Tuesday, 30 March 2010

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

European Parliament—Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand

Mr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand from the European Parliament, led by Mr Richard Ashworth MEP, is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.

Tabling of Documents

Clinical Training Agency—Number of Nurses Recently Employed

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): On 18 March, in answer to an oral question, the Minister of Health replied that 1,100 more nurses had been employed since he became Minister of Health. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that there was some debate about the source of that information. I sought for the Minister to table the information if it was an official document. The Minister said in the House that he was referring to the ministry—

Mr SPEAKER: I am listening carefully, and I am struggling to ascertain the issue of order that the member is seeking to have me consider. So far it is litigating information, which is not a valid point of order. I will listen a moment longer but I must hear the point of order.

Hon RUTH DYSON: I seek leave to table the most recently available data outlining the number of nurses employed in the New Zealand workforce.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of that document?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It was prepared for the Clinical Training Agency, Ministry of Health, and was published in 2009. It covers the years to 2008 and is the most recent data available.

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

Points of Order

Questions for Written Answer—Ministerial Responsibility

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to make a considered ruling in relation to Speaker’s ruling 145/6, which relates to ministerial responsibility for answering questions. In particular, I want you to rule on a written question that the Office of the Prime Minister has twice turned down as not having responsibility for, which relates to a letter the Prime Minister wrote as Prime Minister to 350,000 New Zealanders.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member. Another issue arose recently while the Deputy Speaker was in the chair around a discrepancy between an oral answer and a written answer. It is quite difficult for us to follow up these issues without the detail being down in writing. It has taken quite a lot of research to follow up that previous point of order. I am not saying there is anything wrong with what the member is asking, but I ask him to put it in writing for me so that I can consider the detail of what he is seeking and act on that. It is not a matter for the House to consider right now; it is a matter for me to consider. I am very happy to do that.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Accident Compensation—Pre-existing Degenerative Conditions

1. Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) to the Minister for ACC: What changes have been made to ACC coverage relating to the presence of “pre-existing degenerative” conditions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): There has been no change to the legislative cover. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) will do more elective surgery this year, at about 50,000 procedures, than the average of about 43,000 procedures per year under the previous Government, and approximately 80 percent of applications are being approved. There had always been a contentious issue on the margin between what is an accident and what is a pre-existing degenerative condition. I remind the member opposite that over 50,000 people were declined elective surgery funded by the accident compensation scheme during the previous Government. Most of them were declined because they had a degenerative condition.

Hon Jim Anderton: If, as the Minister says, there has been no change in policy, can he explain why the number of complaints that have been sent for formal review against ACC’s decision to refuse accident compensation cover has increased by 65 percent since National came to office, when compared with the average for the 4 years prior to the election in 2008?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There has been an increase in the number of elective surgery cases taken to review. I am monitoring that closely. I have noted that the actual proportion of cases going to review where the decision of ACC has been overturned has actually declined. It is critical that these decisions are made on medical and not cost grounds, and I intend to continuously monitor that to ensure that New Zealanders are receiving the accident compensation support that they are entitled to receive.

Hon Jim Anderton: How is it that ACC seems to know the full financial details out to 2019, which support its scenario that accident compensation is in a financial crisis, when in response to written questions to the Minister neither he nor ACC can answer any questions concerning data on pre-existing degeneration or a decline in cover classification, or concerning data on the proportion of claims for the treatment of shoulder injuries that have been declined due to a finding of pre-existing degeneration, and when there is a whole list of similar unanswered questions where information is lacking that I will seek the Speaker’s leave to table, because it is too long to go through in a supplementary question?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I was not sure whether the member was asking a question or seeking leave. He made the claim—

Grant Robertson: Or you could just answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to answer the question. The member seems to make the assertion that ACC does not have financial challenges. I point out to the member that in the 2007-08 year, the annual reports signed by Maryan Street showed a loss of $2.4 billion. In the year following that, ACC made a loss of $4.8 billion. Only members opposite would pretend—

Hon Jim Anderton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question about why ACC is not able to answer a whole range of very pertinent questions about accident compensation and the corporation’s refusal to cover claims. The Minister has gone off on a tangent that I submit to you does not in any way address my question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In his question, the member made specific assertions that were incorrect about ACC not having financial problems and not being able to look forward. When members make those sorts of false assertions, it is quite proper for a Minister to want to put the record correct.

Mr SPEAKER: This is the dilemma that we get into. If the honourable member had asked precisely the question that he said he had asked without the little preamble bit, I could have asked the Minister to answer it. But the dilemma is that the question was not quite as precise as that.

Michael Woodhouse: What response does the Minister have to the case of Mr Neville Toohey, who last week barricaded himself in Christchurch Cathedral over ACC’s declining of his elective surgery?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, I would note that Mr Toohey’s claim was declined in 2008, which reinforces the fact that there has always been some contention around what is an accident and what is a degenerative condition. I also note that Mr Toohey did not take up the option of seeking an independent review within 3 months of that decision, despite being properly advised of his right. He was also given an independent hearing of his case, but he failed to turn up and gave no reasonable explanation for his absence. Taking up his review rights, which are free, would have been a more constructive way for Mr Toohey to test ACC’s decision to decline surgery for his back problems.

Hon Jim Anderton: Why did we go from a level of reviewed accident compensation claims that was remarkably consistent for 4 years prior to the election of the National Government in 2008 to a 65 percent increase in 1 year; was it the result of an accident, was it the result of bad luck, or was it the result of bad policy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s statistics are selective. I remind the House that 80 percent of the applications for elective surgery are being approved by ACC and that 50,000 elective surgeries will be provided this year, as compared with an average of 43,000 per year under the previous Government. I say to the member that the amount of elective surgery that is being provided is properly meeting the requirements of the accident compensation statute.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the advice given to the select committee by the Ministry of Health from the transcript of that advice about the transfer of $60 million worth of surgery from the accident compensation scheme to—

Mr SPEAKER: Am I to understand that the member seeks to table advice to a select committee?

Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s right.

Mr SPEAKER: Has the select committee reported to the House?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: Therefore the information is readily available to the House. I do not think we need to waste the time of the House on that.

Budget 2010—Tax System

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2010 make the tax system fairer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): A stream of bad decisions taken by the previous Labour Government over recent years—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear the point of order. I simply say to the Hon Bill English that when he is asked “How will Budget 2010 make the tax system fairer?”, to start with “A stream of bad decisions taken by the previous Government” is hardly answering the question asked, and it is out of order.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget will seek to undo a stream of bad decisions made by the previous Government. The previous Labour—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Members may not have noticed, but a point of order was called, and any interjections during a point of order will see someone out of the House.

Hon Darren Hughes: As you pointed out, Mr Speaker, the question on notice, which comes from the Government side, is clearly about Budget 2010. You made an intervention, which the Minister deliberately flouted, and the Minister’s answering questions like that will lead to disorder. He can give a solid answer based on that primary question.

Mr SPEAKER: Absolutely. I agree with the honourable member that there is no need to start answering the question that way. It is bound to lead to disorder. Once the Minister has given an answer, he knows he can probably make some comment, but to start answering that way is inconsistent with the Standing Orders. The Minister should start by telling us what he is planning to do with tax in the Budget, as the question asks.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Budget 2010 will seek to undo a stream of decisions made by the Labour Government that allowed too many New Zealanders to essentially choose the rate of tax they will pay. Labour did this by creating a proliferation of different tax rates across different entities, and this has undermined the wider sense of fairness in the tax system. We want to make sure that people pay the statutory tax rates and do not exploit the opportunities provided by the previous Labour Government for higher-income taxpayers to pay less tax.

Craig Foss: What options are available to the Government to reduce inequities in the tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has the option of simplifying the tax system. The previous Government left us with a proliferation of tax rates; for instance, it set the top personal tax rate at 39c, the trust rate at 33c, the company rate at 30c, and the rate on high-income investors at 30c. It may not be possible to bring all these rates into line, but we can reduce the number and spread of the tax rates so that the system is fairer to New Zealand taxpayers.

Stuart Nash: How is it fair that, under details of the tax package leaked by the Government to the Sunday Star-Times, someone on $150,000 gets a tax cut nine times as large as someone on $50,000?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will have to wait for the details of the package, as I pointed out to him previously. He needs to bear in mind that under his Government a self-employed person on $150,000 could virtually pick what tax he or she paid. We want to fix that unfairness.

Craig Foss: What measures will demonstrate that the Budget has produced a fairer tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There will be a number of ways in which people will be able to judge it. People will be able to use standard measures of equity such as Gini coefficients, or ratios between different quartiles of income earners, or look at how actual households benefit from the changes. We will look at eliminating the glaring inequities in the tax system that the previous Government left behind. I can also indicate that we expect the overall effect of the package to be pretty much neutral across different income levels.

Stuart Nash: Does he consider a tax cut package that delivers a $2 a week tax cut to almost 70 percent of all taxpayers while delivering a $90 a week cut to the top 1 percent is a fair package?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not believe anything that Labour said about a tax package that has not been announced.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure I heard exactly what the Minister said in that answer. I believe he said he would not believe anything someone said. The question asked how certain reductions in taxation were fair. The Minister can certainly dispute the figures given, but to do it in such a way that I perceive to be derogatory to the questioner is not acceptable. The question was a fair one. It might have been wrong but the Minister can point it out if it is wrong, without being derogatory.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply putting up a hypothesis. He cannot possibly know what the tax package is, because the details have not been decided.

Energy and Resources, Minister—Statements

3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with all recent comments by his Minister of Energy and Resources?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister is not familiar with every comment made by the Minister. If the member were more specific, he might be able to help him.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he agree with Gerry Brownlee that although the National Party never forewarned the public that it was intending to mine in protected and highly sensitive conservation areas, it told the mining industry up to 2 years before the election that it intended to do that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Hon Phil Goff: I take that answer means that he rejects the—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is asking a question.

Hon Phil Goff: After undertaking to remove protection from highly sensitive environmental areas in the conservation estate, did National ever receive financial contributions from the mining industry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has not undertaken to remove highly sensitive areas from protections against mining. What it has done is put out a consultation document proposing the removal of some areas from schedule 4. The Government has not made any decision to do that.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked whether the National Party had ever received financial contributions from the industry—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need assistance on this. If that is what the member had asked, he might have got a different answer, but that is not what the member asked.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is also the case, as I am sure you will appreciate, that the Prime Minister has no ability to answer in the House for National.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a perfectly valid point of order.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the National Government tell the mining industry that it intended to mine in the highly sensitive and protected conservation estate, but never bother to tell the public?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member’s allegation is simply not true.

Hon Phil Goff: How many more times must the hapless Gerry Brownlee be forced to contradict inaccurate statements of fact and figures—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been very hard, quite correctly, on Ministers who make derogatory comments about members asking questions. I think that should also go for members opposite who ask questions.

Hon Phil Goff: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need further assistance on this. The member makes a perfectly valid point of order, but if, as Speaker, I intervened every time a situation like this arose, I would be intervening far too often. I play the advantage rule, somewhat, and I am sure that once the member introduces that kind of language into a question, a pretty free answer will follow, and members know that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In answer to the question, I say it is not nearly as often as the hapless Mr Goff, who is pulling smaller crowds than his finance spokesperson at the moment.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity while Gerry Brownlee is in Mexico to announce a back-down on mining Great Barrier Island and the Coromandel; if not, when will he announce that back-down?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is following a fully transparent process. It has published a discussion document. In a matter of 4 or 5 weeks’ time submissions on that document will close, and then the Government will make decisions.

Hon Phil Goff: In regard to that very transparent process, does the Prime Minister stand by his own comment in the Prime Minister’s statement on 9 February that “Notwithstanding the public consultation process, … the Government will … make significant changes to Schedule 4.”; if he is determined to do that, why go through the farce of bothering with consultation, at all?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are going through the process of consultation because growing this economy will always involve some difficult trade-offs. It is important that we test how much New Zealanders value, in this case, conservation areas against the possibility of the economic growth that can flow from mining. The Government does not shrink from facing those particular challenges.

Health Services—Improving Front-line Services

4. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he seen in relation to improving health services?

Mr SPEAKER: A specific issue was missing from the question that the member read out. I believe he left out the word “front-line”. I invite the member to repeat his question.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Thank you. What reports has he received in relation to improving front-line health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I am pleased to inform the member and the House that I have received a report that New Zealand last year saw the single biggest increase in the number of patients benefiting from elective surgery in any calendar year. In 2009 almost 135,000 patients received elective surgery, which is an increase of more than 12,000, or 10 percent, on the number who received elective surgery in 2008. This increase is a great reflection on our surgeons, nurses, and dedicated staff throughout the New Zealand public health system, who are working so assiduously to improve front-line services for New Zealanders.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Has this large increase in the number of people receiving elective surgery been achieved by delivering less complex elective operations?

Hon TONY RYALL: No, it has not. The advice I have received is that the average case weight, which is a measure of complexity, has remained unchanged. I also advise the House that amongst the specialities that have seen increases in elective patients treated, cardiothoracic patients are up 18 percent, orthopaedic patients are up 9 percent, general surgery patients are up 6 percent, and patients needing plastics and burns surgery are up a remarkable 25 percent.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How does this report relate to the report released just last week of 66 people in Timaru waiting for surgery longer than the required 6 months, and which further states that as a punishment he has taken $450,000 from that district health board; how will that cut help those people get their surgery quicker?

Hon TONY RYALL: I say to the member opposite that when the news is that 12,000 extra patients received surgery last year than under the previous Government, we know that this Government is providing more elective surgery for New Zealanders. The one thing those 66 patients in Timaru know is that, unlike under the previous Government, they will not be one of 30,000 New Zealanders culled off hospital waiting lists.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How does this report relate to the report released last week of the Prime Minister being booed and called a traitor, due to health cuts, by a large crowd in Levin—the first time in living memory that a Prime Minister has been booed in Levin?

Hon TONY RYALL: I observe that they were probably the same protesters who made very good use of the reverse side of one of the billboards, which said: “Darren Hughes for Ōtaki”. Those billboards were not very effective in 2008, and I do not think they will be much more effective now. What is effective is the representation of Nathan Guy, the MP for Ōtaki.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What other initiatives is the Government planning in order to improve access to elective surgery?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is very clear that one of the best ways to deliver more elective surgery is to separate emergency surgery from elective surgery, because elective surgery is often stopped or cancelled when theatres are needed for emergencies. The Government has already announced that it is building an elective centre at Greenlane Clinical Centre. I also advise that it is investigating a dedicated elective centre at North Shore Hospital, and expects to make an announcement in relation to Hamilton at some time in the future.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I seek leave to table a Labour Party postcard with mining hats on it. These postcards were dropped in mailboxes in Wellington—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a genuine document?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, it is. It is out of a mailbox.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): The Labour Party would be happy to give consent to that, provided that the Minister could tell us whether it was delivered to his home in Dipton or—

Mr SPEAKER: I invited that; I blame myself for this loss of order. I am troubled, though. I do not think I am about to put leave to table a postcard. I do not think it is in the spirit of documentation that provides the House with information.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Impact on Economy

5. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: What will the impact of the proposal to mine protected schedule 4 land be on the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The proposal itself will have no impact on the New Zealand economy, but should the Government follow through on the process and remove some land from schedule 4, then I would expect that successful mining on that land would have the same impact as successful mining does on any other land—that is, it would create jobs for New Zealand families, and create wealth for New Zealand so that it can provide better public services and a better community.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific; the Minister is using weasel words to avoid answering it directly. The issue here—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Metiria Turei: —is that the question was specifically about mining—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat immediately, and cease to interject. If she reads the primary question she laid down, she will see “What will the impact of the proposal to mine protected schedule 4 land be on the New Zealand economy?”. There is no way there can be a precise answer to that question; it is basically seeking an opinion, and the member knows that when she seeks an opinion, the answer will never be very precise.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister sought any advice about the economic impact of mining in schedule 4 land on revenues to the Crown?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with the matter of whether any assessment of economic impact has been broken down in terms of revenue for the Crown. But I can reassure the member that the Government is committed to lifting our economic growth, because that is how we get better jobs and better public services. We are quite happy to have a vigorous discussion with New Zealand about some of the more challenging trade-offs we need to make to achieve that.

Metiria Turei: So is the Minister confirming to this House, and to the New Zealand public, that he has sought no advice about the impact of mining on schedule 4 land on income, royalties, taxes, or jobs, in either the mining industry or the tourism industry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a different question from the one asked earlier, which was about the impact on revenues for the Government. Some pretty well-established work has been done on the wider economic impact of mining, and of course the Minister of Tourism is interested in the impact on tourism. I point out that the Minister of Tourism recently opened a new visitors centre at the Martha Hill mine on the Coromandel, because tourist numbers are growing so fast that a better visitors centre is needed.

Metiria Turei: How can the Minister have the confidence about any impact on the New Zealand economy, when his own Minister of Tourism said in this House that he sought advice, but has none, on the impact on the tourism industry; and when his Minister for Energy and Resources does not know whether the value for just one mining proposal will be $1.5 billion or $4 billion?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is dealing in a series of hypotheses, and we can all debate who has a better hypothesis than someone else. I might say that the impact of mining on the Department of Conservation estate approved under the previous Government appears to be positive when that mining has turned out to be successful, because it has provided jobs for New Zealanders. The decline in tourism in recent years has not been due to mining in the Department of Conservation estate; it has been due to the global recession and a high exchange rate.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister sought advice about the economic impact of international newspapers and their criticism of New Zealand, like that of the Guardian when it said that the “clean, green” Kiwi brand amounted to “a ‘shameless two fingers to the global community’ in the face of a dirtier reality.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A few newspapers reflect the traditional practice of the Greens, which is to advertise to the world that New Zealand is nothing like as positive a place as almost all other New Zealanders believe that it is. But that is just the way that the Greens do business. We do not worry about the economic impact of that; we are getting on with growing our economy, and with providing jobs for families, and better public services.

Metiria Turei: How can the public have confidence in the Minister of Finance, when he is not interested in the economic impact of mining—as he just confessed to this House—or the fiscal impact of international condemnation on a $20 billion-a-year tourism industry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As Minister of Finance and as an interested New Zealander, of course I have an interest in what other people say about us. I have to say that a couple of lead writers—covering one article in two different newspapers—have shown a lot less combined negativity than the Green Party has about New Zealand, about what a dirty place we are, about how no one cares about the environment, and about how we would be much better if there were no economic growth. I do not agree with any of that. We are getting on with the job of proving that the Green Party is wrong.

Metiria Turei: How can the New Zealand public trust his management of the New Zealand economy, when his Government is trading off a known $20 billion a year tourism industry against who the hell knows what?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do not deal in those kinds of generalities, and I do not think anyone is suggesting that the whole tourism industry is being traded off against one or two other items of economic growth. There has been a vigorous discussion about mining, tourist numbers are rising, particularly from Australia—they have been going up quite rapidly—and we are looking forward to a very positive tourism season through the winter. It is all part of the Government’s attempt to grow the economy, provide sustainable jobs for families, and improve our public services.

Welfare Reforms—Advice Received on Future Focus

6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Did she agree with the advice she received on the Future Focus package?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I received a great deal of advice on the package. I agreed with most of the advice, but some of the advice I did not agree with.

Hon Annette King: What research was provided to her that accurately quantifies the size of behavioural change expected from beneficiaries arising from her Future Focus policy decisions?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: A great range of research. For example, one research paper I saw was that a Swedish controlled experiment found that postponing the medical checks on sickness benefits by 1 week increased the duration of compensation by 6.6 percent.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a document. It is the regulatory impact statement of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill, which says that no research was available to do what the Minister said it could.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon Annette King: Why would the Government put in place a policy when it is not backed by research, when she cannot determine how many people would shift from benefits as a result of the policy, when the so-called savings of $200 million over 10 years have been discredited, when Treasury opposes parts of it, when the Attorney-General said it does not create a fairer benefit system, and while 168,000 unemployed people are out there wanting jobs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because for far too long we have ignored long-term welfare dependency in this country. For far too long it was put in the too-hard basket, whilst 250,000 New Zealanders sat on welfare at the best of economic times under the previous Government.

Mr SPEAKER: It would be helpful if I could hear answers. I ask members to be a little more reasonable.

Katrina Shanks: Has the Minister seen any other reports about advice provided to Ministers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I have seen a number of reports where Treasury advised the previous Government that plenty of money was available for tax cuts, for example. I have also seen reports of Treasury advising that Working for Families would be ineffective in delivering on its key target of making work pay. A particular favourite of mine is a quote directly from Michael Cullen: “I have a very good relationship with Treasury. However, unlike the member opposite, I have no intention of being Treasury’s poodle.”

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called. I apologise, but I could not hear the member calling for a point of order, such was the noise from some of his colleagues.

Charles Chauvel: That was a very lengthy answer, but it related entirely to matters outside the Minister’s area of responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister was commenting on reports she has seen about the Government acting on or ignoring advice. I believe that is what she was answering to the House. It was difficult for me to hear, but I believe that was in the answer she was giving to the House, which seemed to me to be in order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a little hard to hear, but I think she referred to members opposite as poodles. I think, coming from a dachshund, that is pretty—

Mr SPEAKER: If the member had wanted me to take action on his point of order, he just blew it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, it’s all right.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I am not going to—

Hon Member: Better than a tiger.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member not to do that. [Interruption] I am still ruling on a point of order, and I ask members on both sides of the House to respect that. I did not hear what the Minister said. If she applied a derogatory term to the Opposition, then she should not do so. Likewise, the Hon Trevor Mallard should not use a point of order to make that kind of comment. Let us call it one all at this stage and come back to having a little more reasonable order.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would like to finish my answer, because I was interrupted by the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I will let the Minister finish that answer.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It was a direct quote from Michael Cullen, who said: “I have a very good relationship with Treasury. However, unlike the member opposite, I have no intention of being Treasury’s poodle.”

Hon Annette King: On what actual date did she personally consult with the Māori Party on the final version of the Future Focus policy, which she made a claim about earlier today?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I first met with Dr Pita Sharples on 26 November, from memory. I consulted with the whole Māori Party on 16 February. The policy has been through the normal process many times, which has been available to the Māori Party, but those two dates come to mind at this time.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, I ask who is accurate—Tariana Turia, her Associate Minister, who said this morning that she was consulted at the last minute; or the Minister and the Prime Minister, who said today that the Māori Party was consulted from late last year and given a chance to give some feedback? Both cannot be right.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As is the way with something this big and with this much detail, it changes all the time. I think that Minister Turia saw the last paper last week, and that is where her comments came from. The Prime Minister was obviously quite correct in his comments when he said that a lengthy consultation process had been done.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table the National Party benefits policy from the 2008 election—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that is an abuse of the Standing Orders.

Environment Canterbury—Stakeholder Response to Review

7. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for the Environment: What response has he received on the review of Environment Canterbury from key stakeholders, including the Canterbury mayors and councils, the local government association, Ngāi Tahu, and environmental organisations?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The 10 mayors and territorial councils of Canterbury have been unanimous in their view that the Government needed to act and that commissioners needed to be appointed. The Local Government New Zealand president has said there is a need for swift, drastic action by central government. Ngāi Tahu said they recognise the need for intervention and reluctantly support commissioners being appointed as a temporary measure. The Environmental Defence Society has said the Government must act, and the Water Rights Trust from Canterbury has said Environment Canterbury is just not up to the job. That is why today the Government has acted decisively.

Jacqui Dean: What additional powers is the Minister giving to the commissioners to get on top of water management in Canterbury?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I ask whether this question anticipates legislation, because I am not 100 percent certain that it can. I must seek some advice on whether a question like that can anticipate legislation.

I accept it on the basis that obviously a policy decision has been made, which the Minister can be questioned on. I apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has announced today its response to the report, which includes giving legislative status to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The Government also intends to give three additional powers to the commissioners. The first is to fast-track the completion of Canterbury’s water management plan. Frankly, it is an indictment that after 18 years there is no plan for water in Canterbury. Secondly, the commission will be given a decision-making role on water conservation orders in Canterbury under Part 2 of the Resource Management Act and also in respect of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The third power the commission will have is to be able to instigate targeted moratoria of water takes in areas where the resource is either close to becoming, or is currently, over-allocated.

Brendon Burns: Can the Minister confirm that he has acted to end a democratically elected council in Canterbury after a review that, in less than a month, interviewed fewer than 20 stakeholders, iwi, local mayors, and council chief executive officers, none of whom consulted their councils?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister of Local Government and I actually chose to meet with every one of the 10 territorial councils, from Waitaki in the south to Kaikōura in the north. Every one of those 10 councils said to us they supported the Government taking this step. This decision has not been taken lightly. I remind members opposite that when faced with problems with the Rodney District Council in 2000, National in Opposition supported legislation through all stages to appoint commissioners in respect of those particular problems.

Jacqui Dean: What steps has the Minister taken to ensure greater central government direction on freshwater management?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is of the view that greater central government direction is needed on water management. That is why one of the first things we did in Government was to support the Land and Water Forum. Although most councils have managed water without national direction, this Government is committed to using both national environment standards and national policy statements to ensure that there is greater central government direction. It is our view that these measures, as well as the measures taken in the Canterbury region, are needed to deliver the step change that is required in New Zealand’s freshwater management.

Jacqui Dean: What are the next steps for the Government to deliver on improving water management in Canterbury?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This afternoon I will be introducing the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I am pleased to have the support of the ACT Party, United Future, and the Maōri Party. Once the legislation is passed—

Hon Darren Hughes: Surprise, surprise!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite should reflect on the history of the Rodney District Council legislation, when, in 2000, the National Opposition gave support to it. Once the Environment Canterbury bill is passed, the Government will finalise the remaining commissioners and their terms of reference before gazetting the commencement date for the transition of those functions.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

8. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements about health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that Labour had culled 30,000 people from hospital waiting lists.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How do his statements relate to the concerns expressed by Kathy James, clinical adviser, Health Care Aotearoa, who says that “Vulnerable patients will get sicker and more will go to hospital under proposed funding cuts for family-doctor groups,”?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government has been quite clear: we want to support front-line services in general practice, and we will be moving resources in order to increase the subsidies for general practitioner visits.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How can he justify spending $6 million preparing business cases for integrated family health centres—his flagship policy—when the primary-care network covering most of Auckland has just ditched those centres in its proposal?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government inherited a situation where the previous Government had made very little progress in implementing the primary health care strategy. So this Government is seeking to do that; it will provide better, more convenient services for New Zealanders.

Nicky Wagner: What other front-line services are improving?

Hon TONY RYALL: Front-line services are improving in many parts of the public health service. They are particularly helped by the 1,100 extra nursing personnel in the public health service.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How does he explain to the people of Palmerston North, Feilding, and Levin that, despite Nathan Guy’s advocacy, their 24-hour district nursing service is under threat, the diabetes lifestyle centre is under threat, sexual health services are under threat, and the STAR 3 rehabilitation centre for people under 65 is due for the chop, as well?

Hon TONY RYALL: Despite the Government increasing MidCentral District Health Board’s budget by $26 million this year, the Government has inherited significant challenges with that district health board. There are a number of options on the table, and decisions are still to be had, but I am determined that the people of that area should have certainty about their services, and that the district health board should not career into financial crisis.

Tasers—United Nations Human Rights Committee Recommendation

9. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Justice: Ka whakaae te Kāwanatanga ki te tūtohutanga i te purongo o te Komiti o te Whakakotahitanga o ngā Iwi o te Ao e kī nei “The State party should consider relinquishing the use of electro-muscular disruption devise (EMDs) ‘TASERs’ ”; ki te kore, he aha ai?

[Will the Government agree to the recommendation from the United Nations Human Rights Committee report that “The State party should consider relinquishing the use of electro-muscular disruption devices (EMDs) ‘TASERs’ ”; if not, why not?]

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): No. Tasers are an important tool to ensure the safety of police officers and the public, particularly since New Zealand is one of only six countries in the OECD that does not routinely arm its police force. The Government has no plans to relinquish their use. I am confident that the procedures and processes in place are sufficient to meet any concerns.

Te Ururoa Flavell: He aha te whakautu a te Kāwanatanga ki ngā āwangawanga o te Komiti Whakatika Tangata o te Kotahitanga o te Ao—

[What is the Government’s response to the concerns of the United Nations Human Rights Committee—]

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

Mr SPEAKER: I suspect that the problem is that there is no interpretation. Let me see whether we can sort that out instantaneously, otherwise I may have to ask the honourable member to repeat the question in English. Sadly, the Speaker cannot translate—much to my regret. Let me just see whether we can check why the interpretation is not coming through.

I ask the honourable member to start the question again. If we do not get the interpretation, I regret to do it and hope that he is not offended, but I will have to ask him to ask his question in English. I ask him to start again, if he would not mind.

Te Ururoa Flavell: He aha te whakautu a te Kāwanatanga ki ngā āwangawanga o te Komiti Whakatika Tangata o te Kotahitanga o te Ao, e pā ana ki te noho tārewa o ngā kēhi tae noa ki te 2011 mō te hunga kua hāmenetia e te Operation Eight; ā, he aha hoki tāna ki te tūtohutanga o te komiti, kia kaua e waiho i ngā kēhi nei kia tārewa mō te wā roa?

[What is the Government’s response to the concerns of the United Nations Human Rights Committee about cases involving suspects arrested during Operation Eight being held over until 2011; and what is his response, as well, to the recommendation that these cases not be held over for a lengthy period of time?]

Hon SIMON POWER: The matter the member refers to is currently before the courts. It is not appropriate for me to comment at this time, other than to say that those arrested during Operation Eight are being accorded all their fair trial rights. This is one of the matters in respect of which the United Nations Human Rights Committee has asked for an update from the Government in 1 year’s time.

Te Ururoa Flavell: He aha te whakautu o te Kāwanatanga ki tā te ripoata o te komiti e kī nei, me kaha aro atu te Kāwanatanga o Aotearoa ki te whakakore i ngā mahi aukati i te iwi Māori i roto i te whakatinanatanga o te ture?

[What is the Government’s response to comments in the committee’s report that the Government of New Zealand should increase its efforts to prevent discrimination against Māori in the implementation of justice?]

Hon SIMON POWER: I do not accept the assumption that there is an institutional discrimination against Māori in the administration of justice. However, the overrepresentation of Māori in the criminal justice system is a particular concern of this Government. The Government has identified four priority areas to reduce offending and reoffending. One of those is alcohol, and the others include antenatal and maternity treatment, and programmes to address behavioural problems in young children. Again, this is one of the matters in respect of which the committee in New York has asked for an update in 12 months’ time.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the final report of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in which the criticisms of Government policy—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Conservation, Department—Advocacy Role

10. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she think the Department of Conservation should have an advocacy role for conservation at any public forum or in any statutory planning process?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation): The department should and does have an advocacy role, and this is generally provided for in section 6(b) of the Conservation Act 1987—namely, “To advocate the conservation of natural and historical resources generally:”.

Charles Chauvel: Given that as of her press conference with Gerry Brownlee 8 days ago, the Minister of Energy and Resources can decide whether diggers will be allowed on schedule 4 land, is it not the reality that she now has no control of her portfolio?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: No.

Charles Chauvel: Does she share the concerns of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, interviewed on Radio New Zealand National yesterday, about the adequacy of the consultation process over mining schedule 4 land; and does she agree with the commissioner that sharing her decision-making power with the Minister of Energy and Resources is like letting the Minister of Forestry decide whether to cut down trees in national parks?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Access to the conservation estate cannot occur without the Minister of Conservation’s signature. It cannot occur now and it will not occur in the future. However, the question of access is addressed in the discussion paper. It is a discussion paper and if the member has any concerns, I suggest he make a submission on the consultation paper. Submissions close on Tuesday, 4 May at 5 p.m.

Charles Chauvel: Will she advocate for the hundreds of people who rallied in front of the House at lunchtime to send her a message that once land has schedule 4 protection, it is not up for trading to her more powerful caucus colleagues?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have already had a delegation from that protest march in my office straight after the protest, and I suggested to them, as I suggest to that member, that this is a discussion paper and that input is welcome.

Charles Chauvel: Will she advocate for the 1.5 million people of the Auckland region who have no immediate access to a national park, and did she advocate on their behalf against mining Great Barrier Island and the Coromandel rather than simply doing as she was told by her higher-ranked Cabinet colleagues?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am not quite sure whether that member understands English, but this is a discussion paper—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made other rulings about terms of abuse, and I invite you to reflect on that answer. It was not an answer to the question. It was a straight question and it received a barrage of abuse.

Mr SPEAKER: Oh, that it were a straight question!

Hon KATE WILKINSON: As explained, the document is a discussion paper. It is inviting submissions. We will see those submissions when the consultation is over, and we will make decisions, if any, accordingly.

Crown Research Institutes—Changes

11. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What recent announcements has he made about changes aimed at ensuring New Zealand gets the best from its Crown research institutes?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): Yesterday the Prime Minister and I announced the Government’s response to the Crown Research Institute Taskforce. In short, the Government will be implementing all the major recommendations of the taskforce. In particular, it will give the institutes a longer and more strategic focus, which will be of great value to New Zealand business and to New Zealand science.

Colin King: Has the Minister received any reports about these changes?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes. Feedback has been very positive. Business New Zealand noticed that businesses would be particularly pleased with the opportunity to collaborate. I would also note that the Labour Party said yesterday: “Giving the Crown research institutes a clear directive to strive for breakthroughs to benefit New Zealand will be a key part of our economic transformation.”, and, of course, that is exactly what these reforms will do.

David Shearer: Even given the changes to the Crown research institutes, does he accept that achieving a step change in the economy requires substantial new investment in research, science, and technology in the 2010 Budget, and what assurances can he give the scientific community of that new funding?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I guess the questioner will have to wait for the Budget.

Colin King: What other initiatives are under way to better support science?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: There have been a number of initiatives. For instance, last year there were significant increases in funding for the Health Research Council, the Marsden Fund, and the Crown Research Institute Capability Fund. Of course, we appointed the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister, and we established core priorities, and there is more to come.

Education, National Standards—Minister’s Statement

12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her reported statement in regard to national standards that “criticism has been based on misinterpretations”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What misrepresentations led to Professor Hattie criticising the standards in February this year because, as he said, they do not recognise that children need to learn at their own pace, that bright children would be neglected, that the standards are at best a data-free educated guess about what students should know, and that an emphasis on benchmarks may lead to teachers hiding student failure?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In addition to that, Professor Hattie said national standards offer the most wonderful opportunities for refreshing and reinvigorating an already top-of-the-world system. He said of standards that, if implemented well, they can make a difference, but he also said, much more tellingly, that we cannot defend a system where one in 10 schools are deemed to be failing.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty simple question about misinterpretations, and I do not think quoting other things from Professor Hattie addressed or answered that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes an interesting challenge, because in respect of misinterpretation the Minister added further comments made by Professor Hattie, which gave further information about his interpretation of national standards. I do not believe that that was inconsistent with the Standing Orders. I think it was a reasonable answer to the question.

Louise Upston: What reports has she received of members of Parliament indulging in misrepresentations?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have received two reports on misinterpretations.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not accept that question as being in order, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a very good point. The Minister is not responsible for members of Parliament. [Interruption] Before I come to the Hon Trevor Mallard, I will give the member a chance to ask a supplementary question that is in order.

Louise Upston: What reports has she received of others indulging in misrepresentations?

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can be responsible only for issues to do with education. I have given the member a second chance.

Louise Upston: Sorry; can I have one more go?

Mr SPEAKER: Under the “three strikes and one is out” policy, this is it.

Louise Upston: What reports has she received about misrepresentations?

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is she allowed to stay, or does she have to go?

Mr SPEAKER: I did not mean it in that manner. I meant that I would rule out her chance to ask another supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What misinterpretation led to Hamilton East School stating that it had reported to parents on the basis of national standards but had not moderated its results with those of other schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Mr Speaker, the primary question was about criticism of the national standards being based on misinterpretations. From the sentence that the member has just read out, I see that as a perfectly responsible report to parents.

Mr SPEAKER: It seems that if that is the case, though, the Minister could answer along those lines. It would seem that the supplementary question is related to the primary question, and the Minister was asked about what misinterpretation was involved in that course of action.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not see that there was any misrepresentation. In fact, the school has been very open with its parents.

Mr SPEAKER: That seems to be a perfectly reasonable answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of that answer, is the Minister stating that moderation is not necessary; if so, how can her standards, which involve teacher judgment, be described as national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have not stated that moderation is unnecessary. In fact, as I have talked around the country, I have talked about the moderation that currently happens in primary schools, and about the fact that benchmarks from national standards and from existing assessment techniques will also be used for moderation. That statement from that school to parents is not a criticism of national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is moderation between schools necessary before reports are made to parents under her national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Moderation is currently carried out in primary schools, and it will continue. In fact, they use it all the time. They will apply the same standardised criteria, using their current assessment tools. They will use external references, which will now be national standards, and they will use nationally standardised criteria, which are exemplars that are produced from the national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was about the simplest question I could have asked. It asked whether there was a necessity for moderation between schools.

Mr SPEAKER: To simplify this, I invite the member to repeat his question, without the loss of a supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I might need to be given some leniency, because I asked the question a while ago. The essence of the question I asked was: do schools have to moderate between schools before they report to parents to full national standards for reporting?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: They may.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How is it possible to have a national standard if a school does not moderate its results with other schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: They will continue to do what primary schools do now, which is to provide moderation using, as I have explained, the various reference points that they use for moderation now. [Interruption]

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

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member on a point of order, I say the member has been asking a series of serious questions, and I ask his colleagues to allow the Minister to answer. It was rude to their own colleague who asked the question for them to make so much noise that I could not even hear the Minister’s answer. If the Minister recollects the question I invite her to answer it again, because I could not hear the answer.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The answer that I gave to the member who asked the question, and who has asked the same question in a number of different ways, is that schools will continue to use the moderation that they currently use. It happens in schools now. They use various reference points to moderate, and they will continue to do that. But the national standards will now provide a nationally consistent reference point, and the exemplars that are developed from that will also provide a second reference point, in addition to the reference point used from the existing assessment tools.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to push this once more, but again we had a very good description of what happens within schools. But the question of whether schools are required to moderate between schools, which was the essence of the question—which I think I have now asked three times—was not addressed.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have said on a number of occasions that schools will use the practices they currently use, and that includes working in clusters, which is inter-school moderation.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not conduct a debate on the answer by way of a point of order. A point of order was raised, and I listened to the Minister in response to it. I think that is a fair conclusion to that exchange.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the Tapanui School newsletter of 5 February, which includes a statement of that school’s position on national standards.

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the Taipā Area School’s newsletter, its principal’s welcoming newsletter of 5 March, which includes that school’s position on national standards.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I seek leave for that document to be tabled, could I humbly ask the member how many more such documents he may seek leave to table.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Quite a set. I am happy to do them as a group, if the Government says yes.

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker may, in fact, not put leave. The member has a choice. I will put leave on this occasion for the Taipā Area School document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a bundle of reports from schools, from their principals and from their boards of trustees, giving those schools’ positions on national standards.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that set of documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Bills

Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill

First Reading

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move, That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will be moving that the bill is referred to the Social Services Committee, and that the committee reports back to the House finally on or before 30 July 2010.

In the context of this legislation my focus is on the future: the future of New Zealand; the future of the welfare system; the future of individuals, families, and children; and the future of our society. Do we want a society that values work and the ability to provide for ourselves and our families? Do we want a society that says we will look after those who are most vulnerable and most in need? Do we want a society that teaches its children by example that the path to a better, more prosperous, and fulfilling life is through work, not welfare? I believe that the answer is yes, and I believe that that vision for the future is shared by most New Zealanders. Surely we all aspire to a better future for our children.

When this Government took office 18 months ago, it inherited a welfare State that showed no sign of diminishing, despite having enjoyed a decade of favourable economic conditions and strong employment. So through the best of times Labour failed to do anything about long-term welfare dependency; it simply squandered that opportunity, because it dared not challenge the status quo. That status quo, which Labour has been so wedded to, embodies an attitude towards welfare that is, quite frankly, dangerous. An entitlement mentality has become entrenched to the point where, for some, welfare is viewed no longer as a last resort reserved for the most vulnerable but as a right of all citizens. National recognised that attitude as an unhealthy, unsustainable burden on those who work hard to support the system. It is those hard-working New Zealanders who gave National the mandate to bring this legislation before the House today. National’s manifesto commitment to fairness, and an unrelenting focus on work, on what people can do and not on what they cannot do, is what New Zealanders voted for at the last election. It is that promise that we deliver today.

It is ironic to think that after enjoying such sunny economic times Labour left office and slunk off into the sunset while, behind it, the storm clouds of a major economic recession were already breaking. New Zealanders were left to struggle through an economic storm that washed away the remnants of a strong labour market, leaving many people high and dry with fewer jobs to cling to. Those hard-working New Zealanders struggling to pay the bills who battled on, supporting themselves and their families, watched their tax dollars flowing out each week to support a growing number of people on welfare, and asked themselves whether that was fair. They asked whether the people they were supporting were really those in the greatest need.

Fairness is a vital part of this legislation. It is a sense of fairness that calls us to rebalance the incentives and the obligations to ensure that only those who need help will get it. We have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure we are spending their welfare dollars carefully, because every dollar we spend on welfare has been earned by a hard-working New Zealander. We have a responsibility to get this right, because this system has been left to its own devices for too long. We have a responsibility to those who are on welfare and have the ability to do more to actually follow through and give them the support they need so that they are not consigned to a lifetime of limited choices and limited potential.

Why are we making these changes? We want to ensure fairness in the system, with the right balance of obligations and incentives to address an unreasonable sense of entitlement, and to introduce a set of expectations. Yes, we do expect those on the unemployment benefit to make every effort to find work. Yes, we do expect those on a domestic purposes benefit whose youngest child has turned 6 to be working towards work or taking part-time work. Yes, we do expect those on a sickness benefit to be getting well so that they can return to work. These are fair and reasonable expectations. We have changed the processes around sanctions, so that when obligations are not met a first time a 50 percent cut in the benefit kicks in. That means those who do not turn up for a scheduled job interview, for example, could lose half their benefit unless they have a very good reason for failing to meet their obligations. If, again and again, they fail to turn up, their benefit will be cut completely, except for those with dependent children, who will lose a maximum of half of their benefit, with no changes to add-ons like the accommodation supplement, so that they are not penalised unfairly. But let us be clear: all we are asking is for people to meet their obligation to make an effort to get off welfare and into work. If the work is not there, their benefit will remain.

Hon Steve Chadwick: The children will suffer.

Sue Moroney: You’ve failed to provide jobs.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I say it one more time for the snappy turtles: if the work is not there, their benefit will remain. The safety net is not being hauled in completely; it is just being trimmed to catch only those who need it.

We are providing greater incentives for those who are on benefits to transition into work by raising the abatement levels so that those who do work for a few hours a week keep more pay in their pockets. I am thrilled that we went a step further than our manifesto and increased the upper abatement level from $180 to $200. That is a fair incentive.

But there is a higher purpose to this. It comes back to the question of what kind of society we want to live in. Are we happy to leave thousands of children of beneficiaries to languish in households, living a hand-to-mouth existence and leading limited lives? Are we happy to do nothing about the 82,000 who have claimed a benefit for 5 years or more? Frankly, although Labour was content to ignore this problem, this Government is not. National has greater aspirations for New Zealanders. They involve a brighter future for many people, a future where they are in work and not on welfare. We know that it is vital that we implement supports for those who are reliant on welfare, to provide pathways into work.

Sue Moroney: There are no jobs.

Hon Steve Chadwick: The Minister should be ashamed.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Those members should listen up. That is why we are investing $223 million a year in employment-related training and support—$223 million a year. We are investing in industry partnership, wage subsidies, straight-to-work programmes, and Training Opportunities Programmes, providing help with writing CVs, boosting literacy and numeracy skills, and placing those people in work. We know that a country of 4.3 million people cannot continue to support 345,000 beneficiaries. It is not healthy for our economy, it is not healthy for individuals, and it is not healthy for society.

This is a conservative start, one that sees our tightening up the system to provide only for those who genuinely need it, while sending a clear message that those who can, should. We must get this right. This is a crucial opportunity to effect a major shift in thinking, a shift in attitude, and a shift in aspiration that lifts people’s sights up beyond a simple existence on welfare to a meaningful, rewarding life as a working member of society, participating and giving back. We are effecting a change in the way that society views the welfare system. This policy makes it clear that welfare is a stopgap, not a solution. The introduction of clear obligations and expectations will change the way that people use the system by discouraging long-term dependency.

National is taking this opportunity to have the first real, honest discussion this country has had about welfare in a long time. We are quite simply calling a spade a spade. Labour likes to talk about “clients”, “supports”, “help”, and “entitlements”. It is called welfare, and beneficiaries are paid benefits—let us at least be straight up and honest. But Labour fails to see the bigger picture, which is a New Zealand that does not have 12 percent of its working-age population on welfare, and a New Zealand that values work and self-responsibility. And here is the rub of it all: if we shut our eyes to the bigger picture, as Labour did, we will be blind to what is staring us in the face. The fact is that if we do not do something right now, our children will be mortgaged for years to come by an irresponsible reliance on a welfare system that supports an ever-growing population of beneficiaries. Working New Zealanders cannot support an ageing population as well as an increasing number of people on welfare. So I say that society has arrived at a crucial junction: we can continue on as we have been, without ambition, or we can move ahead. This legislation provides the first few steps on that path.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I rise to speak in the first reading of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The policy this bill will implement is to give beneficiaries a kick in the backside. The policy this bill will implement is to tell beneficiaries the dream is over. The dream is over; the dream the Minister for Social Development and Employment herself took when she was in the position to take it; the dream she took so that she could get ahead and get a job and bring up her family; and the dream she would like to deny to others. Well, I say to her that I have never heard a beneficiary tell me that living on the benefit is a dream.

We have just heard nothing but pure spin from that Minister—pure spin. She said that in the time of the previous Labour Government we did nothing about beneficiaries, unemployment, or the whole benefit system. I shall tell that Minister what we did. We took the number of unemployed people on the benefit down from over 400,000 New Zealanders to around 280,000 in the time we were in Government. That was not doing nothing; that was ensuring we put in the right support to help people to get jobs and to get training. We did not pull out the support that they needed, which is exactly what the National Government did at the first opportunity. It cut the training incentive allowance, took away scholarships, and did not put the focus on creating jobs, which it ought to have done. We now have 345,000 people on benefits in New Zealand. That number has gone up from 280,000 under that Minister’s watch, and she has the cheek to tell this House that the previous Labour Government did nothing about beneficiaries.

Well, if she thinks this bill will solve the problem, then she really is in cloud-cuckoo-land, as Paul Henry said last week. I tell the Minister that when one work tests people for a job, the first principle is that there have to be jobs for people to go into. It is interesting that even Treasury said not to do it now, that the timing is not right to try to work test sickness beneficiaries into jobs—and I will get on to that shortly. If there are no jobs out there, and the Minister is bringing in her “kick in the backside” and is “ending the dream”, as she says, where are the jobs? Where are the jobs that go from 9 to 3, with school holidays off? Where are the jobs for people who are unwell who have to take medication and have to have medical treatment? Where are the employers who are coming forward as the Minister blames and shames beneficiaries because they are in that predicament? That is exactly what the Minister is doing. She stands up and talks tough, although she herself was quite happy have the advantage that a good social security system gives this country.

I have to say that the stated intent of this bill is not what the bill means. In fact, the Minister claims that the bill will give a fairer system of social assistance to New Zealanders. Let me just read what the Attorney-General said about the Minister’s own bill and her policy. The Attorney-General is the most senior Minister in Cabinet in terms of being a lawyer. He is the Attorney-General. He is the top lawyer in the National Government. Let me just read what he says—[Interruption] I hope the shrieking Minister listens, because she obviously did not read this when it came to Cabinet. This is what her own colleague the Attorney-General said: “The stated objective of the Bill as a whole is to create a fairer benefit system with an unrelenting focus on beneficiaries entering or returning to employment. While this is an important and significant objective, the different treatment of people on the [DPB single parent] compared to women on the [widows benefit and DPB women alone] does not deserve this objective because it does not”—it does not—“create a fairer benefit system or encourage beneficiaries to enter or return to employment. Nor does it recognise the benefits of work for women on [the widows benefit] and the [DPB women alone]. Expressed another way, the limit is not rationally”—listen to this—“connected to the Bill’s stated objective. Nor do the distinctions appear to serve any other valid, non-discriminatory objective.” That statement was not from the Opposition; that statement came from the Attorney-General, who is a Minister in that Government on that side of the House.

This is not a bill that is fair to all people who are in receipt of a benefit. This is not a Labour bill. This is not our policy. It is National’s policy. It has chosen to discriminate against certain groups of women and men on the benefit. It has chosen to say that a person who receives the widows benefit equals good, but a person who receives the domestic purposes benefit and is a single parent—who is on the benefit because she is divorced, because her husband took off with somebody else, or because she does not have a partner—is bad and should be work tested. But not if she is a widow, and there is a subliminal message in that. It comes from the fact that John Key’s mother was a widow. She was not one of those domestic purposes benefit recipients who got themselves pregnant and then were on the State’s purse. That is the subliminal message, because there is no other reason why a Government that is going to discriminate—as this Government wants to do—does not say that it includes all people.

The other discrimination is that men who are widowers will be work tested under this policy, but women who are widows will not. That is not Labour’s policy; it is National’s policy. Why would the Government discriminate in such a way? It does not make sense, and the Attorney-General said it did not make sense.

This bill sets out some objectives. It has a clear focus on work. You know, most New Zealanders want to work. Members should never forget the 3,000 New Zealanders who queued outside a supermarket only a few weeks ago to get 150 jobs. They queued for hours because they wanted to work. They could not all have a job, but they wanted to work. And most New Zealanders do want to work. They want a job. But this policy says they ought to get a job. Well, if the Government can help to train and prepare people for the jobs, can help them into work, that is fine. But to bring in this policy when everyone knows that 168,000 people are unemployed now—and that does not count all the jobless—is crazy indeed.

What did Treasury say about this policy? Treasury is not necessarily known for its sympathy, I have to say, for those on benefits, but this is what it said: “we do not support the introduction of the SB work-test into legislation at this time. We recommend that the issue of work testing for those on health and disability-related benefits be considered by the proposed Welfare Working Group,”. That would have been the place for us to look at these changes. “Currently”, Treasury goes on to say, “the SB is not appropriate for a part-time work-test, as it is designed for people who will eventually return to work full-time (the majority do). Applying a part-time work test to the current SB would require someone to seek additional hours of work for minimal financial gain. For example, a Sickness Beneficiary on minimum wage would receive approximately $1/hour in additional income, for each hour worked beyond the abatement threshold (70% abatement applies…)”. That means that a person who is sick who goes out to work will work for $1 an hour, under this policy.

Labour will not support this bill going to the Social Services Committee. We will vote against this bill going to the select committee. The bill has one or two very small matters of assistance to beneficiaries. It lifts the threshold for abatement to $100 from $80, but if the Government really intended to do something about the level of abatement, it would lift it to $130, not $100. The bill puts into legislation, rather than leaving it to convention, the pegging of the benefit to the CPI, and it lifts the threshold of abatement for a non-qualifying spouse on superannuation. But, apart from that, this bill is ill-thought-out. It is not even based on evidence or research, as the Minister’s own regulatory statement says.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to support the first reading of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill today. I can think of no better Minister in this House than Minister Bennett to put forward this bill. She is a Minister who understands the welfare system, who has empathy and compassion, and who will deliver for those people on benefits a brighter future, which the previous Government under Helen Clark could not deliver. That Government failed people on benefits, it failed to give them aspiration, and it failed to deliver that brighter future. It is very interesting that Annette King stood up and asked where the jobs were going to come from. She asked “Who gives 9 to 3 jobs?”. I tell the House that my office does. My office is open from 9 until 3, and I employ people who are coming back into the workforce. I employ—

Hon Steve Chadwick: But that’s just one.

KATRINA SHANKS: No, it is not. Steve Chadwick says that that is just one job—

Hon Steve Chadwick: One office.

KATRINA SHANKS: It is one office, that is correct, but it is more than one job because I have job-sharing. I want to have people with children who want to come back into the workforce working in my office, because they contribute. Members in the Opposition are sitting there shaking their heads, but I challenge them to use job-sharing in their offices, and to offer jobs going from 9 to 3 so that people can re-enter the workforce. Members on this side of the House do that. We actually walk the walk and talk the talk. We do that, and that is what this great Minister is doing today.

I find it interesting that many, many members of this House have been solo mums, and they understand how hard it is when people have been at home—and it is not just solo mums; it is mothers and parents who have been out of the workforce—for them to go back into the workforce, to build their confidence, to retrain, and to feel as if they can add value to the workforce when they have been out of it for a while. We are not underestimating that. Many of the mothers on the domestic purposes benefit are well-educated and well-trained, but they have been unlucky in getting into that situation, which was never planned. They never thought they would be there, and now they want help to get out of the situation they are in. They are keen to go back to work. They know what they will get from having a job—the value that it will bring them in their self-esteem. That is what this bill will do.

