, and $1.5 million in operating costs. The Minister has factored that into the decision in our support of this bill. I congratulate those who raised that issue.

The other issue that is vitally important is that the children receive all their health entitlements, their well child screening, as they would if they were out in the community. Another aspect Labour is particularly proud of is that all newborn babies now have a hearing screening and hearing assessment. That means these children will not have barriers to learning, and, through that screening of newborns, they will achieve educational outcomes probably better than those of their own parents. That is a great initiative. So we should remember those points about access by the family and a rehabilitation programme that we will have to wrap around the parents.

I heard the National Party talking about poor breastfeeding rates in this country. I want to correct that for the record in Hansard. This Government has invested in a breastfeeding action plan for the country to improve breastfeeding rates, and we are proud of the gradual improvement in those rates. We know that breastfeeding is where attachment and bonding between mother and child takes place, and that this bonding—including with the father—is really primary to the well-being of the child into the future.

So this is a fantastic bill, and it is well done. It goes with all of those other initiatives we put in place to say that every child deserves the best opportunity in life, and we in Labour believe that that is absolutely fundamental.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I will take a brief call in the third reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill to reassure the House that United Future remains in full support of the passage of this bill. We think it makes sense at a whole lot of levels.

If members have not taken the time to attend a Brainwave Trust conference at any stage, then I recommend that they do, because in doing so they will begin to understand the science of attachment that underpins what Sue Bradford has sought to achieve in her bill. The science goes like this. Although babies are born with fully mature organs, albeit small ones, and their brain is fully formed, it is not fully wired. In the first 3 years of a child’s life, one of the significant developments is that his or her brain becomes hot-wired. The Brainwave Trust goes beyond telling people just that scientific fact. It tells them that the most significant consideration, in terms of the healthy wiring of a child’s brain, is attachment—not just attachment to a group of nice people around the child but to significant people, like the child’s mother and father. Often it even specifically mentions the role of breastfeeding and of the mother in forming that attachment.

This bill ensures that babies born to women who are serving time in prison are not themselves disadvantaged by the imprisonment of their mothers, but are able to access all that a baby needs in order for attachment to occur. That makes huge and perfect sense. I am pleased to hear other members of Parliament talk about the need for resourcing to be provided for the implementation of this legislation, and we are happy to hear that the Government has allocated some funding. I guess over time we shall see whether it is enough; I suspect it will not be. But certainly we would support the ongoing resourcing of this initiative as it is rolled out, because we think it has a huge potential to do a huge amount of good.

We have a couple of other concerns that we think need to be considered beyond the passage of this bill. For instance, it is unclear how access for dads who want to be actively involved in their babies’ lives is to be organised—whether it is to be a case-by-case issue worked out with the prison service and the father. And, taking that principle to the extended family of grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, and sisters, it is unclear how we can make sure that an attachment is being facilitated for the mum while also considering what is happening for other family members, and, in particular, for the father. United Future would like to continue to monitor that area in order to ensure there is an equitable approach, for the sake of the child.

The other issue—which I think others have mentioned—we would like to signal an interest in is the better use of alternatives to prison. Surely, if a mother is deemed to be safe and able to care for a small baby, then do we not raise at the same time a question as to whether imprisonment is the best response to dealing with her breach of the law? We understand there would need to be some flexibility, but because allowing these women to keep their babies is to be based on the fact that they are safe to do so, then I think that raises a whole lot of other questions that we would welcome some discussion on beyond the passage of this bill. “Home detention”, “community-based sentencing”, and “intensive supervision” are all words that are being bandied around. They all have merit. They are all part of a range of options that could be considered, and United Future would like to put on the record our support for further investigation of those options for mothers who find themselves in this situation.

We are very pleased to see the provisions in the bill around parenting agreements. Yes, the mother is responsible for the care of her child while the child is in prison with her. However, alternative caregivers have to be identified to meet the needs of the child if there is an emergency or if another placement is required. The chief executive is required to ensure that the mother participates in parenting education programmes. The health and well-being of the mother and child are to be monitored, treatment is to be offered in a timely way should it be needed, and the mother must agree to participate in treatment or counselling if there is an identified mental health problem or a substance abuse issue. A whole lot of very positive things and conditions are included for a mother who has her baby housed in prison with her. I think those are very sensible, practical things.

One of the concerns that United Future has had about prisoners is the fact that often we do much less than we should around the treatment and reintegration of all prisoners back into society. I think, personally, that the good fruit from this initiative is yet to be realised. I think that although our primary concern must be the good of the child—and what this bill proposes is good for the child—beyond that initial goal is the potential for some very fine outcomes to be achieved in terms of women being fully reintegrated back into society and moving on in a positive direction in their lives, motivated by their love for, and the bonding they have with, the child. For that reason United Future is extremely pleased to see this initiative. We congratulate the sponsor of the bill, and we are very pleased to support its third reading.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I congratulate not only Sue Bradford on having some forethought in bringing the bill before the House but also the members of Parliament—the whole 121 of us—who got in behind this bill and made the decision to support it, because I am quite sure that if we looked across the country and took advice from every man and his dog who tends to have a view on these things, we would find that support was not unanimous. I am pleased to see that on this particular occasion the information laid before members of Parliament has won through in some good sense around this particular issue. Although a number of us were lobbied by people outside who were saying: “What are you doing? This is crazy stuff. A prison is no place for a baby.”, there was unanimous resolve across the House that, in certain circumstances, prison is the best place for certain babies.