Hon Steve Chadwick: It won’t happen in that way.

KATRINA SHANKS: It will happen, and it will happen under a National Government. We care about those women, and those partners who have been out of work, who want to get back into work and add some value. I can tell members that if we want to give some aspiration to the children of this country who are in the homes of beneficiaries, we will have to encourage them and help them to get there. That is what this Government is doing.

As chair of the Social Services Committee, I can tell the House that this bill will be coming into our select committee tomorrow. I look forward to hearing the submissions and what they have to say, and to finding out how they will add value to this bill. I look forward to this bill coming to the Social Services Committee tomorrow. Thank you.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): The Minister, in introducing her Government’s Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill, talked about the future. I suspect that she was referring to a National Government future, a future of division—of “divide and rule”, and of the rich versus those who are in need—a future aimed at destroying our clean, green image by digging up our precious conservation areas, and a future aimed at undermining our democratic processes by running roughshod over the Auckland super-city. That is not the kind of future that the Labour Opposition supports, and that is not the kind of future that New Zealand society supports.

In 1999 Labour inherited about 161,000 people on the unemployment roll. In 2008, when Labour left office, there were only 20,000 people on that roll. That is the number we gave over to National when it took office. At the end of 2008, the number of unemployed people had gone up to about 37,000. It was acceptable at that time, because people generally recognised that there was a recession. So we went with that, because there was a recession. However, there was no mini-Budget at the end of 2008, and there was no jobs budget in 2009; but there was much ado about a Job Summit, and many of us today are still waiting to see what the jobs were that were created from that Job Summit. To this day I do not know whether any jobs were ever created in our community. Things are worse now, and not better. There was a freeze on public sector pay. The Government kept talking about putting a cap on the workforce instead of making a cut in the workforce. More and more people have been added to the number of unemployed, until at the end of last year about 168,000 were on the unemployment roll. Those numbers continue to rise.

There was also a bit of a splash about a $50 million cycleway. It was predicted, supposedly, to produce 4,000 jobs. Again, we ask where those jobs are. And I have to say that many in my community are asking who can afford a $100 or $200 bicycle for the cycleway.

If we are talking about the future, as this Government seems to believe it is doing by targeting the unemployed, solo parents, and sickness beneficiaries, then let us ask the Government what it will do for the children and young people who will be affected if these benefits to needy families are cut. What will the Government do for families who will struggle with meeting the day-to-day rigours of life and the cost of living, and whose children will end up going without? The future is about our youth, about strengthening our economy, and about looking after and strengthening the workforce, which is predominantly Māori, Pacific, and Asian in areas such as Manukau and Māngere. What is this Government doing to strengthen our future workforce so that we can expect this future generation to pay for future superannuation? What will this Government do about strengthening the future workforce so that young people today will be able to pay for the future health-care that this country will need? What will this Government do to prepare the younger generation, the future workforce, in order for them to be able to pay for the education that the young generation will need in the future? These reforms will not achieve that. They will not achieve that, at all.

One has to wonder why, last week, the Government made this particular announcement. My colleague the Hon Annette King said that this was dog-whistle politics, and she is absolutely correct. She is absolutely correct. Why was this announcement made when the Government was constantly under attack by New Zealanders because it was looking to mine all our conservation areas? It was a deflection; it was about deflecting the issue. Again, this is sending out dog-whistle messages to the rednecks out there, to those who do not understand the hardship that many families are going through and the hardships that some families have no control over.

I want to read an example from someone who came into my office, but I will not say who this person is. This person was made redundant in 2009 from Fletcher Construction in Penrose. He was paid a redundancy and all of that went on the bills. He has been going back and forth to Work and Income for any assistance that he and his family can get, but because his wife works and because she earns a mere $300 net per week, Work and Income has advised him that he is not eligible for any kind of support. He is on the books of New Zealand Labour Hire, but only as a casual because assignments are very short, and few and far between. My office referred this family to the Māngere budgeting service and when it went through the books to determine his income and outgoings, there was a total household deficit of $287.41.

That is an example of the families in my electorate, and no doubt throughout Manukau and other parts of New Zealand, who are struggling. This Government seems to label everybody in this way and say that they are trying to—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Labelling them as bludgers.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: Yes, it is labelling them as bludgers. Again, it is a stereotype that is not true. Many of those people in Pacific communities and in Māori communities, and many other people who are unemployed, want to work. The dole is not any place for our families. The dole is not any place for people who want to get ahead. People want to get ahead, and the only way that they will get ahead is through having a job. That is why we have asked the Government: “Where are those jobs?”.

We saw images on TV not too long ago of 3,000 people in line, applying for 150 measly, low-paid jobs at a local supermarket. Three thousand people were out there, early in the morning, with their CVs and applications because they wanted to work. Where are those jobs? What will the Government do with the solo mums who will now be put under pressure? Will they stand in line behind those 3,000 job applicants, or behind the 168,000 people without jobs? Is that the future for the community out there? I hope not. But that is the kind of future that this Government is talking about.

I have had numerous emails from New Zealanders across the country who, on hearing the announcement by this Government, are outraged. I want to read out some of them. This is from a woman who is a resident of Wellington. This is what she said: “These are my thoughts around this matter.”, referring to the Government’s welfare reform. “I have noted that whenever National gets into Government, there is a pattern of stigmatising the beneficiaries. It is often the women who are demonised for having the children, despite the fact that Aotearoa needs a growing population to support the growing aged cohort, who I might add need medical treatments to keep them alive. It seems ironic that it’s the aged cohort who support National’s policies, and yet it’s now the young generations that are funding it. How the heck do they think they’re going to maintain the gold card and the demands on the health sector? The aged generation needs the young generation, employed or otherwise. These ridiculous statements cause divisions within our society, in terms of class divisions. It continues to be the children of the families on benefits who are penalised by having to go without some of the fundamentals in life. The National Party have cleverly put a woman in charge of the MSD portfolio, so that the feminists and other women can’t protest. Presently, people who are applying for jobs are finding they are overskilled for the job. What makes the Government think that unskilled parents are going to have a chance at obtaining employment that is family friendly? National policies are harsh and ridiculous. Where are the thousands of jobs that the National Party promised?”.

What we want from this Government is job creation and skills development. That cannot happen if the Government continues to cut areas where it should be investing.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): With respect to my friend from Labour, I do not think this is dog whistling. I think this is a siren to National supporters. This is all about an ideological position. It has nothing to do with evidence. It is not dog whistling at all. It is about making it loud and clear to National supporters, perhaps even to their funders, that the Government will attack the most vulnerable families and do damage to the children of the poorest families in order to win itself a few extra votes. That is where this National Government is coming from.

I do not think that it is an extreme position at all to say that this is dreadful legislation. It is abusive legislation, which is misconceived out of the traditional National Party—and I do not say this lightly, but I think it is true—pathological hatred of beneficiaries in this country. National has a pathological hatred of the poorest and most vulnerable families in this country. I am appalled that a Minister who herself was once a beneficiary, as I was, is responsible for the introduction of this legislation. It is a direct attack on her own community that seems deliberately designed to build on the failures of past National-led Governments in the area of so-called welfare reform.

I lived through the first tranche of this, in the early and mid-1990s. I was a beneficiary at that time and I worked with beneficiary families at that time. The “mother of all Budgets” cut welfare spending and cut the domestic purposes benefit by some 40 percent, leaving those families, hundreds of thousands of New Zealand families, at the very bottom of the breadline and barely able to feed themselves at all and pay their rent and power bills. They were purposely put in that position by the National Government, and it is intending to do that again. We can see how that is happening in this legislation.

But I want to talk about the evidence—about whether there is any—for the intention of this legislation. Let us start with the regulatory impact statement, which states: “There is no research currently available which accurately quantifies the size of the behavioural response from these changes in policy.” There is no evidence at all of any behavioural change. It goes on to say: “This prevents estimates, with the degree of accuracy required, from being made of the number of people who will move from benefit to work over a year, as a result of the proposed changes.” There is no evidence to show that the policy will make any changes in people’s behaviour, and therefore there is no estimate about how many people will be moved from benefits to work. This statement confirms what the Minister said in answer to a question I asked him last week, that the Government does not know who the target is. The Government does not know who it is talking about when it says it wants to move people from benefits to work.

Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s just rhetoric.

METIRIA TUREI: Yes, to National they are some faceless families. They are certainly not faceless to me, because I was once a part of one of those families and I still deal with those families. Clearly, the National Government does not deal with them, and this Minister certainly does not.

In other words, the Government does not have the faintest idea whether, or to what extent, this bill will achieve its stated objectives. It is a pure form of ideological beneficiary bashing, without there being a shred of evidence that anything in this bill will actually work. The regulatory impact statement reveals some interesting comments from Treasury and the Ministry of Health about aspects of the bill. That is a euphemistic way of putting it, because the actual documents show that Treasury opposed the work testing of sickness beneficiaries. Treasury opposed the work testing of sickness beneficiaries, one of the cornerstones of this legislation, because, as we heard earlier, it will have sickness beneficiaries working for less than $1 an hour once their earnings exceed 80 bucks. That is less than $1 an hour for those who are ill. It is less than $1 an hour for those suffering from an illness that they need support to recover from. They need support so that they can be well and can go and earn better money in better jobs—jobs that can support them and their families. But, no, this Government will force them out so that they will end up earning less than $1 an hour. These are New Zealanders in the 21st century with a Government whose mind is still in the time of Dickens. Government members still have their minds back in Dickens’ day.

I can understand why the Ministry of Health is concerned. There is already a creaking public health service that will struggle to cope with an additional 49,000 extra doctors’ visits a year from sickness beneficiaries—49,000 extra doctors’ visits a year that the public will pay for. The purpose of those visits will not be to treat these people, to provide medicines and support, or to provide assistance to help them to get well, but to simply fulfil the bureaucratic requirements of this Government. This Government is putting in place the requirement for sickness beneficiaries to make those visits, and for the public to spend all that money, so that this Government can say that it will work test and continue to punish beneficiaries, particularly sickness beneficiaries. So much for putting money into front-line services! Those 49,000 extra bureaucratic doctors’ visits a year will do nothing for sickness beneficiaries, and this National Government is costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Then there is the report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act from the Attorney-General. It stated: “I conclude that by introducing a part-time work test for DPB-SB, but not the WB and DPB-WA,” the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that that inconsistency “cannot be justified”. The bill is discriminatory against a woman because of her circumstances and that discrimination cannot be justified. In answers in public to questions last week, the Minister for Social Development and Employment seemed to be suggesting that it is somehow fair and reasonable for the Government to make that discrimination, but we know that that is not true. This is not an argument to increase the work testing regime to those women who are receiving the women alone payment or who are on a widows benefit. This is an argument for asking why women who find themselves in a particular kind of situation—mostly it is not due to anything that they have done; it is not their fault—should be subjected to discriminatory work tests that will impact severely on them and on their children. It cannot be justified.

In the case of sickness beneficiaries, we oppose work testing because of the ridiculous situation where people who are ill end up earning less than $1 an hour. Also, it is compulsory work, so if they do not take the job that will earn them less than $1 an hour, then their benefit will be cut. But these people will have no option. They will be forced into this work, forced into earning less than $1 an hour. In that regard, this shows that John Key’s Government has reneged on a promise that it made in its election manifesto. It has broken another promise—one to add to the many.

This Government’s policy was that the abatement threshold for all benefits would increase from $80 to $100 a week, but that is not what it is delivering. It is delivering that for only some, and those who will miss out are some of our most vulnerable people: those on sickness benefits. We know from the evidence that when Australia introduced a similar policy of work testing in 2006, subsequent reports looking at the effectiveness of that work-testing policy showed that it failed. It made no difference whatsoever to the number of people who were moving on and off the disabilities benefit, which is the equivalent benefit in Australia. It made no difference at all to those people’s needs, because people will move on to the benefit when jobs are scarce and when they need that support, and they will move right off again, as they did in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, when jobs become available. We know that in a time of recession, as we are in right now, the impacts fall on those on the lowest income first. Those jobs are not there.

Finally, I will address the provisions that relate to the unemployment benefit. This benefit is paid to people who are actively seeking work, and quite rightly so. That is the whole point of the benefit, and those people are seeking work. This bill requires them to be interviewed 12 months after first receiving the benefit and to reapply after that date. But if this Government was serious about assisting these people into work, then I ask why it would not do that earlier. Why would it not do at 3 months, when people have had a chance to try to figure out what the job market is like and have had some time for support? I ask why the Government does not do it at 3 months, but does it at 12 months. Actually, it has nothing to do with trying to support people into work. It is just another bureaucratic measure that will cost more money, punish people, and make it look as if this Government is doing something about beneficiary issues, when, in fact, all it is doing is abusing these people.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT): When welfare was created, the goal was to provide temporary support for people who were able-bodied but were without an income. It focused on returning them to the workforce promptly and as soon as possible. Today the concept of the right to live off a benefit often outweighs the obligation to get a job. This Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill, in my view, restores some of that balance.

As a result of what has been happening in this country, and despite favourable economic circumstances, the number of working-age beneficiaries dependent on the State today is around 300,000. One child in three now lives in a benefit-dependent household, and research identifies that such parents and children fare badly in education, health, and crime statistics. By seriously weakening work incentives, by softening fraud recovery, and by increasing benefit payments, the requirement to move from welfare to work has been dangerously undermined over recent years, in my view at least. This bill changes some of these incentives. It is for this National Government a major piece of legislation, putting in place National’s manifesto commitment to reform the welfare system. The main changes—which I support—are those that require people who are receiving some benefits to seek and accept offers of work, and that require that financial support should reflect the circumstances and need of the individual.

Certain principles and, I think, basic truths flow from the situation that New Zealand now faces. New Zealand cannot, I suggest, succeed as a nation when a quarter to a third of all adults are being supported by the State. Nor can we get ahead when high taxes and increasing compliance costs are stifling jobs and growth. True compassion demands that welfare provides a hand-up to work, independence, and a better future. State assistance should aim to be of a temporary nature. Public policy priorities should protect the interests of children by recognising that, in general, children raised on welfare fail to do as well in all areas of life than those raised by parents in work.

If New Zealand is to succeed, then we need to put personal responsibility, self-reliance, and work above welfare dependency. We need to reduce the barriers to economic growth, and to restore full employment. We need to eliminate long-term dependency of working-age beneficiaries who can work, and we need to dramatically reduce the number of working-age New Zealanders on welfare—in particular, the unemployment benefit, the domestic purposes benefit, and the sickness benefit. We as a nation simply cannot afford to waste the human potential of 300,000 working-age people on benefits. We simply cannot afford that particular level of waste.

In summary, the welfare system was intended by the original designers, many of them from the Labour Party, as temporary assistance to alleviate poverty. It was not intended to make people dependent on the State, reward irresponsibility or dysfunctional behaviour, or contribute to the breakdown of the two-parent family. I support the bill as a move in the right direction.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. In looking at the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill, I have to look back at the history of the struggle for tino rangatiratanga, a long and hard road whose early beginnings were paved by warriors who fought and died to hold their lands, by statesmen who sought a peaceful path but got trampled underfoot by colonial invaders, by small communities retreating into themselves in a vain attempt to stave off the devastation of European diseases, and by the many new Māori religious and Government systems set up to try to deliver the shattered dreams of Te Tiriti o Waitangi for a society where the white man governed those for whom he was responsible, Māori managed their own affairs, and both societies worked together for the betterment of all.

I list historical figures from throughout that time, such as Eru Patuone and Tāmati Waka Nene, who signed both He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and who tried to hold together a shaky peace that settlers had no intention of keeping; Hone Heke, who opposed British taxation in an area he considered his own, and went to war against the Crown to protect those rights; people from small communities like Whakapara, where one of the iwi actually had to live in the cemetery to bury the dead, to save his people from the raging deaths caused by the common cold and the dreaded influenza; Anikaaro for creating a religious umbrella to try to protect her people; the rangatira who founded the Kotahitanga movement to give their people an alternative Government based on kaupapa Māori; and Hone Heke Ngāpua, Tai Tokerau’s greatest ever member of Parliament, whose vision, and courage, and maturity belied his youth, and whose memory has been, thankfully, captured in a wonderful book by historian Paul Moon.

In looking at this bill, I also add to that list more contemporary figures such as Sir James Hēnare, the last true paramount chief of Ngāpuhi, who reminded us that we know that we have tino rangatiratanga when we have the power of life and death over our people. We might never exercise it, he was quick to point out, but it most assuredly rested in our hands—a sobering thought indeed. I think of Whina Cooper, who realised that genuine power rested in the hands of Māori women, and formed the Māori Women’s Welfare League to give voice to that power, and who energised the whole of Māoridom by leading the great Māori Land March to Wellington. That protest had a simple slogan: “Not one acre more.”—a slogan that has been ignored by every Government since. I think of Dame Mira Szaszy, who said in the year of the land march: “The loss of land has haunted the Maori since the Treaty of Waitangi. Some action is necessary to lay this ghost to rest for ever. Only then, it seems, will Maori find themselves and become once again a self-determined, self-respecting people. The march must go on, if for no other reason than the expression of an awakening spirit.” I think of the Hon Matiu Rata, who gave birth to the Waitangi Tribunal, and established a pathway to redemption that successive Governments have eagerly travelled, all the while reminding Māori to be realistic in their expectations, which is the Government’s way of saying: “We’ll say sorry, but you must be joking if you think we’re gonna give it back!”. And, dare I say it, I also include old “Dirty Dogs” himself, the Hon Tau Henare, who in his short time as Minister of Māori Affairs flouted the rules at every opportunity, snaffled money for Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori where none existed, signed off on our wharekura at Te Rangiāniwaniwa when all the bureaucrats were saying no, and proved that belief in boldness was a genuine prerequisite to the exercise of good ministership.

So when I come to this benefits reform bill, I am reminded of a history that teaches me to speak truthfully of the issues, to speak boldly of the future, but to be guided by the words of Matiu Rata, who said: “If you think on your journey through leadership for our people that your road will be hard, you can rest assured that it is 10 times harder for the rest of our people out there.”

That is why the Māori Party opposes this legislation—because Māori have never sought the debilitation that comes with crippling dependency, and nor do we seek poverty, but neither are we the guinea pigs to be mucked around with by a bureaucracy that victimises those who are powerless, and who are suffering because of the crash of a system of bloated financial greed fed by past Governments and rescued by current ones.

I know heaps of folks who have gone hungry looking for work rather go on the dole, because they know what a demeaning experience it can be. They know the shame that comes from not being able to provide for their kids. They are already feeling worthless, and then a Minister comes out with a line like “The dream is over.” I know heaps of people on the benefit, and for them it is no dream. There is no dream in having to push your baby downtown in a rainstorm, because you cannot afford a bus. There is no dream in living on the edge, when money is tight and you are worried sick about the kids needing to go to the doctor, the power being cut off, the car breaking down, or needing money for school trips. Having no job ain’t a dream, either. It is a brutal reality. There is no dream in being so addicted to tobacco that people sacrifice food to buy smokes, especially when we know that Governments, current and past, know it is a killer, but will let people die so that they can take $1 billion every year in taxes. A dream? Not bloody likely. It has been a nightmare.

We hear a lot of talk about this bill creating a shift away from dependency and into employment. But the truth is that the economic downturn has actually resulted in a greater need for social security. Honestly, forcing 43,000 domestic purposes beneficiaries to go and get a job when their child turns 6 sounds a bit bloody ridiculous when we already know there are not even 4,300 jobs out there. And that is just the domestic purposes beneficiaries. What about the 26 percent of rangatahi Māori and 27 percent of Pasifika youth registered as unemployed? With that level of unemployment, the question is obvious: what is the point in waving the big stick when there simply are not any jobs out there? Why penalise, and even criminalise, beneficiaries when, clearly, a more positive and inclusive approach is required?

That brings me to Whānau Ora, because that is what Whānau Ora is all about. It is a way to help Māori lift themselves out of despair, to help Māori lift themselves back to square one, to help Māori realise that they are the masters of their own destiny, by reshuffling the resources to ensure the help gets to where it is most needed, rather than going round and round in aimless policy circles in Wellington, redesigning idiotic schemes that change according to the politics of the day and generally have no impact whatsoever on those they are intended to help. Whānau Ora was designed by Māori to help Māori. And it is not even about money. Hell, given the confidence and support of the Government, it would very quickly lead to less money, because Whānau Ora is about helping whānau to see that they are the answer to their own future, that they are the focus for their children, and that Whānau Ora is indeed all that Future Focus can never be. Whānau Ora is not just about amalgamating contracts, nor is it just another social welfare programme like the many failed ventures of the past. Whānau Ora is a bold attempt to rewrite the book; to take the $1 billion currently being wasted on social recovery for Māori, and make that money work for the whole of society by putting it in the hands of providers who are directly connected to the communities they serve, so that they can work with whānau to change their circumstances and take responsibility for their future. Yes, we support the calls to move people off the dole, for a move away from dependency and towards a world where work is an option for all. But the better option is Whānau Ora, not sliding back down that well-travelled road of targeting the victims.

We are passionately opposed to any move that will penalise families living in poverty. We will oppose any legislation that will hurt children who have no way of defending themselves. And we will work with anyone who wants to address those issues in a positive manner, rather than through bills that are already sending signals that those in need are a burden on society, rather than a reality in a world still struggling to cope with the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The Māori Party accepts the position that Minister Turia is in, as we accept also the view that Whānau Ora is the only positive option available to address the many social concerns facing Māori at the moment. We are disappointed that at a time when a bold and visionary approach is needed to deal with the desperate social plight of many in our society, when we have the chance to take up Whānau Ora as a mark of that boldness and that vision, the Government has simply chosen the “blame the victim” option. The Māori Party will be opposing this bill.

HEKIA PARATA (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. I stand unambiguously and unequivocally alongside the Minister of Social Development and Employment in supporting the introduction of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. Emotive language has been used about punishment and penalty, but this bill is far removed from that. It is focused instead on how we can get fairness into our society.

If the Opposition thinks it is fair to condemn benefit-dependent households to a lifetime of benefits, then all I can say is I am glad we are in Government. We have far higher aspirations and ambitions for the people of New Zealand. We want fairness for benefit-dependent households; we want fairness for the children in those households. The Opposition thinks the best life that the children of New Zealand can have is one of lifelong dependency on society. I will never support that. The children of New Zealand require hope; they require the understanding that it is not normal not to see people go to work, and that it is not normal to grow up in a household of multi-generational dependence on the State. It saps the spirit of those children, it saps the spirit of those adults, it saps the spirit of the grandparents, and it saps the community that they are a part of. This Government is not prepared to sit back and let that happen.

And this Government is equally committed to fairness to the workers; to the workers who every day go out and do the “measly” kind of job that that member over there dismisses; to the workers who are prepared to pay their taxes, who want to be fair to people who are benefit-dependent, who want to be able to help, but who also want to ensure that there is fairness in our society. And we want fairness in the future. We have a burgeoning population. We need to have growth in our economy. We need to have people with an aptitude and an attitude oriented towards work. This bill is based on that.

The Opposition members are going on and on about work while dismissing as measly the jobs that are available.

Iain Lees-Galloway: What jobs?

HEKIA PARATA: If Opposition members are prepared to listen, I will tell them. As at Friday just past, Youth Opportunities through Job Ops and Community Max had delivered 7,391 jobs. But, of course, Opposition members want to be judgmental. They want to talk only about work as they define work. But 7,391 people are delighted to have the opportunity to work. Those members say there is no work. Currently, 6,000 vacancies are advertised with Work and Income, but I guess that is not the kind of work the Opposition is talking about. Opposition members are concerned about theoretical work in an ideal world, whereas this Government lives in the real world and delivers up real jobs. That is what this Government is about.

The Social Services Committee will be delighted to have this bill referred to it. We want to hear from people who are committed to a long, strong, and sustainable future where they are not subject or condemned to being dependent.

Moana Mackey: If only rhetoric could create jobs!

HEKIA PARATA: This is not rhetoric; this is knowledge. I happen to come from a community that is hugely benefit-dependent. I happen to have worked in that community, as have many of my whānau, and all of us are committed to finding work for those people. I speak with some authority because we have started businesses that have given work to those people, whom Opposition members wax lyrical about, but do they do anything about them? Oh, forget it! Those members would rather whinge and moan. I am interested in rangatiratanga; I am interested in the practical, personal kind of rangatiratanga, which allows individuals to have authority over their own lives, to be able to make decisions for themselves, and to not have to rely on a Government of any kind, because they have the quality of life they want, and they are not subject to the idea that they are dependent on welfare. That is a disease. Nobody wants to embrace a life living on a benefit.

Let me tell the Opposition this: this Government is committed to helping people who cannot help themselves, and it is committed to finding ways to support people to get back into work. Why? Because we think benefits are about being a lifeline, not a lifestyle. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity—[Interruption] This is not about you, Hekia. This is not about you, at all.

Hekia Parata: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that we have been told often enough that the word “you” is reserved for yourself, the Speaker, and it is not to be used in denigration by one speaker to another in this House.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Speaking to the point of order.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I will not have anyone speaking on this. The word “you” is not banned entirely. The word “you” is not acceptable when people are making incorrect references to the Speaker. The member who was speaking said “This is not about you”, etc., and he named the person in the same sentence. In that particular context, I find it acceptable. The “you” refers to the person named: the member Hekia Parata. The member said “This is not about you, Hekia Parata”. It is quite clear from the sentence that it is not about me, the Assistant Speaker. I want the member to reflect on this. I know emotions are running hot in this debate, and that is good. I ask Mr Prasad to continue his contribution to the House.

Todd McClay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The speaker from the Opposition did not address Mrs Parata correctly; in fact, he was far too familiar with her. We have often been told about that in this House, and I ask you to correct him, please.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that I thought I heard him say “you, Hekia Parata”. If I did not hear him correctly, I say to the member who is about to speak that when he addresses members of the House, he should do so correctly and by their proper address.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I do believe that I addressed the member both respectfully and correctly. I said—

Hon Rick Barker: The member should not refer to a matter that has been ruled on. I said the member is to continue with his speech, so he should do that. He should not traverse the matter that has been covered by the point of order.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The member who spoke previously, Hekia Parata, raised a whole series of points and raised them with some passion, and I respect that. However, there is nothing in the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill that addresses many of the points that the member makes—nothing at all. It is hyperbole and a kind of filibustering, but it does not add to the argument at all.

I do believe in a caring society. I do believe in one that invests in parents, in families, and in their children. I do believe in that kind of society.

Paul Quinn: Talking about the benefits?

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: What is the point that Mr Quinn would like to make? What is the point that the member is making? I will respond to him if he asks a question. What is the question you want to put to me?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): This is a debating chamber. Points are to be addressed to the Chair. This is not a private conversation going backwards and forwards across the Chamber. I advise the member that he has 10 minutes to make a presentation on the matter. I invite him to continue with his address to the House.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I have no difficulty with the notion of a society using its wealth to address the problems that are being experienced by members of that society. We should create the best possible environment for our children; it is what they will grow up in. The investment that we make will pay handsome dividends: they will make a contribution to our kind of society. We should use the resources of the nation State, our taxpayer dollars, to give our children the best start in life. I support the system. It is designed to make that investment, particularly in those people who miss out from time to time. When there are lives that are less fortunate or that have gone wrong, the wealth and resources of the State ought to be used to give those children and families the best possible start. Therefore, I support the provision of a fair system of social assistance. No matter what it has taken, that is the kind of system we have designed since 1935. By and large, it has worked well. [Interruption]

Members opposite may be interested to note that I also support the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money when our farmers, through droughts and floods, require assistance. In the same way that our children will, those farmers will pay a handsome dividend to the nation’s wealth. That is fine. I despise those who abuse the system. I have worked in the system and with many of the people in the system. They are wonderful people whose lives have gone awry, but some do abuse the system. I will not spend a moment defending anybody who abuses that particular system. There are any amount of provisions to address those particular things. Let us use those provisions to address that issue.

However, when people find themselves in the situation of relying on social assistance, to provide that assistance based on a moralistic expectation of what they must do in order to earn it—that they must live in a particular way, in terms of their personal life—is to begin to expect from the most vulnerable something that we do not expect of ourselves. These are the people who are forgotten. National Governments have always picked on this particular sore in our society, by making the vulnerable the target of our contempt and designing programmes to punish them. National Governments have done it time and time again, and this bill does the same thing. This bill creates a climate where people begin to believe that somebody is taking their money away, that taxpayers are the honest citizens, and that anybody who receives assistance is somehow to be despised. Those who receive assistance become fair game: we pick on them, and we punish them. They tend to be brown, less educated than other people, poor, and those who have suffered violence.

I do not understand what it is about the members opposite and those leaders in our society who have had the very type of assistance that I speak about. The Minister is a case in point. She put a hand up and received the kind of assistance that this society ought to give to any mum with a young child who finds herself in that particular situation. We need to give those people a hand up, and give them space to go off and do the best that they can. Of course, the Minister has done very well, and I congratulate her on that. But what I do not understand is why the very same people become the most feral when they attack others like themselves. There are cases in point and we can name them, but I will not do so in this Chamber. There is something about those people. They become very punitive towards people who are like themselves. They have somehow made good, having had assistance, and now they say we must punish those who find themselves in the same position.

This Government is introducing a very old concept. It is the concept of the deserving poor. If the Minister does not understand that, I hope she will get some advice on it. The deserving poor are those whom we rile against morally, and we expect of them particular standards of behaviour. This is a Dickensian model. It was designed out of Victorian England when the Industrial Revolution took place. That society used whatever human resources it could to produce labour for the factories, and the human carnage that was created was incredible. That is the kind of Dickensian England, if you like, that this Government and this bill take us back to.

This bill is a mess. The Minister is really unclear. She sounds quite confused in terms of a logical development of ideas to address what she sees as problems in our welfare system, particularly about what to do with those who are on domestic purposes benefits. Nobody disputes that work is something to be strived for. The term that has come up in relation to this bill and the unyielding pressure to get into work are nothing new. Steve Maharey talked about it. In fact, the whole Working for Families package was a realisation that the best way to really help people is through work, but it is not the only way.

Todd McClay: It’s a very, very good way, though.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: There are those who require different types of assistance at different points in their development cycle. I hope that the member who is chipping in on the other side understands that, but if he does not then he can easily be given a lesson on that particular point.

Paul Quinn: Do you understand it?

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: You bet I do, I say to that member. I can give that member a lesson on this. I ask him which part of it he does not understand.

This bill talks about providing a fairer society and a fairer system. Well, I challenge the next speaker from the Government side to tell us what the components of that fairer system are. We have not heard that. We do not know how many people will come out of this particular status, we do not know what the targets are, and we do not know how they will be achieved. Somehow, that is to be done by becoming as punitive as this set of provisions is towards solo parents, etc.

The current system is a very, very good one. It has been highly, highly successful and is one of the most successful in the world to get people back into work. Work and Income triages intensively. This is the same department that provided this service under the previous Government and did so very, very well. Why does this Minister not believe that the system and that department can be as intensive as they were then in getting people into work? There is no need for any of these provisions. This is simply dog-whistle politics, because it panders to those of the conservative ilk who somehow believe that people out there are stealing money from them. The National Government has created the figment that a huge amount of rorting is going on in our society, and therefore it has developed a punitive mindset. In the end, members opposite will regret this legislation, because it will be their communities, families, whānau, and whānui who will experience its effects. In the end, people will be no better off, because there is nothing great about a punitive society. How does the sanctions regime put children at the centre of our social intervention? The members opposite cry about the importance of children and of early intervention, but when they get an opportunity to really screw them down, they do that—and this bill does it.

There is no need at all for this set of interventions. We have a very effective Work and Income, which could work very intensively to address the concerns that members have. But no, this bill is about the opinions of those who call talkback radio hosts.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): It is a terrible thing when a political party seeks to corral and maintain for itself a sector within society, and refuses to let any other political party speak on that sector’s behalf. That is what the Labour Party has done with the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. Labour members have decided that anyone who is unemployed or is receiving any benefit from the Government is theirs to speak for. The previous speaker, Dr Rajen Prasad, accused our Minister for Social Development and Employment of going feral, which is absolutely ridiculous. He then accused her of bashing up on beneficiaries and corralling them. It is absolute rubbish. Nothing within the bill has anything whatsoever about being punitive.

It reminds me very, very strongly of what took me from being an ardent supporter of the Labour Party to becoming a paid-up member of the National Party. In 1987 the Labour Government’s Minister of Labour cut all those people off the Project Employment Programme scheme because it was too expensive to administrate. Many of the Labour members who were in Cabinet in those days occupy the front benches opposite today. They were there, and they still have that dirt on their hands. They said that employment was just too good for those people. They paid them a benefit and got them to stay home. Those members did not want to see those people, but they wanted their votes because they were theirs. Those people carried Labour’s brand, but it did not actually give a stuff about them. That is what those members are saying today. They are saying exactly that.

I remember my days as a sole-charge policeman in Pātea after the closure of the Pātea freezing works. The member who has just resumed his seat was talking about the young children involved and saying that this policy has nothing to do with them. It was those young people, under the previous Labour administration, who were relegated. They saw their parents in bed in the morning, waking up, having a cup of coffee, and going back to bed. Because those parents did not have to tip out of bed in the morning and go to work, those young children spent the next 10 years of their lives watching their parents do that. What did they aspire to? They aspired to get on to a benefit as quickly as they damn well could.

For the Labour members sitting over there, barrelling on, the point is that it is fundamental to Labour Party policy to keep a large sector of the community poor and pissed off so that they never have to look at themselves for aspiration or growth within their communities. Other members ask where the jobs are. They forget that welfare policy in this country is about aspiration; it is not about relegation. Under the previous Government it was about relegation, so that if a person was on a benefit, that person should never, ever be allowed to aspire to be anything other than low paid or on a benefit. Well, National in Government has greater aspirations for those people, who are the most vulnerable within our communities, and are, as the previous speaker said, the least well educated and have the least prospects for the future. Let us give them something to aim for, and let us encourage them.

The Future Focus policy is a mixture of incentives, and most of them are about encouragement. It is saying that if someone is on a benefit for 12 months, he or she must reapply. If there are jobs people will be encouraged to make an application, and we will take them there.

Dr Rajen Prasad: They know that now. They can call them in any day they want to.

CHESTER BORROWS: The member says we have that now. Yes, some of those provisions are there, and under this legislation they are enhanced. That member’s party spent 9 years in Government and never took the massive leap of allowing someone on the domestic purposes benefit the chance to earn another measly $20 a week. Will the member vote against that? I look forward to hearing members opposite stand up and justify in their electorate offices, week after week, why they refused to allow people on those benefits to earn another $20 a week. Dr Prasad would withhold their benefits if they earned another $20 a week.

Under National we are offering incentives; some of them are positive and some are negative. We remember, for instance, the huge growth in numbers of people moving from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit under the last Labour Government. If the 70,000 people who went on to the sickness benefit under the last Labour Government were truly sick and truly incapable of work, if every one of them had not been moved just because of a Government policy to remove people from the unemployment benefit and hide them on the sickness benefit, we would have had an epidemic in this country so serious we would be on the international stage for having some malaise or sickness epidemic that was seeing thousands and thousands of people relegated into a situation where they could not work.

Dr Rajen Prasad: The audit report disproves that, and the member knows it.

CHESTER BORROWS: The member, who has not shut up since I got on my feet, protests that that is actually the case. I suggest that the malaise under the previous Government must have been verbal diarrhoea, because it is leaking from every orifice.

Paul Quinn: Ah! Peace at last.

CHESTER BORROWS: And we just love it. The fact is that this Government has been aspirational for New Zealand, and it is putting in place a number of measures to make sure that we take this country somewhere. The previous member said it was dog-whistle politics. Well, we hear dog-whistle politics when a Government is under pressure. I do not know how many papers those members opposite read, but this Government is not under pressure. This Government is doing very nicely, thank you. In fact, the people who are under pressure in the political scene in New Zealand are those members opposite. That is where we hear the dog whistles coming from. That is where we hear, for instance, that the answer to our economic demise is to cut the salaries of the top 16 public servants. That is it. Dog-whistle politics is when the would-be Prime Minister puts his hand up and says a millionaire should be able to receive a welfare benefit.

New Zealanders expect that there is a quid pro quo. New Zealanders accept that in a civilised society with a welfare system there is a quid pro quo. In other words, they expect that there is a safety net. They expect that those who need assistance to better their circumstances will have that safety net. But New Zealanders have an expectation that people on a benefit will do certain things towards getting off that benefit. I wonder what those expectations might be. Well, they are expected to look for work and make serious applications for the vacancies that exist.

About now, there should be a chorus from the Opposition asking where the jobs are. But I get back to the point that the Future Focus initiative is aspirational. The member who has just resumed his seat—actually, it was quite a while ago—would say that people should never aspire to be in a better situation. He would say that we should have unemployment at a slightly inflated rate, as it was a few months ago. He would say we should not have any initiative that will kick in until the job market is flooded with jobs and there is a labour shortage. Well, National has a few ideas. National campaigned on those ideas, and here is a party that is in Government because the country wants to realise the aspirations that National has for this great country. As long as those members sit on that side of the House screaming out that sort of diatribe, they will always be there—and long may it be.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour): I just want to say that it is a sad day for this country when the Government chooses to bash beneficiaries while they are down as a way of diverting attention from the fact that it has not done its job in creating jobs for New Zealanders and creating opportunities for upskilling and training. That is exactly what that Government has failed to do so far. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is not the only person in this House who has been on a benefit. I want to say, as a person who is a sole parent, as a person has been on the domestic purposes benefit, that it is not easy—

Paul Quinn: She has lunch at the Wellington Club and gives us a lecture about welfare.

CARMEL SEPULONI: —I say to Mr Quinn—to be a solo mother. It is incredibly difficult, and the last thing beneficiaries need is a Government that is putting out a stigma about them and making society turn against them as if they have done something wrong.

I have worked with many sole parents in the jobs I have had. I have worked with students at the University of Auckland, and I have been a sole parent myself. I know that the vast majority of women on the domestic purposes benefit are working hard, whether it be in study or in a job. They do so because they have aspirations for their children. They want to do well for their children so that they are role models for their children. I take offence at MPs on the Government side of the House implying that children of beneficiaries will not have aspirations as they grow older. That is what was said on that side of the House, and I say to that side of the House, as a mother who had to be on the domestic purposes benefit at one point in my life, that my having been on a benefit does not mean that my son will not have aspirations for his own life.

Currently, there are 168,000 still out of work, and these people are not “living the dream”, as Paula Bennett, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, said. It is not a dream for them. It is not a dream for children for their parents to be unemployed and living on the bare minimum with regard to putting food on the table, and everything else.

Hekia Parata has said that it is not normal for kids to see their parents out of work. I have to say that, for short periods of time, sometimes that just is the case. She also discussed the fact that there are currently 7,000 jobs available through Job Ops, and 6,000 jobs on the books of Work and Income. Those 13,000 jobs do not do anything in the way of addressing the 168,000 people who are unemployed. Having 13,000 jobs available is like a postage stamp on Eden Park, with regards to the 168,000 people who are unemployed—

Paul Quinn: Be original.

CARMEL SEPULONI: I know that Mr Quinn has no empathy for people who are unemployed; he keeps barracking and yelling over on the other side of the House. But it would be good if Mr Quinn could listen to what I am saying.

I want to quote one of the MPs from the Government side of the House—in fact, from the maiden speech of one of the MPs. This quote is about the fact that women should have a choice. It starts: “More women are in paid employment than ever before, and their contribution is immeasurable. However, when we hear of someone, currently working, who becomes pregnant, one of our first questions is: ‘How long will she be taking off work?’ There is a subtle—and sometimes not so subtle—push for women to return to the workforce as soon as possible. But I ask members not to misunderstand me. I advocate for choice—for women to work part time or full time in paid work, or not at all, or to stay at home and raise their children. Most men make wonderful fathers. We should let them have a choice about the role they play in raising their family. Most of all, we should let parents have choices.”

That maiden speech was given in 2005 and it was given by our current Minister for Social Development and Employment. Where is the choice now when she says that they need a kick up the pants—in other words, they need a boot in the guts while they are down, and they need to get out there and get a job, despite the fact that that Minister for Social Development and Employment has done absolutely nothing to create jobs in this country?

One thing that is quite disconcerting for me is that this Government has deliberately used beneficiary bashing as a strategy with which to turn one New Zealander against another, as a way in which it can divert attention—as I said before—away from the fact that it has done absolutely nothing to address the economic downturn and the problems we are confronting as a country with regard to high levels of unemployment and low levels of opportunities for upskilling and training. The Government has attempted to turn the working taxpayer against the struggling person who is currently out of work.

I read something in a Dominion Post column a few weeks back by a wonderful journalist called Karlo Mila-Schaaf, who said: “The fastest way to create an underclass is for a leader to respond inadequately to rising unemployment and then divide society into taxpayers and those who are ‘poor’ investments (the recipients of social services not ‘showing the results that taxpayers have the right to expect’).” That is exactly what members on that side of the House have done so far. It is not the fault of beneficiaries that they do not have jobs; it is the Government’s fault for not providing those opportunities.

What we have seen alongside this is cuts to the opportunities for training and upskilling. We have seen the training incentive allowance slashed, which means that sole parents who would otherwise have been able to access funding for training, and programmes to diploma and degree level, can no longer get that. We have to look at our Minister for Social Development and Employment and question her motives, her background, and why someone who can say that she utilised these types of support would then turn round and pull up the ladder to deny other women access to those types of support. It makes absolutely no sense—no sense at all.

We will not be agreeing with this bill. Even the Attorney-General has pointed out that this bill, and what the Government is trying to do, discriminates against different groups based on gender, family status, and also in terms of the type of benefit that they are on. And we cannot agree with that; there is absolutely no reason why we would agree with putting in the boot while these people are down.

What will be the outcome of these changes introduced by this bill? The Government is saying that it wants to encourage beneficiaries into work. As I said before, that is all about creating jobs, and we cannot understand why the Government has not done that. Last week I was on Breakfast with a Government member of the House—Mr Simon Bridges. He stated very clearly that this policy was good because it was popular. This Government makes decisions based on the fact that they are popular. Even Paul Henry, who is not known to be a big Labour Party supporter, actually turned round and said to him: “Yes, that might be right. It probably is popular, but that doesn’t make it right.” That does not make it right, and that is what we are faced with.

The Minister for Social Development and Employment has ignored the fact that this does not comply with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that it discriminates against different groups of people, and that, most of all, it discriminates against the children who are going to be affected by this type of policy. This Government forgets that when it cuts this funding, when it cuts these benefits, it is not just the adults who are affected: it is the children whom those parents are actually there to look after. This Minister has gone around saying that this legislation is all about the children; I have heard her say that on many occasions. But then why would we do that? Why would we take food off children’s tables by punishing their parents and then subsequently punishing them?

Instead of focusing on solutions that will help people into work and increase opportunities for single mothers and for their children, what has this Government given us? It has given us absolutely nothing. It has dragged different members of our society through the mud, it has provided empty promises, and, frankly, that is not enough. Labour will not vote for this bill; we will fight against it every step of the way. Thank you very much.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It gives me pleasure to stand and speak on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The most important part of the title is “Future Focus”, and I congratulate the Minister for Social Development and Employment on her hard work over the last 15 months on this package of initiatives that will give every single New Zealander an opportunity—when he or she is able—to get out there and work.

In this House we all know that work is the way we provide for our families, make the lives of our children better, and make society more productive. The debate has been interesting to listen to over the last hour and a half, and it has been a fairly robust debate from all sides of the House. We have heard a lot of things from members opposite about why we should not make these changes, but I have not heard a single member admit that New Zealand has a problem with long-term welfare dependency.

I absolutely agree with members opposite that, largely, it is not the fault of individual members of our society who have found that they have been on welfare year upon year. It is the fault of the members opposite and the previous Government, who told those people that welfare dependency was a lifestyle choice, that it was acceptable to be on welfare, and that the Government would keep supporting them even though each of them was able to go out and work for their families.

This legislation recognises that every single member of society in New Zealand can do more and should be encouraged to do more than merely sit on a benefit. What I have heard from members opposite, wholly, has been concern over National delivering on another promise it made to the electorate 2 years ago to look at welfare and to reform welfare to help New Zealanders get back to work. I support the bill fully. I cannot wait for it to get to a select committee so we can hear from New Zealanders.

I want to very, very briefly touch on a couple of issues. Members opposite have said that this bill is very unfair. I want to ask them a question: how do they expect taxpayers in New Zealand to afford to keep paying a growing welfare bill? How do they expect the average household in New Zealand—a low-income household, because of years of economic underachievement by the previous Government—to afford to keep propping up a welfare system that protects and promotes long-term welfare dependency?

In my home city of Rotorua we currently have 7,500 beneficiaries. I accept that, as members opposite have said, unemployment has increased because of the recession around the world and in New Zealand. If we take out the numbers of those extra people who have come on to the unemployment benefit and the sickness benefit because of the recession, there are still 6,000 people on a benefit there. Let us break down that figure further and look at the numbers on the domestic purposes benefit. There are almost 3,500 people on the domestic purposes benefit in Rotorua. If we compare that figure with the figure for a city the size of Tauranga, we see that it is much larger. It is a very excessive level.

I have been out in my community, talking to people and to mums about what they are concerned about and what assistance they need. I have spoken with a number of people, some of whom, whilst having young children at school or in day care, have chosen to take a few hours’ work a week for no extra money. When asked why they would do that—because members opposite say that someone in that position will end up working for $1 an hour—they said they wanted to keep in touch and keep up their skills.

I would expect some of those people, of their own volition, their own choice, to seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of 6. I applaud them and support them in that. Of course, for people out there who cannot find work, do not have the skills, and cannot get a job, this legislation will be there to help them and work with them, and their children will be better off.

I conclude by giving members an example of what long-term welfare dependency does to New Zealand families. I want members to think back for a moment to a few years ago and to the horrific murder of young Nia Glassie in Rotorua. Her entire family and those around them were on benefits.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption].

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The House will be silent. I have a point of order from the Hon Parekura Horomia.

Hon Parekura Horomia: The member is going well outside the brief of this discussion. He is making a mockery of what happened in the past.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I know what the member is alluding to, but it is a debating point. It is not a point of order.

TODD McCLAY: I am not making a mockery of anybody—[Interruption]

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am but 2 metres from the speaker, and I cannot hear a word he is saying because of the barracking and screeching that is coming from the other side of the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): This has been a robust debate. I can hear Mr McClay quite clearly from here. I have been able to hear other people, and I have to say that the member’s own party has been engaged in a substantial amount of barracking across the House. I think it is about even. I say to members that the point has been made.

TODD McCLAY: I pay great tribute to the young Nia Glassie, and I have little or no regard for the people who murdered her. But I say to members that if we look at her family and those around them, we see there was long-term welfare dependency. The people who murdered her were on benefits and did not have jobs. Largely, long-term welfare dependency, which was promoted by the previous Government, did nothing to help that family. This Government will stand up and fight for those people. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 65

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5;United Future 1; Māori Party 1 (Turia).

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 4 (Flavell, Harawira, Katene, Sharples); Progressive 1.

Bill read a first time.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I move, That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 July 2010, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and the Immigration Amendment Bill; the passing through their remaining stages of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill and the Regulatory Improvement Bill, and any bills into which any of those bills may be divided; the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill; and the first readings of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill and the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill.

The Government is moving to accord urgency for the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill to empower Government-appointed commissioners to provide the governance and leadership necessary to rapidly address longstanding, systemic institutional and governance issues within the Canterbury Regional Council, Environment Canterbury. It is responsible of the Government to provide certainty for Environment Canterbury councillors and staff; consequently, according urgency to this legislation is the most appropriate action.

The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill provides certainty and clarity regarding future pricing methods to be applied to regulated raw milk that Fonterra is obliged to provide to independent processors prior to the beginning of the 2010-11 dairy production season.

The Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill corrects errors in the drafting of the Immigration Act 2009, and it needs to be passed as soon as possible to allow necessary implementation work to be undertaken, and to ensure that the will of this House is not frustrated.

The Government’s intention is that a bill to improve the regulatory framework will be an annual occurrence, and as the current bill was not able to be passed last year, the Government would like to move to advance it so that the progress of regulatory reform becomes continuous.

The Unit Titles Bill should progress under urgency, as the review of the 38-year-old Unit Titles Act has been ongoing for the last 5 years, and this bill is a small but integral part of the package of solutions the Government is looking at for people who are living in leaky apartment bills. The Act is outdated, and is inadequate to deal with the creation and management of developments such as apartment blocks in today’s housing market.

Noting the Regulations Review Committee’s finding regarding the undesirability of the deferred commencement of the new section 92A that was part of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008, the Government would like to refer the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill to a select committee as soon as possible.

Finally, advancing the Commerce Commission (International Co-operation, and Fees) Bill is another step towards the fulfilment of a single economic market with Australia, as enunciated by the Prime Minister in his statement to Parliament at the beginning of the year.

Motion agreed to.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House): I seek leave for there to be question time at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 31 March and 2 p.m. on Thursday, 1 April 2010, and for questions to be lodged in the normal manner, pursuant to Standing Order 372.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There being none, that is agreed to.

Bills

Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a first time. New Zealand’s most important strategic natural resource is its fresh water. At nearly 80,000 cubic metres per person, we are to water what the Saudis are to oil. Better still, if wisely managed our natural freshwater resources are infinitely renewable. The problem is that water has been so plentiful that we have not had to be too sophisticated historically in terms of how we have allocated or managed that resource.

Nowhere is this debate as hot as it has been in Canterbury, where over 50 percent of New Zealand’s irrigation and 50 percent of our electricity storage water exists. People are flexing their muscles over water while the weakened referee—Environment Canterbury—is struggling to maintain order. Allocation decisions are ad hoc, water quality is deteriorating, and storage opportunities are being lost in the muddle.

Longstanding systemic issues relating to the performance of Environment Canterbury have reached a critical stage. Evidence of the failure has been apparent for over a decade and has been acknowledged by the previous Minister for the Environment, Trevor Mallard. Concerns around Environment Canterbury were included in the Ministry for the Environment’s briefing to the incoming Government.

Based on these concerns, and on Environment Canterbury’s performance in the 2007-08 Resource Management Act survey of local authorities—which found that Environment Canterbury’s performance was 84th out of 84 and was complying with statutory timetables in only 29 percent of cases—I decided to fully investigate its performance. I also note the critical decisions that have been made by the Environment Court and by independent environment commissioners.

The review was undertaken, after consultation with my colleague the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, by an independent review group chaired by Wyatt Creech and including Doug Martin, Doug Low, and Greg Hill. I acknowledge the hard work they put into their report. The review unanimously found that Environment Canterbury—

Dr Russel Norman: Dirty-dairying convictions.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I notice Mr Norman and I give him some advice. In Jeanette Fitzsimon’s 12 years in this Parliament she tackled the issue and not the person. Mr Norman is taking his party’s integrity backwards by not focusing on the real issues, and those real issues concern the management of water in Canterbury.

The Canterbury community has lost faith in the ability of Environment Canterbury to deliver on its statutory responsibilities. Over the last couple of months I and the Minister of Local Government have met with Environment Canterbury, Canterbury mayors, chief executives, councils, stakeholders, and Ngāi Tahu. The views of the people of Canterbury are very clear to me—that is, it is patently obvious that, for a number of years, something has needed to be done, that the report by those independent reviewers is comprehensive and accurate, that Environment Canterbury is dysfunctional and is holding back the region both economically and environmentally, and that the report included sound recommendations for a way forward to deliver a step change in management of water in Canterbury.

Environment Canterbury’s relationships with freshwater stakeholders and Canterbury’s territorial authorities, as well as Ngāi Tahu, are compromised to a degree that undermines Environment Canterbury’s efforts to remedy those water management issues in Canterbury that are so critical. It is my take that there is a broad consensus in support of the review group’s finding in relation to the institutional governance of Environment Canterbury and almost unanimous support for strong central government leadership on this issue.

The review group recommends that the Government establish a stand-alone Canterbury water authority. The Government believes that further consideration is required before such structural arrangements are put in place, and I note that there is nothing in this bill to advance that proposal. The threshold for intervention in the affairs of local government is high. Intervention is considered only where there is serious failure. In respect of Environment Canterbury the Government’s intervention is required because of three things—

Dr Russel Norman: They said no to irrigators.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: First, the council has failed to effectively manage Canterbury’s fresh water. What surprises me about the intervention from the co-leader of the Green Party is that there is no question that water quality in Canterbury over the last decade has deteriorated, and if we are serious about taking some action about that, then we should move.

Secondly, Canterbury does not have a fully operative regional plan and policy framework for resource management. I find it extraordinary that 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act we still do not have an operative plan in Canterbury to manage its water, and this has resulted in ad hoc and unsatisfactory arrangements for managing fresh water. Third, in the view of the review group there is an enormous and unprecedented gap between what needs to be done to effectively manage water in Canterbury and the council’s ability to do so.

These problems straddle the roles of Environment Canterbury under both the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act. The existing powers provided under those statutes are not sufficient to address these problems. There is a compelling case for immediate and direct action by the Government. Intervention is required to address a failure of governance on the part of the elected council, particularly in relation to freshwater management. If we do not act, then the economic, social, and cultural well-being of Canterbury—and, in my view, New Zealand—will continue to suffer.

This bill provides the power to appoint and empower Government-appointed commissioners. These commissioners will provide the strong governance and leadership that is necessary to rapidly bring the region’s resource management framework into line and to solve these serious problems within Environment Canterbury. The appointment of commissioners is a transitional measure, and they will be empowered to rapidly address the institutional and planning problems that are preventing effective resource management governance and decision-making in Canterbury. The planned Environment Canterbury election in October 2010 will be deferred until such time as the commissioners have completed their task, but, whatever the circumstances, the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013. The explicit intent is for the commissioners to withdraw and be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systematic issues are resolved.

The commissioners will be tasked with making institutional adjustments to ensure that Environment Canterbury is able to manage its duties effectively. They will additionally be tasked with fixing the water problem. This requires an effective operational water plan. It is only through such a plan that Environment Canterbury can make strategic decisions about resources and lay the ground rules against which future decisions can be assessed.

The commissioners will be experienced, and today we have announced that Dame Margaret Bazley, one of New Zealand’s most respected public servants, will act as commission chair designate. The commissioners will have the power to appoint and delegate appropriate people with the necessary status and experience in resource management to decide on resource management matters. The commissioners will be required to draw on the wisdom and opinions of the mayors of Canterbury, and the bill makes specific reference for the key linkage between them and the other councils within Canterbury. Additionally, commissioners will be given unique powers and will operate under an altered decision-making framework for the duration of their appointments.

The Government wants to build on the collaborate work of the Canterbury Strategic Water Study, which led to the strategy. This strategy has gained very broad support, and this bill enables statutory recognition to be able to be given to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I firmly believe that the Government’s response to the recommendations of the review group should capitalise on the momentum that has been provided by that strategy. I also propose to achieve that by requiring the commissioners to have particular regard to the vision and principles of that strategy.

In order to empower commissioners to expedite decisions on the natural resources plan and the regional policy statement, I propose that there be appeals only to the High Court on points of law, with no appeals on merit of the commissioners’ decisions. This differs from the current situation, where appeals on merit to the Environment Court are available. In the absence of an operative planning framework for managing water in Canterbury, the region’s water conservation orders have set the benchmark around which the natural resources regional plan has begun to be developed and consents have been granted.

There is a stark contrast in Canterbury in the way water resources that are subject to water conservation orders are managed versus the way that those that are not subject to water conservation orders are managed. I am concerned at the sustainability of the overall resource management outcomes. I consider that the attributes of the Canterbury region justify a move to ensure that the region’s water resources are managed in a more integrated way. I ask that this bill be considered by the House, as it is a fair and bold response to the challenges facing Environment Canterbury. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Points of Order

Urgency Motion—Leave to Correct Votes

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave to correct the votes of Labour and Progressive on the urgency motion.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): There was not actually a party vote; the vote was on voices. So there is no record to correct, and I think we could say that the seeking of leave is out of order.

Bills

Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): Labour is opposing this bill. It is a constitutional outrage on a whole number of levels. This bill replaces Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors with Government-appointed commissioners.

Amy Adams: As you did in 2000.

BRENDON BURNS: I will come back to the issue of Rodney District Council. The member for Selwyn had better take note that this measure will not have universal appeal in her electorate, and that it would have been useful if that member’s office had been able to advise people who called this afternoon about what her position would be. But I put that to one side.

This bill will absolutely disenfranchise the voters of Canterbury for the next 3½ years. It is not a quick fix; it is a long-term assault on the democratic model, which we on this side of the House happen to believe is quite important constitutionally. This bill follows on from the Creech report, which took place in a time frame of just under a month. The reviewers consulted fewer than 20 stakeholders—20 stakeholders. It talked to the mayors, but not to the councils, and the councils had not been consulted by their mayors. One has to say that mayors may have a different view about what is important for territorial authorities in Canterbury from what their councils might actually have.

Environment Canterbury is a democratically elected body. Its history has included having members of this House as members. But this bill, without any chance for public submissions, will disenfranchise the voters of Canterbury. This point of relevance was already raised in terms of contrast with what happened at Rodney, but we will come to that in a minute. This bill will see the National and ACT coalition appointing from four to seven commissioners, who will make all of the decisions for Environment Canterbury. That is going further than the recommendations of the Creech report, which said, in fact, that Environment Canterbury was doing a good job in respect of all of its other functions, and—

Colin King: What about its coastal plan?

BRENDON BURNS: Yes, it was saying that Environment Canterbury was doing a good job. Not only that, but I went to the briefing held by Wyatt Creech and the commissioners, where it was said that some of the issues about water were the responsibility of this Parliament, of Government, and of the Environment Court, and that not even on the issue of water alone could all of the responsibility for its management, and any question marks about the track record of that management, be sheeted home to Environment Canterbury.

So I ask why we are not seeing a bill that actually embodies those thoughts, from the review of Environment Canterbury conducted in rapid fashion by Wyatt Creech and his review team. Why are we not seeing a bill that embodies the issues around the politics of water, and this Government’s determination to get quick runs on the board in the next year without environmental checks and balances being put in place? I put that issue to the Minister for the Environment this morning. I asked whether there would be accompanying legislation to this bill, to ensure that new rounds for the allocation of water, as envisaged under this bill—at the centre and core of this bill, and with environmental checks and balances in place—are allocated in a better way. Anybody in Canterbury will accept that at this point in time there is not the best water quality in Canterbury. There is not the level of water quality that there should be, and remedies for that should be in place. But the Minister agreed that there was no accompanying legislation.

We are seeing National and ACT remove a democratically elected council so that Nick Smith and his colleagues can run the decisions in Canterbury in terms of water. That is what it is about. Cantabrians, people in my province, will not get the chance to have a say on who manages their water, their public transport, their clean air provisions, and the coastal environment for the next 3½ long years—3½ long years—because this Government wants to abrogate that fundamental democratic right. I would have thought that a party on the opposite side of the Chamber, a party from the right, would uphold the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. But that principle has been fundamentally violated by this bill. That is a fundamental principle of the right, but it has been discarded for convenience’s sake. It has been discarded by this Government because it does not fit what the Government wants to do in terms of rapid allocation of new water without any checks and balances being put in place. That is what this bill is about. It is about a rapid allocation of new water to industries across Canterbury.

Labour supports sustainable growth. We want to see growth in Canterbury. We want to see the greening of the plains, but we will not tolerate more browning of the waters. This bill puts that at risk. The function of Environment Canterbury is being taken out. Whatever Environment Canterbury’s faults, it has in recent months and years matched the environmental record, in terms of Resource Management Act processes, of other councils. It has absolutely matched the record of other councils in terms of those processes. Environment Canterbury has also been the instigator and driver of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, which I note is included in the bill as a schedule. There are references in the bill to taking account of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, but where is reference to that strategy in terms of any decision-making process? The Canterbury Water Management Strategy has to be consulted, it has to be taken account of, but where is the requirement that the strategy be embodied by this legislation? It is not there—it is not there.

I tell members that I think the people who have been involved in bringing that once-in-a-lifetime strategy together for Canterbury will be very nervous at the appointment of these commissioners. They know that ultimately those commissioners will be answerable to Nick Smith, to Cabinet, to the Government, and to the ACT Party, and not to the ratepayers of Canterbury, the people of Canterbury, or the people who should be deciding how our water is allocated. The commissioners will be answerable to a Cabinet agenda that is on the record and explicit—new allocation, and new water in Canterbury from next year—without commensurate, appropriate environmental checks being put in place. We all know that Parliament and Government had not put in place a sufficiently rigorous system to do that, but this bill does absolutely nothing to deliver it. Where are those new environmental standards? They are simply not there.

The Minister talked in his introduction about a step change in water management. It is a step change in water management towards allocating water more rapidly, but it is not the step change that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy envisaged, where the environmental outcomes were put first—not second, but first. A requirement to improve existing water quality should be put in place before the allocation of new water is gone into, because we have no lowland streams left in Canterbury where we can still safely swim and take our kids. A birthright has been lost. The requirement to improve existing water must be the first priority for Canterbury, not the rapid new allocation of water.

I come to the issue of how Rodney Hide has won the day on this matter. It is just a repetition of what happened in Auckland. I think Nick Smith has been rolled. I think Nick Smith probably would like to put in place some new environmental frameworks to support better water quality, but Rodney Hide has again won the day. That is a surprise, because he managed to get those changes through in Auckland and absolutely abrogated the rights of Aucklanders to have a say in the change of their super-city legislation. He absolutely put those rights to one side. We now have a similar situation, except it is worse. At least Aucklanders had a select committee process. This bill is being rammed through under urgency, and there is not a single chance for a single voice from Canterbury to be heard on decisions that will affect their rights, under democratic process, which are being absolutely abrogated by this bill. They have no right to have any say. We will see this bill go through the House under urgency in the next 24 hours. That is a fundamental breach of democratic rights and representation.

The Rodney District Council approached the Government for a review. There was a hearing process whereby local people were able to have an input. This bill does not have even a ritual bow towards the democratic process. It is a blitzkrieg of democracy, and it is a blitzkrieg of the rights of the people of Canterbury. It is forcing through a fundamental change against the supposed principles that the party opposite is here to represent, in terms of no taxation without representation. The bill is being forced through in extraordinary fashion by this Government. There is no chance for anyone to be heard.

Who will be next? Which council will be next to face this kind of assault on its democratic rights? It is outrageous legislation, it is an outrageous move by this Government, and it is being foisted upon us without any reference to the people of Canterbury and without any reference to the select committee process. It is a fundamental breach of democratic rights, which the party opposite has in the past been prepared to uphold on behalf of the people of Canterbury. The Government has refused to take even a token bow towards the fundamental precepts of democracy that National used to proudly represent. I say shame upon National and shame upon members of the Government for introducing legislation as abominable as this.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Brendon Burns and Labour know in their heart of hearts that we are doing the right thing. Do members know why? It is because they voted for the urgency motion. I thank Labour members for their early support of this bill.

This Government is not afraid to confront problems and move to fix them. I congratulate the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Rodney Hide, who recognised that Environment Canterbury was failing and who have resolved to do something about it. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill seeks to address the very real problems identified in the review of the performance of Environment Canterbury.

The review confirmed the worst fear of many people living in the area—the fear that Environment Canterbury was failing. It is politically, technically, and woefully deficient in policy areas, and, most important to me, it is failing miserably in respect of water management. To say that local water users have been dismayed at the performance of Environment Canterbury in respect of its water management is to understate the case. Dealing with Environment Canterbury, whether by recreational users, fishermen, or irrigators, has been uncertain and adversarial, and dealings can stretch on for years and years, leading to enormous costs. This bill will address those issues.

Canterbury urgently needs a regional water plan, and this bill has given top priority to its development. Labour had 9 years of complete mismanagement of water issues and produced nothing except its Water Programme of Action or, I should say, its water programme of inaction. This Government plans to build on the excellent work of the Canterbury Strategic Water Study, which enjoys wide support amongst the ten Canterbury mayors and all water interest groups.

Already the National Government has achieved more in the development of water policy than Labour did in its entire term of office. Shame on Labour! By appointing commissioners with additional powers under this legislation, the Government will address these urgent problems with the management of water. The people of Canterbury deserve better from their regional council, and with the passing of this bill they will get it.

I will leave members with a quote from former environment Minister Trevor Mallard, who said on 27 February: “everyone knew there was a problem there. But it was quite late in the term and in a time where there was not the ability to put in the group to do what Wyatt Creech has effectively done and then deal with the results.” I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive): I see that the way in which the National Government wants to make progress on issues like water—and we can put social welfare, accident compensation, and everything else in with it—is to pull the plug on the whole system. What we have here is the end of democracy in one of Canterbury’s most important local government agencies.

I would like to know where the National members who represent Canterbury were during the election. If there was ever a time when Environment Canterbury was not meeting its responsibilities, I know that it was then and immediately before. The Government that I represented had to pay Environment Canterbury half a million dollars to get a water plan. If the National members who represent Canterbury were so dead keen on ending democracy in Canterbury, why did they not tell the people of Canterbury that that was what they stood for. Why did they not stand up at the election and say: “We’ve got a plan to solve the water problem. We’re going to dismiss all the Environment Canterbury elected representatives.”? That would have been as popular as a cold cup of water on a freezing-cold day in the Antarctic. It would not have gone down, and no National Party member had either the foresight or the gumption to do it. They did not do it.

What they have done is have a meeting with a cabal of mayors. Those mayors did not consult anybody. Did the mayors consult the elected representatives of Parliament for the Canterbury region? They may have consulted the National members, but they did not consult the Labour Party members and the Progressive party member for Canterbury. There was no consultation with us. Did they just go to where they thought they could get some direct action like this? The answer is yes.

Here is the incredible thing. The ACT Party, which stands for non-intervention all over the place—we cannot intervene in the economy, we cannot intervene in social welfare, and we cannot intervene in accident compensation; it has to be privatised and run by people—now wants to intervene in democracy in the most dramatic way that it could, which is to cancel it. Not only are we not going to have it, but we are not going to have it between now and the election.

I have heard National members mention the Rodney District Council. Talk about comparing apples with oranges! Sandra Lee, the then Minister of Local Government, appointed a commissioner 10 months out from the election. She determined that an election would be held within 10 months, and it was. It was a one-off election and it was held outside of time, but she made sure that there was an election of the representatives of Rodney within 10 months of the appointment of a commissioner.

What we have here is a cancellation of democracy in Canterbury for 3½ years; not 10 months, but 3½ years. Where was the public announcement of this to the people of Canterbury before the election? We did not hear a word of it. My colleagues know, and National members know, the irony of this, because National members and Labour and Progressive members were at a special briefing held by Environment Canterbury about 4 or 5 months ago. I have a fair idea of what Environment Canterbury’s failings were in terms of water policy, and for the first time Environment Canterbury had got its act together and was forming a water policy that had some coherence and some credibility. It had done that, and just when it was about to implement it, it got abolished. What sort of democracy is that? Are you frightened of democracy? Are you frightened of it?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member should not include the Speaker by his use of pronouns.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker; I apologise.

The incredible thing about this is to do with poor old Alec Neill. Alec Neill was a member who could not eventually get elected. He entered Parliament, about two or three times, as tail-end Charlie—

Hon Member: Three.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: —three, was it—and he decided that he would give it up and go into local government. He even stood against me, which was a desperate measure for National. Finally, he was elected to Environment Canterbury. He found his place. He worked his way through, with a little bit of argy-bargy, and he got to be the chairman. Then his own party dismissed him. The poor guy! He could not make it in Parliament, so he made it at the local government level, and then National cuts him off at the knees.

But more important than Alec Neill is the fact that the people of Canterbury will not have any choices. They will have people coming in from outside. Where is the principle of no taxation without representation? I ask where that principle is. Environment Canterbury has rating responsibilities, and each year it will strike a rate. I ask where the input from the people of Canterbury is in that. Where are their elected members to implement the policies that they vote for? They do not have any policies to vote for, because the people who are being appointed were not voted in. They are being appointed by Rodney Hide, the great anti-interventionist, and Nick Smith, the Minister for the Environment. Those are the two who are appointing them. They have sacked the elected representatives—the people whom we all voted for in Canterbury—and they will put in another eight people to run it for 3½ years. There will be no election and no responsibility to the people in terms of taxation and rating. This has to be one of the most Draconian, anti-democratic events that I have seen in my time in this House, and that is quite a long time now. I have never seen anything like this. It is a rateable authority that has no elected representatives and no accountability to the people. There was no consultation with the people before it was done, none whatever—not with their elected representatives in Parliament and not with their elected representatives or the people of Canterbury. A cabal of mayors and a couple of Ministers will decide.

The thing that I know about people like Rodney Hide is that they will ask why Wellington should tell them what to do. Well, at the very time when what I heard Rodney say is ringing in my mind, he is actually forcing a gargantuan amalgamation mistake on Auckland. There will be complete chaos in the economic and social environment of that city—and I know it pretty well; I lived there for 46 years. I guarantee that National members will regret until the day that they lose office, which will be at the next election, what they have done in Auckland. National members should wait until the people of Auckland take retribution in about 16 or 17 months’ time, because Aucklanders will. If National members think Aucklanders will blame Rodney Hide, then they should get a life, because those people will blame National.

In effect, the Canterbury Regional Council has been abolished. It has been excluded from the pending local government elections. We have to remember that the elections will be held in October, which is only a few months away, and the Government has cancelled them. I ask why the Government did not have the foresight to allow the people of Canterbury to determine this matter. We have a democratic election coming up in a few months. If we are so worried about Environment Canterbury and about the water situation and everything else, the people of Canterbury could decide the future of their regional council at the local elections, instead of the decision being made by Rodney Hide and Nick Smith. If I put it to the people of Canterbury that I have a good idea and tell them that they have a choice, which would be to let them choose between having Rodney Hide and Nick Smith decide the future of how Environment Canterbury works for the next 3 years, and having the people of Canterbury decide it in a free election in a few months’ time, I will guarantee to the House that, overwhelmingly, over 95 percent of the people in Canterbury would vote for having the election and for having a say in that election. They would not be voting for Rodney Hide—I will tell members that now—and they would not be voting for Nick Smith to decide the future of Environment Canterbury, not in a million years.

The Government has intervened in the democratic process. It has intervened for up to 3½ years. The people of Canterbury will not have any representation. There has been no consultation. It is taxation without representation. Just at the very time when Environment Canterbury has got together a coherent water policy—and most of us who were there know that is absolutely true, including National members like David Carter, who was there and knows what the reality is—the National Government has canned democracy in Canterbury. It is a most unbelievable act. The people of Canterbury will not forget it in a long time. Following the local body elections, there is a general election next year, and the people of Canterbury will not forget the National Party at that point, either. That is the indictment on National. It is anti-democracy, anti-representation, and anti-consultation. It is abrogating the rights of people to participate in a free election for the people who represent them in their own region.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise to speak on the Government’s bill to abolish the elected councillors from Environment Canterbury, a bill that we are debating under urgency and which will be pushed through in the middle of the night without proper democratic process.

In his statement to Parliament the Prime Minister said that the Government would take action this year to remove regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury. This Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is the fulfilment of that promise, because the Government believes that democracy is an obstacle to irrigation in Canterbury. The Government believes that Agribusiness and the irrigation companies have become aggrieved at the regional council for stopping some of their projects. It has got in the way. So the Government is getting rid of democracy in Canterbury by getting rid of the elected regional council.

What does one do when one cannot get one’s own way? What one does is to get rid of the obstacle. When the irrigation companies and Agribusiness got annoyed with the regional council, they went to the Government and asked it to get rid of the regional council. The Government, tonight—forcing this bill through under urgency—is to sack the regional council.

It is interesting that we have had a debate over the last few weeks over whether we should have one person, one vote. Well, the Government tonight is moving towards one person, no vote, in Canterbury. Tonight it is abolishing democracy in Canterbury for 3½ years. It sounds like something that Commodore Frank Bainimarama would do in Fiji, when he said “We are just going to abolish democracy for a little while, but we will bring it back again later.”

Mr Anderton said earlier that there should be no taxation without representation. The people of Canterbury will now be taxed through their rates and will have absolutely no say about how their taxes will be spent. The people of Canterbury—500,000 people, roughly—are about to have their democratic rights taken away from them. There is no royal commission, as there was in Auckland, if we want to compare it with the Auckland example. There are no select committee hearings, as there were during the Auckland super-city process, with all the aspects of the Auckland problem. It will be forced through on the 500,000 people of Canterbury overnight, under urgency in this House.

The thing that justifies it—the fig leaf that is used—is the so-called Creech report. The Creech report was the result of a review headed up by a director from a dairy company with multiple convictions for water pollution, and it worked for about 3½ weeks, I think. It interviewed about 20 stakeholders. Among other things, the Creech report concluded that there was “no fundamental dysfunction”, which was an interesting conclusion for the Creech report, on which all of this was based. It said that there was no fundamental dysfunction. One of the interesting things about the Creech report was that it criticised the regional council for being too pro-science. It said that the regional council was basing too many decisions on science.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What an outrage!

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: That was the outrage. That was the criticism. It was science-led rather than science-informed. That is what the Creech report criticised the regional council for: paying too much heed to science and not enough heed to the irrigation companies. It also criticised the regional council for being an obstacle to economic growth. This is one of the regions that has grown fastest in New Zealand, as a result of the dramatic increase in irrigation in the Canterbury region.

In fact, if members look at the Resource Management Act, which is obviously something this Government very seldom does—they will see that it talks about sustainable management. It is not supposed to be there for endless, unlimited economic growth, with no constraints whatsoever. For the Creech report to criticise the regional council for taking the environment into account means that the Creech report does not understand the Resource Management Act, which is supposed to take the environment into account. That is the whole purpose of sustainable development. Responsible management of the environment is to take the environment into account. That is what Environment Canterbury was being criticised for in the Creech report.

It is also notable that within the last 12 months, Environment Canterbury processed nearly 90 percent of resource consents within statutory time lines. Of course, they are being criticised because during one period they processed only 29 percent. Yet, now, just as they are about to be abolished, they are processing about 90 percent of resource consents within statutory time frames. That is the right time to abolish them! What a brilliant time to abolish them—just as they are doing well!

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society calls this bill the fast track to dams, and that is what this bill is. It is an attack on the water conservation order process around the Hurunui River. Currently that process is on its way to the Environment Court. It was supposed to be there in May to hear the appeals. This bill will cut the water conservation order on the Hurunui off at the knees, because the water conservation order might have got in the way of the irrigators, and that is unacceptable. As John Key told us, he will remove regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury, so we cannot possibly have a water conservation order on the Hurunui River that would stop us building a big dam across it.

The other problem with this bill is that the people of Christchurch, aside from having their democratic rights taken away from them, will have their clean water taken away. Currently, Christchurch is fortunate to have very good potable water supplies, which are untreated. Already there are small amounts of nitrogen appearing in that water, and as irrigation expands—because, as John Key says, we have to get rid of regulatory roadblocks to irrigation—and pollution expands, it is goodbye to Christchurch’s clean water supply. Also, the water conservation order on the Rākaia River is also a target of this Government. It wants to break the water conservation order on the Rākaia River so that it can access that water for irrigation, as well.

This bill, aside from being an attack on democratic oversight of executive Government, is also an attack on judicial oversight of democratic government. The water conservation order, which would normally go to the Environment Court so that the judiciary could have a say on this process, has been cut off. It will no longer go to the Environment Court for judicial oversight. The natural resource regional plan will no longer have access on points of content, as opposed to points of law, to the Environment Court, so that particular aspect of judicial oversight of regional government and the regional executive will be removed.

It is not very well known that water conservation orders are the national parks for rivers. Just as the Government wants to mine national parks—it wants to mine the conservation estate and the schedule 4 lands within the estate—it also wants to mine the national parks for rivers, which are the water conservation orders. The Government wants to get rid of the water conservation orders so that it can take the water that is currently protected in the Rākaia and put it into irrigation schemes, so that it can give lots of money to the big dairy companies and the irrigators and add lots of pollution to the groundwater and the surface water in Canterbury.

These water conservation orders are a problem for the Government, the irrigators, and the dairy corporations. But if we want to protect the environment, they are very important. So when the Government intervenes, as it will under urgency tonight and tomorrow, it will interrupt the water conservation order process, and that will fundamentally threaten the national parks for rivers in our country. Water conservation orders are national parks for rivers in our country. The orders are put there to be an absolute protection for rivers, and this Government is tonight moving in to overturn water conservation orders because it sees them as an obstacle to irrigation.

In respect of the moratorium on new water-takes in at-risk catchments, giving the power to implement a moratorium is a good idea, but why was it not given to the regional councillors and to Environment Canterbury? They have been begging for that power for years. Brian Jenkins has been begging to have that power, but time and again Governments of both flavours have refused to give it to him. It has become a real problem. It is, of course, one of the great paradoxes that, at the same time that they are giving Environment Canterbury a moratorium to suspend resource consent processing in particular catchments, the main reason given for sacking it is that it took too long to process resource consents, which is one of the great paradoxes of the matter. If the Government really wanted to give the moratorium power, and I support that, then it should have given it to the regional council, which was finally getting its act together.

Finally, I shall say a word about the Ministry for the Environment. If we are going to sack Environment Canterbury, we should sack the Ministry for the Environment. It is just as big a failure as Environment Canterbury, because for 19 years it has not produced national policy statements or national environmental standards. If we are going to sack Environment Canterbury, we should sack the Ministry for the Environment. It is just as bad and just as responsible. We are moving from an era of malign neglect of rivers under the previous Government and the one before that to malign attention. Under the previous Government, rivers were left to get dirtier; now this Government will accelerate the process. We are ramming it through in the middle of the night so that the Prime Minister can do just as he said in his opening statement to Parliament and take action to remove regulatory roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is what this bill is for.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I rise to support the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. Local government plays a vital role in advancing the well-being of New Zealanders and New Zealand communities. Effective local government provides communities with a say about their resources and the decisions that affect their well-being now and in the future. A central tenet of our system of local government is the autonomy of local authorities from central government. Locally elected representatives who are accountable to their communities rather than the Government make decisions in the interests of local citizens and their ratepayers. As the Minister of Local Government, I have an important role to play in promoting an effective, efficient, and democratic system of local government. This includes taking leadership on issues where central government’s engagement and action is needed to achieve local outcomes. Central government’s ability to intervene in the decisions and workings of individual councils should be, and indeed is, very limited. Such powers may be used only in specific and extraordinary circumstances where the risk to the well-being of local citizens justifies overriding local accountability.

It has come to the attention of the Minister for the Environment and myself that such extraordinary circumstances now exist in Environment Canterbury. Let me explain these circumstances. In September 2009, all the mayors in the Canterbury region wrote to me outlining serious concerns about the performance of Environment Canterbury. That was unprecedented and denoted a serious breakdown in the region’s local governance relationships. That evidence, along with that of Environment Canterbury’s poor performance in undertaking its responsibilities under the Resource Management Act, provided compelling reasons for the Minister for the Environment and me to commission a formal review into Environment Canterbury’s performance. As the Minister for the Environment has outlined, the report of that review’s findings identified major capacity issues with regard to Environment Canterbury, including its inability to deliver a robust, clear, and effective framework for the management of Canterbury’s natural resources. Most striking was the review’s conclusion that there is an “enormous and unprecedented” gap between what needs to be done to effectively manage Canterbury’s fresh water and what Environment Canterbury has actually been doing. The recommendation of the review was that the existing council should be replaced by a temporary commission as soon as possible.

The Minister for the Environment and I met with the Canterbury mayors and the chief executives of Ngāi Tahu and other key stakeholders to listen to their views about the report’s findings. We also considered a number of written submissions from interested parties. We found that the region’s stakeholders were generally united in their opinion that central government intervention is temporarily necessary in order to improve the performance of Environment Canterbury. We also met not just the mayors but every council in the region, and they were unanimous in their view.

Drawing particularly on the report’s recommendations and the views of Canterbury stakeholders, the Government has concluded that immediate action is needed to address the failure of Environment Canterbury’s elected council, particularly in relation to freshwater management. The Government has considered a range of options for responding to this issue. We have decided that the replacement of Environment Canterbury’s councillors with commissioners is the best course of action to ensure that, firstly, Canterbury’s natural resources are managed in a comprehensive and holistic manner; secondly, the framework for managing natural resources in Canterbury is integrated, effective, transparent, and supports robust decision-making; and, thirdly, the institutional arrangements are in place to support effectively Environment Canterbury’s planning framework. This is a drastic move, but it is necessary to replace Environment Canterbury’s democratically elected council so that the well-being of the Canterbury region is ensured. As Canterbury’s natural resources, particularly of fresh water, are nationally significant, this decision is also in the interests of all New Zealanders. I can assure the House that this decision has not been taken lightly, as I am naturally reluctant to intervene in the affairs of local government.

As the governing body of Environment Canterbury, the commissioners will exercise all the functions, responsibilities, duties, and powers provided for under the Local Government Act, the Resource Management Act, and any other legislation. The commissioners will be accountable to the people of Canterbury, and will be expected to engage with the community on significant issues. The existing public consultation and participation requirements will remain in place. Getting an effective relationship re-established with the region’s mayors and local authorities is essential to instil confidence in Environment Canterbury. The commissioners will, therefore, be tasked with improving Environment Canterbury’s working relationships with Canterbury’s territorial authorities, as the bill requires the commissioners to seek advice from Canterbury mayors on local issues that affect Environment Canterbury.

The commissioners will step in to provide the necessary and temporary governance and leadership needed to get Environment Canterbury working effectively. This is important so that it can deliver effective services for the people of Canterbury. The commissioners will be tasked with finalising and implementing an operative natural resources regional plan, solving issues with freshwater management, and making institutional adjustments to ensure Environment Canterbury can better manage its responsibilities. As outlined by the Minister for the Environment, the bill provides the commissioners with additional powers to help them to address the region’s issues with speed and with expediency.

The appointment of the commissioners is the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and me. We are aware that the commissioner’s task will not be easy. That is why we will be considering only people of the highest calibre for this challenging and nationally significant role. Naturally one of the key criteria for the selection of commissioners is knowledge of, and expertise in, local authority governance and management.

I wish to highlight the fact that this bill provides for the necessary but temporary replacement of Environment Canterbury’s elected council in order to get the organisation back on track. That is in the interests of everyone in this House, of all the people of Canterbury, and of all the people of New Zealand. The planned local government elections in October will be deferred until the commissioners have carried out their task, which will be no later than the next local authority elections in October 2013. At that time, new councillors will be elected to govern a far more effective organisation. That remains a priority for the Government, and we are committed to Environment Canterbury operating in the usual democratic manner.

I commend this bill to the House. I say to members opposite, who want to attack this Government for political reasons, that, yes, they should by all means hold us robustly to account, but that they need to consider the mess that is Environment Canterbury and the difficulty that Environment Canterbury has confronted. They need to consider what it means to have 10 mayors and 10 councils saying they have a dysfunctional local government structure in Canterbury. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. Whenever this House goes into urgency—and it has been happening a lot lately—we sacrifice the principle of democracy. It is not democracy defined as the control of a group by the majority of its members—that is, majority rules—but rather the form of Government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. Legislation in this House should properly reflect the process of negotiation, discussion, debate, and consultation. But taking bills through urgency from go to whoa is by its very nature a denial of genuine democracy. It prevents people from having a voice, and that stage is not far removed from the totalitarian and communist States that we are always critical of in this House.

Hon Parekura Horomia: A communist Government.

HONE HARAWIRA: I say to Mr Horomia that the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is hugely important because it proposes a sea change in the way in which water will be viewed and how it will be managed.

I understand that this bill is specifically about Canterbury, designed to respond to concerns about the performance of Environment Canterbury and the urgent management of water within Environment Canterbury’s catchment area. But I have no doubt that what is being proposed will become the basis for a template on how our Government manages water everywhere else. That template will impact on how Māori everywhere are involved in terms of their rivers, their lakes, their harbours, and their seas. That is where the Māori Party comes in. We are the party that carries the interest of ensuring that issues about water management—including mana whenua, Treaty claims in respect of water ownership, the management of water, water rights, and privatisation—are properly considered in any statement on water, just as we know that all of those matters also need to be considered in the review of the Resource Management Act.

There are also wider, more comprehensive issues about the way in which we protect our streams, our lakes, our rivers, and our waterways from agricultural, industrial, and domestic waste, as well as the adjoining land rights and the overall policy in respect of the way water is viewed in Aotearoa. All those matters demand greater debate and participation from Māori across the country, which will not be possible for this bill given that it is being rushed through the House under urgency.

We are also concerned that this bill will effectively totally replace the Resource Management Act 1991. It will place absolute administrative power in the hands of the unelected commissioners and the Minister for the Environment, and effectively take over the role and purpose of the Environment Court as well. Indeed, comments from Wyatt Creech that Environment Canterbury, when making decisions on water allocation, was placing too much emphasis on the environment, basically sum up the actual purpose of the bill, which would seem to be to support pro-business interests at all costs.

The bill highlights a flawed belief in the myth that the environment must be balanced against the economy. That is the standard line from business interests on all environmental issues. The reality is that the economy is not a separate function but a critical element of society itself. Society is utterly dependent on the environment, and we ignore the reality of nature at our peril. The bill also states it will provide the commissioners with the powers to enable them to rapidly progress the development of the Canterbury region’s resource management framework, fresh water in particular. But there will be no elected representatives. There has been no consultation. Māori will not have a proper role in how things are being run, and we will end up with an entity answerable only to the Ministers of a Government dedicated to maximising commercial return from a resource that everyone should have a say in.

We have heard all the horror stories about Environment Canterbury: it was last in the 2007-08 survey on resource consents, it is always in court over its decisions, it is under fire for institutional failure from the review group, and it was without the support of local iwi Ngāi Tahu.

We will be supporting this bill at first reading, but we signal our grave concerns at the way in which water is being considered without due concern for the Treaty rights of Ngāi Tahu and the wider Māori interest in water across Aotearoa. Tēnā tātou katoa.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I am very happy to be taking a call tonight on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I am very happy to do it because I think everyone in this House would agree that Canterbury is a tremendously important region to New Zealand. It is tremendously important economically, and it is tremendously important environmentally. The regional council is a key body in the success of our region. The regional council is charged with administrating not only the management of our environmental assets but also our economic development.

The issue is that there have been longstanding and widely held concerns about Environment Canterbury’s ability to carry out those functions. That is what this debate is about and where this need has come from. The Creech report is merely the last in a long line of criticisms levelled at Environment Canterbury’s ability to do its job. That report found that the capability gap between what Environment Canterbury could do and what was needed was enormous and unprecedented. The regional council has failed to properly look after water management in our area. It has failed to control water-quality deterioration, it has certainly failed to have a plan for strategic economic development, and it has failed, after nearly 19 years of the Resource Management Act, to even come up with a natural resources plan that is operative in our district. This has happened while other councils are on to their second generation plans.

The Canterbury Strategic Water Management Study that we have heard talked about so much—and I support it; I think it is a wonderful initiative—is a response from the mayoral forum, not from Environment Canterbury—

Brendon Burns: Oh, rubbish. It’s an Environment Canterbury initiative.

AMY ADAMS: It is a response from the mayoral forum to Environment Canterbury’s failures, I say to Mr Burns, which he is closing his eyes to and not dealing with in any way.

One of the wonderful things that this legislation will do is give the Canterbury Water Management Strategy at least a chance of success.

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

AMY ADAMS: I will take up a little more of the House’s time, although I will not use anything like the 8 minutes I have left.

I make one final point. When the dinner break came, I was referring to the Canterbury Strategic Water Study and the strategy that has come from it. That is a very important document, and this bill is the only way that strategy will be given some legislative status. I think that is a very good step in this process. It is good news, and I go so far as to say that anyone who votes against this bill is voting against the Canterbury Strategic Water Study. Through this bill we will see that strategy given some teeth and some power, and we will be able to work together.

That strategy has been the work of a number of stakeholders representing the players in this field. Those same stakeholders from across the divide have all been calling for a change in Environment Canterbury, saying that there is a problem and it has to be dealt with quickly. This Government is getting up and doing it. This is not the previous Labour Government, which knew there was a problem but did nothing for 9 years. We will step in, we will step up, and we will sort out water in Canterbury. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): “Stepping in” is one way of putting the Government’s intervention in our democratically elected regional authority; some people might say “stomping all over democracy”. That is what Amy Adams—who is getting more and more like Jacqui Dean by the day—Nicky Wagner, and David Carter are doing to our fundamental rights in Canterbury. The Canterbury members on this side of the House and members of the public in Canterbury are not at all impressed with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. It is an absolute outrage and a breach of our democratic rights. We have the right to elect good or bad councillors. We have that vote. That vote is being taken away from us and our water is being taken away from us because Nick Smith has decided, in a purely political ideological move, to snuggle up with Rodney Hide—if members can picture that briefly; that will probably be more than long enough—so that they can have total control of our water management and all the other regional council functions through an undemocratic, politically appointed bunch of commissioners.

It is absolutely gobsmacking. I have had so many emails, texts, and phone calls, and I want to share one with members. A woman I know who lives in Rolleston texted me at 2.49 saying that she had rung Amy Adams’ office in the Selwyn electorate and her office in Wellington, only to be told that her staff had been given no idea at all about the removal of the regional council, and had no idea at all whether Mrs Adams would be voting for it. Listeners have just heard her speech, which was written by Aaron Gilmore, and they will have no doubt at all that Amy Adams supports a bill being rammed through this House under urgency to take away the democratic right of people in Canterbury to elect our own regional council.

People have watched amazed at what Rodney Hide has done in Auckland—the fact that he can just ride roughshod over the views of so many good Aucklanders—yet the Government did not give us a chance to even have a say on this bill. It is being rammed through under urgency without one single moment of select committee consideration. It is a done deal. We only know the name of one of the councillors replacing the council, Dame Margaret Bazley, who will be the chief commissioner. None of the others are even known. In fact, the Minister for the Environment was so desperate to get this bill into the House that he was still scrambling around with the details before he gave us a briefing at 11.30 this morning. The copy of the bill we got this morning still had “Draft” written on it. It is shonky work in this House to ram through a bill under urgency to take away our democratically elected representatives.

The bill takes away that right, but it also takes away the right of the public to have a say. If it had been put to the test, a lot of people might have said the same sort of nonsense that Amy Adams said—who knows? They would have been entitled to do that at a select committee. That is what democracy, submissions, and hearings are all about. But people have not had a chance to even talk nonsense. They are allowed no contribution at all.

I was at a meeting recently where another Canterbury member of the National Party the Hon David Carter was present. He described the Creech report as coming to the conclusion—and these are his very words—that there was terminal dysfunction at Environment Canterbury and, therefore, it had to go. I quote from the Creech report—

Aaron Gilmore: What page?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Page 51. “Almost all external parties interviewed had a negative perception of ECan’s governance. There is a widely held view that councillors are polarised at times”—good heavens, that is gobsmacking news to those of us in Parliament—“that they are quite dysfunctional as a group. There is insufficient leadership, and the council is too busy protecting individual / Party perspectives and fails to pay sufficient attention to … the Region.” That is what the 20 external parties reported to Wyatt Creech and his report team. He says: “Our investigation did not bear this out.” He could not have been clearer in his rejection of the politically motivated criticism of Environment Canterbury. I heard one Environment Canterbury councillor say quite recently that it was very difficult to operate in an environment where there was often either a 7:8 vote or an 8:7 vote. Well, that is politics. People disagree with each other.

Nicky Wagner: Not in local government

Hon RUTH DYSON: I say to Mrs Wagner that it is not party politics; it was exactly the same when she was a councillor.

Hon Darren Hughes: Oh, she forgot that.

Hon RUTH DYSON: She has absolutely wiped the history books clean. Mrs Wagner, who was an elected representative—as I told the House, we have the right to vote for whoever we want—has forgotten that she was elected to the very same council she is now allowing to be completely gutted.

Wyatt Creech’s review team went on to say: “The Review found that while the process for debating strongly opposing views has been marred by poor behaviour and reflects past grievances in some cases, the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations. Mostly, the tensions that exist arise from differing political perspectives and not from any fundamental dysfunction.” That is the organisation that was described by David Carter in a statement that can only be described as a lie and a complete misrepresentation of the Creech report, as are the comments that are being propagated by the National Party this afternoon and this evening. Wyatt Creech’s report said that there were political differences and there was bad behaviour, but the council had fundamental ability to carry out its statutory functions. The Minister’s response to that report is to say that at last he has his opportunity to get rid of his former colleague Alec Neill—he is gone yet again. The temptation for Nick Smith to do that must be pretty strong. What Nick Smith has done is entirely politically motivated. It is to get rid of locally elected, democratically elected councillors and have appointed commissioners, who will then be able to take over the total control of our water allocation.

One issue above all others inspires passion, anger, and parochialism more than the Crusaders, and that is our right to care for our water. [Interruption] Members opposite have no understanding of what has been developed through the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The member from Selwyn could not even refer to it by its correct name. We have been involved in that strategy as representatives for that area, and every single party, on a very broad perspective—a very broad spectrum of those interested in water management and water rights—has signed up to the strategy.

This is the opportunity to put it into legislation. The Government could have taken up the offer that I made in front of National members of Parliament and in front of the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce for there to be no party politics when it came to legislating for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. But what devious behaviour does the Minister resort to? He is sliding it into legislation that does not give the public any opportunity to contribute. It does not even give Cantabrians the opportunity to come and say that they are proud of their water management strategy. There will be no select committee process, at all.

At the front of this legislation is the abolition of our democratically elected councils. That was a bad thing to do, and I use that word advisedly. The Minister knows that he would have had cross-party support for legislation to ensure the smooth transition to a statutory basis for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The Government should not be replacing democratically elected regional councillors with appointed commissioners. It is a breach of process and it is a breach of our democracy.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a privilege to be speaking on the Environment Canterbury(Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I speak from the point of view of the Kaikōura District Council and the Hurunui District Council, and we applaud greatly the actions of the Minister, Nick Smith. We are sick and tired of seeing the procrastination that has occurred over the last 20 years with no traction ever being gained. Canterbury should be thankful that the best people in this country are prepared to put their hands up and sort out the problems that Canterbury could not fix. In actual fact, as a person who lived originally in North Canterbury and now dwells in Marlborough, I can say that Canterbury could not organise a party in AMI Stadium. It has behaved like a dysfunctional family, and the time wasting that has gone on is appalling. All the evidence points towards a dysfunctional Environment Canterbury, and action needs to be taken.

When we talk about Environment Canterbury, we are talking about a massive amount of land, from the Waitaki to the Takahanga straight up in Marlborough, and it affects an enormous amount of water. It has an ability to contribute to the economy in a way that one cannot even imagine. It has been likened, as we saw on television tonight, to having the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand every year. New Zealand cannot afford to miss out on the opportunity. We hear the Opposition members on the other side of the House ranting and raving about their democratic rights being taken away. That happened only because of the dysfunctionality that has occurred. We need only look at the blog sites to see the conduct of some of the councillors on Environment Canterbury and the way they leak like a sieve—their collective responsibility did not happen. This bill will take us forward. It sits comfortably inside the theme of a brighter future for all New Zealanders. It is a leadership style that has been lacking under the previous Government, and it has taken the Creech report to bring that to the fore. It is great to see the Minister for the Environment taking the appropriate action.

The bill itself certainly puts in some structures. This correction, which is long overdue, has to be implemented speedily so that elections can take place by 2013. That is not an easy task to address, but when we think of the candidates who have been put forward, like Dame Margaret Bazley, I think we are going for the very, very top of ability, and that should be wonderful.

I conclude what I want to say by noting that the Hurunui district has for a long time had its long-term council community plan, and in that it had a vision for the way it would manage the water in its region. That was completely stymied by the present system, and it is good to see in the explanatory note of the bill that the bill “ensures that appropriate regard is given to the most recently expressed aspirations of the local community, as reflected in the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy”.

This bill is long overdue. We can appreciate why Labour never achieved anything; it never had the passion and the will, and it has become very clear that to get anything over the line, especially when we are looking at water and the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, it takes 90 percent of the effort to get that last 10 percent. I am delighted that we have this bill. It is long overdue. There is so much we could say about it, but it is important that we get it into law. So from that point of view, I have great pleasure in supporting this bill at its first reading.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): The previous speaker, Colin King, did not last very long. None of the National members have. When the National members are dealing with legislation that takes away democracy, they do not want to talk about it very much. That is what that Government is all about. Here we are, pushing through—bulldozing—under urgency the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, about which the public will not have a say. There will not be any select committee hearing where the people of Canterbury can have their say. That opportunity has been taken away from them by a Government that is rushing this legislation through. Of course, what it is doing is taking away the democratically elected people, and it is doing that in such a fashion that we begin to think that this Government sees this as an easy step.

I think back to the process that was used in Auckland. Back in May 2009 the Auckland reorganisation legislation was foisted upon us. The Government did that under urgency, and the House sat until the weekend to pass the legislation through all stages. This is the Government that said it would listen to people; this is the Government that was going to take notice of people. But all of a sudden the National members have become an arrogant lot.

Nicky Wagner: Nah.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There is a member who does not think they are an arrogant lot. She says: “Nah.” I do not know anyone who says “Nah.” when it comes to democracy.

Rodney Hide came into the House this afternoon and for the first time that I can remember, he did not get up and speak from the heart. What did he do? He read a speech prepared for him by officials in local government in the Department of Internal Affairs. He read it, and of course when he does that, we know there is trouble around. Here we have good old Alec Neill getting the sack. Alec Neill is used to getting the sack. He was elected to this Parliament three times—almost a record—and he is getting the kick again. Alec Neill helped to run induction courses for new MPs, which he says was good for his rehabilitation from politics. But the National Government finds that rehabilitation for Alec Neill and Environment Canterbury is to shut them up, boot them out, and have no election until 2013. National cannot tell the people of Canterbury that that is a good thing.

As an Aucklander, I can say there is not always a lot of love lost between Canterbury and Auckland, but we all know that what we are seeing this Government push through is a process that it should be ashamed of. It is a process that no decent New Zealander likes to see. Having one’s vote every 3 years is really important. We had the royal commission tell us about what it saw the future local government structure being for Auckland, and the Government took no notice of it. It knew better than Aucklanders did, and here, under urgency, it pushed through that legislation.

The legislation that is to be passed by National over the next day or two enables the commissioners who are taking over Environment Canterbury to modify water conservation orders and to apply protections —probably weaker.

Simon Bridges: Take us through it, George.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: That member is saying “Take us through it”. I imagine the National members did not even know about this bill in their caucus meeting. Dr Nick Smith, at 11 o’clock this morning, arranged to brief people, and we appreciate that. But did he tell the member for Tauranga about this bill on Tuesday? Probably not. The member for Tauranga has a mighty mouth, with a great big north and south, but when it comes to knowing about the bill, he does not. He is a slick, smooth lawyer who does not worry about the rule of law. He does not worry about the rule of law—

Hon Darren Hughes: Get it to the select committee and find out.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Yes, this bill should be going to a select committee.

What is the Government afraid of? Is it afraid that Nick Smith may be told a few home truths by his mate Alec Neill? They came into Parliament in the intake of 1990, and somehow Nick Smith remains. But, of course, poor old Alec Neill was elected from 27 October 1990 to 6 September 1996—that was his first time. He must be thinking that he supported National, but now it is taking away what he stood for: democracy. National is taking democracy away; it is not giving people a chance. The Minister of Internal Affairs is shaking his head in agreement, and he knows whom people blame when they lose their right to vote. The people in Auckland have turned against ACT and Rodney Hide, and they will turn against John Key. With this bill, Dr Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will go further away from their support base. They will lose it. You see, we have a situation where Parliament stands for democracy; we are all here because people voted for us. Even party list members are voted into this Parliament. But this Government wants to take that right away from the people of Canterbury when it comes to their regional council.

I ask people who are listening to their transistor radios tonight to think about why people are having their rights taken away. This Government said it stood for people’s rights—

Simon Bridges: Some of them will even be watching this on TV, George.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: They will. I should smile more, like the assassin over there who does not care about democracy. That member is more worried about animals. Animals are more important to that member than people, and I think that member needs to look at that very carefully.

We heard members of the Māori Party say this afternoon that they are going to vote for the bill at the first reading. What is going to happen? Are they going to change their mind about it at the select committee? No. Why not? Because there is to be no consideration of the bill by a select committee. So what will the Māori Party members do? Will they vote with the Government for the bill through all its stages, or will they stand up for the rights of individuals, and for the Māori people they came here to represent? We have had a Green Party member make a very impassioned speech today. I sat here next to Brendon Burns when he spoke, and I was really very proud of the leadership role that he has been given in this area. I think that is very, very important. He is a person who is prepared to stand up for people from Canterbury. In Auckland we do not see many people standing up to support Canterbury, but here it is extremely important.

Of course, people like Amy Adams and Colin King, turned their backs on Canterbury. Neither of them could speak for 10 minutes to tell people why this bill is good. The reason why they could not do that is that it is a rubbish bill. It is completely anti-democratic. When Government members do not use their 10 minutes to speak in support of a bill, we know that the Government is trying to sneak the bill through. We know that it is not very good. When a person like Amy Adams speaks for 3 minutes about why she wants to take away the vote of people in Canterbury until—[Interruption]—yes, 2013, I have to say that is just not good enough. It is a disgrace.

NICKY WAGNER (National): I support the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I support this bill because there is no doubt that the management of water in Canterbury is a significant issue where we need to do better. I support this bill because Environment Canterbury has been unable to manage water effectively and efficiently for the past decade. Everybody—even Trevor Mallard—knows that there is a real problem here.

I would just like to respond to Ruth Dyson’s cherry-picked quotes from the review group’s report. Let us look at its conclusion: “the Review Group has concluded that ECan’s performance on water policy and management issues (allocation and quality) falls well short of what is essential.” Here I differ from some of the others, as I have an insider’s point of view to Environment Canterbury because I was a councillor there until I came to Parliament and I know how hard everyone there works to do their jobs effectively and how much they want to manage water well. But I also know the frustrations and the difficulties that they have had over many years to try to get a water plan in place, and I know how incredibly difficult the task of managing water is without the legislative tools needed to do a good job.

I support this bill because it gives the Canterbury Water Management Strategy formal legal status. It requires the commissioners to give formal recognition to it in their decisions. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy is a grassroots, collaborative, catchment-based community process that I believe is the way forward for Canterbury. It is the best tool for managing competing interests and for getting the best use of water both for the environment and for the economy, and this bill recognises that tool.

Environment Canterbury was crucial in bringing the Canterbury Water Management Strategy together and has, therefore, helped to set the framework for future work. I support the introduction of temporary commissioners, chaired by Dame Margaret Bazley, because I believe that it is the only way to break the deadlock over water in Canterbury and to move forward positively. It is now up to all the stakeholders and those interested in water to be part of the process and to ensure that we, the people of Canterbury, manage the resource wisely and well.

The aims of this bill are, firstly, to protect the environment that sustains our future and, secondly, to use the resource intelligently to underpin the social and economic well-being of the people of Canterbury. I would just like to ask members on the other side of the House how anyone can argue against that.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a second time. This bill is about the Government taking leadership on the critical issue of water management in Canterbury. Firstly, it provides for the appointment of commissioners, led by Dame Margaret Bazley, to take over the functions of the governance of Environment Canterbury. It also provides for legal recognition of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, and gives additional powers to the new commission to really get on top of water management issues in Canterbury. I want to talk in some detail about those additional powers.

Firstly, I thank members of the Opposition for supporting the urgency motion. I know they, in their heart of hearts, know that there are real problems with Environment Canterbury, and that the steps the Government is taking are the responsible approach, not just for Canterbury but for New Zealand. I draw the attention of the House to the quite proper statement made by the previous Minister for the Environment, Trevor Mallard, who said “Everyone knew there was a problem there.” What has been lacking in the contributions of members of the Opposition is their answer to the problems of water management in Canterbury. What Labour did during the 9 years it was in office is well documented in the reports that were provided by the Ministry for the Environment, in the commentary of declining water quality, and in the problems within Environment Canterbury, which go back at least a decade. My simple challenge for members opposite is to ask what they did when they were entrusted with the governance of New Zealand.

I also have to confront the perspective that was put forward that this is an outrageous affront to democracy. That is what the Labour Party has said. My question for Labour members is whether it was an outrageous affront to democracy when, on 4 May 2000, the previous Government passed special legislation, under urgency and through all stages, to replace the Rodney District Council with a commission, and to make changes to the elections. I ask members opposite whether it was an affront to democracy when Helen Clark dismissed the democratically elected Auckland District Health Board. Was that an affront to democracy? Was it an affront to democracy when the previous Government sacked the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? An honest answer is that there are times when this Parliament needs to step into elected bodies so that we can lift the standard of management.

A fair question that I and the Minister of Local Government have applied our minds to is whether the threshold for Government intervention has been reached on the issue of water management in Canterbury. I point out these key facts to members opposite. It is a matter of record that in the 2007-08 biennial report on resource management, Environment Canterbury ranked No. 84 of 84 councils. That report, commissioned during the time of the previous Government, showed that Environment Canterbury was breaking the law a lot more often than it was complying with it under the Resource Management Act.

I also challenge members of the Greens, because 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act, we still do not have an operative water plan for Canterbury. I am interested to learn from a member of the Greens how that helps. How does it help the environment in a region that has more pressures on water than anywhere else in New Zealand that we have no plan? I repeat that 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act, we still do not have a set of rules. I make no apologies, as a member of this Government, to say that it is time we had a water plan in place in Canterbury. I am pleased to be working with Rodney Hide and with my colleagues in Canterbury to ensure that we get that plan.

I will address quite specifically the additional powers that are provided in this bill to try to improve water management in Canterbury. The first of those is to specifically address the issue of getting to a workable plan. I am advised that on the current legislative framework it will be another 2 or 3 years before it will be possible to conclude a plan for water in Canterbury. Are members on this side of the House happy to sit back for the next 2 or 3 years and watch an ad hoc approach to water management? No, we are not, and that is why this bill provides for powers to fast track the completion of the Canterbury regional strategy and, very importantly, the natural resources plan that will provide for the completion of that plan.