We have only to look at the demographics of those people who go to jail to realise the wisdom behind the position that every party in this House has taken in respect of this bill. The mothers of children who grow up and go to prison have several hallmarks in common. They often have several children by the time they are 20, usually to multiple partners. The mothers of children who grow up and go to jail usually leave school with few or no qualifications, they usually have their baby when they are very young, they are usually employed in low-wage jobs or are on a benefit, they usually have had no significant family care or engagement, they are usually dependent on alcohol or some other drugs, and they are usually tobacco smokers—and if we can identify the father, he usually comes from within that same demographic, too. That means that the vast majority of the people who end up in jail fall into the category of people who do not have those home supports, or the ability or potential to readily succeed.

Another point that must be made very strongly is that the whole purpose of this bill is to give paramountcy to the child and not to the mother. So those people who look baldly at this legislation and say that women will run off and get pregnant—or they use that colloquial term “fall pregnant”—however they manage to do that, in order to have a softer time in jail are nuts, because women will not. And if the mothers were of that mind, then they would become pregnant in any event, and would probably be in the category I have outlined earlier, many, many times.

We need to look at our role as a society in order to take responsibility and to do the best we can by the child and the mother in circumstances where we are able to actually effect some purpose. There needs to be some discussion and understanding of the drivers that see young mothers in jail in the first place. Although we would love to be in a position to wind back the clock and to put in the education or safeguards that would prevent young people going to jail, this provision is not exclusive. Just because we have this provision—and thank God that we do and that it will soon be implemented—does not mean that we do not do the other things around education or have those other societal fixes that need to be put into effect early.

There is a real tension to the argument between the paramountcy of the child’s interest and consideration of the community-based sentence. I notice, for instance, that the Minister and other speakers talked about our ability now to enact home-based sentences, and home detention is one of those sentences. I really hope that the cart does not get put before the horse in respect of these sentencing options. I do not believe, having seen a lot of homes where prisoners come from, including a lot of homes with young babies—the children of female offenders—that home detention will be the best option in every case in any event.

The words of Dr Pita Sharples were related very well to us by his whip, Te Ururoa Flavell, in respect of children in prison. That speech asked whether the child would remember being raised in prison. Well, I wonder whether a child of the same age, maybe under 2 years old, is able to remember everything that went on at home and how positive that experience was. For instance, if a mum who fitted within the demographics I outlined at the beginning of my contribution lives in a house that is cold and damp, a house that is shared by many other adults, or a house where alcohol abuse or drug-taking happens on a frequent basis, will the child remember that? Will the child benefit from remembering that as his or her first home life experience?

Will the child remember growing up in a house with few toys, where little interest is taken in the child, and where not a heck of a lot of reading to the child is done or other parenting skills are displayed?

When we really look at this situation, we have to ask whether home detention is the best option for a person required to be sentenced for some other crime. For instance, would it not be far more appropriate for the mother of a young child to be placed in a mother and baby unit within a prison—that is, in a flatting situation—where carers are alongside prison officers, living with that mother, where parenting skills are taught on a daily basis, and where the precursor for a mother having her baby in prison is that a parenting agreement is signed? In that situation the child’s interests are paramount and come first and a written contract negates drug-taking and other negative behaviours. The baby will be raised—albeit within a prison—in a warm environment, with soft blankets, with care and attention, in a drug-free environment, and with regular feeds. There will be access to regular medical checks, like well child checks. The certainties that go with a regime that accepts the paramountcy of the child’s interests are right there as a key.

I do not believe that that regime is available in some homes, especially in the homes of those who end up going to jail. We have heard today, for instance, of the tragic death of a policeman in South Auckland, and at the centre of that home, which is now cordoned off by the police, was a young mum and a 5-month-old child, in circumstances where some offenders are living within that house. But, as I say, at the core of the situation is a 5-month-old baby.

You know, we cannot dictate in virtually every situation around this country where our babies live, but we know that these babies are our babies. They are not brown babies or yellow babies or brindled babies; they are our babies. And it is our role as representatives in this House—people in a privileged position—to put the security of the most vulnerable in our society right at the forefront of all we do.

I am proud to be part of the National Party, which has supported this legislation all the way through. Once again I thank the sponsor of the bill, and I say that I appreciate the support that has come from across the House on this very crucial issue. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 12.25 p.m. (Thursday)