A further extra provision in this bill is for targeted moratoria to be able to be introduced by the commissioners in areas where water either has been fully allocated or is near to that point. Where we have a resource that is under the sort of pressure that water is in Canterbury, exactly that sort of short-term intervention is required. The honest answer to farmers applying for water in Canterbury in some areas is to say: “No, there is no water left. The resource has been completely allocated.” In my view, that is a responsible and proper thing for the commission to do in parts of Canterbury where additional drawing from the aquifer system is not sustainable and not in the long-term interests of Canterbury or New Zealand.

There are further provisions in this bill in respect of water conservation orders. It is important to put to the House what those provisions are and why the Government has included them in this bill. The first point about water conservation orders is that they have been quite deliberately used in frustration in Canterbury because there has not been a water plan. Groups have been so frustrated at being unable to get some constraint on the development of water that they have wanted to get a water conservation order put in place. The challenge I have for members opposite is how it makes sense for us to appoint commissioners to take charge of water management in Canterbury and to write a regional plan, and to then have a separate process, somewhere else, to decide where there will be water conservation orders that will have a big impact in terms of those plans. This bill says that water conservation orders that are received during the period of the commission will be referred to it. Members opposite are saying this is some great power grab. I remind members that the decision to refer a water conservation order comes to the Minister for the Environment. Yes, it comes to a politician. The final decision under the existing law is that water conservation orders are decided by the Minister for the Environment. The change is that rather than having it going off to an independent commission, or the Environment Court, we are saying that it is proper that decisions on those water conservation orders be made by those commissioners so that it can be done in an integrated way. No member of this House who truly believes in integrated decision-making, making decisions over whole catchments in a proper way, could object to that sensible approach for the commission in the management of water in Canterbury.

The last point I make is in respect of the contribution made by Brendon Burns. His answer was that we need national policy statements and national environment standards. My challenge to Mr Burns is this: his colleagues were in Government for 9 years but how many national policy statements did Labour advance during its 9 years? The answer is zip, zero, none. There was not one national policy statement or one national environment standard. There was not one in those 9 years. Labour members have the gall to come to this Chamber and say that the answer to Canterbury’s water problems is a national environment standard or a national water standard. I say to them that they had 9 years, they failed, they did not deliver the goods, and they did nothing. Thank goodness we have a Government that is committed to addressing these critical issues.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): First, I respond to one of many inaccuracies spoken by Dr Smith. He just told the House that the last Labour Government did not produce any national policy statements or national environment standards. He is wrong. In fact, I think I was responsible for bringing forward one on electricity transmission. We also advanced a national environment standard on telecommunications. We substantially advanced the national policy statement on water quality, which now languishes because Minister Dr Nick Smith has put it in the too-hard basket, thrown it to the water forum and said “I’m not going to implement that.” Just watch, it will never see the light of day, even though that is the instrument that the National Government could use next Cabinet day, next Monday, if it wanted to, and have a national policy statement implementing improvements to water quality through the whole of New Zealand, inserting rules in every regional plan through section 55.

Where is that national policy statement on water quality now? It is sitting in the Minister’s office, gathering dust because he does not have the courage—I am sorry, I withdraw and apologise for that—he does not have the gumption to implement what everyone in this House knows is necessary, which is a policy instrument between the Resource Management Act and regional plans, which gives effect and improves water quality. That would be a meaningful step to improve water quality from next week, and it would do what we all know is necessary, when we have increased intensity of agriculture, therefore more fertiliser, and more animal effluent flowing into waterways. With every increase in intensity we have to have more care taken by the landowner. That is what that national policy statement would do, and that could be implemented by Cabinet on Monday. There would be no need for this outrageous legislation in respect of water quality.

I shall deal with the issue that he also raised of water conservation orders, because in my opinion that is one of the most egregious parts of this legislation being passed under urgency, with no opportunity for people to submit upon it. Dr Smith says that water conservation orders ought to be under the jurisdiction of this commissioner. He needs to look at history. Why did this Parliament legislate for water conservation orders back in 1981? A quarter of a century ago our predecessors legislated in this House for the introduction of water conservation orders, because the effect of each little slice being taken, of more water being taken from rivers, is very hard for regional councils to oppose, and the effect is that there is just a little bit more, another slice of the little bit left in the river, taken out for every new application.

So the prior Parliament said there are some rivers in New Zealand that are too important for that to happen to, and the Water and Soil Conservation Act was amended. That was way previous to the Resource Management Act, and water conservation orders were put in there. They have stood the test of time for 25 years, and they are not overused and they are not abused. There is a very powerful gatekeeper both in terms of the board that the Minister appoints, plus appeal rights for the Environment Court, to ensure that they are not overused. In Canterbury they have not been overused, but it is true that most rivers in Canterbury are far too low in their flows in summer. Some rivers like the Ashburton River just about dry up. Indeed, some of the rivers go to ground; they have so little water in them because they are sucked dry by irrigators. The rivers that are the exception to that in Canterbury are the Rākaia and the Rangitata, and the only reason that they are the exceptions to over-abstraction is that they have water conservation orders. Those water conservation orders were fought for through many, many years of effort by interested groups, and those cases went all the way from the original tribunal to the planning tribunal—now the Environment Court—to the High Court and to the Court of Appeal before those issues were settled. People took those issues to the Court of Appeal, and what is Dr Smith doing in this legislation? Without any submission process for New Zealanders to object, he is saying that those water conservation orders can now be varied by the commissioners. There is no political accountability of the Minister, which there is under the current legislation—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, there is.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I take that back, I accept the member’s word on that.

Hon Darren Hughes: You can’t do that. He’s the last person you would take the word of.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I will check that. The decision maker stops being the Environment Court, essentially, that makes a recommendation to the Minister, and it now becomes the commissioner. That is wrong. Conservation orders sit in a separate part of the Resource Management Act. They have their own code in Part 9. Regional councils are bound by them. This new entity that the Minister is setting up today as a replacement for the regional council, but slipped in the legislation, means that rather than that replacement being bound by water conservation orders, that body has the ability to vary them. That is wrong.

I say something also about what is going on here. Underneath this we actually have demand from farmers for unreasonable amounts of water from some of our rivers. The Minister said he is worried about that, and he thinks they have to be curbed. He says that, but then he does the opposite. What he is doing is allowing farmers to get more water out of these rivers. There are already provisions in the Resource Management Act that allow water conservation orders to be changed. Anyone can apply to have them varied, and if the Minister thinks that that ought to be looked at it can be; it goes to a board and eventually the Environment Court, and a recommendation comes back to the Minister. They can be changed. So why, then, this change? It is not necessary. The only reason can be because Federated Farmers, who have always been opposed to water conservation orders, were the protagonists. Right up to the Court of Appeal they fought these things, and now they are having a win through their buddies in the National Party.

I want to read out the Court of Appeal judgment made in 1987, Ashburton Acclimatisation Society v Federated Farmers Inc., because they were the two protagonists in the Court of Appeal. The decision states: “The basic contest was one between conservationists who wished the flow and characteristics of the Rakaia to be conserved, and farmers who wished to take water for irrigation.” That is what is happening again. Farmers want more water for irrigation. Dr Smith is pretending this is for the protection of the environment, when actually the opposite is what he intends and the opposite is what will occur.

I say one final thing, and it is about the habit of this Minister and this Government to use loaded names in the titles of bills. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill—it really does sound like the Operation Enduring Freedom of George Bush. These loaded names in legislation do not fool anyone. I say to describe what it is—“Temporary Commissioners”, they are not even very temporary.

Hon Darren Hughes: 3½ years.

Hon DAVID PARKER: They outlast an election cycle, which is disgraceful, but this loaded term “Improved Water Management” really smacks of the sort of propaganda that we had from George Bush in Operation Enduring Freedom, and it does not fool anybody.

The other thing that is happening here is that Dr Smith has said this will be a precedent for change in other areas. I am told that someone attended a press conference that the Minister held and asked whether the changes being made in respect of water conservation orders effectively falling under the regional plan, rather than sitting above it, were likely to be applied in other areas in New Zealand, and I am told that at the press conference the Minister confirmed that it may well be a model for other areas. He is shaking his head to say that that is not so. I hope he is correct, I tell the Minister, because I was not there.

But this policy, really, is terrible. I think that it is very sad that after 25 years of battles in trying to assert reasonable minimum flows for at least some of our outstanding rivers in Canterbury—the only ones that are not severely abstracted as a consequence of excessive irrigation pressure—we have this Government undermining the conservation orders that are on the few rivers that are already protected in Canterbury. That is on top of the Government’s inability to advance the national policy statement on water quality—high-quality work from Judge Sheppard, a former Principal Environment Court Judge—which is sitting on the Minister’s desk waiting to be implemented. He could do that through Cabinet on Monday, but he will not.

This is all wrong. There are problems in Environment Canterbury; I do not deny that. We do not deny that. But there were less drastic solutions to those problems, which are no excuse for the inaction on water quality or the draconian steps that have been taken in respect of water conservation orders.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): I am happy to take a call on the second reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I start this brief call by bringing us back to a little sense of history. The previous speaker, David Parker, spoke repeatedly about this bill’s being passed under urgency and the like. On 2 May 2000 the Labour Government kicked out the Rodney District Council’s elected councillors with a bill that went through all stages under urgency with no select committee deliberation, so it is a bit rich for that party to sit there now and cry crocodile tears about using urgency to pass a bill to take out a council that is not performing and replace it with a group of commissioners until the council is back on track. It is a bit rich. I remind those listening to this debate that those Labour members were more than happy to use urgency when it suited them to achieve the same end. The difference is that National members did not play politics.

Colin King: We support it.

AMY ADAMS: We supported them on that. The Labour Party and the Green Party are now far more interested in playing politics with Canterbury’s water than accepting what all the stakeholders are telling them, which is that Environment Canterbury does not have the capabilities to do what it needs to do. It does not have the capabilities.

This debate is about getting the regional council of Canterbury right in order to manage our economic development and our environmental management. I quite happily stand here and say that we have not done either of those things well in Canterbury. We have failed to make the most of our economic growth potential, and we have failed to do the right thing by our environment. I would be the first one to say that the path we have been on with water take and water management has not served our environment well in Canterbury. We can do an awful lot better.

I touch on the moratoria aspect of this bill, which will allow the commissioners to come in and put a hold on new water applications while this issue is sorted. So although members on the other side of the House play up the issues about making more water available—and if that happens, I will welcome it—I say that the bigger part is ensuring that that is done only in a way that better protects our water management. That has not happened in Canterbury for a long time. It needs to happen. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the Environmental Defence Society, and the Water Rights Trust are all telling us that that needs to happen.

This is not coming just from one side of the debate. Anyone who is actually listening to stakeholders knows that everyone is telling us this. I have had a constant stream of people through my office telling me of issues with Environment Canterbury. They are not all farmers; they are not all irrigators. A number of them have nothing to do with those fields. But they have one thing in common, which is frustration with a regional council that has become disconnected from its obligations to Canterbury and that has failed us environmentally and in economic growth.

This bill is an important step to getting that council back on track, so that we can return to a proper, functioning regional council. I look forward to that happening. It will not happen without this bill, and that is why I am very pleased to support it.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I believe that it is a very sorry day for Parliament today. I believe that the Minister for the Environment is overseeing one of the most anti-democratic processes that one could imagine. I heard Amy Adams, the member who has just resumed her seat, and Minister Nick Smith say that this was OK because of what happened in Rodney. So I will go back over what actually happened in Rodney. In April 2000 the local government Minister of the day announced that she had accepted a ministerial review authority recommendation to appoint a commission to replace the elected representatives of the Rodney District Council. But that example differs significantly from the current Environment Canterbury situation, in the following ways.

In October 1999—which was before the election in 1999—the Rodney District Council requested a review of the council, following the unanimous decision of that council. I would ask Amy Adams and this Minister where the unanimous decision was for this council in asking the Government to intervene. No, there is no feedback from those members who have resumed their seats. Therefore, they are accepting that there was no request from Environment Canterbury for the review that has occurred.

In this case, rather than the unanimous decision of the Rodney District Council to ask for a review, the Minister appointed—who? Wyatt Creech. Wyatt Creech has an association not only with the Government, which is pretty obvious, but also with the industry that demands so much of our water resources in Canterbury. Do members not think—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Play the man. Play the man; you can’t win the debate.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am not playing the man. I think that the Minister is being unfair. I am talking about a conflict of interest.

Jenny Shipley was prepared to step aside on the basis that she could identify what was a clear conflict of interest in terms of being asked to be the lead commissioner in the new world order that this Minister has imposed on Canterbury. But Wyatt Creech was not prepared to do the same, when he has been held to account by the regional council in his area for what he has done in terms of the particular company he is responsible for. I am trying to say—and I think the Minister should take some notice of this—that when there is a conflict of interest, it does not have to be real; the perception is enough. In this case, the perception is more than real. That former member, a former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, should have stood aside. He was conflicted in every way, shape, and form. I am not surprised that he recommended that there should be a separate water authority for Canterbury. I bet he wishes that there was a separate water authority that was taking no notice of what his company was doing up in the Waikato.

The second thing that happened in this case was that the Minister set the terms of reference for the review. The third thing was that the Minister discounted the possibility of a protracted inquiry, which meant that there was not enough time for this inquiry to engage in the process in any meaningful way.

The actions of the Labour Government back in 1999, when we had just assumed office, were in response to a unique situation and at the insistence of the local authority concerned. On 17 November—and I think we took our warrants in December 1999—the council wrote to the then Minister, commenting on the need for a review and saying that it wanted the Government to intervene. That was before we had even taken office.

The Creech review was initiated as part of a Government agenda. Nick Smith stated at the time that these reports were initiated as part of the Government’s broader agenda of taking a more active role in the performance of local government on resource management issues. The two councils performed poorly in the 2007-08 survey of resource consenting processes, but no notice was taken of the fact that they had actually improved their resource consenting processes in the subsequent financial year.

On 8 December 1999 the then Minister of Local Government appointed a review authority to undertake a review in accordance with the request and within the terms outlined by the council, and, as I have alluded to, that was the first time a commission was appointed since the ministerial review provision in the Local Government Act 1974 was enacted in 1992. The review authority received more than 80 submissions in the case of the Rodney District Council, in response to public notices, because it was a publicly notified process. The Creech review talked to fewer than 20 groups, and no submissions from the general public were invited.

One of the points I will make is that the local authority mayors were consulted, as a result of an Official Information Act request—we know that this is the case—and not one of them consulted their elected colleagues on their councils; not one.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Name one. Jo Kane was the regional councillor who made the Official Information Act request. The response was that not one of the mayors, or indeed the chief executives who were consulted, consulted their elected councils to know their response. Every single one of those mayors originally wrote to the two Ministers, at the request of the two Ministers. We know that the request went through Jo Goodhew, to the Mayor of Timaru, and then up to the two local body Ministers, the Minister who is taking this bill through, the Hon Nick Smith, and also the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide. They were requested to get this information through to them, from the mayors. The mayors were asked to do this for them so that they could achieve the end that they have achieved on this occasion.

In the 1999-2000 situation, the review authority that was appointed by the Government of the day to review Rodney, at the request of the Rodney District Council, held a 6-day hearing in the month before they reported to the Minister. I do not recall there being a hearing in the Creech review. I was not even invited to make a submission as a local member of Parliament, and in fact none of the local members of Parliament were invited to make any submissions on the matter.

The review authority was scheduled to report to the Minister by the end of December 1999, but that date was extended to 3 March 2000 after requests from the review authority for a time extension. The Creech review, on the other hand, was a very slapdash job. The reason it was such a slapdash job was that it had been set its terms of reference to produce the result that it produced.

In the wake of the review authority’s findings, the mayor and five elected councillors resigned on 21 March 2000. The mayor’s resignation triggered a by-election, and we all know the history of that time. No such situation has arisen in this case.

At that time the Minister announced the appointment of a commission on 10 April 2000, 18 months away from the next local body election. How long is it this time? The local body elections are only 6 months away now, so what are we talking about? It is 3½ years. I want to know something. Will we stop collecting rates from ratepayers in the Environment Canterbury catchment area over the next 3½ years? Will we stop collecting rates? A fundamental principle of constitutional law talks about there being no taxation without representation. I think that is exactly what this Minister is foisting upon—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I think it is hilarious that this Government would talk about district health boards. The previous National Government sacked every area health board in this country in 1991. Does the member not remember that? He was the one who was there at the time; I was there at the time. That Government sacked the lot, because that lot do not believe in elected representation in district health boards.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party opposes the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We believe that it will come to mark an historic occasion; it will live on in infamy in the annals of this Parliament.

Last week in the general debate I advanced a critique of the Creech report and its recommendations. I do not wish to repeat those criticisms; suffice it to say tonight that this report was politically driven and not politically informed. It failed the basic standards of organisational and managerial professionalism. In particular, the statutory arrangements in this country impose five functions on regional councils. They are resource management, biosecurity control, river management, land transport, and civil defence. The Creech report focused excessively, almost exclusively, on one part of one of those functions, and condemned the council to death. But that is already history.

What we are addressing tonight is the response of the Government to that report, and to the Canterbury water situation. In a more fundamental manner, what we face here is the relationship between central government and local government, and what that means for democracy in this country. This is not a light matter. It is concerned with two fundamental issues—economic growth on the one hand, and good governance on the other. The stated problem, as advanced by the Minister when introducing the bill, is “the longstanding systemic issue in regional governance.” “Intervention”—said the Minister—“can only occur if there is serious failure”, and he said that that had occurred.

So what does the bill do? It abolishes the elected council, establishes a new appointed commission, and gives that unelected body extra powers. That is the classic example of shifting the goalposts. We condemn a democratic body for alleged ineptitude that derives from weakness in the powers granted to it, and then we set up an undemocratic body and grant it the powers its democratic predecessor had always needed. That is not only devious; it is dangerous to this nation’s constitutional health.

We need to be careful in this country, because our constitutional integrity is quite fragile, compared to most other countries. We have no codified constitution. We have no Upper House. We do not have a clear separation of national powers. We have no federal division of authority; rather, we have a strong centralised Government. It does not take much in these circumstances to generate a momentum whereby power becomes excessively concentrated. We can all remember the New Zealand Government, not so long ago, that was described as an elected dictatorship. Jim Anderton said in this debate that he has never, in all his time in this House—over a quarter of a century—seen anything like this.

Stamping out the tender plant that is local democracy can be done even with the best of intentions. This Government believes that it is doing the right thing, as Jacqui Dean said earlier today. So believed Tony Blair when he invaded Iraq. That was on the principle of humanitarian intervention, but grotesquely misconstrued. So believed Bainimarama when he took out the elected Government of Fiji at the end of a gun. That was on the doctrine of necessity, but grotesquely misconstrued. What is to be the doctrine on which the leader of this nation, with his two lieutenants, Ministers Smith and Hide, will rest their intervention? What grotesque misconstruction will eventuate? Will it be the doctrine of frustration—frustration over the obstacles that democracy, sustainability, and the precautionary principle place in front of economic growth? Or will it be the doctrine of corporate efficiency—a truth that will not be denied, either in Auckland or in Canterbury? If it is the latter, how many regional councils will go under the guillotine for alleged inefficiency before this Government and its supporters are satiated?

Environment Canterbury came in last, out of an alleged 84, in the most recent regional survey. In fact, that is misleading. There are only 12 regional councils, so it is a sleight of hand to trumpet 84 councils—Rodney District Council, incidentally, is not a regional council, and it was not for 5 years. Of the 12 regional councils, I tell the Minister, one had to come last. There is a reason why the council was Canterbury. It is because water is the most sensitive issue in New Zealand right now, and Canterbury is the most sensitive region for water. One does not need to be a rocket scientist, or even an Environment Canterbury reviewer, to recognise these truths. So which is the next regional council to get the eagle eye turned upon it in the name of corporate efficiency? That which came in 11th?

How are we to judge the nature of this intrusion into the nation’s democracy? Let us turn to the regulatory impact statement and see what it says: “Elections are a right and privilege of any citizen in New Zealand. The suspension of such a right should only be considered in exceptional circumstances. Such a decision is correct to sit with Parliament.” The regulatory impact statement continues: “Targeted consultation”—members should note the word “targeted”—“was undertaken during the statutory investigation of ECan … However, there has been no public consultation on the proposals … The short timeframe available … has not allowed for a comprehensive assessment of risks and alternatives. This increases the risk that intervention could be incorrectly targeted and/or could require subsequent amendment to address unforeseen circumstances.”

This is an extraordinary impact statement. It was prepared by the Ministry for the Environment. That was a brave action, for clearly the ministry is not happy with what is going on. Will the ministry, too, be disbanded? And on what principle—a lack of loyalty to the leader?

Yet that is not all, because the Minister proposes to proceed under urgency. The impact statement states: “This, alongside the proposal to limit appeal rights on decisions/recommendations made by commissioners … potentially alienates Canterbury rate payers and the general public from decisions made on natural resources in the Canterbury region. This raises equity and access to justice issues.” This situation is perhaps, as Jim Anderton has said, unprecedented. Here we have a situation in which a Government department is fighting to defend the principles of democracy and natural justice that are historically and constitutionally the responsibility of central government to defend, but it is central government that is stamping them out. The ratepayers and the general public of my province are being alienated from decisions being made over their natural resources, thus raising issues of equity and justice.

This is the kind of thing that citizens tend to rebel against. Well, there is news for the Ministers and also for their leader, Mr Key, who appears to be losing his footing: the ratepayers and the general public of Canterbury have taken roughly 2 hours to get their act together in the face of this threat to their natural rights. A group of Canterbury citizens is organising already to picket tomorrow the offices of four National MPs in Canterbury—MPs Brownlee, David Carter, Wagner, and Adams—and they will leave a letter at their doors.

That letter reads as follows: “No taxation without representation: an open letter to Canterbury National MPs. We the undersigned are writing to utterly condemn the National Party Government’s decision to abolish the democratically elected and accountable regional council in Canterbury, and replace it by unelected commissioners responsible only to central government. Moreover, this has been done without the slightest consultation with the Canterbury public. This is an outrageous and completely unwarranted destruction of local democracy, and also a sorry degradation of democracy for New Zealand as a whole. It seems to signal the determination to favour sector interests over the welfare of the public at large. We pledge never to vote for a party which has such a flagrant disregard for our sovereign rights as citizens to elect and recall our democratic representatives at the local level. From May 1 councillors we elected in 2007 will no longer be working for us; we expect to find in our next ECan rates bills that the portion of our rates which went towards their salaries has been rebated accordingly from 1 May. If central government chooses to abrogate our democratic right to choose our own local decision-makers, then it is central government’s responsibility to pay for the unelected decision-makers it chooses to put in their place. We look forward to hearing the National Party’s assurance that this will be the case before 1 May.” Thank you.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): When I listen to the debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, it seems to me that we are addressing two issues. We are addressing the issue of democracy—the democracy of the people of Canterbury, in particular—and the issue of water. I will speak to those two issues this evening.

We have been told by the Labour Opposition that this Government has intervened in the democratic process. We have been told by the Labour Opposition that this Government is getting rid of democracy and that it is trying to get rid of obstacles. Labour members talk about an assault on the democratic model. I always enjoy listening to debates on democracy in this House, and this evening the Opposition has focused on democracy in Canterbury. But what concerns me is the much bigger issue of democracy in New Zealand.

Hon Darren Hughes: What of the EFA? He got into Parliament on the EFA.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: That is right—the Electoral Finance Act.

Hon Darren Hughes: He’s so worried about the EFA, he forgets about Canterbury.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: Well, is it not interesting that Mr Hughes wants to talk about the Electoral Finance Act? I actually want to go back before the Electoral Finance Act and talk about the Electoral Finance Bill. The reason I want to talk about the Electoral Finance Bill is that less than 3 years ago, when the current Opposition members were in Government—we have heard for hour after hour this afternoon about democracy, about the rights of the people of New Zealand being usurped, and about those democratic rights being taken away—the previous Government brought into this House a bill that would have required every single New Zealander—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Although the member can refer to other bills that might have been before the House, this bill is specifically about issues in Canterbury. The member is quite entitled to refer to other bills in terms of the points that he is making, but he cannot spend his contribution to the debate solely on those matters.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We fully respect your decision, of course, but consistency with the rulings of Assistant Speaker Barker, who was in the Chair previously, concerns me. We have had entire speeches dedicated to legislation that has earlier been passed, and now an ACT member gets a chance to speak and the rules appear to have adjusted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member—

Hon Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I will just deal with this. I thank the member for that point of order. This is a second reading speech. First reading speeches are pretty wide, but this is a second reading speech, and I would like the member to focus on the issues. Referring to other legislation that has been passed is fine, but we must come in towards the substance of the debate.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a slightly different point of order from the one that Mr Hide raised. As you know, the House is in urgency considering this legislation, which was not seen until it was presented and introduced by way of urgency. The Speakers’ rulings make provision for members to speak under urgency slightly wider than they ordinarily would on a normal second reading for a bill that has come back from a select committee, in which situation there has been a narrowing down of the bill by the committee, issues have been considered, and members can refer to a report. I think that being under urgency slightly alters the ambience of members. I think that some leeway must be given to Mr Boscawen, particularly in respect of his personal position as someone who came to Parliament worried about democratic issues—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. I have made it very clear. I have said to the member that he can refer to other bills and other Acts, but he cannot concentrate his whole speech on them. This is a second reading speech. The first reading is much wider; this is much narrower.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to devote my entire speech to the issue of the Electoral Finance Bill; I also want to focus on the issue of water. But I make just one comment on the Electoral Finance Bill. I remind this House that less than 3 years ago a bill was introduced into this House that required anyone—any single New Zealander—who wanted to speak out against the Government to sign a declaration. Before people spent a single dollar, they had to sign a declaration. They had to go to a justice of the peace and sign a declaration such as: “I, John Boscawen, promise not to spend a single dollar opposing the Labour Government.” For any member of that party to lecture this Government on democracy is a total contradiction.

Let us talk about participation. We have heard that already the forces of opposition to this bill are mounting in Canterbury. We have heard that there will be a protest outside four electorate offices in Christchurch, and I think that is fantastic. I think it is fantastic that the people of Canterbury want to rise up and express a view on democracy, because the last time there was such a protest in Christchurch, it was led by me. I led it, and 300 people walked through the streets of Christchurch—through the centre of Christchurch. It was not the only protest that I led; 5,000 people walked down Queen Street on 1 December.

Let us talk about participation. Let us talk about the right of the people of Canterbury to participate in their local government. It is interesting that the Human Rights Commission has spoken on the issue of participation. In referring to the Electoral Finance Bill, the Human Rights Commission said that “A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation, in turn, requires an informed electorate.” We do not have an informed electorate when we try to create complex electoral law.

It is also interesting that Mr Burns talked about an “assault on the democratic model,”. He is not the only person who spoke about assault. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner talked about the Electoral Finance Bill being “a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights”. Democracy is important. It is extremely important. No one has done more than this side of the House to stand up for the rights of democracy. I do not know how those four previous Labour Government Ministers have the gall to stand up and preach to the National and ACT Parties about democracy.

We are talking about the management of water and the water resource. Water is a very valuable resource and it is very important for the future wealth of this country that we develop and preserve that resource. That water is about to get a whole lot more valuable, not just because it will be better monitored and better managed but because from 1 July that water will have a much, much higher value. Members might ask themselves what is happening on 1 July. Well, on 1 July the Government is introducing the emissions trading scheme. It is a tax on the people of New Zealand, and every single New Zealander will pay it.

Why is it relevant to water? We heard from the Minister for the Environment this afternoon that over 50 percent of New Zealand’s water resource is contained in the Canterbury region. That water flows down the Waitaki River. The reason the emissions trading scheme has significance for the value of that water is that on 1 July a tax will be applied to electricity that is generated from thermal sources like oil and gas. Any generator who generates electricity from thermal sources will have to pay a tax. They will recover that tax and the price of electricity will rise. Treasury advised Parliament last year that electricity would rise by 5 percent. I realise it is a tight debate, but let me explain the impact on the value of those water resources that the Government is trying to manage for the scheme. With an emissions trading scheme the price of all electricity will rise, but those who generate electricity from renewable sources, from water, will not pay that tax; they will have the benefit of a higher price of electricity and they will make super-profits.

The emissions trading scheme will be a massive tax on the people of New Zealand. It will generate windfall profits to Meridian Energy, and it will significantly increase the value of that water. The increase in the value of the water in the Canterbury region will result in windfall gains. All of the electricity that is generated from the water in the Canterbury region—in the Environment Canterbury catchment—from 1 July will be able to get an extra 5 percent estimated value by Treasury. The generator will not have to pay the tax, which will result in windfall profits to the State generator and to private generators. I remind the House that on 1 July this country is conducting an experiment unlike any other in New Zealand.

On those notes, I say that I am thankful for the opportunity to speak, and I say again that if anyone from Labour has any concerns about democracy, I suggest that they look at the submission of the Human Rights Commission on the Electoral Finance Bill, dated 7 December 2007. Who can forget the words in that submission? The commission stated that the Electoral Finance Bill “represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.” Thank you.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): This is a short call during the second reading of this important bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I will start off by taking the House through an event that happened within the last month, when the Kaikōura and Hurunui District Councils sat down with the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment. It was very interesting to take in the flavour that came out of the meetings with those councils. I heard the member opposite say that the mayors never discussed with their fellow councillor colleagues their response to the Minister of Local Government. Well, I can testify that that is not the case. In actual fact, there was a good canvassing of the views of the councillors, and I would have to say that in the Hurunui and Kaikōura District Councils those views were canvassed to a person; everyone wanted something to be done that was quick and final. They did not see a future in Environment Canterbury, because it was mucking around and wasting opportunity.

Talking about opportunity, I will refer to the Amuri irrigation scheme that in the late 1980s transformed a desolate wasteland, which would have been blown away by the north-westerly, into an oasis. The amount of game that was around at duck-shooting, and times like that, was just unbelievable, and the win-win situation was outstanding. That is what those on the other 42,000 hectares have been hoping for, for the last 20 years, but nothing has happened. So when we get to the second reading of this very important bill, it is good to see that we have enshrined in it the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That is very, very important.

I will touch on a couple of important aspects, because what we are hearing from the other side of the House, and what is being very poorly represented by the Greens, is the suggestion that environmental standards will go out the window. I want to draw the House’s attention to the primary principles of that water management strategy’s regional approach. It says that planning for natural water use is guided by the following first order priorities: consideration of the environment, customary uses, community supplies, and stock water. Second order priority considerations are irrigation, renewable electricity generation, recreation, tourism, and other amenities.

The point I am making here is that a high priority is put on the environment, and with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, the environment had to be No. 1. The Government was very concerned that that strategy was very, very fragile; I make the point again that if one person had felt that he or she had not had adequate provision consideration within that strategy, and had pulled out, it would all have been lost. It would all have been lost. So I make the point again that I made in my first reading speech that it takes 90 percent of the effort to get the last 10 percent.

This Government did not come into power to sit down here purely to get its pay, as we saw the previous Labour Government do over the last 9 years. It is with great pride and passion that I live with a vision that potentially one day we will have 42,000 hectares of beautiful country in the Hurunui irrigated, and I say “Thank goodness it will come from a National Government.”

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I have sat through a lot of this debate and have listened to members speak. Like Ms Adams, I am a Canterbury member. Ms Adams represents a mostly rural electorate; in my case it is semi-rural. To some extent this debate has degenerated into some sort of name-calling or labelling exercise, and it is interesting to note that there are people in the community who love to live off the back of our rural constituents and who love to live off the back of the revenue that our rural constituents create, but when it suits them they put the boot into rural people and bag them.

It is very interesting that the Minister of Conservation, a Cabinet Minister who nominally resides somewhere in my seat—we are not quite sure where—has not taken a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill.

Colin King: Kate Wilkinson.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Kate Wilkinson, someone says. She has not taken a call on this bill. Maybe she is dropping acid—folic acid, that is—somewhere in this place. But it is interesting that that Minister has not come down and has decided not to take a call on this bill, because that member does not like to front up on the hard issues. That member has been rolled so many times in this House that—and I sympathise with her—she has probably decided to raise the white flag! “I’m out of here. I’m not speaking on the bill.” But I could be wrong.

The Opposition has talked about process. I acknowledge that there were, and are, problems with Environment Canterbury—I acknowledge that. If members talk to farming communities, or to urban communities, they will hear that there were difficulties and problems, particularly around water—I acknowledge that. But the question is how we fix, or attempt to fix, those difficulties.

A lot of the members on the Canterbury Regional Council did an outstanding job over many years, and they will no longer be there once this bill is enacted. The question is one of process: how to deal as a Government with those difficulties. One option that was suggested by a number of the regional councillors was to have a commissioner sit alongside the regional council to deal surgically with some of the difficulties in the bureaucracy.

It is interesting to look at the process and what we are hearing tonight. I listened with interest to Mr Boscawen’s contribution. He is a man who holds himself up as the bastion of democracy, who then stands in the stalls beside his leader, Rodney Hide, a man who for many years celebrated being Parliament’s independent man, a man who believes that minorities should be represented, a man who believes in the democratic approach, and a man who has said repeatedly that the people know best how to deal with their money, that we should empower the people, that we should give the people the right to deal with Parliament, that we should give them respect—empower them. Tonight, with this piece of legislation, just as on other nights in relation to the super-city legislation, he has been led by the nose through the stalls and into the Ayes lobby. What Mr Hide and Mr Boscawen are really saying is that they believe in democracy as long as it suits them.

Mr Colin King talked about principle. The commissioners remain till around October 2013, not up until the next election, when the people would have their say and could either blow the regional councillors away or re-elect them. No, the process of people having their say is gone—and Mr Colin King talks about principle.

When we look at the Creech report, we have to say that its recommendations looked preordained. There were 80 submissions—none from the public, of course—and 20 groups were spoken to. It was a 3-week process, and then we had the political massaging effort of the roadshow, with Mr Hide and Dr Nick Smith wandering around the countryside for a couple of weeks, having a chat to the local authorities. That is the alibi for putting this measure through the House.

Another interesting point is that Dr Smith told Labour members and Green members this morning that this bill would not be implemented till roughly some time in May—possibly the end of May. He himself did not know at that point when it would be enacted, because it is required to commence on a Gazette notice—there has to be a transitional period. Well, I am reliably informed that the Local Government and Environment Committee has an extremely light agenda—feather light. It could have been called together tonight, it could have been called together tomorrow, and people and groups could have had their say. Why would the Government abrogate its responsibility and guillotine that? I suspect—and I will adhere to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will not elaborate—that it is exactly the same mentality as this Government exhibited over the “three strikes” bill, which was to kill off any opposition, to not allow anyone to have a say, and to ram the bill through as quickly as possible, and then hope that all is well.

I am one who acknowledges the economic benefit of irrigation. It has given massive benefits to my electorate and other parts of Canterbury—massive benefits and massive economic growth. I am balanced enough in my views to say that publicly, without fear or favour. But I also acknowledge that there have been problems.

One of the biggest problems, as David Parker pointed out, was Dr Nick Smith sitting on his hands for 18 months in respect of the National Policy Statement For Freshwater Management. Dr Smith got up and asked what Labour did for 9 years. That is a fair call. But the question also goes back the other way. Dr Smith, as David Parker said, could have called Cabinet together on Monday, or last Monday, or a month ago, or 18 months ago, when he became Minister, and he could have activated the statement through a Cabinet decision. But, for whatever reason, he chose not to. So I say to those like Mr Hide, the bastion of democracy, the man who says we should empower New Zealanders and we should put the power back into the communities, that he says that when it suits him and when it suits his means.

I see Mr Gilmore writing frantically. I am reliably advised that there will be a picket of four National Party electorate offices. I assume that it will be the offices of Mr Brownlee, Mr Carter, Ms Wagner, and Ms Wilkinson. Forget that there is another National member called Mr Gilmore. He ain’t even worth picketing! There is the old saying about why seagulls fly upside down, but I will leave it there, because it would not be appropriate. Mr Gilmore ain’t even worth picketing. He is a legend in his own lifetime. The punters know that it ain’t worth going near his electorate office because it ain’t worth picketing. It ain’t worth throwing a tomato or a rotten egg because it would just bounce off.

I say very seriously that I think this House should acknowledge the difficulties of Environment Canterbury, but should acknowledge also that it made great strides in the months before this report concluded, as it did in respect of consent processing times reaching 90 percent of the rolling time frame compliance rate to the end of January 2010. But, oh no, there was not a word of that from across the aisle. This decision will not go through the select committee process. The public has not been consulted on the Creech report, and every vestige of public input has been cut off, apart from debates in this House. Those members talk about the Rodney District situation, but Ms Dalziel has outlined the difference there: the difference was that the council wanted some action, wanted the Government to move in and take action. The difference here is that no process is being embarked upon. If it is so principled—

John Hayes: For good reason.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: And if it is for good reason, well, let us hear one, I ask “Les Patterson” in the front row. I ask him to give us a reason, because we have not heard one tonight.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows he cannot refer to another member by a nickname or a surname.

John Hayes: It’s not my nickname, with respect.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not his nickname. The member cannot refer to another member by a name that is not his.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I apologise. It is actually “Sir Les Patterson”. I should have used it—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. I have ruled. The member cannot use those references. I ask him to withdraw that comment.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I withdraw.

The member said “For good reason.” Well, no good reason has been outlined or articulated tonight. There is no good reason to justify not having a select committee process. There is no good reason to justify not asking the community—except that for the Government there is one good reason: people may rise up and oppose this measure. Yes, the public of Canterbury want action. Yes, I think they want decisions through the regional council, but they also guard their democracy. These commissioners will have the power to rate, but, unlike elected folk, the commissioners will not be voted in or booted out by the public. The commissioners are at the behest of the Minister until October 2013. They will rate, and they will require money from the Canterbury constituencies to empower them to do their work, but they will not be accountable to those constituencies in the same way as elected members. I wait to hear from that member the good reasons why democracy has been cut asunder tonight. I wait for those reasons, as do the people of Canterbury.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Here is one good reason for the Government to intervene in this positive way with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, and that is that the review group found a significant gap, characterised as “enormous and unprecedented”, between what needs to be done in Canterbury to appropriately manage water and Environment Canterbury’s ability to do so. That came directly from the Creech report.

I also want to thank—and I know this has been said before, but it think it bears saying again—the previous Minister for the Environment, Trevor Mallard, who had these wise words in support of what the current Government is doing. He said “Everyone knew there was a problem here.” I shall say that again for the benefit of members opposite, who seem to be in denial, except for their colleague Trevor Mallard when he was the Minister for the Environment. He said: “Everyone knew there was a problem here.” It was quite late in the term and at a time when there was not the ability to put a group to do what Wyatt Creech has effectively done. I thank Mr Mallard for his endorsement of that. We will deal with the results, and this is a Government that is dealing with the results.

The failure of Environment Canterbury is also Labour’s failure. Let us not make any bones about that. In the 9 years of the previous Labour Government, I ask members how many national policy statements and national environmental standards it produced. It was none—a big fat zero. There were absolutely none. I say to Mr Burns and Mr Parker that New Zealand needs national policy statements, but we should not look to Labour to develop them. Labour will not do that. It had 9 years to release a national policy statement on water quality, and I ask where it is. It is up to the National Government to face up to the problems and deal with them.

This bill gives the development of a water plan for Canterbury the very highest priority. Environment Canterbury has been making decisions on water consents in a policy vacuum, and that has resulted in policy development on the hoof and at the expense of applicants. I can say, from experience and from talking to many applicants for water consents, that they have been expensive, litigious, and extremely difficult. Many applicants have said to me that they lodge a consent with Environment Canterbury, then go back home to the farm and wait for the bills to come in. They do not necessarily see any action, but they certainly see the paperwork.

There has been a total lack of determination by Environment Canterbury to tackle the allocation issues in the Waitaki catchment. There is a huge backlog of consent applications and renewals going right back to the time of Project Aqua. I take my hat off to former councillor June Slee, who was practically a lone voice in Environment Canterbury when she was calling for it to come to grips with its responsibilities.

This is a bill that looks to fix the problems we have now and set a good policy framework for water management for Canterbury in the future. This is something the National Government has faced up to, which Labour failed utterly at.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): This time last year, by ramming legislation through the House under urgency, this National Government staged a coup against democracy in Auckland. This National Government bypassed Aucklanders’ right to a referendum under the Local Government Act, and that Minister sitting over there, Rodney Hide, embarked on the most cynical undermining of democracy this country has seen in many a year. Aucklanders thought that that was bad, and they were right. People all around the country have been wondering who is next for the chop.

Today the people of Canterbury have experienced an even more barefaced outrage: the abrogation of their district council and the sacking of their elected representatives. I want to read a quote: “Elections are central to democracy, but they are not always on their own a magic or quick-fix solution.” I invite members of this House to guess who said those words. Could it be Nick Smith, maybe? Wyatt Creech? Nicky Wagner? Amy Adams? Could it even be Rodney Hide? Actually, it was Frank Bainimarama in 2008. Elections will not be held for Environment Canterbury until 2013, perhaps slightly before Commodore Bainimarama plans to hold elections in Fiji but not much before. I say welcome to Fiji on the Rakaia.

This Government has form when it comes to riding roughshod over our nation’s democratic traditions. That is what is happening here tonight in this House as the elected representatives of the people of Canterbury are sacked by Nick Smith and Rodney Hide. They have done it before in Auckland. They bypassed Aucklanders’ right to a referendum on forced amalgamation, they stole the democratic rights of local communities in Auckland, they rammed through changes in this House under urgency, and there has been a rushed and inadequate consultation process. In all of that process over the last year, at least they made a pathetic attempt to listen to Aucklanders, even though it was mostly a fake listening campaign. It is no wonder Aucklanders feel ignored, and 56 percent of them told the New Zealand Herald the other day that they do not want to be part of a super-city.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Did they have a select committee in Auckland?

PHIL TWYFORD: They had a select committee in Auckland, but they are not having a select committee for this bill. They do not even think the people of Canterbury deserve the courtesy of a select committee process. This outrage shows a total disdain for the democratic rights of the people of Canterbury. For this National Government and its cronies, democracy is an inconvenience. It is an irritation. When democracy gets in the way of National’s objectives and agenda, it is given the chop.

Environment Canterbury has had a very difficult time dealing with the tensions associated with water allocations. No one has come down to the House tonight and suggested that Environment Canterbury has done a good job. No one is suggesting that. It has had problems, but the response of this Government is to take it out to the back of the wood shed and dispatch it with a blow to the head. Fourteen councillors are getting the chop, and with them go the democratic rights of the people of Canterbury.

For the next 3½ years the people of Canterbury will have no say and no input, and there will be no accountability for the actions that Rodney Hide and Nick Smith’s appointees will make on their behalf. That is the way Nick Smith and Rodney Hide like it. This National Government is so divorced from our country’s traditions and democratic institutions, and cares so little that it is not even embarrassed in the slightest by what it is doing tonight. It has no conscience and no embarrassment about abrogating the democratic rights of the people of Canterbury simply because Environment Canterbury is not doing its bidding and is struggling to come to terms with one of the most difficult environment and development issues this country faces. For this National Government that is enough justification to take Environment Canterbury out the back and knock it on the head.

One would think that this Government would have thought twice before doing this, given the bath it is taking in Auckland. Anger, resentment, mistrust, and anxiety about our democratic institutions are being expressed from Pukekohe to Wellsford by Aucklanders of all political persuasions. They do not like what this Government is doing. They do not like the fact that Rodney Hide, whose party earned 3.65 percent of the vote in the last election, is running local government policy and undertaking one of the most damaging initiatives that local government has seen in this country’s history. People understand what is going on. They are not silly. They understand that this Government is taking away the rights of local communities to have a say and is handing those rights and that power to Nick Smith’s and Rodney Hide’s hand-picked appointees. They do not like it.

This National Government has a very retro approach to democracy. It is taking us back to the future. This is not democracy in the 21st century. The National Government is taking us back to oligarchy and the days of the 19th century. That is the kind of politics it is comfortable with. It is so much more efficient to have the great and the good sitting around the boardroom table, making decisions on behalf of everybody else. It is so much more efficient. It is so much tidier to have the boardroom in control instead of the ballot box. That is the way Rodney Hide likes it. It is not a lot different from Rodney Hide’s and Steven Joyce’s so-called council-controlled organisations, which will be in charge of 75 percent of the assets, income, and expenditure of the Auckland Council if they have their way and continue with their agenda of corporatising Auckland local government and handing over that city’s resources and assets to their hand-picked mates. I ask members to consider the cavalier disregard for our democratic institutions, the speed with which this Government is willing to throw them out the window and install its own hand-picked appointees to run our institutions, and the whiff of oligarchy that hangs over this disgraceful legislation. Members should make no mistake: this Government is a threat to our democracy.

For 3½ years the people of Canterbury will have no representation. They will continue to pay rates, but they will have no say and no input into how the commissioners deal with their resources and their environment. Rodney Hide and Nick Smith are going to take over because they think they know better. They will hand-pick the decision makers and try to get them to ram through their agenda. National does not trust the people. It is only a few months until the local elections. This Government does not trust the people of Canterbury to look at the situation, make an informed judgment, and democratically elect their representatives to take office and sort the situation out. The people know there is a problem. They know things need to change, but this Government does not trust them.

Oligarchy and cronyism go together. We have seen it in Auckland. We saw the former National Party president, Michelle Boag, advising John Banks’ mayoral campaign and hired by Rodney Hide’s Auckland Transition Agency to recruit senior executives for the super-city. For an entire week Rodney Hide, Mark Ford, Michelle Boag, and John Banks all denied that there was a conflict of interest. They do not really see things that way. They do not see that it is a conflict of interest to have their cronies making decisions on their behalf. Rodney Hide and Steven Joyce are appointing the directors of the council-controlled organisations.

AARON GILMORE (National): It is a pleasure to stand and speak on the second reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We would not know we were talking about Canterbury after hearing the member who has just resumed his seat, Phil Twyford, talk about what is going on in Auckland. For the people listening tonight I will read what the review group unanimously concluded, which is that the institutional failure in Environment Canterbury “requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being. Failure to intervene will lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury.”

The review panel, which undertook a series of consultations with councillors and various review groups up and down Canterbury, came to that conclusion. It got to the situation where it found that Environment Canterbury was broken. It found that the situation was the tyranny of democracy. People came into people’s offices and said that Environment Canterbury was not delivering what they want, that it was not delivering the needs of the people, that it was broken, and that we needed to bring in some commissioners to put in place a fundamental change in the nature of Environment Canterbury.

When we look at the review report we see a series of recommendations. Tonight the focus has been on water. But there have been many other recommendations, and they include the need for a review of public transport. No member on that side has spoken about those recommendations. All they care about is the threat to democracy. They fear that there might not be an election in 3½ years. Well, there might be a miracle. The situation in 6 months or 8 months may be that the commissioners have fixed Environment Canterbury, although I doubt it. We have allowed enough time to fix the problem and not have some half-cut solution.

Environment Canterbury does not have issues just around the water strategy. We are very happy to include the Canterbury Water Management Strategy in schedule 1 of this bill, and I think that is a good step forward. There has been fear on the other side of the House that that would not happen and that we would not abide by those principles. But they are in schedule 1, and I think that is a good thing. Many members of Parliament were involved in the consultation around that strategy, and those rights and principles are enshrined in the bill. Another area where there is fault with Environment Canterbury concerns discussion with iwi in the local area. There have been major problems with that discussion and a need to bring in more resources for iwi liaison. The bill will allow more consultation to be put in place.

The great fear I seem to hear from the other side of the House is the fear of success, the fear that Environment Canterbury might change and actually be better for the people of Canterbury. I think there is a fear of giving Environment Canterbury a chance over the next 3½ years to be fixed and to give the people of Canterbury what they want. They want a council that delivers them the resources they want. It is not just across the councillors; it is across the entire council. The council is broken.

I look forward, during the debate on the remaining stages of this bill, to hearing some sensible discussion from the raucous banshee on that side of House. Thank you very much.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your predecessor, the Deputy Speaker, asked me to withdraw a name I used for a colleague across the House, which I did. In order to be consistent—as my remark was far more benign than the rudeness of the member, Aaron Gilmore, in his last comments—I invite you to take some action.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): As I recall the comment, it was something about a “raucous banshee”. I would have thought it was not a particularly offensive term. It is very graphic and colourful; it is a term that is not often heard. But I would not say it is necessarily offensive. I often like to have a bit of colour, so I will not take any offence.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): I am pleased to take another call in the second reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. If ever there was a misnamed bill, this is it. This bill is in the name of the Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, who is on record time after time, when he was in Opposition, criticising water quality around New Zealand. It is rather like when he criticised noisy exhausts; he has done nothing about that either. Here we have a bill that rather inappropriately talks in its explanatory note about temporary commissioners and improved water management. There is nothing temporary in the fact that this bill will disestablish Environment Canterbury’s democratic rights for the next 3½ years, and there is nothing in the bill, in my view, to improve water quality—quite the contrary.

I also note that this bill is in effect an outrageous affront to democracy and to Canterbury voters. I suggest that it is actually giving the two-fingered salute to the voters of Canterbury. They will have to continue paying the bill for the commissioners, at an undetermined rate, I have to say—it is left up to the Minister’s discretion, if my memory of the bill is correct—and they will have to pay the bill not just for the per diem rate that the commissioners are paid but also any transport and travel costs. So Government members should not talk about costs to ratepayers being reduced under this bill. It is absolutely the opposite. I think this bill is saying to the voters of Canterbury that they are simply not intelligent enough to make the decisions about who is best to make the choices for Canterbury on water issues. That is the subtext of this bill. It is saying that the voters of Canterbury do not have the intellect to be able to decide how their water rights and how Environment Canterbury should be run. I think that is a galling statement from National, which supposedly prides itself on democratic principles. I absolutely believe that is the case.

I note from announcements today that the Minister has decided that Dame Margaret Bazley will be the commission chair - designate. I have to ask who the other commissioners provided for in this bill will be.

Hon George Hawkins: Alec Neill.

BRENDON BURNS: There is a name to conjure with. I noticed on the Television One news tonight that Dame Margaret is already in place in Christchurch and has been welcomed by a beaming, soon-to-be-former chair of Environment Canterbury, that little known former backbench MP Alec Neill. Maybe he will be given a job, and that raises questions about who else will be given a job as the Government scrambles to put together a suite of commissioners to take over the running of Environment Canterbury.

This bill is just an outrage; it will take away a democratically elected council. It is showing contempt for the democratic process, as the Government has done previously in Auckland. It is a signal victory for the Minister of Local Government. He is managing to do to Canterbury what he is has done to Auckland by completely neglecting the democratic process, the wishes of the people, and the chance for them to have any input. Here is a bill coming through under urgency with not a skerrick of a chance for any input from anybody, be they from Canterbury or anywhere else. It is violating the fundamental principle that people should not be taxed unless they are represented. I think, from memory, that that was the cause of the Boston Tea Party in America in the 1700s, which led to the American Revolution.

I hear there will be pickets outside the offices of four National MPs in Canterbury tomorrow. They seem not to have noticed that there is a fifth National MP in Christchurch, Aaron Gilmore. It was unkind of my colleague Clayton Cosgrove to pick on Aaron Gilmore, because maybe he is not aware that Aaron is shopping around in Southland looking for a seat down there. That is maybe why the voters of Canterbury will not miss him tomorrow.

This bill is being forced through under urgency. There is no signal in it from the Government, or from the Minister, as to how there will be better balanced environmental outcomes. The bill makes reference to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I uphold the strategy. I think it is a very, very good thing. It is a round-table, locally driven initiative, which brought together people from the environmental movement, farmers, and irrigators. It is a winner. It is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Canterbury. However, I think it is being put at risk, because on one page this bill says it upholds the principles of the water strategy but then on another it says it wants to see the rapid allocation of water. The fundamental tenet of that strategy, brought together so patiently by so many good people in Canterbury, is around environmental matters. It states that sustainable management is the first primary principle, that water is a public resource, and that first order priority consideration has to be the environment, followed by customary uses, by community supplies, and by stock water. What is this bill going to do? Is that the sequence that will be applied, or will it meet the Prime Minister’s stated agenda that he wants to see new projects on the blocks in Canterbury next year without—and the Minister for the Environment has confirmed this—any accompanying legislation to this bill to put in place any new environmental standards?

The Minister can throw the borax back to this side of the House and say we did not put in place proper standards, but he has been the Minister for nigh on 18 months and he has had the opportunity to take to Cabinet a whole range of proposals around water quality. He is waiting for the Land and Water Forum to deliver. I think that the forum will, in effect, emulate what has happened with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I think it will try to bring together a round-table consensus, such as we had with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. But if the Canterbury Water Management Strategy is effectively abrogated by the rapid allocation of water, then the people who put that strategy together will walk from it, and that will send the signal to the Land and Water Forum that it is going to have exactly the same issues. The forum will not hold those parties to it because it will see that the Government has an agenda on one side for rapid allocation. It is talking the talk about environmental balance, but what party in Government does not talk the talk about environmental balance? It has to be delivered on, and we are at the point with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy that it could start to be implemented, given real support. It needs real support. The Government cannot undermine that by having a strategy or an agenda alongside it that says it wants quick runs on the board and that it wants to see new water in place next year.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We didn’t say that.

BRENDON BURNS: The Prime Minister is on the record on that, as Dr Smith well knows. I think the Minister has lost the battle in Cabinet over this. Those who want to see quick runs on the board to make it look good in next year’s election will be ahead in terms of the decisions.

That is the result of today, and that is why I say that Dr Smith has lost out and Rodney Hide has effectively had a second victory in terms of local government at the expense of ratepayers, first in Auckland and now in Canterbury. The people of Canterbury have lost their rights, they have lost their democratic say, and they have lost their chance for input. They have not been given a single chance to be heard other than through the Creech review, which simply went to Canterbury, talked to 20 different groups in 3 weeks, and came back and wrote a rushed report, which is now followed by rushed legislation. That is not the way to get it right for my province of Canterbury.

The water strategy is in place, it is a fundamentally good document, and it has broad buy-in. It is a Canterbury document put together by Cantabrians. It was driven by Environment Canterbury—and that is part of the irony of all of this—and Environment Canterbury, in fact, was starting to deliver. It was meeting 90 percent of its resource consents in the approved time frames, and that is as good as any other local authority. I should note, of course, that the person who was the chair of the resource consents committee for Environment Canterbury for most of the time that the Government identified as problematic is now the departing chair of Environment Canterbury. However, that is putting a rather blunt point on things. The fact is that Environment Canterbury was starting to get its act together, it was the driver of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, and it deserves to have support. It deserves to have more than a ritual bow, which this legislation attaches to it by putting it as schedule 1 to the Act and making a couple of references to it. It deserves to be enshrined in legislation and given a lot more support than is envisaged in this bill. This bill is doing away with the democratic right of Cantabrians to decide who is in charge of the big economic driver of their province.

We on this side of the House want to see sustainable growth and we want to see new jobs, but we do not want to see another generation of water quality going backwards. This is the first time we have had to get it right, and this Government is ripping that asunder with this bill. It will put that water strategy under intense pressure, and my belief is that we will see it fly apart in a very short time frame as the Government implements its agenda for the rapid allocation of water. That is a tragedy in the making, because we will not have this opportunity again. We will not get that number of people in a round-table, consensus fashion putting aside their own separate interests to try to do something for the benefit of our province. We will not get that again. If it falls apart in Canterbury, it will not be able to fly on a national basis.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary Provisions

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am looking forward to the Committee stage of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill to really point out some of the contradictions in the purposes that have come from members of the Labour Opposition. Let me just go through a number of contradictions.

First of all the Labour members say—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. One of the advantages of the Committee stage is the chance to have a robust exchange with the Minister, but how can it be in order for the Minister, in the first call on Part 1, to immediately launch into an attack on the Opposition for its contradictions? There has been no debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member knows that the Minister has the first call, if the Minister so chooses. We are on Part 1, and the Minister is making his opening statements.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can understand why the chief Labour Party whip is so defensive. Labour members have got on their feet and said they are opposed to this bill being debated under urgency. But can we guess what happened when the House had a vote on the urgency motion? The Labour Party and the Green Party supported the urgency motion.

Then let us consider the impassioned speeches about this bill being an affront to democracy. I have some questions for members opposite. Was it an affront to democracy when Helen Clark fired every member of the Auckland District Health Board in 1989? Was it an affront to democracy when David Cunliffe, in 2008, fired the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? Was it an affront to democracy when, under urgency on 2 May 2000, a bill was introduced to replace the Rodney District Council with commissioners, a bill that was responsibly supported by the National members of the Opposition? You see, the Labour members are unprincipled. They are playing politics; they do not care about the issues.

I was particularly disappointed, during the second reading—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Is it in order for a Minister in the chair to refer to members of Parliament as being unprincipled?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This will be a robust debate.

Hon Darren Hughes: It is now.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, it has been a robust debate during the earlier readings. The Committee stage is an opportunity to continue that debate, and I will not stifle any debate, so long as it is fair and equitable. We are on Part 1, and the purpose clause is in Part 1. Debate on the purpose clause can include a much wider range than the debates on other clauses can, but I will be asking the Minister—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: We’re actually on Part 1, not clause 1.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The purpose clause is in Part 1. The Minister has had 2 minutes, and he has 3 minutes to go. I will ask the Minister to now focus on what Part 1 is about.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Part 1 of this bill—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They don’t like it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There is a point of order, and members should not interrupt.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Without wishing to challenge your ruling, can I ask you a simple question? Are you now ruling it to be parliamentary language to call a member unprincipled? I simply ask that. Is that your ruling?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on that matter.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I’m asking.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on that matter. If the member takes offence to that under Standing Order 116, he can say he does, but I will ask members to be very mindful of the language that they use.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member has taken offence. I ask the Minister to withdraw the comment.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I am dealing with a matter here.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw.

Hon Member: And apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I do not need any help. I have asked him to withdraw, and he has done so.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Under the principle of someone taking offence, it has to be to a slur on the person’s character. In relation to the suggestion that the Opposition is unprincipled, if people are to take offence at that, it will be a long night.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member took offence. The comment could have been seen to have wider implications. We have ruled on the matter. The Minister has withdrawn. That is the end of the matter.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The purpose of this bill is to deal with the underlying—

Hon Darren Hughes: Nick always loses control. It always goes wrong with Nick.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The chief Labour Party whip, who is interjecting, should just take a big, deep breath. He is the chief whip who voted for urgency on this bill, even though every Labour member who gets up says he or she is opposed to urgency.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair, in his capacity as the Minister in charge of this bill, to a large extent determines how it is handled under urgency. There was no vote for urgency on this motion, and—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): This is a debating point.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. What recourse does the Opposition have when procedural matters are continually misrepresented by the Minister in charge of the bill, leading to disorder?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that. A point of order must be something that I can have control over. This is a debating point. The Minister has been given the call. He is articulating, crystallising those things that he thinks are important. I ask him to continue.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: All members know in their heart of hearts that this country has a substantial problem with regard to water management in Canterbury. In fact, the greatest irony is that Brendon Burns spent the best part of last year attacking Environment Canterbury. At every moment Brendon Burns used the opportunity to do that, and then the Government comes to the Chamber with a bill that will deal with the problems regarding water in Canterbury and the Opposition rolls out some of the most tired, awful arguments.

I was particularly disappointed in Lianne Dalziel. There has been a long tradition that although we might be pretty robust in this Chamber, we treat former members with some respect. It was a comment on her desperation that Lianne Dalziel chose to attack the integrity of Wyatt Creech. I point out that the conclusions of the report were unanimous by all four of the reviewers. And yes, I could give a speech in this Chamber about Lianne Dalziel’s misdemeanours; I could do the same about Ruth Dyson and her convictions. What members opposite have chosen to do is to play the person and not the ball. What members like Lianne Dalziel chose to do in—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: You’re asking for it. You’re asking for what’s going to happen.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, let us look at the threats. What the members are saying is that if someone tells some home truths, they will bring disruption to the Chamber. I challenge Lianne Dalziel to focus on the issues in the review group report, rather than attacking the integrity of Wyatt Creech. Members on all sides of the Chamber know in their heart of hearts that Wyatt Creech is a very diligent, dedicated New Zealander, and—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to allow the Minister, who is seeking the call, to have the next call. But I just ask that we really focus on what the debate is about. I ask that we quieten down, so we can get some substantive debate going and we can understand the issues. Is everyone, including the Minister, happy with that? That applies to everyone. [Interruption] I am on my feet; I am ruling. I ask the Minister to continue.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I want to really gun in on the key conclusions of the review group report about the very serious issues that this Parliament faces in respect of the issues in Canterbury. The first issue in the report, which stands out overwhelmingly, is that 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act, we do not have a plan for managing Canterbury water. I challenge members in the Green Party and members of the Labour Party to explain why it is satisfactory in 2010, when we all accept that water issues in Canterbury are very critical, that we have no resource management plan for water. I think every member in the Chamber knows that that is a key failing and knows that if a Government is going to provide leadership, it needs to address that fundamental issue.

It is equally a matter of fact—and a matter of record—that in the most recent biennial survey of resource management performance, Environment Canterbury’s performance was ranked 84th out of 84 councils. That report was commissioned by the previous Government. I also draw attention to the very honest and frank statement made by the previous Minister for the Environment, the Hon Trevor Mallard, who said everyone knew there was a problem there—referring to Canterbury. Everybody knew there was a problem there.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Our investigation did not rule out the question of governance.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would bring Lianne Dalziel’s attention to the briefing to the incoming Government. Again, that briefing made it absolutely plain that issues in Environment Canterbury were critical and would need to be addressed.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The governance of Environment Canterbury is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Ms Dalziel is interjecting. If she wants to bring that to our attention, I ask her what the report recommended. Let me read—I quote—what the report said: “This failure requires—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It says that the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is happy to quote; let me quote very directly: “This failure requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being.”—and these are the key words—“Failure to intervene will lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury.” That is a very key conclusion.

I simply challenge members of the Labour Opposition to stop playing politics, to focus on the real issues that are important to Canterbury, and to stop attacking the reviewers. Let us make this Committee debate an intelligent and well-constructed debate about how we can really focus in on the water issues in Canterbury, and how this Parliament can make a positive difference to addressing issues that really matter, rather than having the sort of hysteria that we are seeing from members like Lianne Dalziel.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): Part 1 deals with the purposes of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill—the bill to get rid of democracy from the regional council in Canterbury. I think that if we are to understand the purpose of this bill, we need to go back to the Prime Minister’s statement at the beginning of Parliament this year. He said “The Government will … take action this year to remove … roadblocks to … irrigation in Canterbury.” That is the purpose of this bill.

It is important to note how this bill has evolved and the different steps that it has come through, when looking at its purpose. The first purpose was outlined very clearly by the Prime Minister—that is, to allow more irrigation in Canterbury. Hence there is to be more pollution of the aquifer in Canterbury, more pollution of the rivers in Canterbury, and the taking of more water from the rivers and aquifers in Canterbury. Those rivers will become even lower than they are now, even more degraded than they are now, and even fuller of pollution than they are now. That is the purpose that the Prime Minister gave for this bill when he made his statement to Parliament. He said he would take action to get rid of the roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is the purpose of this bill. That was the first step.

The second step was the appointment of a review panel headed up by someone from the dairy industry. Let us remember that Environment Canterbury’s major role is to be a regulator of the dairy industry in Canterbury. What did the Government do as its second step? It appointed someone from the dairy industry to conduct a review of the regulator of that industry. What does that remind members of? Does George W Bush come to mind when we think about getting an industry to conduct a review of the regulator of that industry? Of course, George Bush took it one more step: he appointed the industry itself to be the regulator—and we may yet come to that, depending on who the Government appoints to be commissioners at Environment Canterbury. So the second step was to get someone from the dairy industry to conduct a review of the regulator of the dairy industry in Canterbury—that is, Environment Canterbury, the regional council.

Surprise, surprise, the review came back from Mr Creech, and it said the review panel did not like it that Environment Canterbury was slowing economic growth by saying no to some of the irrigators. The review panel thought that was outrageous and Environment Canterbury had to be abolished because it was saying no to some of the dairy corporations, which was unreasonable. Of course, the facts that Canterbury has had one of the fastest rates of economic growth in New Zealand, and that there have been dramatic increases in irrigation and in approvals for irrigation across Canterbury, do not matter. No, no, the review said things have not been going fast enough. We are going to put more ticks next to irrigation schemes and give more ticks to dairy corporations because the review conducted by a director of a dairy company of the regulator of the dairy industry has said we should do that. So the second step in understanding the purposes of this bill is to understand that someone from the dairy industry conducted the review of the regulator of that industry. Wyatt Creech came back and said things were not going fast enough.

It is also important to remember the other things that the review said. It said Environment Canterbury paid too much attention to science. That is an outrage! The regulator of the dairy sector, according to the dairy person who was put in to review it, was paying too much attention to science. The review said Environment Canterbury was science-led. Imagine that. Imagine a regional council paying attention to science. That is an outrage; Environment Canterbury has to be abolished! So the Minister said the Government would abolish it and put in people who would not pay attention to science, because it is wrong to do so. The Minister said Environment Canterbury should be paying attention to irrigators and dairy corporations, not to scientists. Imagine employing scientists in a regional council to give us information about water quality. It is a shocking activity! That is why Wyatt Creech said the council had to go: because it was not employing enough people from the industry side, and there were too many scientists. What a waste of time that review was.

Of course, the other thing that Wyatt Creech said was that Environment Canterbury does not process consents fast enough. Of course, this is really the nub of the matter. In the last 12 months the regional council processed nearly 90 percent of consents within the statutory time frames—nearly 90 percent. So although the Government says it has to get rid of the council now, actually the council is performing better than it has ever performed. The reason why the Government is trying to get rid of the council is that the council has improved its performance. The purpose of this bill, which is the part we are dealing with at the moment, is to speed up the process of converting more and more of Canterbury to irrigation. More and more we will see rivers drained of their water and more pollution of the aquifers, and we are to have less science, because that is not important. As Mr Creech said, too much science was being done—what a waste of time! If we have less science, there will be less evidence on the basis of which people can complain about what is going on in Canterbury. We will have less ability to challenge Synlait and all the different dairy corporations when we go to court, because less science will have been done.

Let us remember that the Linton dairy case was lost because the Canterbury Regional Council did not have enough scientific evidence to give around the aquifer. The regional council tried to get more scientific work done, and for that reason it is being sacked. The council is being sacked because it is too much into science. The reason that the council lost the Linton dairy case was that it had not done enough science. The council did more scientific work, and now it is being sacked. The Government thinks that if the council does too much scientific work, it might say no to more irrigation and more intensification of agriculture across Canterbury. As we know from the Prime Minister’s speech when Parliament resumed in February, this Government will take action to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury; hence this bill to get rid of the democratically elected regional councillors in Canterbury.

I think it is also important this afternoon that people may have seen that the Environmental Defence Society, after originally cautiously welcoming this bill, in its second press release has come out opposing it, because the society has realised what is going on with regard to water conservation orders in this bill. One of the purposes of this bill is to overturn the water conservation orders on the Rākaia River and the proposed water conservation order that is coming through on the Hurunui River. The reason that the Government does not like those water conservation orders is that they will preserve too much water for the rivers and not give enough water to irrigation. The Government thinks it cannot possibly let the Hurunui River water conservation order go through. The Environmental Defence Society has now come out and raised serious concerns about what this bill does to the water conservation order process. This bill overturns the current process and takes the Environment Court, which is where the Hurunui River water conservation order would have gone next, out of the process.

One of the purposes of this bill—and I am surprised it has not been written here in this part—is to overturn water conservation order processes. Rivers subject to water conservation orders are the national parks of rivers; that is what they are. People do not understand how important water conservation orders are. They are like giving national park status to our rivers. When this Government introduces a bill to dismantle the way that water conservation orders work in Canterbury, it is because it wants to mine another kind of national park: it wants to mine the Rākaia River and the Hurunui River for irrigation. It is another kind of mining of national parks, but this time our rivers are the national parks that are at stake. This Government, in the purpose of this bill, wants to overturn the way that water conservation orders work.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

(continued on Wednesday, 31 March 2010)

Bills

Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): When the debate was interrupted at 10 o’clock last night we were dealing under urgency with the current bill, whereby the Government, the ACT Party, and the Māori Party will vote to abolish democratically elected regional councillors. We were considering Part 1 of that bill, which includes the purpose clause, clause 3. The purpose of this bill is very clear, and the Prime Minister stated it in his opening speech to Parliament in February. The Prime Minister said that the Government would take action this year to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. That is the purpose of this bill. That is the purpose that the Prime Minister stated at the start of this year. That was the first step.

The second step was that Wyatt Creech was appointed to conduct a review of Environment Canterbury. At the time he was a director of Open Country Cheese, a dairy company with multiple convictions for dirty dairying. Someone from the dairy industry was appointed to conduct a review of the regulator of the dairy industry—that is, of Environment Canterbury. That was step two. Step two was to appoint the industry to do a review of the regulator of the industry. Unsurprisingly, the Creech report came out saying that we should get rid of Environment Canterbury’s elected councillors. One of the criticisms, of course, was that Environment Canterbury’s councillors were paying too much attention to science, and that was why they needed to go. The report said that they were “science-led” rather than “science-informed”.

The third step is this bill. The purpose of this bill is to fulfil the final stage in the Government’s grand plan, which is to get rid of the elected councillors of Environment Canterbury because they are getting in the way of irrigation in the Canterbury region. After years of inaction by the regional council, it was finally starting to stand up to the dairy corporations and to the irrigation companies, and that is why they got into trouble with the National Government.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): What is interesting about this bill is the outrage in respect of it and how some people have changed their minds about democracy. When the previous Labour Government was accused of changing things for Rodney, there was a real uproar about democracy. Where did this uproar come from? It was ACT—ACT Party members were the ones who were upset, and they were the ones who were making the noise. But now those members have changed their minds. They change their minds about all sorts of things. We have a Minister who picks on a mayor because he happens to water a tree at night during a drought. We have a situation where people change their minds.

Almost 400,000 people will lose their right to vote at the October elections of Environment Canterbury councillors. They will have to wait until perhaps 2013. So we see that there are double standards all over the place. One can be against one thing and for another thing, in the blink of an eye. One can take one’s partner overseas to travel the world for a family wedding, and at the same time one can take away the rights of people to elect their local regional council. I think the public will see this quite clearly. We have a Government that has lost its way, when it said it would keep in touch with people. It has not kept in touch with people. It has got rid of an elected council, which was elected by the people of Canterbury, and replaced it with commissioners. I have to say that I have a lot of admiration for Dame Margaret Bazley. I think she will do a wonderful job in that role, but that role should never have been needed. Canterbury has had its pollution problems. The regional council has got on top of that and sorted it out.

Nicky Wagner: No, they haven’t.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Oh, it has not sorted it out? It has made great steps.

Nicky Wagner: No, they haven’t.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Well, that member might not be cooperating. Maybe she has a smoky home; maybe she has a place so that she cannot see the facts. It has been making progress, and I think that is what the people of Canterbury want. You see, 375,000 people will lose a major right with this bill. Part 1 takes that right away. I say to members opposite that they cannot run roughshod over people. They have already done it to Auckland by not having a referendum at all, but passing legislation under urgency like we are doing here today. It seems to be becoming a bit of a habit. Dr Nick Smith well knows that when Governments start ignoring the democratic rights of people, they start that slippery slide. The tide is turning, I say to Dr Smith, it is slowly turning. It may be out now, but all of a sudden, he will see that the tide comes rushing in. And it will not take 9 years to come rushing in, it will not take 6 years to come rushing in, but in a mere 18 months or so, he will see that people are sick of such arrogance by a Government that really does not care about people. It takes them for granted.

Members opposite can just turn round and thumb their noses, but they cannot do it to a third of the population in Auckland and 370-odd thousand people in Canterbury. Those people are wondering why they are losing their vote. We have not really heard—

Nicky Wagner: They are not wondering; they know why.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: We hear some of the National members squawking on the other side. But they are the ones who will lose their seats. They will be so far down the list they will be gone.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Good morning, Mr Chairman. A lot of the squawking from the Opposition has been comparing this legislation with the legislation that was passed by the Labour-led Government in 2000 in relation to the abolition of the Rodney District Council and its replacement with a commissioner. There are a large number of differences between that situation and the current situation that we find ourselves in. The first difference is that Rodney District Council asked to be replaced by a commissioner. It agreed with the outcome of the review. It said that it was the best outcome, and the following year, elections were held. This situation is completely different. The Minister for the Environment has ridden roughshod over not only the councillors but also the people of Canterbury and the Creech review itself. Nowhere in that review did it give this Minister the mandate to do what he is doing.

Jacqui Dean, the member for somewhere down south, who, I recall, wrote to one of my colleagues earlier in her term in Parliament inquiring about the dangers of water, has now become an expert in water management. Jacqui Dean forgets what her party said at that time. I can quote from the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, who is now the Speaker. When Labour introduced the bill to abolish Rodney District Council, he stated: “I welcome the introduction of the bill into this House.” There was a bipartisan approach to that bill, because the people of Rodney wanted it. Then he stated: “I must say, though, I am not sure whether we needed urgency to pass the bill through all stages”. National had some principles then. It was opposed to putting that bill through under urgency.

Then Dr Lockwood Smith accused the Green Party of becoming voter fodder for the Labour Government. Kennedy Graham is rightly outraged, and he was not in Parliament at the time. That situation may not have arisen had he been in the House. But that is exactly what people are saying about the ACT Party and the Māori Party now—that they are just acting as voting fodder for National. They are letting this happen to the people of Canterbury, and there is no need for it.

There is no need for our vote to be taken away from us. We have a right to vote for whoever we want in our region for our district health board, our community boards, our city council, and our regional council. That right is being taken away by someone who does not even live in our region, and who has the audacity to introduce this bill to this House under urgency and is ramming it through all its stages, so that not a single member of the public can say: “This is good. This is bad. Why do you not think about that? There are some other options.” Not one single person has been able to do that, because the Minister for the Environment knows it all. The combination of the Minister who knows everything and the Minister who tells everyone he knows everything—Rodney Hide—is just too scary to contemplate for too long. Last night their behaviour was extraordinary, and I predict that it will get worse as the passage of this bill progresses.

Passing a bill under urgency is not appropriate for a bill that takes away a fundamental right of so many New Zealanders. It is not needed; there are many alternatives. Russel Norman from the Green Party quite correctly pointed out that the fundamental purpose of this bill—which is not spelt out clearly in Part 1—is just as John Key outlined in his address at the opening of Parliament. He committed his Government to taking action to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. Who cares about the environment? Who cares about the people’s voice? Who cares about the ability of private profit-making companies to compulsorily acquire land?

Nicky Wagner: Only half the story, Ruth.

Hon RUTH DYSON: It is not the Minister for the Environment, and it certainly not Nicky Wagner. There is no consideration of the fact that we should have a say when our environment, our surroundings, our land, our aquifers, our rivers, and our estuary are all at stake.

I ask what it is about Canterbury that the Minister thinks should disentitle us from having a fundamental say in the purpose of this bill. It is not just the fact that the entire elected representation of the regional council is being removed; it is also the fact that we will not have an opportunity to replace them at the next election. We are due to have an election in October of this year, and we have to go past that election time and wait for an entire new term before the Minister may deem it fit to allow us—how generous of him—to vote for our regional council.

But I have to be very frank. I know that the people of Canterbury have no faith in this Minister not to sneak through another dirty, devious little bill that would take away our right for a longer period of time. I would not be at all surprised if the Minister is not lining himself up with the mayors of the region—who have had no discussion at all, not one single discussion, with their councils, but have made an entirely unilateral contribution on our so-called behalf—to propose the equivalent of the Auckland super-city. This may well be the start of the disestablishment of our regional council structure altogether.

I challenge the Minister to be up front about his behaviour for a change, and to be honest and open with the people of Canterbury. We elected our regional council. Some of the people I would not have voted for; that is one of the parts of democracy we should cherish. There is a large number of members in this Parliament whom I would not vote for, either. What is proposed in this bill is not the way that a democracy works. A democracy works when people have a vote, and sometimes the people whom they want to be elected are elected, and sometimes they are not. We have had taken away from us that fundamental right to elect people or to vote for people who do not, in the end, get elected.

Not only is this a major breach of our fundamental right to vote for our regional representation but also it is unnecessary. Those writing the Creech report made that very clear. They said that widespread concerns had been expressed to them, and they said quite categorically in their report that their investigation did not back up those concerns. It is about politics, actually; this is a political game and the Minister has now thrown in his toys and started playing. It is a political game, and it is being played at the expense of our water management and our entitlement to have our voice be heard throughout the process of consideration, whether it is irrigation projects, water storage projects, or any other requirement to take water from our rivers.

I urge the Minister, even at this late stage when he has so much of his reputation at stake, to reconsider. There are other options. He knows that members on this side of the Chamber would support the legislative requirements of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. He knows that; we have said so in the House. The problem with doing it this way is that it is divisive, undemocratic, and unnecessary. There is no need to cause such division in our community or to cause such frustration. Because of the Minister’s majority in Parliament and because he has had the privilege of taking up a ministerial portfolio, he can use those powers to batter the people of Canterbury out of their right to vote. It is a huge breach of both the privilege and the responsibilities of a ministerial portfolio.

If it was necessary, as Sandra Lee thought it was in 2000 and as the National Party thought it was in 2000, then we would go for it. We would vote for it. The National Party had the courage to say that then. I have quoted the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, who said that he welcomed the introduction of the legislation appointing the commissioner to replace the Rodney District Council, because the district council had asked for it. The Rodney District Council knew that that move would put their district council into the position where very soon after—just a year later—the people would once again be able to vote for their elected representatives. The Rodney District Council knew there was such dysfunction within the district council that it had no other option. That is not the case in this situation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): We are debating the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, because there is a serious problem, which everybody in this House should acknowledge, around water management issues in Canterbury. The fact is that last month Trevor Mallard said that everyone knew there was a problem there, and I challenge Labour members to stop their denials. They were entrusted with the Government of New Zealand for 9 years, and I ask members whether, in that 9-year period, they did anything about improving water management. My own ministry’s chief executive, Dr Paul Reynolds, a respected public servant, described the previous Government’s water programme of action as a programme of inaction, such was the lack of any leadership or direction around water management issues.

Hon Darren Hughes: When did he say that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: He said that about 3 years ago when he was the deputy secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

I will challenge Ruth Dyson about a number of claims she has made. Firstly, I will deal with her claim that not one single discussion had taken place with the 10 councils. That is what Ruth Dyson has just claimed. But I tell her that I attended a meeting with the mayors of every single council from Waitaki to Kaikōura. Every single one of those territorial councils supports the responsive action that this Government is taking.

The member also said that the mayors did not have a democratic mandate.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I did not say that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, that is interesting; her colleague did. Last night her colleague said that the mayors had no right to speak for the people of Canterbury.

The member attacked the Māori Party for its support of this bill. I note that Ngāi Tahu, with whom I thought Labour would have some relationship, has said that it reluctantly agrees that the appointment of commissioners is necessary in Canterbury.

I will deal with the rhetoric we have heard from Ruth Dyson and others about whether it is appropriate for Parliament to intervene in local authorities. Where was Ruth Dyson when the previous Minister of Health, David Cunliffe, sacked the democratically elected Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? Where was Ruth Dyson when Helen Clark sacked the entire Auckland District Health Board? The member said that it was not appropriate—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: You weren’t even here in Parliament.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So because I was not in Parliament, it is not relevant? But it is OK for Helen Clark to sack a democratically elected district health board. In fact, members opposite are playing silly politics in this regard.

It is interesting to note that a former Labour Government in one Act of Parliament abolished 460 democratically elected bodies in one go—460 democratically elected councils in one go. So for Labour members to stand in this Parliament today and say that it is inappropriate for Parliament to intervene in local authorities is really an extraordinary claim for them to make. It really shows how shallow their arguments are in the Chamber this morning.

I have a simple challenge for Labour members. All New Zealanders appreciate that we have a major problem with water management in Canterbury. This Government has responded, with real leadership, with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill about how to fix that. My challenge to members in Labour is to ask what their response is. Their response in 9 years in Government was absolutely zip.

Hon Darren Hughes: Have an election.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Darren Hughes says to have an election. Well, he should look at this own comments. I will take Marian Hobbs for an example. Why was it that the previous Labour Government required special legislation to put in a water plan in the Waitaki? It was because Marian Hobbs told this Parliament—this was way back in 2003—that Environment Canterbury had failed to put in place the proper plans. If members opposite want to talk about democratic rights, I ask them why it was appropriate in 2003 to pass a special bill through this Parliament to take away from the democratically elected regional councillors in Canterbury the right to do a Waitaki water plan. Why was that OK? If those members really believed in the absoluteness of democracy around regional councils, why would that Government have ridden roughshod over those councillors? Do members know who wrote the regional plan? It was actually written by commissioners appointed by the then Minister for the Environment.

So why was it OK for Labour, when it was in Government, to dismiss health boards and to go into urgency to pass special legislation about elections and commissioners in Rodney District? Why was it OK for Labour—

Hon Darren Hughes: Supported by National.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is right. National did support that.

Hon Darren Hughes: Except for it being in urgency.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Labour voted for the urgency motion. I noted before that I think it is somewhat contradictory, and it shows the mess in the Labour Party, that Labour voted for the urgency motion. But when National was in Opposition and was confronted with the problems—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. I know that Part 1 is a wide-ranging debate and there is a lot of opportunity for Opposition calls, but the Minister persists in this myth that the Labour Opposition voted for an urgency motion. That is simply not correct, and it will lead to disorder if the Minister misrepresents the Opposition’s position on procedural matters. He is not helping the passage of his own legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I understand the member’s point. I think that it really falls into the realm of debate. There are some technical issues around how that vote was taken that make it a little bit difficult to exactly and precisely determine what the intention was, because there was no party vote. But it is a matter of debate. OK?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I have finished with that point of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to make it a debating matter. It is a matter of record that at the time when the urgency motion was taken, there was no vote. There was a consensus that the House moved into urgency.

Hon Darren Hughes: But that’s not voting “for”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, I see. So we have this new rewriting of the rules, which is so common with Labour—

Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. If I understood the Minister, he said that the vote was taken entirely by consensus on voices. That is incorrect. The Green Party registered “No” verbally.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order, I was in the House at the time that the vote was taken. I was sitting right up front and I listened very carefully. I heard that no voices were registered in opposition to the urgency motion. No party vote was sought. It has long been established in the practice of Parliament that if parties wish to register a vote against the motion, they seek a party vote. That did not occur. The record shows that Parliament moved into urgency by consensus.

Hon Darren Hughes: We now have two issues. One is the substantive point raised by Mr Graham. The second point is that the Minister in his response to the point of order has now accused the member of misleading the House and has not taken his word. Mr Graham said that on voices the Green Party voted a certain way. If the Minister persists in that accusation, he is accusing the member of misleading the House. Both of those separate points lead to the point that if the Minister wants to get his legislation through in a rational, logical, calm and orderly way, he would be best to focus on the debate of the substance in the bill rather than on the avenue that he is going down, which will delay his own legislation. I hope he understands that very simple point I am trying to make to him.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise the point that Mr Hughes has said, which is that by me pointing out exactly the events that occurred around the urgency motion, the Labour Party approach is one of “Well, we’re going to throw our toys out of the cot and not allow his legislation to be passed.” I do not think that that is an appropriate threat.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That is a debating point.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is a point of order, Mr Chairman, and we are having interjections.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Sorry, I am actually trying to just sort my way through this process, so I was probably a little bit inattentive. But members should not interject and should not make any contribution while we are hearing points of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My point of order was that the Opposition’s “junior leader of the House”, Mr Darren Hughes, has made the claim that my pointing out the events that occurred around the vote on the urgency motion will somehow stop the passage of the legislation through Parliament. I do not think that those sorts of threats are at all helpful to the orderly running of the Committee.

Hon Darren Hughes: The Minister’s contribution there is an exact example of what I am talking about. There are no threats being made; the Labour Opposition wants to debate the substance of the clauses in Part 1 of this bill. It is a pretty serious bill. It takes away the right of people to have an election for 3½ years, so all parties think it is pretty serious. The point I am making to the Minister is that by his continual misrepresentation of what members have said, including those as recently as in my last point of order just 45 seconds ago, we have now stopped debating the legislation and we are heading down into a procedural wrangle because of the style and behaviour that he is undertaking. Labour wants to debate Part 1 of the bill. We want to engage with the Minister on that. We are glad that he is taking calls. I think we should be able to return to a debate on substance rather than have this sort of sideshow that seems to be going on.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Let me just try to clarify the issue around the vote. If members look at Standing Order 136, they will see that it quite clearly outlines what happens. The Speaker at the time asked for the Ayes and for the Noes, and it will be recorded in the Hansard that the resolution was “The Ayes have it.” Any member at any stage can call for a party vote. That never happened. So what we simply have is a record, which states that a resolution was passed by the Government. The record is not recorded as to which parties voted whichever way, because no party vote was called for. So it is simply just a matter that the resolution was passed.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is not a matter of debate; that is what the record actually shows. We will return to Part 1.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Forgive me, I cannot recall whether it concerned Mr Graham or Mr Hughes, but that was not the point of order that was being made. What you have said is not in dispute. The point of order that was being made—and the member has an absolute right to be taken at his word—was that the member said that his party indicated “No” by voice. I am not objecting to the record. The point of order is simply that there is an absolute and cast-iron rule, as you would know, Mr Assistant Chairperson, in this Chamber that a member’s word cannot be questioned. But there is an absolute case that Dr Smith questioned the member’s word, and in effect called him a liar—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, no—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, he questioned his word, Mr Assistant Chairman, and by questioning his word, in effect, without using the term he—and I understand the English language—implied that this member was not telling the truth. I invite you to rule on that; he questioned his word.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Righto, I will rule. I did not take that inference, whatsoever. That is why I have cleared up the matter of how the vote was taken. I say also that the point of order raised by Dr Kennedy Graham was not actually a point of order. But I have clarified the matter as to how the vote was taken, and we will now return to the debate on Part 1.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): I will speak shortly to some amendments I have proposed to Part 1, but first I will pick up on some of the comments that Dr Smith has made in the last little while. The idea is that there has been wide consultation on this issue, including the councils of Canterbury. However, last night a press statement from councillor Chrissie Williams of the Christchurch City Council said that the Mayor of Christchurch may have expressed his personal view, but the Christchurch City Council has not discussed the Environment Canterbury review, nor formed a view, nor made any resolution or announcement on this issue. She acknowledges that Dr Smith went to see the council, but there was no report, no discussion, or any decision made by the council on that matter. To suggest that there is some kind of support for this from the councils of Canterbury is as much a nonsense as saying that the councillors of Environment Canterbury themselves were consulted on this matter and agreed to the proposal to put them up against a wall and shoot them, as this bill provides for.

I will turn to the issue of precedent on this, and the message that this has not been the first time that constitutionally elected, democratically elected bodies have been overturned by Government announcement. There was also the reference to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board having been disenfranchised. I would like to report the comments from the MP for Napier, Chris Tremain, when that happened. He said on 4 March 2008: “people felt that their democratic rights had been thrown out of the window—just thrown to the wind. … Regardless of who is right or wrong, I do not believe that the Minister should have sacked elected board members in favour of appointed people.” I hope Mr Tremain will stand up and take a call in respect of this bill doing the same thing to Environment Canterbury.

Of course, the member for Tukituki also had some concerns on the issue, and commented that the people of Hawke’s Bay believed that their democratic process had been thrown out of the window; so I hope Mr Foss will stand up and take a call and express his outrage at this happening to the people of Canterbury, because that would be appropriate and in line with what is required.

I have proposed an amendment to clause 6 around changes in the bill to the rights of appeal on water conservation orders. We say in that amendment that the abrogation of appeal rights should end when Environment Canterbury is reinstalled. At the moment, those issues of appeal are still in place beyond the time frame that this bill envisages. That is important, because those are important democratic rights and they should not simply be left with the bill, once Environment Canterbury is reinstated.

That, of course, in itself is a moot point. I note the ministerial statements yesterday of Mr Hide and Dr Smith. Mr Hide said: “I am confident that by then”—by 2013—“Environment Canterbury will be ready to return to an elected council status.” That is all well and good, even though it will be 3½ years before we start to see a return to democracy, in terms of Environment Canterbury. Unfortunately, that is not the line that Dr Smith is taking. He said in a press conference yesterday that no decisions had been made in terms of the new Canterbury water authority, which was envisaged by the Creech report, and that the Government wants to consider the conclusions of the Land and Water Forum, which is due to report in July, and then the work by the Environmental Protection Authority, as well as further advice from the commission and officials around the whole issue of the governance of the region’s water.

We do not have any clarity. We have one Minister saying in a press statement that he is looking forward to the return of Environment Canterbury by the time the 2013 local body elections are due to take place, which means 3½ years without democratic function, yet the other Minister is saying that that is not a certainty at all. That point highlights the fact that this bill is a dog’s breakfast. It is an abrogation of the rights of the people of Canterbury. It is throwing away the democratically elected body that was put in place by the people of Canterbury to make decisions around the future of water. That is just not acceptable.

I think the bill deserves more scrutiny than is provided for. We deserve to have this bill go to a select committee process for decision making, not simply be put through the House under an urgency motion, in order to do away with the chance for anybody to have any input into, and any say on, this legislation, which I think will not be good legislation in terms of the long-term results for Canterbury or for New Zealand.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to speak on Part 1, because I am very concerned about comments that the Minister has made in response to some of the matters that have been raised. One of the things that is so frustrating about the process we are going through is that we were to get a briefing at 11 a.m.—the Minister was late so it was about 11.45, I think, by the time he arrived—on a draft bill. Then the bill was introduced yesterday afternoon, and, of course, today’s debate will show in Hansard as being 30 March, because of the rather quaint rules that we have around urgency, even though everywhere else in the country it is 31 March. This bill will go through all of its stages on 30 March; that is how it will be recorded in Hansard.

The problem I have with this process is that there has not been an opportunity for the broader engagement that one would expect. Even in the Rodney District Council case 80 submissions were heard. There were hearings, there was public input, and actually there was a good deal of consensus. We have already heard about that from my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson, in respect of both sides of the Chamber recognising what was in the best interests of the council and knowing that the council was only 18 months away from a local body election. In this case, 6 months before an election, we are told that another 3½ years have to go by where the democratic deficit is applied to the people of Canterbury. All I am saying to the Minister is that if he had actually met with the other parties in the House—and I know that he has preferred to meet with those that might have a support agreement with the Government—and if he had talked right across the board, we could have worked through what was the best way to resolve this issue.

The thing that will not get enough consideration and debate in this Committee, unless we really go through it with a fine-tooth comb, is the Wyatt Creech report. I was attacked by the Minister for the Environment for daring to suggest that the former Minister Wyatt Creech had a conflict of interest. He did have a conflict of interest. It is a conflict of interest. Whether or not the conflict of interest is perceived or real, it is still a conflict of interest. The Minister well knows that a conflict of interest, whether or not it is perceived or real, has to be notified. It has to be. A Minister, even with a perceived conflict of interest, has to withdraw from decision making, to be on the safe side, as the Minister well knows.

What I want to say about the quality of this report is that it is not a robust report, and I certainly would not want to have anyone in this country think, for one minute, that this is a sufficient quality of reporting for the kind of decision that this Parliament is being forced to make today. The reason that it is poor quality is that it is based so much on anecdote. There are several aspects of this report that I want to go through. The first is in relation to the complaints around the dysfunction of Environment Canterbury’s governance.

Let me just read into the record the actual statement from the report: “Almost all external parties interviewed had a negative perception of ECan’s governance. There is a widely held view that the councillors are so polarised at times that they are dysfunctional as a group. There is insufficient leadership, and the council was too busy protecting individual / Party perspectives and fails to pay sufficient attention to leading the Region. Our investigation did not bear this out.” Did anyone miss that? It stated: “Our investigation did not bear this out.”

The report further states: “ECan is meeting its legal obligations under the LGA but has been unable to establish a firm planning environment which flows through to poor relationships and decisions under the RMA.” So it is the planning function. Who is responsible for the planning function—for employing the people who work in planning and consent? Let us go through that, because that is the chief executive’s job, not the job of the council.

I will look at the section on the question of capability within Environment Canterbury itself in respect of staff. It is an entire section, titled 3.1.3 “Staffing and use of resources. Leadership/Direction.” It states: “There is a lack of overall resource management content leadership within the Consenting Section. Senior management are not RMA experts, and have backgrounds from outside the sector. Senior management are not able to provide leadership and direction on the RMA and the consenting functions—other than process components. This understanding of the RMA has been left to the third tier managers and team leaders, some of whom have been in ECan for a long time and ‘do it how they have always done it’ (according to some internal staff and external people interviewed). This issue of leadership of the consenting function is significant, and has had implications in terms of timeframe management as well as the quality of the consenting process.”

Then the report goes on to talk about the nature of the consenting process, as it was over 2 years ago. It completely fails to look at the rates of consenting that have been adopted since the time this report was referring to. Over and over again, within this report, it states “(according to some internal staff and external people interviewed)”. Those people are unnamed. Then there is a statement that in fact the comments are anecdotal and there is no evidence to back them up. Here is a really good one on “Relationships with applicants and submitters”. It states: “There is clearly a major perception gap between internal and external views of ECan. All external applicants spoken to raise concerns around perceived intransigence of staff to accept that decisions made by Hearings Commissioners/the Environment Court have set precedent. Concern was also expressed that processes are extremely slow, and that if ECan ‘lose’ a case, staff actively slow processes down and impose unworkable or impractical conditions (NB: this is anecdotal and we have not been provided any evidence to substantiate this assertion).”

Then the report goes on to list common themes raised by external parties, and what do we have? The report refers to “Intransigence when confronted with challenging situations ‘ECan not getting its own way and deliberately slowing processes down or reacting publicly’. Science led rather than science informed … Large numbers of staff are ‘green’ in orientation … A vacuum of economic, social or cultural consideration …”.

This report is outrageous. It would never ever withstand judicial review, because the quality of the advice it gives is based almost entirely on anecdote. Let us go through a scenario. Let us say a National Party member of Parliament who is living in Timaru approaches the local Timaru mayor and says that the Government’s two Ministers would quite like to get stuck into Environment Canterbury, and asks whether the mayor could arrange for the mayors to write a letter. So a letter is written to the Ministers, but what is interesting about the letter that is written to the Ministers is that it completely breaches the process that has been agreed to between the mayoral forum and Environment Canterbury, which is a heads-up, no-surprises approach. Even that is mentioned in the report. The mayors did not bother to even consult with their own councils—not one. Environment Canterbury councillor Jo Kane did an Official Information Act request to all of the mayors and councils in the region, and what did she find out? Not one of them had had it debated in their local councils.

So we have the mayors making these decisions on their own behalf and not consulting with other elected people, and what happens? The entire elected, democratic function of our environmental regulator goes completely out the window. A lot of concerns have been raised about this. Jo Kane was interesting in the Timaru Herald this morning. She said: “I feel like I have been on The Apprentice and Donald Trump has told me that I’m fired. Except this time it’s not Donald Trump, it’s Rodney Hide and Nick Smith—or Jekyll and Hide as I like to call them.”

The problem is that we saw this report coming to this Parliament by way of a letter from the Minister for the Environment just a couple of months ago. There was no engagement with the broader stakeholders. I think that 20 groups were consulted in the development of the Creech report. We certainly have not been consulted about our way forward. I do not know how long the Minister has spent with each individual council. I know that he visited the individual councils, but it was not sufficient to be doing this.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): First, I agree entirely with Brendon Burns, who said earlier that the regional council Environment Canterbury will not be reinstated. It is an open secret that this Government is trying to get rid of the regional councils in New Zealand; we know that. Getting rid of the regional council in Canterbury is just its first foray. I predict that that council will never be reinstated. This is the end of regional councils in Canterbury. We will never see a regional council in Canterbury again.

All over the world, it is common for dictatorships—it is their hallmark—that do not like what democratically elected representatives are trying to do to get rid of them. That is what happened in Fiji. Bainimarama did not like what some of his democratically elected representatives were doing, so he got rid of them. That is exactly what has happened here. We have a coup d’état in Canterbury. I took the trouble to look up what the definition of a coup d’état is. It is the sudden, unconstitutional getting rid of a Government, usually by a small group within the existing Government. That is exactly what has happened here. It is a bloodless coup d’état. It has happened in a completely unconstitutional way through the actions of a small group within the existing Government, using time-worn techniques.

What are the time-worn techniques? First of all, one goes about discrediting the democratically elected council. First, the Minister for the Environment got the Creech report from Mr Creech, who is one of the Minister’s mates. He is a former deputy leader of the National Party. Mr Creech dashed around Canterbury over a period of 3 weeks and interviewed 20 people. He came up with a report that seeks to discredit the regional council, a democratically elected council; the report says it is so inefficient that we must get rid of it. Mr Creech tried desperately hard to say there was a statutory basis for dismissing the elected councillors, but, sadly for Mr Creech, despite his very best efforts, he was unable to find any statutory basis for dismissing them. In fact, he was forced to conclude—poor man—despite his mission to utterly discredit Environment Canterbury, that it was meeting its legal obligations under the Local Government Act. The report states that “the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations.” So there was absolutely no statutory basis for getting rid of the council, whatsoever. The Minister acknowledged when briefing us yesterday that he was not able to use the provisions of the Local Government Act to get rid of Environment Canterbury, so he has had to have recourse to this legislation.

The other point is that Cantabrians need to be aware of the bigger picture here. What we see is not just the hand of Nick Smith and the National Government but also the hand of Rodney Hide. What is ACT’s agenda? ACT’s agenda is quite explicit. Like all new-right Governments, ACT members want to shrink democracy. They want to privatise and corporatise as many aspects of democracy as they can. They have done that with the governance of Auckland. They have produced a coup d’état in Auckland. They have corporatised Auckland. The situation in Canterbury is eerily similar. There is a pattern, and now they have done it to Canterbury. It is the same sorts of time-worn techniques: discredit the council by saying there is a huge problem, then summarily dismiss it without any statutory basis for doing so, and replace it with hand-picked political appointees—and I can imagine who the rest of them might be.

Cantabrians need to be aware that this move is part of ”Rogernomics Part 2”—and it is good to have Roger Douglas here listening to this, because that is what it is all about. ACT realises that it is thwarted in this particular electoral cycle in its ambition to sell off the State-owned enterprises, to privatise them at the governmental level. It is not able to do it in this term of Government. It will be done in the next term of Government, if National is re-elected. So ACT has turned its attention to local government, and that is where it is focusing “Rogernomics Part 2”. Rodney Hide, the Minister of Local Government, is quietly going around New Zealand and getting rid of as much local government as possible. ACT has got rid of eight democratically elected councils in Auckland; now it is getting rid of a democratically elected regional council in Canterbury. What will be next? Where is the next excuse to get rid of yet another layer of democratically elected councillors and replace them—

Jacqui Dean: Oh, come on!

SUE KEDGLEY: This is exactly what the National Government has done. It is an indisputable fact. The Government has got rid of eight democratically elected councils in Auckland. Now it has got rid of a democratically elected regional council in Canterbury. That is an indisputable fact. And it has got rid of it by unconstitutional means.

What really surprises me is that it has managed to fool many people in Canterbury, just as it initially fooled many people in Auckland. Many of the mayors in Canterbury have gone along with it. All sorts of personal agendas are at stake. They have gone along with it in a cavalier fashion, saying: “Oh, who cares? We have just wiped out another layer of democracy. Who cares? It is just democracy.” Democracy is what our ancestors fought for, and women fought for the vote. People all around the world are fighting for democracy, but we have just cavalierly dismissed eight democratically elected councils in Auckland, and now we are dismissing this council, and the people of Canterbury are saying: “Oh, well, what does it matter? We’ll just replace them with some political appointees, with some political hacks that will do the Government’s agenda. We’ll just get rid of the council—no problem.” But we will never get back that layer of democracy.

The regional councillors were proving a bit inconvenient for the Government. They were not ramming through its agenda of getting hold of the water in Canterbury and building large irrigation dams. Because they were inconvenient they are to be wiped out and replaced by politically appointed commissioners so that the Government will be able to implement its agenda, very explicitly, without any obstacles. The Government goes around the world saying how terrible what has happened in Fiji is, when exactly what has happened in Fiji is happening in Canterbury. It is happening with the passage of this bill.

Jacqui Dean: Not true!

SUE KEDGLEY: It is exactly true. I guarantee that the people of Fiji will get to vote before the people of Canterbury ever get to vote for a regional council again. The people of Canterbury will not get to vote, because the regional council will never be reinstated. The people of Canterbury need to wake up. This is the agenda. It is “Rogernomics Part 2”. It is an agenda to wipe out layers of local democracy, to privatise and corporatise the remainder of local government, and to enable this Government to impose its will on the people of Canterbury. It is, as I have said, a coup d’état—an unconstitutional getting rid of a Government by a small group of people. That is the definition of a coup d’état. That is what this is.

It was very interesting to see the letter from the people of Canterbury. It points out that there should be no taxation without representation. The letter refers to the “outrageous and completely unwarranted destruction of local democracy”. In respect of replacing the councillors, the writers of the letter say that if they are not going to have a voice in local government, then they will not pay for it—they will not pay their rates. The letter states: “If central government chooses to abrogate our democratic right to choose our own local decision makers, then it is central government’s responsibility to pay for the unelected decision makers it chooses to put in their place.” That is what those people are intending to do.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I rise to take my first call in respect of Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I do so very, very happily, because the people of my electorate have been asking for an improvement in Environment Canterbury for a hang of a long time—since before I was elected as the MP for Aoraki. I rise to my feet a little heavy in heart, because the quality of this debate appals me. The absolute scaremongering, with the talk of a coup d’état and the removal of democracy, is a load of hogwash. This bill allows a return to elected councillors.

Sue Kedgley: It’ll never happen.

JO GOODHEW: We say it will, and this bill allows for it, either in 2013 or before 2013. It would be helpful to stick to the facts, I say to Ms Kedgley—it would be helpful to stick to the facts. Let me give members some more facts. You see, the people of my electorate have been complaining about Environment Canterbury’s inability to manage water from an environmental perspective, a recreational perspective, a cultural perspective, and an economic perspective, for far too long—far too long. Yet we have had consensus with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. We have had groups getting together with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, yet there was no end in sight—none whatsoever—and no progress in sight. It was the inability of Environment Canterbury to perform its statutory duties in terms of managing the water of the region that has brought this bill about.

I will pay tribute to some people. I pay tribute to Alec Neill, because he has tried his damnedest to get things turned round, and I feel we need to acknowledge that. It has not been enough; he has found himself unable to achieve the progress he wanted to. There has been improvement in respect of consenting, but what the Opposition forgets to tell us is that the number of consents issued is hugely less, anyway. Environment Canterbury has been dealing with about half the workload. Hello—90 percent for half the workload is still bad. I pay tribute to the regional councillors from my electorate, Mark Oldfield and Angus McKay. Those guys have also tried their damnedest to address the concerns of their constituents within the region. But still, tens of thousands of dollars later—sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars later—people have got nowhere when it comes to the management of water in the region.

Actually, this bill is about making progress. It is a temporary measure—it even says that in the title. It is a temporary measure, and it is here not before time. I will quickly read some of the reaction from around the region. One of the mayors in my former electorate, Mackenzie District Mayor John O’Neill said it was: “a bold move which would have the full support of the district’s ratepayers.” So much for no consultation, guys; it has happened. Those mayors have been out asking their people for years and years what they want to happen, in a timelier and better way, and they have said that Environment Canterbury should be made to do its job. A former Waitaki constituency councillor, Dr June Slee, said: “The community knew ECan wasn’t doing its job, and this push for change was community-driven.” It is a shame that that same community appears to have been completely ignored by Opposition members in the House—completely and utterly ignored. It believes that its only community of interest is a small cohort that is anti the development of water and that does not seem to realise that the environmental standards of the water are also currently not being looked after well enough.

So this bill is a way forward—a light into the future. We are very, very positive that this is the best way to go. From my perspective, a return to democracy in 2013—or before, if at all possible—is certainly within the scope of this bill, and I am sick of hearing that it is not. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): I would also like to quote the Timaru Herald this morning. A certain “Commodore Nick Smith” appears in this morning’s Timaru Herald, and I think there is a wonderful quote that needs to go into the record.

Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member opposite made a derogatory comment about the Minister in charge of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The point of order is well made. Members are to use a respectful address. Members might have all sorts of titles, but I do not see that one listed as Nick Smith’s title. The member will use a person’s correct form of address.

PHIL TWYFORD: I thought “Commodore” was very respectful.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): It is very clear in the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings of this House that members are not to comment on Speakers’ or Chairpersons’ rulings. Once the ruling has been made, that is the end of it. If the member wishes to continue, he can continue, but if he makes a further reference to the ruling that has been made, I will terminate his presentation.

PHIL TWYFORD: The quote states: “Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners—rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues, as ECan suggested—was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.” That says it all. The Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, does not trust the people of Canterbury. He sacks the democratically elected members of the regional council because he is wary of the results of the elections. What does that tell members? He does not trust democracy and he does not trust the people of Canterbury. That says it all.

I will talk about Part 1, and I will put forward an amendment, but I will first touch on one of the aspects that I think is perhaps the most corrosive part of this Government’s affection for oligarchy and its distaste for democracy. When Wyatt Creech was appointed to do the report on Environment Canterbury, it rang alarm bells immediately, for the reasons that my colleague Ruth Dyson has outlined. The public of Canterbury, and the public of New Zealand, know well that National is hand in glove with the interests that are pushing and going hard out to free up irrigation and water storage in the interests of dairy farming. The Government knows that Ruth Richardson and Don Brash are directors of dairy companies in Canterbury, and that they will be watching very, very carefully to see who else is appointed as commissioners to Environment Canterbury. They know that this Government has form when it comes to abrogating democratic structures and undermining our democratic institutions, and they know its preference for running our democratic institutions by putting its mates around the table so that it can run our country, our cities, and our resources in its own commercial interests.

I have listened last night and this morning to member after member on the Government benches say that Labour members are getting hysterical and emotional about democracy. I make no apologies for being emotional about our country’s democratic institutions. They are the most precious asset we have in our political traditions, and for this Government to ride roughshod over those democratic traditions simply because it cannot get its own way and run its own agenda is disgraceful. Colin King said last night that we were ranting and raving about the loss of democratic rights, and that the only reason the Government is passing this bill today is because of dysfunction in the Canterbury Regional Council. Well, where have we heard that before? Every tinpot dictator from Fiji to the Central African Republic has blamed dysfunctional institutions and squabbling politicians as they do away with democracy at the point of a gun.

Nicky Wagner said: “I support this bill, because water is a significant issue and we can do better.” Hello? The member should hold up the front page. That Canterbury MP is a disgrace for selling out the democratic rights of her electors in the community that she is supposed to be representing.

There is something wrong with our democracy. There is something wrong with our democratic institutions when members of the governing party think it is OK to shelve our democracy and to shelve our democratic traditions simply because it cannot get its agenda through, because “we can do better.”, and because Environment Canterbury is “dysfunctional”. Well, what will be next? What institution or part of the State will be next replaced by hand-picked commissioners? Which council will be next, like the one in Auckland, to be corporatised and have its assets and resources handed over to the hand-picked mates of the Government? I have put forward an amendment to Part 1 that I am calling the “second chance” amendment. It is a second chance for the Government to redeem its democratic credentials and step back from the precipice.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): The temperature forecast in Canterbury is 27 degrees and things are really starting to heat up. I noted that the member for Rangitata, Jo Goodhew, did not choose to deny comments from my colleague Lianne Dalziel about the fact that the criticism of Environment Canterbury from the mayors of Canterbury emerged following a conversation between that member and the Mayor of Timaru. Nothing was said in response to those points raised. Jo Goodhew went on to say that the bill allows for the return of Environment Canterbury by 2013 or before. She was very pointed on that issue, when, in fact, as was made clear before, the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, is saying that he is not sure that that will happen. He is still leaving open the idea of installing a regional water authority.

Sue Kedgley is absolutely correct: this is the death knell of Environment Canterbury. There is no prospect of it ever being reinstated, certainly not under this Government—not a chance. The member for Rangitata went on to say that Alec Neill had done a darn good job in trying to turn round Environment Canterbury. Alec Neill was actually the chairman of the consents committee for some years—the years, in fact, that the Government says that Environment Canterbury failed to deliver on the time frames necessary for meeting resource consents. I am sure Alec Neill tried to do his best in that job, but he was stuck with the same problem that Environment Canterbury has had throughout, and that is that it needed supporting legislation, which this Government has failed to bring through and—I acknowledge—the previous Government failed to bring through, in order to provide it with a better framework. I agree with that, but this Minister has had nearly 18 months in office; he could have brought that forward or he could have brought forward the option that Alec Neill himself suggested, which is that the commissioners work alongside the elected democratic representatives and implement the changes that are necessary. So there we go.

I noticed also that tribute was paid by the member for Rangitata to councillors Mackay and Oldfield. I note that they were two of the four councillors whom I took to the Auditor-General last year and had a complaint upheld about in respect of conflicts of interest over water. The Minister accused me last night of attacking Environment Canterbury. Far from it; I just say that processes need to be clear and transparent, and when people have conflicts of interest those conflicts need to be managed appropriately. But I tell members of the Committee that I would still rather have those four councillors and the other 10 councillors back in front of me as an elector in Canterbury in October than an appointed panel of commissioners whom Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will choose and ram down the throats of voters in Canterbury. That is what we are getting. That is absolutely what we are getting with this bill.

Another allegation was that Labour is opposed to development. That is absolutely untrue; we want to see development. There was huge development in Canterbury over the 9 years we were in Government in respect of the use of water resources. We say that from now on we should make sure that the balance is there and that the environmental protections are there, because no member opposite can pretend—and I challenge the Minister or another MP opposite to take a call on this issue—that the existing water quality in Canterbury is acceptable. Where in this bill is there anything about improving water quality? It is about new allocation of water, in rapid fashion; it is not about improving water quality.

I turn to clause 3 of the bill and note that the Minister could have used his powers under the Resource Management Act to appoint commissioners to take over all the functions, powers, and duties of councillors in relation to water, and have them work alongside the council, certainly in respect of its other statutory responsibilities. But, no, the Minister—really, Mr Hide—has chosen to go for the doctor and absolutely disestablish Environment Canterbury, and we will not see it again. This is the end of Environment Canterbury.

I note further also, as Dr Bryan Jenkins said on Morning Report this morning, that Environment Canterbury has been asking for additional powers for the last 4 years. [Interruption] Yes, I acknowledge that we could have done it; we should have done it. I acknowledge that point, but where is this Government—the Government of action, supposedly? Where has its response been on that? Where has its delivery been on that point? It has not happened.

The other point I would like to make is that the commitment of the Government in this bill to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy: Strategic Framework is shallow rather than substantive. It does not take regard of the vision and principles of the strategy, a very good document and an agreed document from my region of Canterbury. It is not being enshrined in this bill; it is simply referred to in terms of the vision and principles. There is no requirement in this bill to put the terms of the document into practice.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith I just want to say that I did not pay anybody. When members are interjecting they should interject in the third person.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): There have been many quite hysterical claims of conspiracies and the like, and I think it would be worthwhile simply to put on the record a few of the basic facts that give a background to the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill.

You see, both Labour and Green members have established that this bill is a very sophisticated conspiracy; that the Government has engineered a whole lot of groups to be anti - Environment Canterbury to enable this bill to be passed. Well, the first thing I would like to ask those members is whether they really believe that National members in Opposition were able to manipulate the respected staff of the Ministry for the Environment so that when they wrote their briefing to the incoming Government they raised very serious concerns about Environment Canterbury. That is an extraordinary claim and I ask members to respond to it.

Secondly, I point to the Environment Court decisions and the decisions of independent commissioners who have raised serious concerns about Environment Canterbury. Are members opposite really claiming that, somehow, through this Roger Douglas - driven conspiracy, we have been able to manipulate the decisions of independent commissioners and the Environment Court to make critical comments about Environment Canterbury? So great is the conspiracy that somehow we have got Trevor Mallard into it, as well, because Trevor Mallard is on the public record as saying very clearly that Environment Canterbury was in serious trouble. He knew that when he was Minister. He went—

Hon Member: Has anything changed since then?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What he said was: “I went to the Prime Minister, suggested we take action, and the Prime Minister said it would be politically difficult.” The fact that Mr Mallard went to the Prime Minister says that, in his conscience, he knew he had a genuine problem, but he did not, for political reasons, have the courage to address the significant issues in Canterbury.

I also challenge members of the Opposition, particularly Mr Brendon Burns, who say that absolutely nothing in this bill deals with issues of water quality or some of the other very real issues in Canterbury. I refer the member to the many pages of schedule 1 of the bill that state what the commissioners are required to have regard to in their decision making. They make absolute reference to issues of water quality, to drinking-water standards, to the very essence of indigenous biodiversity, and to a whole range of other key environmental factors that we are putting into law today to make progress on water management.

I was amused by the contribution from Mr Phil Twyford. He says that the changes that are occurring in Auckland are all part of a right-wing conspiracy. Well, that is interesting. I thought that they came from a royal commission report. I ask Mr Twyford whether he knows who commissioned the royal commission report. It was the previous Labour Government. These conspiracy theories that somehow National had control of the previous Labour Cabinet and somehow National organised a royal commission to write a report to provide for the introduction of the super-city in Auckland expose the lightweight contributions that we have had from Labour members. They are hiding behind shadows and trying to find conspiracies.

The issue is very simple: we have a problem with water management in Canterbury. It is a longstanding problem. It has required addressing for years. I acknowledge Mr Brendon Burns for at least acknowledging that the previous Labour Government failed to address these issues. It is time for leadership on water management in Canterbury, and that is what is appropriately provided for in this bill.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I think that the speech that the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, has just given confirms that this is not about caring for Canterbury’s water. It is not about caring for our natural resources, looking to the future, or having a democratic base for our decision making in respect of our environmental concerns. It is all about politics.

Mr Chair, does a Minister not have to be in the chair during the Committee stage?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I am not going to be as difficult as that if the Minister wants to get a glass of water.

Hon RUTH DYSON: It is all right; the Minister is able to resume his seat. I think it is a great tragedy—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): After all, this is about water, is it not?

Hon RUTH DYSON: —and that is a tragedy too—when we have such an important issue as the future of Canterbury’s water management that the Minister has decided to play pure politics on the basis of this short period in his life—admittedly, not as short as the period of his life when he served as deputy leader of his party—when he has the responsibility of being the Minister for the Environment.

I was very interested in the contribution from the member of Parliament for Rangitata, Jo Goodhew. She was deeply offensive before she took a call when making comments about Jo Kane, an elected regional councillor. Frankly, I do not think it is appropriate to make derogatory comments about elected members when they are not able to have a right of reply in this House. She talked about how hard Alec Neill had worked. Alec Neill used to be a National member of Parliament, but he did not last very long in this House. He seemed to come and go as part of a revolving-door syndrome. He has just been elected as the chair of Environment Canterbury. I ask members what his own party has done to him. It has sacked him. He is a National Party member and a former member of this House, and National has just sacked him.

An article in today’s Timaru Herald states: “Chairman Alec Neill said he was hugely disappointed with the Government’s decision.” Those are pretty strong words from Alec Neill. The article went on to state: “ ‘A council is elected for three years,’ he said. ‘These changes will put through six or seven commissioners who are appointed by the Government and who have no democratic accountability.’ ”, and that is the point. This is about a democratic right that we as residents in Canterbury have to elect our regional councillors, who will manage the issues they are mandated to manage.

In his contribution, the Minister made a lot of play about how we are at last going to have the statutory ability to manage Canterbury’s water. In this very part we are debating, Part 1, which includes the purpose clause of the bill, the Minister makes a fantastic commitment to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy by requiring in the law for commissioners to have due regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That is about as motherhood and apple pie as we can get. Where is the statutory base for the operationalising of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy? Where is it in the purpose clause of the bill? To have appointed commissioners who will have regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy will not progress that strategy forward one step, yet the Minister says that that is what it is all about. He said Labour had years and years in Government but was not able to enact provisions. Now his big chance has come, but he has stuffed it up big time.

There is not one word in this law about a statutory requirement for the committees. There is not one word in the purpose clause, clause 3, about there being a requirement to implement the strategy. Perhaps that is because the strategy is still out for public comment. If he chose to, the Minister could make a reasonable excuse like that for this inability to deliver on a statutory provision for the implementation of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That would be a good one, and I give the Minister the opportunity to use that as an excuse. He could say: “On completion of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, it will be implemented.”, and he could outline the provisions. Nowhere in this bill are the people of Canterbury given any more security about the future of their water than we had last week.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I want to systematically address at least two clauses in Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and offer some comments.

When I look at clause 3 of Part 1 of the bill, I see that the purpose of the bill is to: “provide for the replacement of the elected members of the Canterbury Regional Council with commissioners who will act as the Council’s governing body until new elected members come into office following the next election;”. The Minister for the Environment could have used his powers under the Resource Management Act to appoint commissioners to take over all the functions, powers, and duties of councillors in relation to water if that was the Government’s main concern. That would have allowed democratic governance to continue in relation to the council’s other statutory responsibilities, particularly public passenger transport and air quality, where it has led New Zealand, and also regional land transport coordination and planning, and pest control and biosecurity.

I mentioned yesterday in the second reading that the functions that pertain to New Zealand local and regional councils are far wider than the excessively narrow focus that was brought to bear in the Creech report upon the alleged imperfections of the Canterbury Regional Council. It could have been done another way. It could have been done in a way that met the stated concerns that are generally shared pertaining to water management. It is not perfect; it has not been perfect. But the overriding principle of local democracy in New Zealand could have been respected at the same time. The principle of democracy cannot be blithely calibrated according to other concerns, including economic growth, irrigation, and the expansion of dairy. Democracy is a principle that has its own intrinsic merit. It is not calibrated or qualified in any way by anything, but this Government has proceeded to do so.

I look at clause 3(b) and see that the second purpose of the bill is to “provide the Council with certain powers … relevant to the … management of fresh water”. As the Environment Canterbury chief executive, Dr Bryan Jenkins, confirmed on Morning Report today, Environment Canterbury first requested additional powers in relation to at-risk catchments and aquifers where the allocation is at or over sustainability limits. He did that 4 years ago, yet the Ministry for the Environment has been deaf to requests for improvement of the Resource Management Act, such as the provision for catchment-specific moratoria. The Government’s commitment to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy as a way forward comes across as rather shallow and not substantive in this respect. Those provisions require the commissioner to have particular regard to “the vision and the principles” of the strategy; this is motherhood and apple pie. The substance of the strategy is in the targets. They have been revised with involvement from stakeholders since the strategy was released last November, and it is now out for public comment.

Simply having regard to the vision and principles is not what Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury Water Management Strategy steering committee have sought in terms of mandating legislation. They have sought that the Resource Management Act be amended so that decision makers give weight to the regional and zone implementation programmes to be developed by the stakeholder committees in each of the 10 water management zones across the region. These implementation programmes will put the strategy vision, principles, and targets into practice—it could have been done that way.

Finally, I look at clause 4, which is the interpretation. There is a so-called definition of “Environment Canterbury” in this clause.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I move, That the question be now put.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill outlines the purpose of the bill. It states that the purpose of the bill is to empower the Government to rapidly address issues of the Canterbury Regional Council, and to provide the commissioners with the necessary powers. It talks about giving the power to this Government, and I have no doubt that what this Government is about to do is sanctioned and approved by the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister, but there are two Ministers responsible for driving this particular issue, the Hon Nick Smith and the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Rodney Hide. The ordinary citizen would be thinking that this is illegal. The removal of 14 officials, who were elected by the 500,000-plus people of Canterbury—and these councillors are significant citizens of Canterbury—would be illegal, other than for this bill. Am I correct? This bill legalises the removal of 14 elected representatives of the 500,000-plus people of Canterbury, which under normal circumstances is an illegal act. But it has been made legal by the rushing through of this bill.

National’s decision to replace Environment Canterbury with Government-appointed commissioners for the next 3 ½ years is an outrageous affront to democracy. Any way you cut it, it is an affront to democracy. My colleagues are correct when they say that this is deliberate on the part of the Government. It is also a message that the Government does not care about democratic processes. I have to say that the people of Canterbury would be asking themselves what this says about their representatives. They are not insignificant individuals. They are significant members of their community. They are Alec Neill, the chairman of the council, who represents the Christchurch West constituency; Angus McKay, who represents the Rākaia constituency; Professor Bob Kirk, who represents the Christchurch South constituency; Bronwen Murray, who represents the Christchurch North constituency; David Sutherland, who represents the Christchurch East constituency; and Carole Evans, Eugenie Sage, Jo Kane, Jane Demeter, Mark Oldfield, Sir Kerry Burke, Pat Harrow, Rik Tindall, and Ross Little. My point is that they are not insignificant people. They represent the community, they were elected by Canterbury, and now they have been removed. Canterbury has been told it will not hold elections this year. It has to wait. That is all because the Government has seized the power in wanting to make its own decisions and has forced its decisions upon the people of Canterbury.

What do the local people think about it? I have heard councillor Chrissie Williams, who said that “Minister Nick Smith made a brief appearance at the Council meeting on 11 March at which Councillors were able to ask questions, but there was no report, discussion or decision by the council. He has not met with us at any other time. The Christchurch City Council does not have a view on whether intervention was required and has certainly not supported the intervention handed down by the Minister today.” To rush through a bill to take powers away from elected representatives and to give those powers, and more, to a group of appointed commissioners is a kick to the heart of democracy in this country. Is that not what they are doing? That is what this bill is about.

I will read something else from councillor Eugenie Sage: “Sacking councillors would deny 500,000 Canterbury citizens their elected voice in water management.”

Paul Quinn: Another poodle.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: That is what those members might think, but these people were elected. They were elected; they were not imposed upon the people. The people of Canterbury elected them through democratic process.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Mr Chair, I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The question is, That the question be now put. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary will say No. The Ayes have it. Clerk, would you please conduct a party vote.

Hon Darren Hughes: An hour and a half on a Part that has never been to a select committee and was introduced under urgency. An hour and a half—that’s ridiculous.

Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Mr Chair, I seek your guidance in reminding the member opposite that the vote is held in silence.

Hon Darren Hughes: In the spirit of collegiality, I give advice to the junior whip that when her member moves a closure motion, she should simply put those words. We can be petty and pedantic if she likes. I did not pull the member up on it, because she moved it and it was clear what her intention was, but it was not within the Standing Orders. If the junior whip wants to behave in that way, we can go toe for toe; otherwise, we can just have the vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I think that is a draw. I will ask the Clerk to continue the vote in silence—well, not the Clerk. Members will hear the call and so on in silence.

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

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 6 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause 1(c) “except sections 52 to 55 and 60”; and

to omit from subclause 1(d) “except sections 64 to 69”.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to Part 1 be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

6A Independent review

(1) The Minister shall immediately appoint a review authority to review, consider, and report on the performance of ECan in respect of its management of fresh water in the Canterbury region.

(2) The review authority shall be appointed by notice in the Gazette, and a copy of that notice shall be sent to ECan.

(3) Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 applies, with any necessary modifications, to the review authority and the review.

(4) In addition to any remedies in Part 1 of Schedule 15 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Minister of Local Government may, on the recommendation of the review authority, issue an Order in Council bringing Parts 2 and 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 of this Act into force.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Part 1 agreed to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): We now come to Part 2, but before we take any bidders on it I advise the Committee that we had 2 hours of debate on the previous part, and many of the speeches went well outside of what would normally be acceptable in a Committee stage speech. Many of them were second reading speeches. We have ranged far and wide. The Chair is prepared to be quite liberal about that, because the point has been made that the bill has not been to a select committee. But members should focus their attention on the fact that this is the Committee stage, we are dealing with the nuts and bolts, and the debate is on Part 2, not Part 3.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You anticipated part of my point of order, which was that we spent roughly 1 hour and 45 minutes on Part 1, 25 minutes of which were taken up by the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment—which is great because we want to be engaging with him on the issue. The point I make about that is that the Minister is intimately involved in this legislation. He wrote it, he has seen it, he has had a chance to take it through Cabinet processes, and he has had the benefit of his officials’ advice on it. The problem that the Opposition has is that we have not had that luxury of having seen the bill beforehand. The bill was introduced under urgency. Mr Chairperson, your reference to it not having gone to a select committee is true; there has been no chance for public submissions. But the fact that it was introduced under urgency means that we did not get a chance even to read it before we started to debate it. There are Speakers’ rulings that give members a little more leeway when they are debating a bill part by part under urgency in the Committee of the whole House and there has not been the chance for them to do research and prepare for the debate in the way that they might ordinarily have expected to do.

I guess my two points are that, one, the reason that we opposed closure was that we did not feel that there had been enough time for us to debate Part 1, and the Minister has been contributing a lot and that of course extended the time of the debate. By definition, if a debate goes for a length of time, the Minister’s contributing will reduce the amount of time available to the Opposition to speak on a bill that was sight unseen until the debate started. The second point is about members’ being given leeway for the fact that they have not been briefed on the legislation, and are not in a position to restrict every single comment they want to make to a particular clause in a part. Members are trying their best to do that, but I think that point has to be taken into account in the absence of a select committee process and in the absence of the bill being laid on the Table for 3 days beforehand. Mr Chairperson, had that happened, had that process been followed, you would be absolutely correct in asserting that members should follow to the letter the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings in this respect, but that is not able to happen, because the bill was dropped on Opposition members. We are trying to construct our arguments as best we are able given the limited amount of time we have had.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Musterer—Green): I would like it to be understood that I for one had a few points left pertaining specifically to Part 1. I was going through it clause by clause, and I had a little bit left that I wanted to put into the debate. Mr Chairperson, I ask your indulgence that either we return to Part 1 or in the debate on Part 2 I am free to return to one or two clauses in Part 1 to register my points.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I respond to that member. I noted that in his presentation to the Committee he focused specifically on the bill clause by clause, and I was going to commend him for being one of the few speakers who did that and extrapolated wider points. I thought that was very good. I say to the Hon Darren Hughes that, yes, he is correct; generally there is latitude and a wider brief is given when a bill has not been referred to a select committee. The point I would make to him, in rebuttal, is that we were debating Part 1, which is a very technical part.

Hon Ruth Dyson: The purpose.

Hon RICK BARKER: The purpose, yes. I have read the purpose clause, and a lot of it is very technical. Part 2 is quite substantial, and I expect the Chair to be more cognisant of the fact that there is a wider range of issues on that point. I also make the point that speakers referred to Part 3 very often; that was a substantial part of the debate. Had they done so in passing, there would have been no problem. I just make the point that we have had a little dispute about the hours, but we are going to continue the discussion and we will now focus on Part 2. No doubt there will be a focused and wide-ranging debate, as people want, within that context, with some generosity on the Chair’s part.

Part 2 Replacement of governing body of ECan

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill provides for the appointment of commissioners for the important functions in Canterbury. I point out specifically such provisions as clause 21, which puts quite onerous consultation requirements on the commissioners.

The main reason I take a call is to engage with Kennedy Graham, who made a thoughtful contribution around the issue of the commissioners and their functions. He rightly pointed out that under the Resource Management Act I, as the Minister for the Environment, have the power, under section 25(1), to appoint commissioners to take over all or some of the resource management functions. I also endorse the remarks made by the member that the Government’s real concerns—and I think they are widely held—are around water management in Canterbury. We have a big challenge there.

He asked why the Government has chosen not to use those section 25(1) powers and appoint commissioners to get on top of those issues in the area of water, rather than use the provisions that are in Part 2, whereby the commissioners will take over all of the functions of Environment Canterbury. That is a good question, and I will respond to it. The great difficulty is that if I use those powers, effectively I will have a set of commissioners in charge of Environment Canterbury as well as the elected council. My advice, and the advice from Environment Canterbury itself, was that it would be very difficult to splice out of Environment Canterbury these all-important water functions. We could end up in the worst world, which is almost a two-headed monster. Nobody would be sure who was in charge.

If there is agreement on anything around the water issues in Canterbury, I think it is that clear and strategic leadership is required. I am not satisfied, nor were the key parties that I consulted, that using those section 25(1) powers—for which the threshold to use them has clearly been met—would get us on top of the issue. In fact, it would make it worse. But I equally challenge Kennedy Graham in this respect. He and his colleague Sue Kedgley have given an impassioned plea that it is an affront to democracy to have these commissioners. Yet in his speech he said it would be fine for me to use my powers to appoint commissioners to take over the water functions. There is a logical inconsistency there. He says that it is OK for the Minister to use powers provided for in law at the moment for those commissioners to take over the most contentious and difficult issues in Canterbury, which concern water. He would support that, and he would recognise that it was a good step forward. Yet he says that to do it this way is wrong. I think there is a serious logical inconsistency in the Greens’ position in that regard.

As Rodney Hide said yesterday, the Government has taken these provisions reluctantly. But this is the right way forward. I say to members—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: That’s exactly what the Minister wanted.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Lianne Dalziel has interjected. It is always interesting that when one cannot play the ball, one plays the man. When Labour members cannot respond to the substantive issues, they choose to go into the area of personal denigration. Whether it be in terms of—

Hon Darren Hughes: About whom?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: For instance, Wyatt Creech.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: What did I say? I said he had a conflict of interest, that’s all.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The members went a lot further than that. I point out to the ranting members of the Labour Party that this report has been prepared by four people: Wyatt Creech, Doug Martin of MartinJenkins, Greg Hill, and Doug Low of Morrison Low.

Hon Darren Hughes: Who was the leader of the group?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The chair was Wyatt Creech. Did members on our side of the Chamber choose to be heavily party political when Mike Moore was appointed to roles, when Helen Clark was appointed to roles, and when a whole number of former Labour MPs have been appointed to roles? I really think it says something about the quality of the roles from members on Labour’s benches that they want to play the personality game. They play the personality game because they are not prepared to confront the substantive issues. Those substantive issues are that we need clear direction from Government around water management. The provisions in this part show this Government providing something that has been required for many, many years: clear leadership around water management.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): I am very pleased to speak to Part 2. Before I do so, I would like to note an issue that has come to my attention that relates to the bill in its entirety. If the Chair will indulge me for a moment, I will refer to the title. The title of the bill is the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The advice to me is that Environment Canterbury is in fact the regional council’s trading name; it is not its legal identity. The legal identity for this organisation is the Canterbury Regional Council. I put it to the Committee and the Minister that this bill is inappropriately named. At the very least, this is sloppy drafting, but I suspect—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 2. There is a debate very specifically on the short title of the bill. The procedure is long established that we debate Parts 1, 2, and 3, and then the last debate is on the short title. I would welcome a debate around the points the member has raised, but they are outside the debate on Part 2 that the Committee is currently having.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I understand the Minister’s point, but my concern in the earlier point of order was that I wished to address that point under Part 1, pertaining to clause 4, and was denied the chance to do so.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I do not need any further assistance. I say to the Minister that I think he is unnecessarily finessing the point. As I understood it, Brendon Burns was referring to the title because it related to aspects of Part 2, which he is perfectly entitled to do. Yes, he can talk about the title and so on later, but he was addressing it in the context of Part 2. I invite Brendon Burns to continue.

BRENDON BURNS: I am of course talking about Part 2 of a bill entitled the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We know from that title that there are questions around what the bill will do in terms of temporary commissioners, what the bill might or might not do to improve water management, and now we have serious questions about whether the bill is legally appropriate. I will move from that point, but we will come back to that issue in the debate on the short title a little later.

I note clause 12, and I say I have amendments in my name to the clauses within this part relating to the appointment of commissioners. The provisions in these clauses will give powers to the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment to amend the terms of reference for those commissioners “at any time”. That removes any scrutiny by Parliament or by any other body, and it removes any input from the people whose affairs are being managed by the commissioners. I put it to the Minister, who indicated there will be from five to seven commissioners, that if one or more of them starts to take a line that is deemed to be unacceptable to the Government, the Government will have the power to remove them, again without any reference. That reinforces the autocratic—the Fijian—style of decision making that this bill embodies. It gives absolute power to the Government to remove commissioners who do not toe the line. It gives back to the Government absolute power in respect of all of the decisions around Canterbury, not just in terms of its water but in terms of all of the functions that Environment Canterbury currently has and holds. Those are important functions, and they are not just limited to water.

We have, for instance, starting in 2 days’ time an absolute ban on open fires being put in place across Christchurch. That will now become the function of commissioners. I say that Environment Canterbury has broadly done a very good job of improving the air quality of Canterbury under the way that those councillors are elected, as opposed to commissioners, which Part 2 proposes to install. Will the commissioners continue to do the good job that Environment Canterbury has done in terms of improving the air quality of Christchurch from the point where it was the worst in New Zealand, and arguably in parts of the Western World, to being a city with a very good air quality?

There are real questions around the capacity of the commissioners to do the job envisaged for them, when the Ministers have an absolute right to remove them from office or to change the terms of reference, and there will not be any scrutiny of that power. Those amendments can happen at any time by executive fiat, by ministerial decree, without any reference or even notification to Parliament or to the people of Canterbury

Paul Quinn: That’s better; very nice.

BRENDON BURNS: Part 2 absolutely enshrines the power being put in a very small set of hands. Mr Quinn might like to see that kind of thing happen, and maybe his area of the Hutt Valley will be next to have this kind of situation imposed upon it—on its voters and its people.

Sue Kedgley: Auckland was first.

BRENDON BURNS: If Auckland was first and Canterbury is to be second, you can bet your life that Wellington will be next in line—

Paul Quinn: Aw!

BRENDON BURNS: Wellington will be next in line, and if it happens in the same way that it has happened in Canterbury, Mr Quinn will not be pleased, although he might maintain a public face.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): First off, in speaking to Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, I make one comment in response to the comments of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, which he addressed to me. Then, I hope, I will have a chance later to make further comments on Part 2. I was just about to say how regrettable it was that the Minister had left the Chamber, so it is very good to have him back, because we can engage in a dialogue on this, I think. In response to the Minister, who believed that he had detected an illogicality in what I had been saying, I reassure him that—

David Garrett: Surely not!

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: No, I think not. I thank the member for that. As far as I can determine, the Green Party does not have an illogical position. Our position is this, as I was saying at the time that I spoke to Part 1. Responding to the bill as it is drafted, and understanding the intention of the Government—and particularly the Minister—to clear up water management as it sees best, there could have been another way. There could have been a way that a particular commission could have handled water, and the councillors could have continued. That was one of the recommendations, was it not? I understand, from the Minister’s intervention, the reasons why he did not proceed down that route. I do not necessarily agree, but I understand why he did not do it. It is not an illogicality on our part to seek to offer the possibility of another way to go.

It is not the Green Party’s preferred way, but it is not the case that there would necessarily be confusion between a commission and the councillors. Dear Lord, we have a New Zealand Cabinet with 20 or 22 portfolios! They are delineated; to some extent they overlap. We understand there has to be give and take between Cabinet Ministers in Cabinet. It does not follow that there is chaos and confusion reigning supreme. It would not necessarily follow with Environment Canterbury, either.

But the main point is that if we are looking at the logicality of the Green Party’s position, it is this: the Government should never have gone down the route of disbanding an elected regional council, because that strikes at the heart of local democracy. If a Government does that, it unleashes a tiger, especially in a country, as I said in the second reading debate, where our constitution is more fragile than we like to acknowledge. The Green Party would have preferred the council to have continued as the elected body, with its proper mandate, for the proper term.

How might we have cleared up the imperfections of water management? We would have given the council the extra powers that the Government is now giving to an non-appointed body that at least the chief executive, and the council, I believe, had requested 4 years ago. [Interruption] It is the height of illogicality, if we are addressing the point of illogicality, I say to Mr Garrett, that the Government should proceed to disband a council, then set up an unelected body and give it the powers that the council should have had in the first place. So our point is that the Government should never have gone down this route in the first place. If there were major problems of water management, it could have appointed advisers—Dame Bazley or others—to assist, and it could have given the council the powers to do the job.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to speak to Part 2, “Replacement of governing body of ECan”. I am rather concerned about the way the Government has referred to some of its own actions in the past—or some of our actions in the past—without mentioning the most obvious one.

Part 2 goes through the technical details of the replacement of Environment Canterbury. I will talk about the amount of notice, essentially, that people are being given in respect of what is happening with their roles. We got about a month’s notice to the elected members of Environment Canterbury, which reminds me of the approach that an earlier National Government took when it sacked overnight every member of every area health board during the urgency that followed the Budget that even the then Minister of Finance described as the “mother of all Budgets”. I was in Parliament at that time and I recall the debate incredibly clearly, because I knew people who were on area health boards across the political spectrum from a range of different political backgrounds. Many of them had budgeted for the fact that they were undertaking that work as elected members of the area health board. They had no idea that this was going to happen, and, as a result, a number of people had resigned permanent positions and full-time jobs in order to devote their energy and attention to their work on the area health board. Then completely out of the blue they were all sacked.

There was the rather strange situation where the Government of the day and the Hon Simon Upton—I remember this as if it were yesterday, because I feel a sense of déjà vu with what is happening here—at the same time as the 1991 Budget released a green and white paper on health that signalled the most radical reform in health this country had ever seen. Before the consultation had even begun, National had decided that elected members would have no part in the future of New Zealand’s health system.

It is a bit ironic, really—we are not allowed to use other words in this Chamber—that we heard the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, ask the Hon Ruth Dyson and myself where we were when Helen Clark sacked the Auckland Area Health Board. We said that we were not in Parliament. He said that it was not relevant, because anything that happened before one arrived in this Parliament did not count. He asked us where we were. Well, we were not here, so I do not know what sort of answer he expected to elicit from that response. He was not in Parliament either, because he was elected the same year I was, and probably recalls these debates very, very clearly as well. That was the longest period of time that Parliament had been in urgency. In fact, we were called back the following Monday, and it was the first time since the Second World War that Parliament had sat on a Monday. So we have had this situation before.

How is this relevant to Part 2? I refer members to clause 9, “Elected members cease to hold office on close of day before replacement day”. It states that “(1) On the close of the day before the replacement day, the elected members of ECan then holding office (the ‘elected members’) cease to hold office. (2) This section applies no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say. (3) An elected member is not entitled to any compensation or other payment or benefit for the loss of office.” That is pretty much exactly the clause that went into the health amendments that came around during the course of the urgency debate after the 1991 Budget was presented to Parliament. An elected member’s not being entitled to any compensation or other payment or benefit for the loss of office caused problems from one end of the country to the other. People had relied on having an income from the role they had been playing on their district health board. I am not sure of the circumstances of the individual members of Environment Canterbury, but to get 1 month’s notice that the position they have been democratically elected to hold is being cancelled cannot be anything other than a breach of natural justice. It is important that we debate these issues, because people’s interests are being affected by the way this legislation is being worked through.

We come to the question of timing. What timing does this bill sets out? It states: “The responsible Ministers”—well, “The irresponsible Ministers” might have been a good amendment for that clause—“must determine the replacement day and give notice of it—(a) in the Gazette; and (b) to the elected members of ECan.” We heard from the Minister yesterday that we are looking at 1 May for the replacement day. That is kind of an ironic day because, of course, it is International Workers’ Day. Although these people are not employees of Environment Canterbury in any way, shape, or form, they might have made commitments based on the income they have been receiving. That does not seem to faze the Minister whatsoever. In fact, as I understand it, the Government will pay the commissioners significantly more than Environment Canterbury councillors are being paid, because they will be employed on a commission, as opposed to being elected to represent the democratic interests of the Canterbury region.

I will also talk about the timing in terms of how long this measure lasts for. The 2010 election for members of Environment Canterbury is deferred by clause 22, and members of Environment Canterbury elected at the next election come into office on the resumption day. The resumption day—that was the word I was looking for—relates to the period at which this measure is overturned, or the 2013 election of local bodies, whichever comes first. The problem is that I suspect the reason for this time frame is that the Government has decided to defer the decision it has already made to cancel regional government in Canterbury, and, I personally believe, to cancel regional Government across New Zealand, as we saw with the super-city in Auckland. This is really a forerunner to what is about to happen right across the country.

The Government does not want that to be an election issue next year for the general election, and I believe that is why this particular process has been chosen. If we honestly took this bill out to a broad, consultative process that included this bill’s going to a select committee, those councillors who put themselves up for election could have their say. Whether I agree with their politics or not, I admire people who are prepared to put themselves forward for some of these roles. Sometimes performing a role for Environment Canterbury can be a bit of a thankless task. It has a reputation—a lot of anecdote has driven the report, as I have already referred to once in this Chamber—and that makes it hard for people to take on these particular roles. In this particular case, the Government has not allowed those people to have a public say. They should be able to be held to account within their own constituencies. A select committee should be meeting down in Canterbury now and travelling throughout the region, letting those who stood for election and who were successful in that regard have their say about what has really gone on in this particular case. Maybe the individual councils could be asked to debate the issues as councils, rather than the mayors and chief executives being the only ones who are entitled to express an opinion in respect of what is appropriate in terms of our regional democracy.

That is what I keep coming back to. I honestly believe that the Government has deliberately made this decision at this time. It has used the urgency motion, cloaked the bill in secrecy up until this point, and simply allowed for a ramming through of a process that destroys regional democracy in the Canterbury region. I believe that this is a promise of things to come, and that this Government has made a decision. Unfortunately the Minister of Local Government has not yet taken a call on this bill today. I am hoping that he will get up and take a call on it, because it is vitally important to democracy in New Zealand.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The previous Chairperson, the Hon Rick Barker, asked us to be very focused in our comments on this part, and it is extremely easy to be focused on Part 2, because it is the heart of the bill. This is where the coup d’état takes place. Part 2 is called “Replacement of governing body of ECan”. This is where we strip the 14 democratically elected councillors of their powers. As a previous speaker has pointed out, it would be an illegal act to do so, because there is no statutory basis for doing so. This bill is making legal what would be an illegal act: namely, replacing the 14 democratically elected councillors of Canterbury.

Hon Member: Rubbish.

SUE KEDGLEY: Some of my National colleagues are saying “Rubbish”, but that is the truth. The Minister acknowledged yesterday in a briefing to Opposition members that there was no statutory basis to get rid of these 14 democratically elected councillors, so he had to use this bill to do it.

The other extraordinary thing about this part is that it gives the politically appointed commissioners, who will be there to implement the will of the Minister, the powers that the democratically elected councillors have been begging for for years. What is also extremely interesting in this part is that the terms of reference for the commissioners are not in this bill. This is the critical thing: what will their terms of reference be? What will they be up to? It is not spelt out. It is just left to the Minister, after the bill has been rammed through Parliament, to decide on the terms of reference. The reason is that he does not want us or the people of Canterbury to know ahead of time what the terms of reference will be.

As the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has said, this is a bill to fast track the building of dams in Canterbury. That is what it is all about. I predict that one of the terms of reference will be to facilitate the building of dams in Canterbury. By giving terms of reference such as these, the two Ministers will basically be able to implement their agenda. I make it absolutely clear that the purpose of this bill and the replacement of the democratically elected councillors with commissioners is to ram through the building of dams. The councillors were sacked basically because they were getting in the way of agribusiness and irrigation companies. They were annoyed because Environment Canterbury was getting in the way. It was stopping some of their big water projects. Just as Bainimarama found that democracy was an obstacle to the implementation of his plans in Fiji, this Government has also found that the democratically elected councillors were an obstacle in the way of implementing their irrigation plans, so it has abolished democracy in Canterbury.

The other thing, of course, is that at any time the Minister for the Environment may amend the terms of reference for the commissioners. At any time, with no reference to democracy or to this Parliament, the Minister can change the terms of reference for the commissioners. If the commissioners do not do exactly the Minister’s bidding, then they can be got rid of under the provisions in this part of the bill. They can be dispensed with if, for any reason, they do not completely implement the Minister’s agenda.

The Minister accused us all of being hysterical, in his earlier intervention. That is the Government’s favourite word. It said that Opposition members are hysterical over mining, they are hysterical over this bill, and they are hysterical in everything that they do. The Government must think that everyone in New Zealand is hysterical. But we are not hysterical—we are simply angry. Did the Minister really expect us to sit politely by, to yawn, and to say: “Oh well, never mind. We are just getting rid of another layer of democracy in New Zealand.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I wish to make only a very brief contribution on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, but I was very taken aback by the words of wisdom from Sue Kedgley, who has just resumed her seat. She said that this bill is so outrageous that it makes legal what would otherwise be illegal. Well, I have to advise the member that actually every single bill this Parliament passes is intended to make legal what would otherwise be illegal. I advise the member that that is the very business of this Parliament. Her words of outrage, saying that things would be illegal if we did not pass this bill, were quite an extraordinary contribution.

The second point I challenge the member on is her comment that the whole of the Government’s agenda is about Environment Canterbury’s stopping big projects in Canterbury from happening. Well, I ask the member which big projects she is talking about and what is stopping them. The truth is that Environment Canterbury has no plans for water. Eighteen years after the passage of the Resource Management Act, we still do not have a resource management plan for water in Canterbury. I ask members on both sides of the Chamber, regardless of whether they come from a development perspective or an environmental perspective, how the interests of New Zealand are served by not having a plan. I ask whether it is really the position of the Green Party and members opposite that we do not need a plan for water in Canterbury.

I make absolutely no apologies, nor do my Government colleagues and the parties that support us, for saying that the issue of water in Canterbury is critical. We need to put a plan in place. The regional council has had 18 years, and it has not done it. It is time for the Government to take a lead, and that is why we have this bill.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour): I will take a different angle in Part 2 of this “Democratic Outrage Bill”. The Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, knows this story very well. I will relate it to clause 13 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, “Amendment of terms of reference for commissioners”, which states that the power to amend the terms of reference at any time is a ministerial power.

I refer the Minister and others in the Chamber to a different approach that was taken by Labour in 2002 with regard to the quality of water in Rotorua’s lakes. At that time the then Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, could have done the same thing. She could have brought in the “Rotorua (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill”, but she did not. We had dysfunction between the regional council, which was the equivalent of Environment Canterbury—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who was the Minister for the Environment who crunched the money?

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: —well, the member must hang on a minute, as I am getting to that—and the local body. All the non-governmental organisations were concerned that the water of Lake Rotorua and our other 14 lakes in the Rotorua area was being degraded. A delegation made up of the chair of the regional council, the then Mayor of Rotorua, Grahame Hall, and a representative of the local iwi, Ānaru Rangiheuea, came to see Minister Marian Hobbs, and the Minister told those people to get their act together. She told them to get a water plan and come back to central government, and if she did not see improvements, then she would act.

I agree with this Minister for the Environment that the Minister has the power at any time in Government to bring in legislation, but this legislation is a democratic outrage. Thank goodness Labour did not go that way. What did we do? Minister Marian Hobbs set up terms of reference on how a steering group would proceed to clean up Rotorua’s lakes, and we knew then that it was a 20-year journey. It is not a quick fix. This commission will not be able to fix up Canterbury’s water overnight. I think it is appalling that councillors will not be democratically elected at the local elections this year; Canterbury will have to wait until 2013. It is an insult to democratically elected councillors.

In 2002 we set up a water quality group for Rotorua’s lakes. It was chaired by the mayor. It was not easy, but he took leadership at that time. He worked as one of the three legs of the stool, with the regional council and with iwi, as the Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group. They all sat at the table, and at that time we fixed up the ownership of Rotorua’s lakes. Issues keep on cropping up that give us concern about our lakes’ water quality, and I have suggested to the mayor that he should bring in Nick Smith to fix it. But now I would tell him not to do that, as Nick Smith might say that it is not being fixed up fast enough and that the Government will appoint commissioners. The Government might go trigger-happy over democracy. Instead of working through the issue in a long-term, sustainable water quality improvement plan, it might change all those democratically elected representatives, put in commissioners, and think that that will fix it.

With regard to clause 13, the terms of reference are not even public knowledge. I think that the provision in clause 13 is an absolute outrage. The clause states that the terms of reference will be published. They should be worked out by all those who are contributing and who will fix the problem over time. We have our water quality group in Rotorua. It represents the elected representatives, who have the expertise in certain matters, as is stipulated in clause 14. They understand organisational change. I have heard the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, state that Labour did zip about water quality improvement in this country. I do not accept that. We worked for 7 years to bring in $70 million to fix up our lakes. The Minister can say at any time that that money from the Crown will stop if the water quality group does not achieve an outcome of improved water quality, and I think that is a very powerful tool.

I say to members of the Rotorua group to bring in the Minister if they are arguing about the lake levels or resource consent processes. I tell them to bring in the Minister, as he has the power to do something about the allocation of funding, and he will do something. However, this bill is an outrage.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. I will make a small contribution following on a little from the Hon Steve Chadwick, the previous speaker, in respect of, firstly, the issue of water, and, secondly, the issue of Māori representation in decision making. There is no doubt that water is a major issue for Māori. It has been discussed at the Iwi Leadership Group and in our own forums. We have said to the Minister for the Environment that any discussions about this bill that would possibly jeopardise the bigger discussion with regard to water need to be taken off the table, because the substantive issue about the ownership of water will need some time to be considered seriously, and although this issue is solely about Canterbury, issues about the governance and management of water are something that we definitely want to be involved with.

Clearly, Māori have a position on water issues, and although we might operate at different levels at this point in time—for example, the bill that will be coming to the House in a couple of weeks’ time in respect of Waikato-Tainui about co-management and other issues is one line—in my own case, and in my own iwi, I tell members that we take a straight-up-and-down line that we own the water that comes out of our land. These are the sorts of things that probably need to have some greater debate, down the line.

We know that it is a serious issue, because the previous Labour Government ended up giving back the lake beds to Rotorua, as the Hon Steve Chadwick said, but without any water in them. But that is an issue that Te Arawa will indeed follow up at a point in time—possibly, even by asking the Crown to pay out for the storage of the water in our lake for the time since the settlement went through. But I will cross that bridge down the line, when our trust board possibly puts that to the Government at some point.

It is clear that Māori want to have a say about water, but at this point in time, unfortunately, systems like local bodies, and sometimes even Parliament, do not necessarily allow for that input to come through. The system does not necessarily allow that to come through, but the Māori Party takes a view that relationships to local bodies are about a Treaty relationship that we take seriously. We suggest that in that Treaty relationship, any decisions are all about both parties coming to agreement through discussion, and obviously the right of veto of one party over the other is an important issue. It is about the views we present as a Māori Party, and we would hope that Māori partners, through sitting next to the Treaty partner on local bodies, or as commissioners or otherwise, have an important statement to make. We have asked the Minister, in respect of that, about a Treaty relationship in the bigger picture down the line, and specifically we have placed that issue with him about this and water. We hope that he has taken that on board.

We look towards Treaty relationships as being a way that might advance Māori aspirations and understanding about the importance of water. With regard to our feedback from Ngāi Tahu, we understand that up until this point they have not necessarily had the ability to make real inroads in the decision making around water. As the Minister has already said, Ngāi Tahu are reluctantly moving to support the passage of this bill. But there is the issue in respect of representation, and Ngāi Tahu have expressed frustration at their lack of involvement.

We have been given assurances from the Minister that Ngāi Tahu will have a position in and around the commission, and at the table, and although having possibly just one position is not the beginning and ending of everything, two points are to be made: firstly, we have a position that is important; and, secondly, we should not believe that just having a position by itself represents the sole Māori view. In fact, we have expertise throughout Māoridom that could come into that commission, to provide valuable input. So just one person should not be relied on to give the Māori input. But the good thing, as I say, is that the Minister is recognising the importance of having tangata whenua involvement in water. It would have been really good for the Hon Rodney Hide if he had seen this issue in terms of the Auckland super-city proposal, but obviously he did not.

I will close by saying that the discussion at our caucus was about what happens after the commission has completed its term in 3 or 4 years’ time, having given its position and worked through all of the issues in respect of water that have been debated throughout the last day and a little bit. What will happen afterwards? Does it mean that, OK, we will go back to democratically elected positions? Well, maybe we will, and that has been the subject of debate throughout the last day or so. But my point to the Minister, and certainly from our caucus, is that having set the precedent for allowing Ngāi Tahu, as an example, to have input into the decision-making process at least through the commission, that line should be maintained after the end of the commission’s time by allowing it a position in the decision-making process, as of right, and outlined against the Treaty responsibilities and the Treaty perspective.

We hope that as we move through—let us complete the time, yes, but after that, we want to see Māori participation. Because basically, it ain’t going to happen by simply believing that the democratic process will deliver a Māori input, just as it has not happened in the past in Canterbury. That ain’t gonna happen—not in Canterbury. So we are looking at having set positions in those councils, to ensure that the Māori input, which is important in terms of a perspective about water, and other things, is heard and given, and is allowed to contribute in the best interests of the community.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): I will speak to clauses 12, 13, and 14 in Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. They show some very disturbing tendencies in this Government’s approach to local government, and they reflect many of the elements that we have debated and identified in Auckland over recent months—in fact, over the last year or so.

Clause 12, on the appointment of commissioners, shows there is a distinct lack of transparency in the legislation, with the terms of reference for the commissioners to be determined by the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment, with no scrutiny by Parliament. Under clause 13 the terms of reference are able to be amended “at any time” by the Ministers. So the provisions give the Ministers, who were referred to by councillor Jo Kane as “Jekyll and Hide” in the now-famous Timaru Herald story, complete carte blanche to determine the terms of reference for the commissioners. That is very, very reminiscent of the kind of approach that Rodney Hide and Steven Joyce are taking in Auckland. They are appointing all of the first round of directors to all the council-controlled organisations, so they will be controlling 75 percent of the assets of the new Auckland Council. It is a heavy-handed approach, which has no regard whatsoever for democratic accountability or for the important role that Parliament plays in scrutinising these sorts of appointments.

Clause 13 gives the Ministers the ability to amend the terms of reference “at any time”, and the unrestricted power in clause 17(3), allows that “The responsible Ministers may in their complete discretion remove a commissioner by written notice at any time.” Well, this is Government by fiat; this is where our democracy has got to. Nick Smith and Rodney Hide will basically run a puppet show in Canterbury, to make damn sure that they get what they want and run their agenda through. The commissioners will be on a very short leash, and the Ministers will be pulling the strings to make sure that they get the kinds of outcomes that they are looking for in water management in Canterbury.

Clause 14 states that the commissioners must have collective knowledge and expertise, and requires them to have knowledge and expertise in “organisational change”. There are no requirements for them to have any knowledge of science, because as we know the regional council has been science-led rather than science-informed, and it would be a very dangerous thing if the commissioners were led by science! I find that remarkable, given this Minister’s many, many statements in this House about the importance of good science. I have heard him say that on a number of issues in my short time in this Chamber. It is clear that the Ministers think that the council has not given sufficient weight to economic matters, and when we read this bill we find that the kind of direction in which this Government, under its hand-picked commissioners, will push Environment Canterbury is also pretty clear.

The other disturbing element is clause 14(1)(b), which requires the commissioners to have knowledge and expertise not in science but in “fresh water management”. I ask who will be dealing with the other very important responsibilities of the district council over the next 3½ years. As members will know, public transport and regional transport planning are key responsibilities of the Canterbury Regional Council, so who will be responsible for ensuring good governance of the regional transport strategy? Environment Canterbury has led some very impressive gains, actually, in public transport. Under Environment Canterbury’s management of public passenger transport, there has been a steady growth in patronage, a coordination of services, the tendering of contracts, and a record 17.5 million public passenger trips made across the region in the year to June 2009. That is impressive by anyone’s standards, and under Environment Canterbury’s management Christchurch was the first city in Australasia to achieve integrated planning.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Firstly, I will continue to respond to the Minister for the Environment from where I was when I was interrupted last time. The Minister knows full well that there is a process under the Local Government Act by which a democratically elected council can be replaced, but a number of steps have to be gone through. It has to be proved that the democratically elected council is dysfunctional, etc. The Minister brought in his mate Wyatt Creech and gave him the instruction to try to denigrate the council and a clear mandate to try to undermine Environment Canterbury, but unfortunately Mr Creech was not able to deliver, which must have been very disappointing for the Minister. He did not enable the Minister to say that the council was dysfunctional, so he did not enable him to take the steps under the Local Government Act to get rid of the councillors. Whacking this bill through circumvents what should be due process under the Local Government Act.

It was also interesting, when the Minister was rebutting various comments, that one of the comments he did not seek to rebut was my prediction that the regional council in Canterbury would never be reinstated. It will never be reinstated, because the Government has an agenda to get rid of all of the regional councils around New Zealand. The bill states in clause 23(1): “The members of ECan elected at the next election come into office on the resumption day.”, but that clause will never be activated, because those members will never come into being. It is interesting, as the co-leader of the Greens Russel Norman said last night, that this is so similar to what is happening in Fiji, which we all thump the table about in this Chamber. Bainimarama said he was just going to abolish democracy for a little wee while, but he would bring it back later. This is what this bill is saying. It is going to get rid of 14 democratically elected councillors and replace them with unelected and unaccountable commissioners—just for a wee while. Actually, folks, it will be for ever, because the Government is not about to bring them back.

The other point I was making is that the terms of reference here are completely unknown. I guarantee that these terms of reference will be written up. As official information papers will reveal, they will be already written up; it is just that the Minister does not want us or Canterbury people to know. The terms of reference could be anything. They could say “We will build roads only in Canterbury. We will get rid of public transport. We want you to facilitate the building of dams.” They could say anything; we do not know.

The other point is that this is another example of how central government—and this is a very sinister development—is dictating what happens at the local government level. The cornerstone of local government is that locally elected representatives decide on what happens at the local level. Under this bill, not only does the Minister get to appoint his political buddies as the commissioners but also he gives them very explicit instructions. So we now have a second example of central government dictating to local government and undermining the whole principle of local government. We have this in Auckland, and now we have it in Canterbury. In Auckland, for the first time ever, central government is dictating how many council-controlled organisations will be established in Auckland, and who will be on them. In every single other council in New Zealand it is up to the local council to decide whether it wants to have council-controlled organisations and, if so, who will be on them. But this Government is directly intervening and dictating to local government. That is what is happening here: it is dictating to the commissioners what they will do, what their agenda will be, and how they will meet the Minister’s wishes. This is very sinister. This is a coup d’état.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): The Minister for the Environment, in introducing Part 2, “Replacement of governing body of ECan”, said he had made the decision to appoint commissioners very reluctantly. That sort of suggests that there were some viable options for him to consider, and I would like to know what those options were.

Part 2 of the bill really goes to the crux of what we are debating and what this measure is all about. It is about replacing legally elected political representatives with people who will be appointed by the responsible Ministers: the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government. Clause 7 sets out the technicalities of appointing commissioners. The commissioners will be political appointments. They will be accountable to the Ministers only; they will not be accountable to the public of the Canterbury region. The public will not have a say, or be able to have a say, in the decisions that that political body will be making. In many ways, it will be very similar to what we have with regard to the Auckland Transition Agency in the Auckland region. Aucklanders are now up in arms that we have political appointees working behind the scenes and responding to the Minister’s wishes and will, and that the public is left out of those decisions.

I would say that every citizen of Canterbury ought to be angry because of the significant change that will come about as a result of this Government imposing its will on the people of the Canterbury region. This is the kind of action that just turns people off politicians. It gives politicians a bad name, because often what the public will see is that when politicians get a little bit of power, it goes to their heads. And then what do they do? They impose their will on the people who elected them there.

But, more important, the responsible Ministers are taking away local council representation that was elected in 2007. Furthermore, this Government will not even allow the people of Canterbury to elect their representatives this year. So for the next while the Government will dictate to the people of Canterbury its will, and it will dictate to the people of Canterbury what it wants to do with regard to the environment of Canterbury.

Clause 8 provides for the replacement day, so the Government is to determine when the elected members will be replaced. Clause 9 is the significant clause, in my view. It removes the elected members of Environment Canterbury who are holding office. This is the significant change, and I ask the Minister whether he consulted with the people of Canterbury about doing that. Was any widespread consultation undertaken similar to what was undertaken in Auckland, where the royal commission took 18 months and consulted with people throughout that region? I would say there was not, but I would like to hear whether that was an option for the Minister and what his reason was for not undertaking it. I have a letter here from councillor Eugenie Sage, who writes: “The Creech report is based on a 3-week review in November 2009—interviews with less than 20 stakeholders.” There were interviews with fewer than 20 stakeholders out of a population of 500,000-plus.

We have to ask ourselves what the reason was for not undertaking broad-based consultation. It sends some really strong messages: firstly, that the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, thinks he knows better than to do that; secondly, that he thinks the officials elected by the people of Canterbury have no brains of their own with which to make political decisions; and, thirdly, that he thinks the 500,000-plus people of Canterbury, many of whom would have voted for National, are people of no significance whatsoever and should not have a say. The Minister Nick Smith and the Minister of Local Government think they know better than those people, and that is what they are saying.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): I will make a few comments about clause 14 to start with, and then I will move away from there. Yesterday, when the Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, had us up in the fifth floor meeting room to tell us about the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, he said that if we knew of anyone who would be useful, we could put a name forward. That did not sound like Dr Smith’s usually very honourable pattern, but some people come to mind.

If we look at it, we see that those people have to have organisational change. In respect of water management and local authority governance and management, two names spring to mind straight away. First of all there is Bob Harvey, who will not be Mayor of Waitakere City any more. He has more experience as mayor than anyone. The Minister should have a really good, close look at Bob Harvey, because he has wide knowledge and would probably most generously help the people of Canterbury. The second person is also a mayor in the Auckland region, with vast experience in water matters: Andrew Williams. Only this week we heard about his expertise in water matters—irrigation of just a single tree, but it is a start! I think he should be considered.

The problem is that the Minister of Local Government must support him as well. That would show us who the real boss is, whether it is the Hon Dr Nick Smith or the Hon Rodney Hide. You see, the people in Auckland who will have their jobs taken from them without any say will have a certain amount of feeling for the people of Canterbury. They will understand what it is like when all of a sudden they are ridden roughshod over.

It is interesting to look at the sort of people who will put their names forward. I now nominate a National member. My friends who sit around me think I am too close to National at times, but I put forward the name of the Rt Hon Jim Bolger. He would be ideal. He was too busy before.

Jo Goodhew: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although entertaining, this speech is straying somewhat. But I am happy if this is an indication that the debate is drawing to a close.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for her comments. Mr Hawkins is specifically referring to clause 14; he said that at the beginning [Interruption]. I am on my feet. Although there was a little bit of light banter and light humour—I have no difficulty with that—the member knows that it is a very limited debate and I am sure he will talk about Environment Canterbury and clause 14, which he has mentioned.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: That point of order shows that National members have not read the bill; otherwise they would know what is in clause 14. That clause is very, very important.

As I was saying, I think Jim Bolger—he has the time now, because he will not be running KiwiRail—could be running the water management in Canterbury. It may flow even better than his friends seem to.

I also say that it is very important how much the commissioners will be paid. The ratepayers of Canterbury will be footing the bill, but they will have no say. They will be putting up the money so that the commissioners can be paid, but there will be no representation from where the money is coming from. I think most people in New Zealand think it is fair that if they pay, they have a say. That is fundamental. It is what happens in New Zealand. If we look at clause 18, we see that Joe Bloggs and other people from Canterbury will not have a say over how much the commissioners get paid and who will pay them. People in Canterbury will open their wallets and see that money is being plucked out by Nick Smith and Rodney Hide without their having a say.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I intend to speak on clauses 9 to 22, starting with clause 9, and in particular the reference made to the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act. Clause 9(2) states: “This section applies no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say.” It was not so long ago that we had National members railing in this Chamber against any change to electoral laws without bipartisan support. But it appears that that applies only at the national level, and at the local government level the Government can do whatever it likes. If it does not like the decisions being made by local authorities, then it will just ride roughshod over the electoral laws that govern those local authorities, and do whatever it likes.

Clause 9(2) overrides the Local Electoral Act and it does not have bipartisan support. At least two parties in this Parliament have spoken very strongly against it, yet nobody from National is willing to stand up and say why he or she thinks the democratic rights of people with regard to their local authorities should receive a lesser amount of importance and attention than their democratic rights to elect their nationwide Government. It creates two tiers of government in New Zealand, one tier being clearly subordinate to the other. It says that once a nationwide Government is elected, the nationwide Government can completely override the democratically elected local authorities.

We have seen this twice in this House under this National Government already. We saw it with the Auckland super-city where under urgency the Government effectively sacked all of the Auckland local authorities and replaced them with the Auckland Transition Agency. All stages of the legislation were passed straight through under urgency, with no chance for the public to have a say, and no chance for the people whose roles were affected by that decision to have a say, and that is exactly what we are seeing here. Through clause 9(2) in particular, the Government is completely overriding local electoral law and installing a new regime that it will totally and utterly control. Democracy at a local government level in Canterbury, with regard to what was previously Environment Canterbury, is now dead. There is no democracy there. It will be ultimately controlled by the Ministers.

Clause 13 states: “The responsible Ministers may at any time amend the terms of reference for the commissioners …”. At any time the Ministers decide that they want to do something a bit differently, because they are not happy—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Gone by lunchtime.

CHRIS HIPKINS: The terms of reference could be gone by lunchtime. The Ministers could decide that they are not happy with what the commissioners are doing and completely change their terms of reference. Of course, if the Ministers are not happy with what the commissioners do with their changed terms of reference, under clause 17(3) they are entitled to simply remove them. The Ministers can simply sack the commissioners, and that is no problem whatsoever. If the Ministers are dissatisfied with what the commissioners are doing, they have ultimate control over what goes on with what was formerly Environment Canterbury. This measure gives the Government ultimate control. There will be no consultation. Ministers can do whatever they like without any reference to the local authorities. The local people will have no say. They had an opportunity to elect a council and it is being removed by this Government, with the local people having no chance to have a say.

In fact, if the local people were dissatisfied with what it has been doing, there is a local election coming up this year and they could have replaced that council—that is the nature of democracy. But that democratic opportunity is being removed by this bill; local people will not get to have a chance to say whether they think Environment Canterbury is effective. They will not get any opportunity to vote members of the council in or out; that right is being removed for at least 3½ years. It will be at least 3½ years before people get a chance to pass judgment on what this Government is doing by removing their democratically elected local authority members.

The other thing that this bill does, in clause 18, is to give Ministers the ultimate responsibility for establishing what these commissioners will be paid. The Remuneration Authority, which sets MPs’ salaries and the salaries of the local authorities, will have no role in that. It will ultimately be up to the Ministers. So the Ministers appoint the commissioners, they determine their terms of reference, and they determine what they are to be paid. Ministers will have ultimate control over everything that the commissioners do in Environment Canterbury. Democracy is dead.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): Part 2 is the guts of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, which abolishes democracy in Canterbury. Later on this year people all around New Zealand will, as part of the celebration of democracy, be involved in local government elections. As someone who lives in Wellington, I will vote for my mayor and my council. However, were I to move to Canterbury or Christchurch, I would find that I was not allowed to vote for my regional council. In fact, my right to vote for the regional council would be taken away by this bill, which National and ACT are pushing through today. It is quite extraordinary that Part 2 takes away the idea of one person, one vote. We have heard a lot lately about one person, one vote from National and ACT. Part 2 states that we will start with one person, one vote, and then we will go to one person, no vote. One person, no vote is National’s preferred option for how people in Canterbury decide what happens to them.

What will be the outcome of this? In the rush to get the bill through the House, the regulatory impact statement has not had a lot of attention. It is a rushed regulatory impact statement that the Ministry for the Environment cobbled together in between generating all those national policy statements and national environmental standards—oh, that is right, we do not have any—that we have tried to get over the years. The regulatory impact statement states: “the Ministry has not been able to fully quantify the risks/costs of the proposal.” So this rushed bill is being pushed through the House without any public input or any select committee process, Part 2 abolishes the right of the people of Canterbury to elect their regional council, and we find that the Ministry for the Environment says in its regulatory impact statement that it has not had the time to fully quantify the risks and costs of the proposal. There is a very close connection between the lack of democracy in terms of the process of this bill in the House, with no select committee process, and the fact that Part 2 abolishes democracy for the people of Canterbury for the next 3 years. Part 2 is about getting rid of democracy for the people of Canterbury.

It is interesting that in order to be appointed a commissioner one needs expertise in freshwater management. Wyatt Creech actually has some expertise in freshwater management, as it turns out. He knows how to pollute fresh water, which is, of course, why he did the review of Environment Canterbury in the first place. A company he is director of has numerous convictions for polluting water, so, obviously, he has some expertise in freshwater management. Maybe he will be one of the people the Minister appoints to be a commissioner to oversee what happens in Canterbury after the abolition of elected democracy in Canterbury. He could also ask the Crafars. They have a lot of expertise in freshwater management. They were very, very effective at polluting fresh water. They did an excellent job of polluting fresh water across the central North Island, so I think it is time they spread to the South Island. It seems to me that the Minister could consider them under Part 2, which provides the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government with the power to appoint commissioners to oversee the management of water in Canterbury. Over the next period they are obviously going to need someone with expertise, and the Crafars have shown tremendous expertise in polluting fresh water in New Zealand.

It is also extraordinary that we do not even know what the terms of reference are, and that they could be changed at any time. We are voting to put this bill through the House, yet one of the key aspects of the bill, the terms of reference, is not even being made public. Not only do we not have any public process through a select committee so that the public can look at Part 2, and not only does Part 2 abolish public oversight of the regional council—because Part 2 gets rid of democratic oversight—but there is no public oversight of the terms of reference under which the commissioners will operate, because the terms of reference are still secret. Here we have a Government pushing through legislation under urgency to implement a regional governance structure, and we do not even know what the terms of reference for it will be. Will the terms of reference, for example, include maximising irrigation potential in the Canterbury region, which is what the Prime Minister said in his opening speech to Parliament this year? Will that be one of the terms of reference? I ask the Minister for the Environment to take a call. Will maximising irrigation be one of the terms of reference?

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): I want to speak to Part 2 of this oxymoronic Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, particularly to clauses 14, 17, and 18, and to amendments in my name.

But, first, I want to touch on comments made by the member opposite from the Māori Party, Te Ururoa Flavell, about the Māori Party supporting the bill in the hope that it will improve Māori representation on Environment Canterbury. I have to say that is a forlorn hope, on two counts. The first is that the bill disestablishes Environment Canterbury. Public comments from the Minister for the Environment made very clear that it is the death knell of Environment Canterbury; it will not see the light again in 2013, or earlier, and I challenge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, to correct me on that point. Second, I thought the Māori Party would have learnt by now that this Government does not want to deliver Māori aspirations for improved representation. I ask those members to look to the Auckland super-city as an example of that.

Clause 14 of the bill talks about commissioners having “collective knowledge and expertise in certain matters”. Environment Canterbury’s chair and deputy chair, Alec Neill and Jo Kane, proposed to the Minister that he could follow the model that sometimes happens in schools, where a commissioner is appointed and works alongside the principal to improve the outcomes for that school. Effectively, they were suggesting that commissioners come in to provide some of the expertise that everybody acknowledges Environment Canterbury would benefit from in terms of improving its water management and its approach to it—reinforced, one would hope, by some new legislation with new environmental safeguards and quality standards. But the Minister has not chosen to do that, so I am moving, by way of amendment, that we should appointment all the existing councillors as commissioners. That will serve to deliver the expertise that the Minister seeks in respect of organisational change, freshwater management, and local authority governance and management in terms of the Canterbury region and its people. And he might like to supplement some of the gaps in Environment Canterbury’s current representation in terms of Māori representation, which I acknowledge is a deficiency that needs to be remedied. Adopting that amendment would effectively put in place the model suggested by the chair and the deputy chair of Environment Canterbury.

I turn now to make a comment about the idea of the council being dysfunctional, which we have heard once or twice through the course of this debate. Again, I would like to quote from the Creech report on that issue: “Our investigation did not bear this out. … Mostly, the tensions that exist arise from differing political perspectives and not from any fundamental dysfunction.” So there is no case to say that it was a dysfunctional council. It had its tensions, it had its challenges, and it was starting to come to terms with the issues around the management of water, in particular.

I also note that clause 14(1)(b) requires the commissioners to have expertise in freshwater management. Well, fresh water is a huge challenge. It is a big part of Environment Canterbury’s job, but the Minister went for the doctor in respect of Environment Canterbury, even though the Creech review identified that it was doing a good job in respect of its other functions—notably, public transport. In fact, public transport is the biggest percentage of its current budget. The council is acknowledged within Australasia as having delivered some of the best results for public transport by way of integrated planning, ticketing, and real-time information. It is acknowledged across Australasia for the bus services it provides, the way that they are integrated, and how they work.

In clause 17 there is a provision that the commissioners must call an election when their work is complete. By way of amendment, I propose that once the commissioners have completed their work in terms of bringing together a proposed regional policy statement or plan, as defined in clause 61 of the bill, there must be an election. Let us not wait until 2013. If the Government is genuine in saying—even if it is a mixed message—it wants to resume some sort of democracy in Canterbury, let the commissioners come in and do their job, and if it is such an easy task to pick up and perform, let us have the election as soon as that task is completed. That is covered in my amendment to clause 17.

I am proposing an amendment to clause 18 to make the commissioners’ remuneration the same as the councillors’ remuneration. At the moment, an Environment Canterbury councillor earns in the order of $50,000 a year.

Chris Hipkins: Set by the Remuneration Authority.

BRENDON BURNS: That is right; it is set by the authority that deals with salaries in this building. That is an appropriate mechanism. This is ratepayers’ money. I have ratepayers who have struggled to meet their Environment Canterbury rates, especially last year, when their rates increased by 10.8 percent. The reason for that increase was the council was deadlocked regarding starting to charge farmers for the management of water supplies. The rates of constituents in poor areas of my constituency such as Phillipstown, Linwood, Shirley, and Mairehau went up by 8 percent more than would have been necessary if there had been a decision to impose a part-charge rate on the farming community, which was appropriate. It is coming into place this year, so that is good to see.

I think of current councillors such as Jane Demeter, whose ward is within my electorate. I was recently approached by a couple who had installed a new fireplace under the very good Environment Canterbury - led and driven clean air accord, which the council has been putting in place. The fireplace was not working properly. I approached Councillor Demeter and she resolved the issue, and another fireplace was installed. Would I be able to approach one of the commissioners with that sort of constituency issue? Will I be able to go to them and tell them I need a resolution on this? Or are they there only to do one job—to implement a new, rapid regime in terms of water—as far as this bill is concerned? I want to know that my constituents will have representation for the taxation they will be paying.

If my constituents will be paying the commissioners’ rates, they should not pay any more for that privilege than they pay now. Those commissioners should be paid about $1,000 a week, and I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that we will not see the sort of profligacy that sometimes happens when people are appointed by the Government to these jobs. Will we see salary levels of about $1,000 a week, or, more likely, about $1,000 or $2,000 a day? I would like to know what sort of budget the Minister has in mind in terms of how this set of commissioners will operate, because it is not the Minister who will be paying the bill; it is the people in my electorate and across Canterbury. It is the Environment Canterbury ratepayers who will be paying the bill. They have every right to know what is envisaged in terms of the rate of payment to the commissioners. What is the estimate for their travelling costs? We have commissioners such as Dame Margaret Bazley, who I understand is a resident of Wellington. There will be considerable expense in terms of her airfares, hotel accommodation, and out-of-town expenses such as meals. Ratepayers across Canterbury will be picking up the tab without any recourse to the Minister, the Government, Parliament, or a select committee process for a say on it.

Not only that, but we have learnt that the Minister has the ability to alter the terms of reference for the commissioners. If they are not operating in the way that he wants, he can change the terms of reference by executive fiat without any reference back to this House. I think that is really unacceptable.

At the moment the chair of Environment Canterbury’s salary is $142,000 a year, the deputy chair is paid $56,710 a year, and the councillors are paid the grand sum of $53,294—about $1,000 a week—for the duties they perform for their constituencies across the Environment Canterbury rohe, and I think that is an appropriate level of remuneration. In fact, it is probably a little under what they should be paid in terms of the job that I know some of them do. With the call they have upon them, they act in the same way as an MP does, servicing their constituencies and acting for constituents. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us how the new commissioners will perform. Will they take up that bread and butter work that regional councillors do? Will they meet constituents? Will they take up constituents’ issues? Will they iron out the red tape issues that emerge when one is dealing with a council on a consistent basis? Will they help constituents navigate through the bureaucracy? Will they deal with queries about rate demands? Will they pick up the just-published annual plan for Environment Canterbury, with a budget of, I think, $142 million? Will they pick up that task, see it through, and take on board any concerns that ratepayers have about the future of their bus service and the improvements that are needed? There is no reference in the clauses of this bill to those requirements in terms of the capacities of the commissioners.

There is no requirement for anybody to have any expertise in, or knowledge of, public transport, and that is the biggest component of the budget that Environment Canterbury deals with. It is in charge of the public transport system across Christchurch. It has done a darn good job.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to speak specifically to clause 22 of Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. It is interesting because the heading above this clause states: “2010 election for member of ECan”, then the title of the clause is “2010 election for members of ECan must not be held”. That is an unusual juxtaposition, is it not? We have the election but it must not be held. It is a remarkable thing. It cannot be understated what is being done in the House right now in Part 2 of this bill. The first words of an article in the Press this morning read: “The Government’s sacking of Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors will deny hundreds of thousands of Cantabrians the right to vote for regional representation this year.” That is what is being done in the House right now. It is the taking away of the democratic right of Cantabrians. It is cancelling an election. We know about countries around the world where elections are cancelled by a central government. There are names for those kinds of countries, such as banana republic. That is what the National Government is perpetuating today, with the assistance of the ACT Party, in this bill.

This is a democratic outrage. We have to ask ourselves why the Government would do this. We found that out this morning in the Timaru Herald. The article states: “Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners—rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues, as ECan had suggested—was that he was wary of the outcome of the October elections.” People are wary of the outcome of elections all the time. I was particularly wary of the outcome of the 2008 general election, but nobody cancelled it. Nobody decided it was time to cancel the election because we were wary of its outcome—

Hon Trevor Mallard: We couldn’t get the numbers.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —I tell Mr Mallard that I do not think we would have even tried—but that is what Dr Nick Smith is doing through this bill today. This is anti-democratic. This is cancelling an election where the ratepayers of the Canterbury region would expect to have representation. Their rates are not being cancelled. I ask Mr Hide whether that is a proposal on the table—to cancel the rates for the people in the Canterbury region. No, they will still be paying the rates, but there will be no representation for those people. There will be no representation, because this Government has decided to cancel an election.

This is an outrage. Clause 22 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill sets this out in the baldest possible terms, without any real justification coming forward from the Government at this time. This is the first time in New Zealand local government history that councillors have been sacked like this without their interest, without their involvement, and without them actually coming forward. The Rodney District example has been raised numerous times in this House by the Government side, but that is completely different. Rodney District asked for the review, and the process of having the next election was put in place as quickly as possible. There is no guarantee in Part 2 that the 2013 election will take place.

I challenge the Minister in the chair, or members opposite, to stand up and tell us that there will be a 2013 election for the Canterbury Regional Council. No one has done it so far. I challenge the Minister in the chair to stand up and tell us he can guarantee that the people of the Canterbury region will have the opportunity to elect their regional councillors in 2013. When we look at clause 23, we do not see anything that guarantees that—there is nothing there. We know that people all around New Zealand should be very, very concerned about what is coming next. In fact, Alec Neill, a former member of this House from the National side, said in the Press this morning that this is a big call, because there is always a political downside, and, to that end, a message has been sent to other regional councils. That was said by Alec Neill, who is a former National MP and the chair of the regional council. He said that this Government is sending a message to councils right around the country that there is no guarantee that regional councils will continue under this Government.

I know that here in Wellington the performance of the Greater Wellington Regional Council comes under scrutiny from time to time, but people are happy with it. People vote in the elections and they work with that regional council. As Brendon Burns said, those regional councillors play an important role in the environmental health of the region. MPs are able to work with regional councils as closely as a lot of us do to make sure that there are good outcomes. That is at risk from clauses 22 and , 23 of this bill.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to pick up from where I left off a bit earlier on. I will move now to clause 21 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. That clause sets out that “The commissioners must as soon as practicable establish a process for seeking advice from the mayors of the territorial authorities in the Canterbury region on local issues that affect the exercise of the powers, and performance of the functions, of ECan.” It is interesting that the bill states that the commissioners have to consult only the mayors; they do not have to consult the councillors. This provision basically states that there are two tiers of local authority: the mayors, who are important, and the councillors, who are also democratically elected, but who are not important. The commissioners need to talk only to the mayors. What happens in a situation where the mayor may not necessarily reflect the view of the whole council? The council itself will not get to have any say. I am very concerned that only the mayors will have the opportunity to give advice to the commissioners and that councillors will not be consulted.

I want to move back to the clauses that effectively cancel the next local government election for Environment Canterbury. They override the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government Act. I ask the Minister of Justice, in particular, to comment on why he thinks that the electoral laws for local authorities should be overridden by this House, without any broad bipartisan support. He has argued at a national level for nationwide local government reform. It is not something that he is seeking to do at the local level, and I want to know why the Government thinks Canterbury should be treated separately from the rest of the country.

I move to clause 22, which deals with the election of the members of Environment Canterbury. It effectively cancels the next election for members of Environment Canterbury. It states that the voters of Canterbury will not have a say on who will represent them on important issues, such as the management of water. They will not have a say on that issue and they will not have a say on this bill. They do not have a say on the removal of the democratically elected council members. They would have had a say in October of this year, when they could have replaced the regional council, had they been dissatisfied with it. At the very least, if the people of Canterbury are not to have the opportunity to vote at an election, they should have had the opportunity to come to a select committee to have a say. The councillors who are to be removed from office by this legislation should have had the opportunity to come and put their view to parliamentarians before we vote on the matter.

I understand that the Government wants to move with some haste on this matter, but it is not unusual for truncated select committee processes to be used in situations like that. The process can be gone through reasonably quickly. But unfortunately this Government has a real reluctance, when it comes to issues of democracy, to put those matters before a select committee. It did not put most of the Auckland governance reforms before a select committee. It did not give the people of Auckland the chance to have a say on the removal of their seven democratically elected councils and their replacement by the Auckland Transition Agency, which is what the first super-city bill did. The Government did not send that bill to a select committee and give the people of Auckland the chance to have a say on it, and it is not giving the people of Canterbury the chance to have their say on the removal of Environment Canterbury.

Of course, as a Wellington member of Parliament, I want to know whether we are next. The Government has been to Auckland, then it went to Christchurch, so will it come to Wellington next? If so, what will be removed? Will it be the regional council? Will it be the local councils? Will the Government merge the councils in Wellington, without giving the people a chance to have a say on that? Wellington must be next on the agenda, after Auckland and Christchurch. In population terms it certainly would be. It is probably only a matter of time before Rodney Hide, Nick Smith, and their colleagues decide to get stuck in and have a crack at Wellington.

I will summarise the main concerns around the way that commissioners are appointed and about their remuneration. Basically, the commissioners will be appointed at the exclusive whim of the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government. The commissioners’ remuneration will be established at the whim of the Ministers, they can be removed at the whim of the Ministers, and their terms of reference are set at the whim of the Ministers. The Ministers have ultimate control over the total functioning of these commissioners. I have heard the name of one of the people who is likely to be appointed as a commissioner, and she is somebody in whom I have a lot of confidence. She did a fantastic job with the Fire Service; I think that is great. But I am concerned that her position will be undermined by the ultimate authority that the Ministers will have with regard to the position.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): Since the last time I spoke on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, I have tabled an amendment, which I would like to speak to. The reason I tabled the amendment came from other contributions that have been made in this Committee. We have been listening to this debate and contributing to it in a fair and reasonable way. There are concerns about the way this part of the bill has been promoted. The clause I will focus on is the one I have an amendment too, which is clause 14. I know that my colleague Brendon Burns has an amendment to remove this clause. Actually, he has an amendment that suggests that the commissioners be the current Environment Canterbury councillors, who should be appointed to the role of commissioners. I think that would give a very good signal to the people of Canterbury that at least the people whom they elected to these positions would hold these positions through to the establishment of the water plan. I think there is a certain degree of neatness around that, which is worthy of greater debate and consideration in this environment.

However, given that I have a sneaking suspicion that the Government will vote down that amendment, I have another amendment that asks for us to look at adding additional criteria to the appointment of commissioners. I will read clause 14(1) as it is at the moment: “The responsible Ministers must appoint commissioners who collectively have knowledge of, and expertise in relation to, the following matters: (a) organisational change; and (b) freshwater management; and (c) local authority governance and management; and (d) tikanga Māori, as it applies in the Canterbury region; and (e) the Canterbury region and its people.”

That is all very well and good, but, actually, the regional council does more than undertake its responsibilities in respect of water. I am promoting three additions to subclause (1), so that collectively there is a knowledge of, an expertise in relation to, the additional matters that I have set out in my amendment, which states “environmental protection, and integrated public transport planning, and sustainable development”. I have inserted them in between the first three of the matters that are already set out there, in order to highlight that they have an importance that is relevant to the ones that are already established.

The Minister, when he gave us his briefing yesterday at 11:45 a.m., 15 minutes before the Government made the announcement, had organisational change at the top of his mind. He said that organisational change was the most important element of the new set of commissioners that would be appointed. I think if we remove sight, or any language that refers to the environmental protection obligations of the regulator, it is absolutely beyond my comprehension that these commissioners could be left with the view that their primary responsibility is around organisational change and freshwater management, and blow the rest.

When one looks at Wyatt Creech’s report, one sees that it makes that very clear. That is why they wanted to have a separate authority to deal with water. That is why I think the Government will actually do that behind the scenes if it gets back in after the next election. I think that that is a shame, because there should be a lot more openness and integrity in this whole process than this particular process has allowed.

I shall refer to another element of the Creech report. It states that Christchurch City’s desire to become a unitary authority and “master of its own expanded destiny” continues to detract from the relationship. But what is the relationship going to be between the city and the commissioners if that is the case? The Christchurch City Council has never ever debated as a council the establishment of a unitary authority in Christchurch. That is the mayor’s view. That is his point of view, and it may have been a view held by former mayors. But that is not the view of the Christchurch City Council, and I think it is wrong for us to sit here debating changes to the legislation under urgency.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I will pick up on the points that my colleague Lianne Dalziel was making in relation to the amendment that she has moved. That was the first time I was alerted to that amendment during the course of this debate. I think the Minister of Local Government, who is in the chair, needs to reflect on the fact that this amendment is not frivolous. It was made on the basis of that member being a local resident, as I am, of Canterbury, the area that is affected by the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, which we are debating under urgency. He needs to reflect on the fact that this amendment would strengthen the bill. We fundamentally oppose the bill, but this amendment would make it better. I suggest to both the Minister of Local Government and the Minister for the Environment that they look at the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel and take it seriously. It would make a bad bill better.

It would certainly be for us a major step forward in what has been a fundamental breach of process and of democracy in our region. I was listening to the debate a couple of speakers back, when my colleagues Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson took calls, and it struck me that a lot of people in other towns will be scared. What has happened is that our elected councillors have all been sacked; they have been given just a month’s notice. The Minister for the Environment will appoint five or seven commissioners—we do not even know the number—to do their job. The Minister on his own will define what their job will be, and he is going to decide how much they will get paid. And guess what? We are going to pay the bill! So the Minister can say that he thinks the commissioners are worth a huge amount of money, and I predict that he will say they are worth $2,000 a day. That is the going rate for this sort of job. It is a lot more than any of our existing councillors get. Then he will say to the people of Canterbury that they will have to pay for the commissioners out of their rates. That is a disgrace. Our elected representatives are being sacked without any recourse back to us. Commissioners are being appointed with no say at all from local people. The Minister by himself will decide who the commissioners are and what their job description is. He will decide how much money they will be paid a day. And we get to pay their consultancy fee. Well, I do not think the people of Canterbury will think too warmly of Nick Smith and Rodney Hide, but that will not be a particular revelation to anyone. They have never been very high on our list of people who share our concerns, anyway. But on this issue it is a fundamental breach of good process and of democracy.

The other point that I would really like the Minister to address is that I am really puzzled about what exactly the breadth of the work will be. My colleague Brendon Burns alluded to this briefly in his earlier contribution, but I ask the Minister to tell the Chamber whether the commissioners will be expected to do the constituency work, the bread and butter work, the work that keeps the community connected to the regional council. Will they be expected to do that, or will we lose all that strength and connection between our regional councillors, whom we have now, and our community?

I recently took a complaint to Environment Canterbury, to our regional council, about a proposed change to a bus route. That is one of the things that members of Parliament deal with day in and day out. We have to talk to the local authority about proposals and about the concerns of our constituents, and how we might get a win-win situation. I spoke to the man at Environment Canterbury who is responsible for this issue, and we organised a time to meet. He rang me back the next day and said that Councillor Carole Evans would like to be part of the discussion, because she is the chair of the transport committee and she was interested in the fact that I and my constituents had concerns. She wanted to be part of that discussion. Will a commissioner do that, I ask Mr Hide? Will a commissioner getting $2,000 a day of our ratepayers’ money get out of the office in Kilmore Street, come out to St Martins, drive over Glenelg Spur, as Councillor Carole Evans did, and say that he or she understands the problem and we will work together to fix it? I cannot see that happening.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to:

to omit clause 12(2)(c);

to omit from clause 12(3)(a) “(including the terms of reference for the commissioners)”;

to omit clause 13;

to omit clause 20(b); and

to omit clause 20(d).

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 14 be agreed to:

to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause:

14 Minister must appoint all existing councillors as commissioners

The responsible Minister must appoint all those people currently serving as Environment Canterbury councillors as commissioners.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to clause 14 agreed to:

to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (a):

“(aa) environmental protection; and”;

to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (b):

“(bb) integrated public transport planning; and”; and

to insert in subclause (1) after paragraph (c):

“(cc) sustainable development; and”.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

17A Commission must call election when work complete

Once all proposed regional policy statement or plans (as defined in section 61) have been decided, the Commissioners must call an election under section 8 of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 2 be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

17A Commission must call special election

The Commission must call an election for ECan under section 8 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 to occur before 30 March 2011.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to clause 18 be agreed to:

to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause:

18 Commissioner’s remuneration same as councillor’s remuneration

A commissioner is entitled to be paid the same remuneration by way of salary, fees, and allowances as those people currently serving as Environment Canterbury councillors.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brendon Burns to Part 2 be agreed to:

to insert the following new clauses:

21A Commission to hold public meetings

The Commissioners must hold a public meeting no less than once every 3 months to hear issues from the public and to answer for any decisions made.

21B Commission to establish consultation group

(1) The Commission shall establish a consultation group for each ward within the Canterbury region.

(2) The purpose of consultation groups established under subsection (1) is to—

(a) advise the Commissioner in relation to decisions affecting their community; and

(b) represent the views of their community; and

(c) enable wider community participation in the decisions of the Commission.

(3) Membership of each consultation group will be determined by the Commission in consultation with the respective community.

(4) Each consultation group will have no fewer than 4 members.

(5) ECan must provide adequate resources to each consultation group to enable it to perform its democratic and representative functions.

(6) In this section, “ward” has the meaning given to it by the Local Electoral Act 2001.

21C Application of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

For the avoidance of doubt, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 applies to the Commissioners.

21D Final report

(1) No more than 6 months after the resumption day, the Commissioners must prepare a report on changes to the management of fresh water in the Canterbury region, and changes to fresh water quality and use in the Canterbury region, during their term in office.

(2) The report must be laid on the table of Parliament.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 21 be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

21A Commissioners to give effect to Canterbury Water Management Strategy

The Commissioners must exercise the functions, responsibilities, duties and powers prescribed in section 20 in a manner consistent with the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 22 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Additional functions and powers of ECan after commencement day

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): This is the part of the bill that establishes, firstly, a process for moratoriums being imposed in parts of Canterbury, and then moves into the water conservation areas. There is support for the idea of moratoriums, from me at least, because they are a mechanism that can address issues of water shortage in red-zoned areas around Canterbury. There are a number, most particularly concentrated around the Selwyn district. The past history of this is that Environment Canterbury has, over the last few years, started to say no to more water allocations in such areas. It has been a frustrating period for Environment Canterbury because at times the commissioners it has appointed have heard the arguments of people with the capacity to buy the science and the law to push an argument that says that even in a red-zoned area there should be more capacity for more water to be allocated. Even at times the Environment Court has overturned Environment Canterbury decisions on such matters.

Moratoriums would be useful in that respect, but there is an enormous caveat on all of this. When people have had access to water and want to expand, and in the past have been able to expand by seeking more water, they will obviously not be too enthused about a moratorium being imposed in a particular area. I look, for example, at the Synlait dairy company based in Dunsandel. It has started in just the last couple of years to produce milk powder for export. It has plans already to quintuple production. It took an idea to the sharemarket last year for a share float, and that did not go at all well. A former National member sits on the board of that organisation, as members opposite would well know. Where will it go next for its money? One of the suggestions is that it might come back to the Chinese offer for investment in New Zealand’s dairy infrastructure.

Putting that to one side, the point is that moratoriums are a useful exercise but they will, I am sure at times lead to more demand for water if there is a wish for expansion. That could, indeed, put more pressure back on new allocations.

Going back to the original premise, this bill is around enshrining the wish, as stated by the Government, for rapid new water allocation—water projects, on the ground, in place, next year, in Canterbury. That is a statement of fact from the Prime Minister. The problem around that is the environmental constraints to ensure that new water is allocated in a way that gives back some of the water quality that Canterbury has lost over the last while. That is the balance we want to see. Moratoriums—moratoria, if you wish—are a mechanism that can assist, but that has to be part of an entire balanced process. If moratoria go in place and lead to rapid decisions about new allocation, or assist that process, then that raises enormous questions about where the checks and balances are in this legislation or anything forthcoming that will put new environmental constraints upon those who get new water. It is simply not there in the bill.

Part 3 also deals with the issue of water conservation orders, which are mechanisms to protect some of the great waterways of our country. They are in place in Canterbury; they are on the Rākaia River, the Hurunui River, and, from memory, on the Rangitata, although I could stand corrected on that one. Perhaps the local member might assist. The Hurunui River is the last of the Canterbury rivers that is, effectively, untapped from lake through to sea. The Environment Court was due, in a month’s time, to consider this issue. That is an appropriate process. There are a whole range of wishes around the Environment Court decision. Obviously people with a strong conservation ethic say we should leave the Hurunui entirely alone. There are those of the farming community who want to see the south bank dammed and used for irrigation. The point is that these decisions need to go through a process. They need the checks and balances upon them. They do not need rapid allocations made, because the long-term consequences of rapid allocation will see, without the environmental checks and balances put in place, more deterioration of our waterways.

There are real concerns and it is good to acknowledge that Part 3 has two references to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, both in reference to introducing moratoria and in reference to water conservation orders. There is a requirement that Environment Canterbury commissioners consider the principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The problem still arises from the fact it is just “taking note of”. There is no requirement to implement it, and this strategy, which has been drawn up over the last 3 years and has been patiently negotiated for the future of Canterbury, had a table that included representatives of Fish and Game, the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Federated Farmers, the irrigators, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Fisheries, Ngāi Tahu, and the councils. All of those parties patiently negotiated this strategy, and it embodies conservation as its first principle.

There is an acknowledgment from those parties, and I note again that Federated Farmers and irrigators are part of that water management strategy. The first principle was the environment, followed by customary uses, community supplies, and stock water. Those were the first-order priority considerations. The second-order priority was around irrigation, electricity generation, recreation, and tourism and amenity. It was envisaged that these principles would be worked through by the local community, with Environment Canterbury, to try to ensure that those priorities were upheld. But what this bill does is say goodbye to that collective approach, and goodbye to Environment Canterbury, which was the driving force behind this strategy. It introduces commissioners installed by the Government, for a 3½-year period, to implement an agenda, which is really the Government’s agenda. It is explicitly around rapid water allocation.

I come back to the questions around the clauses relating to moratoria. Speaking personally, I support moratoria as a mechanism but one cannot believe that moratoria will deliver on their own. There are problems around the build-up that occurs, and we saw that in Marlborough with two moratoria imposed on the issuing of further licences for marine farms. All it created was a huge backlog and a floodwater when the moratoria were lifted. We have to put in place the mechanisms to ensure that the issues are addressed, and they need to be addressed across the divide of both the environmental and the economic issues. We cannot have one superimposed over the top.

In Canterbury we have lost the capacity to swim safely in lowland streams. That is something every member would, at least in theory, uphold as a principle, or God-given right, that we have as New Zealanders to take our children and our grandchildren to the streams and the rivers and know they can safely swim. But even in the rivers of Canterbury now—the bigger waterways—it is not safe at times to swim in those rivers.

Colin King: Even if it’s over our head?

BRENDON BURNS: In places like the Ashley River in the electorate of the member for Kaikōura, and he should be noting this very carefully, it is not safe to take one’s dog to the Ashley because it is quite likely the dog will get cyanobacteria and die, as a result of blue-green algae. I note that blue-green is the theme that National picks up in terms of environmental issues. It has a blue-green caucus. Blue-green algae is toxic. The worst toxin known through the algae family is blue-green. I also note that when we mix blue and green we get brown. That is an outcome that is in prospect with this bill because it does not have the environmental checks in place. It is not delivering for Canterbury, it is simply enshrining the Government’s agenda. That is not appropriate and not acceptable. If the Government is going to push this bill through under urgency, here in the Parliament at a quarter to one in the afternoon, it must give alongside this new environmental strengthening protections that make sure that water is improved, not put in place an agenda for rapid allocation, which will simply see further degradation.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Mr Chairperson Roy, in giving me the call you have made a very challenging decision, and you handled it impeccably, if I may say so. I had a bit of a Harry Potter moment when we were moving from Part 2 to Part 3. I am not sure whether Mr Chair is familiar with the train station that Harry Potter and his fellow students catch the train from—and I do not want to tell you the whole of the Harry Potter story because that would ruin it for you, if you have not already read it—but there should be a “Part 2.5” between Part 2 and Part 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, because there is a big chunk missing. I tell members that a lot of people in Canterbury will be very frustrated by the missing information, particularly given the fact that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide, has steadfastly refused to take a call. I thought that as part of his regime of getting up and bouncing around that he is so highly regarded for he would at least stand up, take a call, and provide us with the information that we have been seeking through our questions. But he has not done so. I think he should look at what is missing between Part 2 and Part 3.

Part 2 chucks out all the councillors. Part 3 provides some existing powers for Environment Canterbury, which is not even a legal entity after the start of this new regime. Well, I want to know what will happen to the stuff that is already started. What will happen to the stuff that our elected regional councillors have already started? Who will pick up that work? How will we download the brain cells of our existing regional councillors on to the as yet unknown, non-appointed commissioners so that they can have some competency in carrying on the work that has been started? If we are going to pay them $2,000 a day of my ratepayers’ money, they had better be giving us good quality.

Let me give members an example. In terms of the additional functions and powers that are being given to these $2,000-a-day, ministerial-appointed commissioners, I cannot see anywhere in Part 3, or anywhere else in the bill, a description of what will happen to the draft annual plan that Environment Canterbury issued less than a week ago. What will happen to that draft annual plan? It was issued on 27 March, and the public in the whole of the Environment Canterbury area got a copy of it. We were told that there would be public consultation. Well, that is a bit of an innovation for the Minister. He will not have tripped over that particular set of words very often in his lifetime. In case he is not aware of it, I tell the Minister that public consultation is where proposals are taken to the people so that they have an opportunity to read, think, and talk about them within their communities. Then they have a say, and the Minister gets to hear it—or, in this case, the councillors get to hear it—and then decisions are made. But what happens if there are no regional councillors any more, as is the case here, because we have just passed Part 2, which is “How to sack your regional council 101”? We have until 30 April to make submissions on the draft annual plan for Environment Canterbury, but it no longer has councillors who can hear the submissions.

The paragraph in the Local Government Act that covers this matter states that the purpose of the annual plan is to “contribute to the accountability of the local authority to the community.” As Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide will be very familiar with those words, because he is the Minister in charge of that legislation. I want him to tell me how an unelected, ministerial-appointed commissioner can have any accountability to the local community. We do not even know who the commissioners are. We did not vote for them; we voted for the ones the Minister has just sacked. So how can section 95(5)(d) of the Local Government Act be complied with? We do not have any local accountability from our elected councillors; we do not even have elected councillors. What will our community think of commissioners setting the Budget for the coming years when they have had no public input? The commissioners do not even live in our region. The provision of the Local Government Act to which I have just referred is being ignored, not because the Minister cannot be bothered with it, but because he has actually voted to have his own legislation ignored. Part 2 of this bill specifically states that the Local Government Act—

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): Just to answer the question of the Hon Ruth Dyson, and to settle her concerns and those of her constituents, I say that the long-term council community plan that has been released stays in place, and the consultation continues. It is exactly as set out.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I wish to address Part 3, and, in particular, clause 34, which comes under the heading “Imposition of moratorium” and is called “Power to impose moratorium on specified applications.’” It begins “(1) ECan may,” and on that point I allude back to a point made earlier by Brendon Burns. I attempted to get the same point across before our debate on Part 1 was cut off. The reference to “ECan” is very sloppy drafting. Throughout the bill, the text is littered with references to “ECan”. Indeed, it is defined in the interpretation clause, but it is a poor use of legal drafting. It is almost as bad as clause 9, which is about elected members ceasing to hold office, stating that this provision applies “no matter what the Local Electoral Act 2001 or the Local Government Act 2002 may say.” It so clearly has been drafted in haste that considerable time is required for revision to be undertaken.

But when I look at clause 34 and the imposition of a moratorium, I ask myself why an unelected body would be granted such powers when the elected Environment Canterbury council was not granted those powers. The answer we are given, both in the Creech report and, now, by the Government, is that Environment Canterbury was insufficiently efficient in applying the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and in granting consents. On the basis of that, I was disposed to undertake some research to compare Environment Canterbury with the other 11 regional councils and the three unitary authorities to see how the others had done. A great deal of concern and apprehension have been expressed in the Chamber this morning about which other regional councils may go under the guillotine on the basis of the same rather loose, subjective, and partisan criteria that have been brought to bear upon Environment Canterbury.

When we look at the other 11 councils and the other three unitary authorities, we emerge with three general observations. The first is that some councils have a regional water management plan, and other councils combine it with a land and water management plan or a more holistic resources management plan. The second observation is that in every case there seems to be a lengthy process for the introduction of the plans that involves introduction by the council, followed by a request for submissions, a hearing, and an appeals process, before the plan becomes operational, either completely or in part. The third observation is that water and resource management plans are “living documents”, and appear in many cases to be constantly subject to updating and variations.

We need to take those three observations very much into account when we reflect on the dissolution of Environment Canterbury, because it was said to have come in 84th out 84 councils, as I said in the second reading debate. That is misleading, because it came in essentially 12th out of the 12 regional councils. Let us look at those 12 councils and the three unitary authorities to see where each stands. By my count, of the 15—12 plus three—six have not notified complete water plans. They either have not proposed anything, as in the case of three of those bodies; have simply made a statement of water intent, as in the case of one; or have simply notified a plan in parts, as in the case of two bodies, Marlborough and Tasman. So the Canterbury, West Coast, Tasman, Marlborough, Gisborne, and Auckland councils either have not proposed a plan, have simply made a statement, or have simply made a plan in parts. That is 40 percent of the total 15 regional councils and unitary authorities.

So to answer the question of Mr Chris Hipkins and others who spoke earlier today as to which council is next, the short answer is that any one of those other five councils should watch out, because the guillotine might be coming its way. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I begin my comments on Part 3 with my usual statement, which I am getting sick of making. The Government’s decision not to include the regulatory impact statement in bills that are tabled in this House makes for very poor-quality debates, because we have to go and find the regulatory impact statement, which is not in the bill itself, in order to address some of the concerns that the regulatory impact statement might contain. I am glad that the Minister in the chair is the Minister for Regulatory Reform, because I think that was a bad decision, and I really want his Government to think about overturning it.

The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is a very good example of why we need the regulatory impact statement in front of us, because the regulatory impact statement states: “There are significant risks associated with the Review Group’s recommendation to temporarily suspend planned triennial elections for regional councillors (scheduled for October 2010) and to transfer the functions and responsibilities of Environment Canterbury’s (ECan) elected councillors to government-appointed commissioners”—

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Budget 2010—Challenges Compared with Budget 2009

1. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What challenges does the Government face in preparing Budget 2010 compared with Budget 2009?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Budget 2009 was presented when New Zealand had been in recession for 18 months under the previous Government’s economic mismanagement, and then it was suffering from a global recession. At the time, the Government faced wasteful government expenditure that was out of control, a depressed and demoralised bureaucracy, and a large number of inefficient and ineffective programmes. So Budget 2009 dealt with many of those issues; Budget 2010 will focus on positioning New Zealanders for sustainable growth and recovery.

Amy Adams: What reports has he seen on the economic problems this Government inherited?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The New Zealand Institute has issued a report card on the country’s economic performance over the last 20 years. It notes that New Zealand’s productivity growth from 2005 to 2008 was 23rd out of 30 OECD countries. Greece passed New Zealand in 2007, and workers in Italy produced $15 more per hour than workers in New Zealand. The report card acknowledges that a range of Government measures in place now will contribute to lifting per capita output.

Stuart Nash: Speaking of the New Zealand Institute, which of the following is true: the Minister’s statement that the Government has focused on one top priority, which is the large number of young New Zealanders who are either losing their jobs or cannot get a job; or the finding in the New Zealand Institute report card that this country has the second-highest unemployment rate—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. Thanks to interjections, I could not hear that question, at all. I ask members to be a little more reasonable with their interjections, and I ask Stuart Nash please to start his question again.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that both sides of the House were responsible for that, but while you were on your feet Sandra Goudie loudly interjected at you while you were speaking. I think that in the interests of equity it would be good for there to be at least some reprimand for her. I think you heard her.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think we need to be too pedantic. I heard someone interject while I was on my feet, but I could not pick up who it was. The member will have noticed that I looked around. I will not invite members to tell tales on each other under points of order. But I say to members on the Government backbench that they should be a little more careful. If they interject when the Speaker is on his feet, they may find they take an early shower.

Stuart Nash: Which of the following is true: his statement that the Government has focused on one top priority, which is the large number of young New Zealanders who are either losing their jobs or cannot get a job; or the finding in the New Zealand Institute report card that this country has the second-highest unemployment rate for 15 to 19-year-olds in the OECD?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is quite likely that both statements are true. In fact, I know that the first one is certainly true. The Government is focused on creating jobs for young people. The member will know that a lot of those young people lost their jobs in the retail, domestic construction, and government sectors, when the previous Government was pumping up this economy way beyond its capacity. They were not real jobs, and it is unfortunate those young people lost them—very unfortunate. We are motivated to provide sustainable jobs in real industries.

Amy Adams: What will Budget 2010 do to address this country’s economic underperformance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has made a good start in turning round the poor productivity and growth record. We have been assisted by a recovery in the global economy. Budget 2010 will set out the next steps in the Government’s plan, including billions of dollars of investment in infrastructure, overhauling our regulatory framework, redesigning the New Zealand tax system, lifting productivity in the public sector, improving capital markets, and continuing to aim for higher educational standards.

Social Development and Employment, Associate Minister—Statements

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by all her recent statements?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment): I stand by 99.9 percent of them.

Hon Annette King: Who is correct—the Associate Minister, who said yesterday: “At the last minute we were given a copy of the reforms. That makes it difficult to have input into them.”, or the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, who said yesterday that the first meeting on the social welfare reforms occurred on 26 November 2009, 4 months ago?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I was talking about the policy design. Those policies were designed before the election and, of course, the Government has every right to implement its policy without consulting us.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that the Minister was given a couple of choices on when she heard about a particular matter—not a policy, but a Government matter, because she would not have been responsible if it was policy. We cannot ask her questions about consultation before the election, and you would have ruled it out if we had. Therefore, I think you understand that she—

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member. I invite the Hon Tariana Turia to make a somewhat greater effort to answer the question asked, please.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I am responsible for the comments that I made, and I made those comments on the basis that National had designed those policies before becoming the Government and that we were not party to that. I at no point talked about consultation. I never used those words in my interview.

Hon Annette King: Has the Prime Minister told her why he said that there was complete and full consultation by the Minister with all relevant Ministers, including those in the Māori Party, and that the consultation started as late as December last year, or does she believe that the Prime Minister has been misinformed about the quantity and quality of consultation undertaken by the Minister for Social Development and Employment on a policy that has such a major impact on Māori people?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: It is important for the House to realise that I was not present in Parliament from mid-November right through until January, because I was in hospital.

Hon Annette King: Is the Minister for Social Development and Employment correct in her chronology of events, in which she indicates that the Associate Minister did not attend meetings, cancelled meetings, and had to be sent a second set of policy papers, implying lost papers? Paula Bennett said that she actually gave the Minister all the related papers on 24 February, which is 1 month ago.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I am not going to respond to the issues of there being no papers or of lost papers. I have already made it clear that, in fact, I returned to Parliament around 3 or 4 February. Since then, I have seen the papers that were spoken of. I responded to them. I saw that more as my being informed of what the Government was doing than a consultation document, which had taken place before the election.

Rahui Katene: Does she agree with the sentiments of Māori Party MP Hone Harawira that “Māori have never sought the debilitation that comes with crippling dependency, and nor do we seek poverty.”; and how does she reconcile this with her statement that she supports the notion of benefit reform?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I agree with many statements that Māori leaders have made over the years: Tuini Ngāwai and the waiata she wrote about benefit dependency, and Sir Apirana Ngata. He saw such a net as a danger as he believed that it would undermine the work ethic of our people, and he was correct.

Hon Annette King: In light of the Minister’s answer that she did not realise that the papers she was receiving were consultation papers, was she given a copy of the regulatory impact statement on the welfare system changes prepared by the Ministry of Social Development, in which Te Puni Kōkiri and the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs raised concerns over the impact of the changes on low-income Māori and Pacific people; if she did receive that statement, which came out some time ago, why did she not take the fight about these changes to the Government several months ago?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I responded in writing to the issues that were raised, and I was responded to in writing, also.

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Progress

3. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Attorney-General: What progress has the Government made in its response to the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Today the Government released a public consultation document outlining the Government’s preferred approach and seeking feedback from the public on each aspect of that broad framework and the various options within it. The current Act has proved to be anything but an enduring solution. Significant numbers of New Zealanders have complained, and continue to complain, that that Act is unfair and discriminatory. It is important that we find an enduring solution, so I am very much looking forward to hearing what New Zealanders have to say.

Hon Tau Henare: How is the Government responding to the review panel’s report of 30 June 2009?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The panel advised repeal and enactment of replacement legislation. The Government has carefully considered the report, and in the months since the panel reported it has been engaged in an extended conversation with iwi representatives and other interested parties. The Government has picked up, and is consulting on, a number of the panel’s recommendations, including repeal of the Act, protecting public access, removal of formal Crown ownership, providing for recognition of customary title, and restoring the fundamental right of access to the courts.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Did the Prime Minister say that people would see little change because the Government’s preferred option is really just to repeal and re-enact the current law?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The current Act does not include that fundamental right of access to the courts so that people can seek justice. That is what caused so much ill feeling in 2004, and it is what we are trying to address.

Rahui Katene: How will the Government avoid making the same mistake identified by the ministerial review panel in 2009, which characterised the former Government’s decision to legislate as unacceptably interventionist and overriding the option of allowing the judicial process to take its course, thus removing the right to due legal process?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The most important thing I think we can do as we contemplate repeal and a new enactment is to ensure that any reform recognises the fundamental right of access to justice that all New Zealanders have.

Hon Tau Henare: What consultation will the Government be undertaking during April this year?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Over the next month I will be attending quite a number of hui—I think it is 11 hui—and numerous other public meetings throughout New Zealand.

Hon Parekura Horomia: What about some “do-ee”, not hui?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The aim of these meetings is to consult with interested parties on the Government’s proposals for reform. Following that consultation I will be reporting to Cabinet, and final Cabinet decisions can be expected in late May and June. I will tell Mr Horomia when I will be in Gisborne, because I look forward to his positive participation.

David Garrett: How is the Government solving the problem by recommending that no one owns the foreshore and seabed, and establishing an entirely new legal concept of takiwā iwi whānui, the legal meaning of which can be determined in the future only through case law?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are essentially four options. There is absolute Crown ownership, which is what the previous Government tried, which was unacceptable—

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not ask the Attorney-General what the options were; I asked how one of the options recommended by the Government could solve the problem. I did not ask for a list of the options.

Hon Simon Power: The Attorney-General had barely got the first option out. I am sure that, knowing him, he was preparing a well-crafted answer directly in respect of the question asked, and giving it the context that he usually does.

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness to the member who feels that his question was not being answered, I invite him to repeat his question so that everyone can be absolutely sure exactly what he asked, and we will listen to the answer with interest.

David Garrett: How is the Government solving the problem by recommending that no one owns the foreshore and seabed, and establishing an entirely new legal concept, takiwā iwi whānui, the legal meaning of which can be determined in the future only through case law?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are a number of options, and the member does not want to hear the detail of them, but the Government considers that the public domain concept is a very sensible way of proceeding to deal with this issue in that it provides a staging post where customary title can be investigated.

David Garrett: Will he legislate to guarantee public access to the foreshore and seabed; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The answer is yes, and public access was never legislated for before the 2004 Act. One of the aspects of that Act was that it made it clear beyond peradventure that there is public access, and those provisions confirming public access will be carried over.

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Ruth Dyson to ask question No. 4. [Interruption] I ask all members, including a colleague of the Hon Ruth Dyson who is right beside her, to please show some courtesy to the Hon Ruth Dyson.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We had called for the Minister to give a legal translation for members down here.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

4. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements about health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that Labour culled over 30,000 people from hospital waiting lists.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What does he say to Dr Sandy Simpson, another front-line, experienced mental health specialist who is heading overseas, who said on Nine to Noon yesterday: “Front-line mental health services are suffering. The reality this year is that the squeeze is horrible, and the cost of providing services is not being met.”?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would say two things. The first is that the Government has increased the budget for mental health services by $85 million. The second thing I would say is that under the previous Government, back-office bureaucracy grew from 8,000 managers and administrators in district health boards to over 10,500 managers and administrators. Our cap is working, and we are employing more nurses and other personnel than previously.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Which is correct: the statements made by Marion Blake, chief executive of the non-governmental organisation Platform, who said it was facing a funding cut in Wellington alone of $2 million in mental health services, or the Minister’s reported comments that planned changes in front-line services should not threaten non-governmental organisation services?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am aware that the Capital and Coast District Health Board, in preparing its annual plan, is looking at how it can address the fact that the previous Government left it delivering over $60 million in unfunded services. Despite the fact that this Government has increased the overall funding for the Capital and Coast District Health Board by more than $32 million this year and will give it more next year, changes will have to be made.

Michael Woodhouse: What reports has the Minister seen in relation to delivering better health services?

Hon TONY RYALL: The House will appreciate that in order for our 21 district health boards to have security and certainty in their services, they need to be on a solid financial footing. Members will also recall that the new Government inherited a district health board sector that was on track to a financial crisis, with unfunded services assessed at $155 million worth, and forecast to grow to over $200 million worth. I am pleased to say that as a result of the Government putting a record $536 million into the district health boards and those boards looking carefully at their plans, the health service is turning round from that track to financial crisis, and it is expected to have a significant improvement in the amount of unfunded services this next financial year.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he said at the Sprott House event last week “this Government is committed to supporting our elderly to stay in their homes as long as they can.”, was it better and more convenient for him to forget about the hundreds of elderly people in Otago and Southland who have had their home help cut?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think what is apposite to that comment is to refer to a recent report in Grey Power Lobby Report about when Grey Power met the member opposite. They reported on the Opposition spokesperson on health in relation to health care, saying: “She is totally against assessing by telephone and has stated that the only way to assess a person is to visit them in their homes to see firsthand how they are coping.” That is what she said about Otago and Southland. What is interesting is that it was in fact Mrs Dyson’s Government that formalised telephone assessments as a pilot in 2006, and, further, it was Mrs Dyson’s Government that voted for the public money to roll out that project nationally in the 2008 Budget.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is it not a bit rich for him to continue to describe his cuts as changes when Dr Simpson, who has had over 20 years of mental health advocacy, said “the current cuts are, frankly, worrying. They cannot continue to deliver the services at the size that they are at the moment. There will be further cuts.”?

Hon TONY RYALL: No.

Aviation Security—Charges Per Passenger

5. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What changes is the Government making to per-passenger aviation security charges?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): Beginning tomorrow, the aviation security charge paid by airlines will be reduced by $5, from $15 to $10, per departing international passenger. The charge for domestic travellers will also drop from $4.66 to $4.35 including GST. This Government is always on the lookout to reduce costs wherever possible, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so with aviation security charges. I hope and expect that the airlines will pass most of this reduction on to their passengers.

David Bennett: How was the Government able to reduce these levies?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Aviation Security Service has accumulated a very significant surplus since the last increase in levies in 2007. The surplus is about $35 million from international security charges and $6.5 million from domestic charges. Although some level of surplus is necessary to buffer against fluctuations in passenger volumes and unforeseen requirements, the current level of surplus is an unfair imposition on airlines and the travelling public.

Education, Associate Minister—Statements

6. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Education): I stand by 99.98 percent of them.

Kelvin Davis: Which of his statements does he stand by: the one that national standards are dangerous for Māori; the one that national standards are OK; the one where he told his staff kura kaupapa Māori did not believe in national standards and neither did he, and that he was fundamentally opposed to them; or the one where he said he was, again, comfortable with them but was still worried about league tables?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Those are the 0.02 percent! I stand by all those statements, which were made at different times. Initially, when I had no documentation, I was scared of the league tables; as I got information and consultation, I moved to support them.

Kelvin Davis: What has he learnt since he stated he was opposed to national standards that has caused him to now find them acceptable?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: My main fear was the intrusion on the tino rangatiratanga of each kura kaupapa Māori, because kura kaupapa Māori not only have to teach education; they have to teach two languages, as well. So it is very local. As we developed a consultation process, and iwi, the schools, and the families were allowed input, I was satisfied to let it go.

Kelvin Davis: Can he confirm that he is concerned only about Māori students in kura kaupapa Māori, and not the 141,000 other Māori students in mainstream schools, and that he is quite comfortable leaving them and their parents to deal with the implementation of national standards, which he himself called dangerous?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I can confirm that I care not only for every Māori student but for every Pākehā student, every Indian student, and every Chinese student—every student in school. But I have a particular responsibility in these matters for kura kaupapa Māori children.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What was the detail of the assurance he was given by the Prime Minister in relation to the publication of league tables?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I cannot remember the details of it. I still oppose league tables being published by, for example, the media after their own private investigations, but I understand that the Government has no intention of publishing league tables.

Welfare Reforms—Long-term Welfare Dependency

7. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received on long-term welfare dependency?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have seen research showing that the longer a person spends on a benefit, the harder it is to get off welfare. I have seen a report that shows that a third of those currently on the domestic purposes benefit became parents in their teenage years, and of those teenagers on that benefit, if they are under 18 they are 35 percent more likely to be on it in 10 years’ time. This is a particular group that we are focused on in wanting to help them and to help them to get off long-term welfare dependency.

Hekia Parata: How many beneficiaries might be considered at risk of long-term dependency on welfare?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Of those who currently receive a benefit, over one-third have been on welfare for more than 3 years. That is around 117,880 people or about 34 percent of those who are on welfare. Of those on supposedly short-term, temporary benefits—the unemployment and sickness benefits—29,580 receive the sickness benefit for more than a year, and over 12,000 receive the unemployment benefit for more than a year.

Carmel Sepuloni: What reports has the Minister read that have caused her to change her mind about a woman’s right to choice, as stated in her maiden speech: “I advocate for choice—for women to work part time or full time in paid work, or not at all, or to stay at home and raise their children.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly do, and I see that need for parents to actually be moving ahead for themselves for the benefit of their children, and that is what is really most important. I certainly do advocate choice for those who can have it, but there is an obligation, as well, for them to be getting ahead themselves and then actually making that for their children.

Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked what reports she has read with regard to changing her mind about whether women should stay home and raise their children or go out and work. I did not hear whether she actually referred to any reports.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have is in understanding exactly what the member is asking. Normally members do not read reports about why they changed their minds; it is something they know themselves. It is difficult for me to say to the Minister that I expect her to give a more clear answer to the House, when it is difficult to see exactly what the member was after.

Hekia Parata: How does the Minister expect Future Focus to improve outcomes for beneficiaries?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Despite labour shortages, the culture of welfare dependency grew on Labour’s watch. From 2000 to 2008—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I assume the member is seeking my intervention about that barrage of interjection. That is unacceptable. The members may not like the Minister’s answer, but the Minister is entitled to answer the question as she sees fit. If members do not like it, they can ask supplementary questions, but they cannot just shout like that.

Hon Chris Carter: So lies are OK?

Mr SPEAKER: Did I just hear someone say lies are OK?

Hon Chris Carter: It was a rhetorical question.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, we will not have that kind of interjection.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To give details, from 2000 to 2008 sickness benefit numbers doubled, up by 17,000 people. To give members the actual numbers on that, 33,560 people were on the sickness benefit in the year 2000, and 50,896 people were on the sickness benefit in 2008. That is just one example.

Carmel Sepuloni: If the Minister is serious about supporting women into paid employment, why did she ignore the phase 1 and phase 2 evaluation of the training incentive allowance reports, which highlight the role of the training incentive allowance in reducing the time spent on benefits and increasing the amount of time spent in paid employment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Future Focus exempts people who have children over the age of 6 and are in tertiary study, in recognition that tertiary study can work for some people on the domestic purposes benefit. We have also introduced other pathways for them to gain those skills and to get the training that they need. That is something that, quite frankly, makes sense, and something I am proud to deliver.

Mr SPEAKER: That was a very interesting piece of information that the Minister just gave the House. It may be what the Minister wanted to provide by way of answer, but I am not sure whether it was exactly an answer to the question asked. I did not support Carmel Sepuloni when she previously appealed that her question had not been answered. I invite her to ask her supplementary question again without the first bit about how the Minister can be taken seriously. That will be excluded from the repeat of the supplementary question. It will be a straightforward, objective question if she wants an answer.

Carmel Sepuloni: Why did she ignore the phase 1 and phase 2 evaluation of the training incentive allowance reports, which highlight the role of the training incentive allowance in reducing the time spent on benefits and increasing the amount of time spent in paid employment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I did not, but as I said, when we looked at tertiary study for those people on the domestic purposes benefit we recognised that they should be exempt if they are in study while their children are over 6 years old. The Government made that decision and it is one that I am proud to represent. There are many opportunities for those people on the domestic purposes benefit to get the training and education that they need to move off long-term welfare dependency.

Education, National Standards—Minister’s Statement

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her reported statement in regard to national standards that “criticism has been based on misinterpretations”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes, and I am pleased that so many teachers and principals are engaging with the national standards rather than misinterpretations of them.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she accept that if a newspaper now asks two schools for their results, it can publish a local league table?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It can do that now.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How, then, can she explain the Prime Minister’s comments to Pita Sharples that league tables could not be published under national standards for at least 2 years?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I was not at the meeting that took place between the Prime Minister and Minister Sharples, but the Government—and Minister Sharples repeated this earlier in the House—will not be publishing league tables.

Allan Peachey: What reports has the Minister received of teachers and principals engaging with national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have received a report from the Ministry of Education that states that so far 81 percent of schools have registered for, or participated in, the first round of workshops on the implementation of national standards. That is 4,695 principals and teachers, representing 1,759 schools. That is an excellent response, and it shows that teachers, as professionals, are getting on with the job of implementing national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who is responsible for the misinterpretation of the fact that those workshops have been described as being fully funded, when schools have to pay over $200 a day for a reliever to replace the staff member and pay the travel costs as well?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is interesting that the Labour Party does not even want there to be training on national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a simple question: who was responsible for that misinterpretation?

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point of order. The Minister should not commence a perfectly reasonable question with a gratuitous comment.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Professional development worth $26 million is being made available to teachers, at their request, for training on the national standards. It is perfectly normal practice for schools to fund relievers.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was again a very simple, easy question to answer. It asked who was responsible for the statement that the workshops were fully funded. The Minister knows that she made that statement. She should admit it to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: The last bit of that point of order was out of order. The member knows that. He has been in this House long enough to know that he cannot make that kind of accusation or comment under a point of order. I am not sure why he expects me to be terribly sympathetic to his point of order when he does that. In my view, the Minister did answer the question. She pointed out what “fully funded” means in normal circumstances for teacher professional development. Other people may have a different view of what it means, but that seems to me to be what the Minister was saying. The member has further supplementary questions available should he wish to ask one.

Civil Defence and Emergency Management, Ministry—Communicationwith Public

9. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister of Civil Defence: To the Minister of—

Mr SPEAKER: I say to both front benches that I have called Chris Auchinvole. Please show him some courtesy.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How has the Ministry of Civil Defence enhanced its communications with the public?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence): The recent tsunami event of 28 February showed that the ministry’s revised 24/7 duty arrangements and process for working with the media worked well. In addition, the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management website received 44,000 visitors on 28 February. This compares with an average of 350 visitors a day for the rest of February. The ministry’s Twitter feed went from 166 followers to 1,347, and the ministry’s RSS feed also had 2,800 individuals subscribing. The significant increases over normal traffic show the usefulness of social media for civil defence purposes. However, I remind members of the House that it is what the individual knows to do in time of emergency, and how prepared people are, that determines whether people will get through.

Chris Auchinvole: What other technical advances has the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management put in place?

Hon JOHN CARTER: I am happy to announce that just 2 weeks ago I attended the demonstration of the Emergency Management Information System, known as EMIS, for use in the National Crisis Management Centre. This system will greatly enhance New Zealand’s civil defence capabilities by allowing the Crisis Management Centre and the regions to coordinate information in real time to help us better manage emergencies, and thereby make New Zealand safer and more resilient.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Minerals Stocktake Discussion Document

10. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he think that his discussion document on the stocktake of schedule 4 provides sufficient information to New Zealanders to be fully informed about the issue, given the statement made on his behalf after the release of the document that “the information about the value of New Zealand’s mineral resources is not well known”; if so, why?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes; the stocktake is a carefully considered document, and it contains a great deal of useful information. In his question the member quotes out of context a previous reply in this House concerning the further scientific investigation of the mineral potential of some areas, as signalled in the discussion paper.

Charles Chauvel: How can New Zealanders be confident about the analysis of the Minister’s proposals, when he himself has said that the value of minerals is not well known, and the figures in the discussion document have been widely criticised as being made up, misleading, wildly optimistic, and nothing more than desktop studies?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The point is that one can always obtain better and better information depending on one’s access to methodology. The paper was perfectly adequate to enable New Zealanders to have a good discussion about the issue. Of course, as techniques improve, further information and ways of obtaining that information will become available.

Charles Chauvel: Is he not concerned that Parliament’s independent environmental adviser, Dr Jan Wright, has said that the consultation period available is “insufficient”, given public confusion; if not, will he be issuing further and better information to ensure that New Zealanders are properly informed?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.

Charles Chauvel: Why were no new studies undertaken on the value of minerals in New Zealand for the review of schedule 4; and instead of presenting New Zealanders with made-up, misleading, and wildly optimistic figures, would it not have been wiser to conduct a proper evaluation of the relevant conservation, cultural, tourism, and mineral values before trying to force his ideas on the New Zealand public?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister is not trying to force his ideas on anyone; he is presenting a consultation paper so there can be sensible consultation. It is just that. I think the Labour Opposition is treating this Government by its own standards. When we have consultation we mean just that.

Canterbury—Irrigation and Water Storage

11. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill fulfil his intention to “remove particular regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): The biggest regulatory issue in Canterbury has been the absence of a regional water plan. Nineteen years after the Resource Management Act was passed there is still no organised system for managing water in that region. I am sure everyone wants to see an effective plan in place, and passing this bill is a step towards achieving just that.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the proposed Hurunui irrigation scheme one of the water storage and irrigation projects in Canterbury he would like to see advanced as a result of this bill?

Hon JOHN KEY: That would depend on whether it could achieve its mixed objectives of preserving the environmental responsibilities that we have along with our economic growth objectives. We will know that only when it has been referred back to the commissioners to review the whole project.

Dr Russel Norman: Did any Cabinet Ministers declare conflicts of interest in Cabinet discussions about the Environment Canterbury bill; if so, what were those conflicts of interest?

Hon JOHN KEY: To the best of my knowledge, I do not recall any conflicts of interest being raised, but I can go and check that for the member.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he aware that the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, owns a farm with an irrigation consent in the Hurunui district, and stands to benefit financially if the proposed Hurunui irrigation scheme goes ahead?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am aware that he owns a farm in that area. I am not aware whether he would benefit from the scheme. The whole matter needs to be considered by the commissioners.

Dr Russel Norman: Given that the Environment Canterbury bill will make it easier for the Hurunui irrigation scheme to go ahead, does he believe that David Carter should have declared a conflict of interest in the Cabinet discussions given that he stands to gain financially if the scheme proceeds?

Hon JOHN KEY: I would have thought that referring a matter to the new commissioners for consideration does not raise a conflict of interest. We can check that with the Cabinet Office, but referring something that might happen does not actually raise a conflict of interest until it does happen.

Dr Russel Norman: Given Mr Carter’s ownership of the farm, was it appropriate for him to approach—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to Dr Russel Norman, but I ask the Government backbenchers again to show some courtesy to the member asking the question. I cannot hear his question.

Dr Russel Norman: Given this conflict of interest, was it appropriate, at a function on 3 September 2009, for David Carter to approach the people who applied for the water conservation order, requesting that they freeze their application for 12 to 18 months, while they were in the middle of a judicial process?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A question can have only facts in it. We often fall short of that but this “given” has not been established as a fact by Dr Russel Norman. Also, in stating that allegation he is actually casting a slur on a Minister who is not here to take offence, so in his absence I certainly take offence.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a very interesting point that the honourable member raises: that supplementary questions should not contain allegations, and certainly not contain allegations of, perhaps, impropriety. They are not meant to contain statements of assumed fact, anyhow; they are meant to ask questions. I think the best way to handle this is to invite Dr Russel Norman to rephrase his question in a way that is more consistent with the Standing Orders.

Dr Russel Norman: Was it appropriate for Minister David Carter at a function on 3 September 2009 to approach the people who applied for a water conservation order, requesting that they freeze their application for 12 to 18 months, while they were in the middle of a judicial process for the water conservation order?

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure that that realistically altered the question that the member asked. I would have thought he could word a question instead of making a statement that suggests that the Minister may have done something the member considers to be inappropriate. Maybe he could phrase it as a question.

Dr Russel Norman: The question is whether it is appropriate. The Prime Minister is responsible for his Ministers, so I am asking—

Mr SPEAKER: I will just point out my concern. My concern is that the member is alleging that the Minister did what the member is saying he did, and the House has no validation of that. We do not know whether the Minister, in fact, did what the member is alleging. The problem with the question is that the member is implying that if the Minister did, in fact, do that, then it may not have been appropriate. It may be possible to phrase it in a way that asks a question rather than makes a statement that the Minister did something, when the Minister may or may not have done that. The House has no way of validating that supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It may help the member to phrase the question something like: “Would it be appropriate if a Minister did”. In that way he could get there.

Dr Russel Norman: It may assist the House if I table a file note from one of those present when the Minister allegedly approached the applicants for the water conservation order and asked them to hold their application for 12 to 18 months. I seek leave to table that.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a document. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think at that point, when authentication has been offered, and declined by Government members, it becomes almost impossible to ask questions and have them ruled out for lack of authentication.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member is saying. I invite the member to ask his question, because maybe I am being excessively sensitive about the issue.

Dr Russel Norman: Was it appropriate for David Carter to allegedly approach the people who applied for the water conservation order at a function on 3 September 2009, requesting that they freeze their application for 12 to 18 months, while they were in the middle of a judicial process to apply for a water conservation order?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not going to offer a view on wild and unproven allegations from the member, but I point out that water conservation orders are a matter for the Minister for the Environment, and that is not Mr Carter.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of David Carter’s failure to declare his conflict of interest, and the fact that he inappropriately intervened—

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I can anticipate the member’s point of order. The member must not preface his question with another statement, because in answering a question the Prime Minister has already explained that in his view there is no conflict of interest involved in this matter. The member should not start his question “In light of failure to declare a conflict of interest”. I invite the member to rephrase his question.

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that we are trying to work our way through some complex wording, but you will recall that yesterday a member from this side of the House had three opportunities to get a question right and at the point of a third opportunity, when you were still not happy with the wording, you moved on. I ask you to consider a similar set of circumstances that have now occurred in this question.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear—[Interruption] I am considering a point of order. The Government backbenchers are testing my patience, probably for the first time, today, and I suggest they do not do it any further. The difference on this occasion is that it is not all over one question; it is over a further supplementary question. Therefore, it is a different situation from yesterday. I call Dr Russel Norman—please without the preface.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister of the view that the Minister of Agriculture is meeting his high standards of ministerial behaviour when he inappropriately intervened in a water conservation order process and approached the applicants?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is three.

Mr SPEAKER: By my count it is two on this supplementary question—[Interruption] I am considering a point of order.

Dr Russel Norman: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear from the member. He must not allege that the Minister behaved inappropriately. The Standing Orders are very clear on that. The member can ask his question without making that allegation, and this is the last occasion on which I invite him to ask his question.

Dr Russel Norman: If the Prime Minister discovers, when looking at the documents that I have been unable to table in the House, that it is the case that Minister Carter asked the applicants not to proceed with the water conservation order, does he believe that it meets the high standards he requires of his Ministers?

Hon JOHN KEY: Once again, I am not going to answer hypothetical questions on unproven situations. All I can tell the member is that one thing I know about David Carter is he manages his superannuation fund better than the Green Party does.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure what members had for lunch, but I ask for a little respect as I have called Brendon Burns on this occasion for a supplementary question.

Brendon Burns: Does he agree with comments from Nick Smith, reported today in the Timaru Herald, that part of his consideration in sacking Environment Canterbury was he does not trust Canterbury voters to make what he considers the right decision in October’s local body elections?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, we have the exact same problem that we had with Dr Russel Norman. I do not believe that the facts of that supplementary question are true.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think we had an assurance from the member that he was quoting from a newspaper. Mr Speaker, you have already said we are not allowed to table things in order to authenticate.

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard the member. I just remind members what the substantive question is: “Does the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill fulfil his intention to ‘remove particular regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury’?”. I am not sure what that has to do with the supplementary question. It is a long bow to then specifically go to the issue of claiming the sacking of the board. I invite the member to relate his question more directly to that substantive question.

Brendon Burns: I will completely rephrase the question. Is the Prime Minister aware, in stating he expects to see water storage schemes identified in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy built next year, that the strategy’s first order of priority is the environment and that it wants a phase of restoring water quality before new projects are built?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can say that the aim of the moves yesterday was to make sure we get an operative regional water plan in Canterbury. That is something that has not been the case for 20 years. Clearly it will be a matter for those commissioners to balance both the needs of the environment and the needs of the economy in the local region. All I can say is that the moves from the Government yesterday have the overwhelming support of all of Canterbury’s district mayors, and I think that represents, as the Otago Daily Times stated, that they have had enough of a dysfunctional Environment Canterbury.

Brendon Burns: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically about whether the Prime Minister was aware of what was in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. He has not addressed that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is being pretty tough. I think the Prime Minister gave a reasonable answer to that question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. Mr Speaker, this might be something you would want to take under consideration. We have hit today—I think, twice—a point where a ruling on which you have been very strict, and one which I have supported, has come up against the ability of Opposition members to ask supplementary questions. Twice, members have given assurances in their supplementary questions that they are quoting from reports. Mr Hide, I think, went as far as to say that he did not believe the member for Christchurch Central. In the past, it has always been a rule of the House that a member’s word is taken. Mr Speaker, I ask you to think about that in the future, when you are interpreting whether something is properly authenticated.

Mr SPEAKER: I will take the member’s point of order seriously, because it is an important issue. With supplementary questions, they are always accepted; there is no means of authenticating them. That is why members have to be a little careful, though, in asking supplementary questions—to make sure they do not make unreasonable allegations. But I will hear the Prime Minister on the issue.

Hon JOHN KEY: I think it would be useful if members who claimed to have quotes were to bring down to the House the newspaper article they were quoting from, and read it out directly. We have found that on recent occasions the Leader of the Opposition has done exactly that—that is, not reading from a document, and actually the statements have not been correct. So reading them out would be quite useful.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not going to get into a debate. I have allowed both sides—

Hon Annette King: Paula Bennett’s answers—

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, I say to the honourable deputy leader of the Labour Party. I will not get into a debate on this matter now. The reason why the issue arose today was there was an implication, which a member took offence at, that another member might have acted improperly. That is where we have to be very careful. There are ways of asking questions, and I think we finally got to the point where the member was able to ask the questions he wanted to ask in a way that did meet the Standing Orders. But it is not often we come up in quite such a sharp way against the requirement of the Standing Orders not to make allegations in questions that can cause offence, etc. I think the points have been well made, but we will not be able to take the issue any further right now.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask for your consideration of a slightly separate point from Mr Mallard’s. It is simply that, again, there appears to possibly be a conflict with the convention you have adopted, and that is where a member is allegedly quoting from an article, and a point of order is raised like the one Mr Hide raised today in which he said he did not believe that. Mr Speaker, apart from Mr Mallard’s point, you have also ruled that, in your view, we cannot table an article that is recent. That can, in this circumstance, prevent a member from proving that what he is quoting is correct. I invite you, as you consider Mr Mallard’s point, to consider that.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member, but we will not be taking that matter any further today.

Brendon Burns: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I have made it very clear that I do not intend to take this matter any further. If the point of order debates or relitigates this issue, I will not be happy.

Brendon Burns: I am not seeking to do that. I am seeking to table a couple of documents, because I am able to provide the authentication that was sought from me on both of the questions I asked—

Mr SPEAKER: If the member is seeking leave to table documents, please do so.

Brendon Burns: Thank you. The first document I seek leave to table is an extract from today’s Timaru Herald—

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will allow the member to seek leave to table the document, because of the dispute that has occurred. Normally, I would not, because the Timaru Herald is a readily available newspaper, but on this occasion—

Brendon Burns: Because I was not sure whether the issue was to do with the first or the second question that I had asked, the second document that I seek leave to table is written question No. 291, from Dr Russel Norman to the Prime Minister, in relation to water storage schemes.

Mr SPEAKER: Normally, I would not be putting leave to table the answer to a written question, either, but because of the dispute that has arisen—and only on this occasion—I will put leave for both those documents to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a copy of resource consent CRC99.1, in the name of David Cunningham Carter, to take water from the Hurunui River for his Cat Hill farm in the Hurunui District.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon Ruth Dyson: How can the Prime Minister say that Canterbury does not have a water management strategy, when it is actually contained in the legislation that the House is currently debating under urgency—legislation that also sacks our elected regional councillors, appoints commissioners who will be paid $2,000 a day, and takes away Cantabrians’ right to elect their regional councillors, leaving us with no voice, no vote, and a big rates bill?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because I am right, and, the last time I looked, Trevor Mallard agreed with me.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table a letter to the previous Government, dated 30 June, in which the chairman of Environment Canterbury specifically notes his meeting with Ruth Dyson and other members of the Labour Cabinet to seek their intervention to try to have water management in Canterbury sorted out—a request that was ignored.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008—90-day Trial Period Exclusions

12. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Which employer and employee groups has the Government specifically excluded from the 90-day trial period as introduced by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): As set out in section 67A of the Employment Relations Act, employers with more than 19 employees cannot employ new staff for a trial period. I also note that trial periods are entered into only by agreement from both parties.

Darien Fenton: Will she consider excluding vulnerable groups from the 90-day trial period, such as the solo parents and sickness beneficiaries that her Government intends forcing into work for as little as $1 an hour?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: As the member knows, there is a discussion paper in relation to personal grievances, which includes the trial period, of course. The submissions on that paper will close in 1 hour and 55 minutes, so she still has time to make a submission. We will listen to those submissions and consider the feedback before making any decisions.

Darien Fenton: Will she, then, consider excluding any person who has ended up on the unemployment benefit as a result of the 90-day trial period from further 90-day trial periods if, and when, they are lucky enough to find work?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Under section 67A of the Employment Relations Act employers with more than 19 employees cannot employ new staff for a trial period. Trial periods are by agreement.

Darien Fenton: Considering the massive increase in the number of people on benefits since the 90-day fire-at-will legislation was passed, does she now accept that her claim that it will “provide real opportunities for people at the margins of the labour market” was wrong, and that it does the opposite by making it easier for employers to discriminate against those workers by using them then discarding them within 90 days with no risk of a grievance claim?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: It has been 13 months since the 90-day trial period for small businesses was introduced, and in that time we have had very positive feedback from both employers and employees on the use of trial periods.

Bills

Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 3 Additional functions and powers of ECan after commencement day (continued)

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I have been very keen to get back to the regulatory impact statement, which was not included with the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. Under the leadership of Rodney Hide as the Minister for Regulatory Reform, this Government has decided to take all the regulatory impact statements out of bills and to hide them away on the individual websites of the relevant ministry and of Treasury. This regulatory impact statement would have to qualify as one of the most damning indictments of any Government’s process, or of any bill that I have ever seen in this Parliament in the 20 years since I was elected to represent people in Christchurch. I think I have some justification for feeling pretty aggrieved about how the people in our area have been treated by this Government.

I direct the Committee’s attention to the regulatory impact analysis, which is unpaged. Let me read out a quote under the heading “General discussion of options”. It states: “Options that rely on introducing legislation in a very short timeframe increase the risk of poor or misdirected intervention resulting in unintended consequences and the need for subsequent intervention to remedy these consequences. Ad hoc intervention also potentially undermines the integrity and credibility of existing legislative provisions. However, in this instance, because any national level decisions on water management (particularly WCOs)”—which are included in this part of the bill—“have the potential to undermine the government’s New Start for Freshwater policy programme and the work of the Land and Water Forum, it is considered preferable for any intervention to have a narrow Canterbury-specific focus in the first instance.”

So this is the beginning. It is the beginning of a new approach that this Government will have. This is the end of water conservation orders. That is why I have an amendment on the Table of this House to ask that the sections relating to water conservation orders be removed from the bill. I hope that I get the support of other members of this Committee. I do not think that Government members or the parties that are supporting the Government, particularly the Māori Party, fully appreciate the extent of what is happening to water conservation orders under this legislation. I honestly do not believe that that has been fully explained, but it all becomes very clear when the regulatory impact analysis is analysed.

The regulatory impact analysis goes on to say “The results of any intervention” in Canterbury—and that is what Part 3 of this bill implements—“could provide useful information for decision-makers on the outcomes of the New Start for Freshwater policy programme and potentially an opportunity to trial alternative policy settings in a confined context.” So Canterbury is now to be the scene of an experiment in terms of the Government’s wider policy objectives with the New Start for Fresh Water policy programme. I am deeply alarmed to find that stated in the regulatory impact analysis. No commentary on this agenda is contained within the explanatory note of the bill. We have to go to the regulatory impact analysis, which is no longer contained with bills, to find that this is the Government’s objective.

Another point in the regulatory impact analysis says—and I think it is relevant that the Minister has not commented on this; I think perhaps the Minister in the chair, Chris Finlayson, could take up this particular issue, because it is within his broader portfolio—that “Any intervention that alters the nature of the relationship between Ngai Tahu and the body responsible for governance and decision-making on natural resources, particularly water, will need to be designed in light of the Crown’s Treaty responsibilities. In particular, commissioners will individually and/or collectively need to have a strong understanding of the Ngai Tahu perspective, rights and interests.” Not once have we heard the Minister talk about how that will be addressed in the context of implementing Part 3 of the bill.

Part 3 creates a whole new paradigm for water conservation orders. If we go through the regulatory impact statement, we find that the Government is a little concerned about the nature of the requirements for assessing water conservation orders. That is why my amendment becomes all the more important. The regulatory impact analysis states that one of the options was to put together the whole question of water conservation orders. The concern was expressed that “This would displace the statutory purpose of WCOs as an instrument for protecting outstanding amenity or intrinsic values of water bodies and would allow decisions on the allocation of water from these water bodies to be made in the context of sustainable management of resources.” I think the Minister should talk to us about this issue, because there seems to be a very deliberate decision by the Government to shift from the conservation values that are behind our water conservation orders in one part of the Resource Management Act to another part of that Act, which talks about the sustainable management of resources. I think that if the Minister is doing that as part of a long-term objective to shift over time in that way throughout New Zealand, this is not the way to do it. To have an experiment in Canterbury, to see whether we can trial a different way of doing things there, is actually quite untenable.

The regulatory impact analysis contains 3½ pages on option one. A regulatory impact statement requires the Government to set out what the objectives are, to set out the range of options, and then to analyse each of those options: do a bit of risk analysis, opportunity costing, and various other tests when looking at the risks and benefits of a particular approach. In this regulatory impact statement there are three pages on option one, which is the legislation to replace Environment Canterbury councillors with commissioners. There is half a page each on the other four options. We have option two, “Legislation appointing commissioners to take over resource management functions only”; option three, “Legislation replacing council with commission tasked with transitioning to Canterbury Regional Water Authority”, which I believe is still on the agenda; and option four, “Implement Canterbury Water Management Strategy”.

It is interesting that when one looks under option four, one sees that it states that “The visions and principles of the CWMS seek balance between environmental, economic, social and cultural outcomes, but this balance is to be achieved under the over-arching presumption of more reliable water and more intensive land use - an outcome that has not been subject to assessment against the purpose of sustainable management set down in the RMA.” So even the regulatory impact analysis, in ruling out one of the options that is actually being implemented by this bill, is inconsistent with the provisions that the Minister really ought to be operating under in respect of the Resource Management Act.

The regulatory impact analysis also goes on to say that “The potential inconsistency between the overarching presumption behind the vision and principles of the CWMS and the purpose of the RMA has implications for the planning framework in Canterbury post-intervention.” That would have to be the understatement of the year; of course it has implications post intervention. But I would really like the Minister to talk about that, because not once have any of those issues been raised in the debate so far. We are passing legislation under urgency where we have not had an opportunity to have a rigorous debate about those things, which really matter in Canterbury and around the country.

Option five is “Use existing RMA intervention powers”; and option six is “Targeted assistance to Environment Canterbury”, which was based on the proposal that Environment Canterbury put back to the Minister. To be honest, that did not get even a fair hearing, in my view, because the Government had already decided that it would go with option one. So option six, which was proposed by Environment Canterbury, was ruled out beforehand.

I will now talk about how other Government departments responded to the consultation after the review of Environment Canterbury. I am really quite shocked to find all of this detail in a document that was not even tabled with the bill. As a result of the consultation with a number of Government departments, a whole lot of concerns were raised. First of all, on “proposals to replace the elected Councillors for all of ECan’s functions, suspend local body elections or remove the right of appeal on the NRRP or Water conservation orders, except on points of law”, the concern was that “These proposals appear [sic] present a prima facie access to justice issue and some departments were concerned that this may not be consistent with the Government’s statement on regulation: ‘better regulation, less regulation’ which requires ‘a particularly strong case [to be] made for any regulatory proposals that are likely to override fundamental common law principles”.

Which of the Government departments that were consulted said that? Was it the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Treasury, the State Services Commission, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Transport, Te Puni Kōkiri, or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? Which one of them, or which group of them, said there were serious concerns about the likelihood that this would “override fundamental common law principles”? Which one said that? That is what it says here: “These proposals appear [sic] present a prima facie access to justice issue and some departments were concerned …”. Well, I am more than concerned after reading that.

The regulatory impact statement goes on to say there was concern about “the potential for the proposal to mean that parties with a stake in Canterbury’s natural resources will have less ability to protect their rights and interests via appeals on resource management decisions than elsewhere in the country.” So Canterbury misses out again, by being alone in the application of this change to the rules.

The regulatory impact statement also refers to concern about “the proposal to transfer the entire range of ECan’s roles and responsibilities to commissioners despite the finding that ECan was performing adequately outside of its water-related functions”. That entire part is focused on water-related functions, yet the research, the report, and the review—everything that has been done—says that Environment Canterbury was performing adequately outside of those functions. So we are to deal with the whole of Environment Canterbury, we are to just wipe the whole lot of those functions, and we are not to mind the fact that there is the issue of whether “the gains of such a move outweigh the costs of removing democratically elected representatives.” I am quoting from the Minister’s own department’s report on the regulatory impact analysis. This is not something that I am just making up. The Minister’s own department has reported this to him as having been expressed as a concern by a range of other Government agencies. Goodness knows why the Ministry for the Environment does not think these issues are important either.

Proposals to change the water conservation order processes have the potential to be highly controversial, particularly given that the Government has not signalled such a move in its New Start for Fresh Water policy programme. Because of those concerns, three minor changes were made to the proposal, but that is it, and there is nothing of substance in terms of the seriousness of the issues that have been raised.

I am deeply concerned that this kind of information, this quality information, is withheld from members of Parliament who are standing up to debate this bill in the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was tabled.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It was not tabled with the bill. The Minister can interject as much as he likes, but the Government made a decision to no longer include regulatory impact statements with bills. They are now available separately on websites, and members have to go back to the House and get a copy of those statements in order to ensure that they have the information in front of them. I think that is a poor process, in terms of our ability as a Parliament to monitor anything of substance in a way that enables us to speak for our constituents. They expect us to be able to debate authoritatively on subjects, on the basis of all of the information being made available to us when it is required.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The comments from the Opposition on this bill come down basically to two features: misinformation and personal denigration. I will address both of those in this short contribution.

The first concerns the regulatory impact statement, which the member has claimed was not tabled in the House. I tell members that it was tabled in the House, right in front of me, at exactly the same time as the bill was tabled. It was also provided to the Bills Office at exactly the same time.

I will also address the issues that have been raised by Russel Norman. I note that Jeanette Fitzsimons, who was a passionate leader of environmental issues, in all the years that I spent in the House religiously focused on playing the ball and not the man. But I have seen from Russel Norman—and I think this will be terminal for the Green Party—that he is choosing to attack the integrity of Wyatt Creech and the others who did the review, and today he started on David Carter. There is a very important point that I will put on the record: on Monday, when Cabinet made its decisions on Environment Canterbury and on this bill, David Carter was not even present. For members in this Chamber to attack a Minister when that Minister is offshore doing the work of New Zealand, I think is below the standards that the Green Party itself would set for its members.

I will address quite specifically the three major parts in this portion of the bill. In my view, they are critical to the step change in water management that the Government wants to deliver. Let me go through those three parts.

The first is that the Government is providing the commissioners with the power to put in place a targeted moratorium on water takes. Some members who are also farmers are concerned about that provision, and they would prefer that it was not there. But it is time we were honest with water in Canterbury, and say that in some areas there is not more water to allocate. For us to spend large sums of money on lawyers and on process when there simply is not more water is not wise, which is why that measure is in this bill. Interestingly, I have the correspondence that I tabled earlier in the Chamber when Environment Canterbury made submissions to members such as Ruth Dyson, Lianne Dalziel, and many others. Environment Canterbury asked for that power during the course of the previous Government, but the council was ignored. I think that the provision for that power to be available is overdue, if we are to properly manage water in Canterbury.

The second part of this bill is concerned with getting a plan. I am advised that on the current programme it will be at least 2 or 3 years before we finally get a plan on water. Members on the Government benches are saying that that is too long, that we need progress and we need a plan. That is why there are quite specific provisions in this part to fast track the provisions of establishing a water plan in Canterbury.

The third issue is one of integrated management. It does not make sense for either the Environment Court or a special tribunal appointed by myself to make decisions on water conservation orders in Canterbury, separate from the commissioners. If we are really serious about getting a group of people to get hold of this issue of water in Canterbury and to make integrated decisions, it is absolutely right that those decisions are made by the commissioners.

The last point I will make is that decisions on water conservation orders in the current law are—and in the amended law will be—made by the Minister for the Environment. That remains the case. To the accusations that somehow decisions on water conservation are being politicised, I say “Well, hang on.” The decisions are made by the Minister for the Environment, by whoever is privileged to hold that office at the time. But the provisions in this part are the vital extra powers that are required for the commissioners to be able to get on top of water management issues in Canterbury, and that is why the Government has included them in the bill.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am quite pleased with the Minister for the Environment’s contribution. I hope that he will say a little more because he might then understand that, as well as being frustrated and very angry at having our votes stolen from us, we are even more angry about the idea of having our water stolen from us. Taking away our vote is frustrating enough, but taking our water will make us really upset. If the Minister continues to engage, as he just did, in what I think is a considered way, then we may eventually get to the point where he will understand our concerns. Instead of just riding roughshod over them, instead of just wiping them aside and making smart alec contributions to the debate, he might start thinking about some of our amendments and the contributions we are making, because a lot of them are being made in good faith.

In this contribution on Part 3 I will focus mainly on the water conservation order issue. A lot of people, understandably, do not understand what a water conservation order is. They do not have a particular interest in the environment, or they do not live in Canterbury where water is a very hot topic for us. We are very keen on water and on improving its quality. A water conservation order has been described as being like a national park for rivers. That might not be such a great comparison to bring at the moment, given what the National Government wants to do with our national parks listed on schedule 4. I am not accusing the Minister of wanting to mine in our water conservation order areas, but we never know. Down the track he might decide that these are not very important, either.

Hon Member: They want to mine water!

Hon RUTH DYSON: Mining under the riverbed would be a more logical place than mining the water.

My understanding of the changes—and it has been quite difficult to fully absorb the content of the legislation, given how late we received it, and given that we have been debating it continuously, with the exception of question time, without any select committee consideration or the benefit of any public input through a select committee process—is that we now have a water conservation orders regime whereby the appeal process to special tribunals and the Environment Court has been entirely axed. The Minister for the Environment has nodded.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Replaced.

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is pretty sad. We do not have recourse to special tribunals or the Environment Court now, in terms of water conservation orders.

My second understanding—and I will be pleased if the Minister wants to confirm this by nodding, by sign language, or by taking a further call—is that the criteria for a water conservation order established under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill is different from the current criteria for water conservation orders. I am not quite sure why that would be. Why would we have two different regimes running parallel? It would be sensible if the Government decided that one set of criteria was not robust enough, or that the threshold was not high enough, was too high, or whatever, and that it wanted to change it. That should be a ministerial prerogative. But, in my view, a Government would not sensibly have one regime for some rivers around the country and another regime for others. If the criteria are now different under the Environment Canterbury area—the Canterbury Regional Council catchment area—then I would really like to know why that is the case.

I mentioned in a contribution to an earlier debate, but it is more relevant to Part 3, the fact that, despite the Minister going on and on about the lack of a water management strategy, the strategy is in schedule 1 of this bill. That is the first confusion I have. The Minister has also been very clear that he wants to make sure that the water management strategy is implemented, that it moves on, and that it has some legislative grunt, yet this bill, which is going through under urgency, is all about Canterbury water management but the implementation of the water management strategy is not in it. It is about as shallow as a puddle after a brief bit of rain out on Lambton Quay. One could not get shallower than the attention paid to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy in this document.

I tell the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nick Smith, that he has lost a huge opportunity. I agree with him that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy should have legislative grunt and should be put in the part, but where is it? It is outlined in schedule 1; it tells us all about it. It tells us that we believe in motherhood and apple pie, and access. It tells us that we want our water to be of a high quality and drinkable. We want it to be wet and we want to be able to use water for recreational activities. Wow, that is gobsmacking news! I ask where in this bill it tells us how we will set up the committees, and how we will ensure that all those different groups that have worked together on the Canterbury Water Management Strategy stay working together and improve what is happening to our water in Canterbury. It is nowhere. There is a big hole in this legislation in that regard, and it should be fixed.

The commissioners will be required—this is very tough—to have regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. Well, that will sort it out, will it not, I ask the Minister. By goodness, let us get Dame Margaret Bazley to have due regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. It is a bit like national standards. That will fix everything, will it not; after that it will all be all right. Once Dame Margaret has had a quick browse through the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and has had due regard for it, then we should be all right. There should not be any problems with water management in Canterbury! It is really frustrating that with legislation like this, being abused though it is through being rammed through under urgency with no select committee process, we still have an opportunity to put in the law what needs to be in the law, and the Minister has missed the chance.

In relation to the regard that is being required to be paid to the water management strategy, the final point I make in this contribution is that I do not understand the different levels of regard that are required in this legislation. The commissioners are required to have “particular regard” to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, but with regard to statutory planning documents such as regional policy statements, national policy statements, and the regional plan—plans, documents, and policy statements that have been through a really rigorous public process—they have only to “have regard”. Why are there two tests? Why is there one test for “have regard” and another one to have “particular regard”?

I am happy that the Minister is getting some advice. I can understand that when a bill is thrown together in such a shoddy way with very little consideration of any cross-Parliament support on such an important issue and then totally bypasses the select committee process, and when the House goes through under urgency on the bill from, I think, 5.30 last evening until 10, resumes again at 9 this morning, and then goes through until 1 p.m. with a brief adjournment from the debate for question time from 2 until 3.15, and here we are, at 25 minutes to 4, still debating it, the Minister would not even know that there are two thresholds for consideration. The first is for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, which commissioners have to have “particular regard” to, and the second is for the statutory planning documents, which they just have to “have regard” to.

This is a really shonky way of trying to improve a serious situation in Canterbury. People across the political divide agree that we have a problem with the amount of water that people need for their lives, for their business, and for their development, and the amount of water that we have to give. There is a further debate about what, if we even had more water, that water should be used for—whether it is best to use it in the way possible. Nothing in this bill helps us to address those fundamental issues.

It is a really good opportunity, in respect of which the Minister must have slept in. The bill came knocking at his door one morning and said: “Here I am. Here is the legislative vehicle available for you to drive a way in to help sort out the water management issues in Canterbury.” The Minister just rolled over and went back to sleep, and completely missed that vehicle. The only bus that he got on was the “Let us sack the Environment Canterbury councillors” bus. That is all he did. Although sacking a whole council might make the Minister feel better, and might make him feel like he has a bit of power, it is a disgraceful thing to do. It is disgraceful when the so-called independent report of a group chaired by Wyatt Creech—who we cannot say is about as independent from National as one can get—came back with the view that, despite all the anecdotes, despite all the stories, and despite all the political scaremongering that had been generated by self-interested people in Canterbury and South Canterbury, there was no basis for doing this.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): We are dealing with this bill under urgency, with no select committee process, as we strip away the way for Cantabrians to have the vote. Subpart 3 deals with water conservation orders. Water conservation orders are a tremendously important part of the environmental regulation of New Zealand. To be fair, most people probably are completely unaware of water conservation orders, which is why the Government is quietly moving on them in this bill. Water conservation orders are national parks for our rivers; they set standards. For example, the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River sets a minimum flow rate of 10 cubic metres per second of water that has to flow through it, and if the rate falls below that, then water takes have to drop out. So water conservation orders are a way for us to protect our rivers, and they have a whole bunch of conditions attached to them.

This bill fundamentally changes water conservation orders for Canterbury—both the process for dealing with water conservation orders, particularly the Hurunui one, and what could happen to the existing water conservation orders. So the first issue is the Hurunui River order. It is not correct to say that currently there is a water conservation order on the Hurunui River. In fact, the process is under way. It was due to go to the Environment Court in May or June, and that has been an issue of contention. This bill cuts that process off at the knees. After the applicants have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get this process through, going through a special tribunal, to the Environment Court, and then to the Minister, this bill intervenes in the middle of that process and sends it to the Government’s hand-picked commissioners to make the decision about whether the Hurunui water conservation order will be decided. Then it goes to the Minister for the Environment. So this bill cuts through the existing process.

From my point of view, and the point of view of those who care about rivers, this is a totally unacceptable cutting off of the normal process for water conservation orders. That would be worrying enough in a bill that ostensibly is supposed to be about Environment Canterbury, but at the back of this bill there is the process for cutting off the application for the Hurunui water conservation order—that is, the attempt to put a national park on the Hurunui River.

The Hurunui River, for those who do not know, is the last remaining wild river that runs from the mountains to the sea, via a natural lake on the east coast of the South Island, and is subject to an irrigation scheme. They want to put a 70-metre dam on the south branch, and a weir on the north branch. This bill intervenes in the process of trying to protect the Hurunui, through a water conservation order, and the danger is that we will open it up to the irrigation project that has been so talked about.

If it was just about the Hurunui, it would be worrying enough, but the other problem is that this bill now makes it possible for any irrigator in the country to apply to the Minister for the Environment to open up any of the existing water conservation orders without going through the normal process. Normally if we want to amend or revoke a water conservation order, we have to go through a very elaborate process because they are like national parks. This bill suddenly opens up the existing Canterbury water conservation orders so that they can be contested by the irrigators. Graeme Sutton from Irrigation New Zealand is jubilant about this bill because he knows what it means for the existing water conservation orders. For example, people may remember that the cubicle farm application on Killermont Station relied on taking water out of the Ahuriri River in order to irrigate the station. There is no way that project could have gone ahead under the current law, but this bill allows those who were putting forward the cubicle farm application to go to the Minister for the Environment, without any of the normal due process, to get a variation on the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River so that they can get access to water to irrigate Killermont Station, even though it would take the river below the minimum flow that is currently outlined in that water conservation order. This bill is setting up a situation whereby we can revoke and amend existing water conservation orders on the Ahuriri River, the Rākaia River, the Rangitata River, and Te Waihora. All of them can be amended through, basically, a stroke of the pen of the Minister for the Environment.

We thought we had national parks for our rivers. The environment movement has fought battle after battle and spent literally millions of dollars to get water conservation orders in place across New Zealand, including in Canterbury, and now, because of the votes of National, ACT, and the Māori Party, we will see water conservation orders upended at the whim of the Minister for the Environment, at the stroke of a pen. Water conservation orders protecting some of our most important rivers in Canterbury can now be overturned.

On the one hand we have the special situation tucked away in the schedules that relate to this part, which deal with the Hurunui, to give special consideration to the Hurunui, so that the irrigation scheme can go ahead and Mr Carter can get access to water for his farm. Aside from the Hurunui situation, we have a more general problem whereby all of the water conservation orders in Canterbury are now under the gun. The environment movement fought long and hard, and worked with tangata whenua over many years in order to get in place water conservation orders to protect our wonderful rivers.

I was on the Hurunui on Sunday. I met with Mark Solomon from Ngāi Tahu. We spoke at great length about what a precious river that was, and how important it was that there be a water conservation order to protect that river from irrigators, yet here we have the Māori Party voting today for a bill that threatens the Hurunui River. It seems to me totally unacceptable that anybody who cares about the wild rivers of this country could vote for a bill that threatens the water conservation order on the Hurunui, and opens up every existing water conservation order in the Canterbury region so that it can now be overturned at the stroke of a pen by the Minister.

What kind of a national park do we have then? We have a national park that is a bit like—oh, the schedule 4 national parks, which can be mined. We have that kind of national park, the national park that we thought was for good, but in fact the water in these water conservation orders can now be mined for irrigation schemes, because of the changes that the Government is forcing through, all through the day and all through the night, without a select committee process, and under urgency.

I will respond to some of the Minister’s comments, and his attacks on me and the Green Party. The Minister has made various comments, at which personally I take offence. He said that we are doing an ad hominem attack on Mr Creech. That is the allegation, essentially. I dispute that. I say that the issue with Mr Creech is not Mr Creech himself. The issue is that he was the director of a dairy company that was doing a review of the regulator of the dairy industry in Canterbury. That was the issue with the appointment of Mr Creech. It was not that Mr Creech was a bad person. It was that Mr Creech was, at that time, a director of a dairy company that had multiple convictions for pollution of water, and who was, at that stage, doing a review of the regulator of the dairy industry. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is a problem with setting up a structure whereby we appoint someone who should never have had that role. It is that review that has provided the basis for this bill.

The extraordinary thing about the water conservation order provisions in Subpart 3 is that there is no way we can take the changes to water conservation orders out of the fact that Environment Canterbury may have been too slow on its resource consents, or it may not have processed enough resource consents to suit some irrigators. We cannot blame water conservation orders for that. It is not the fault of water conservation orders, which have been fought for in good faith by the environment movement and tangata whenua over many years. We cannot blame water conservation orders for that, yet in Subpart 3, and hidden away in schedule 2, there is a whole series of changes to the way that water conservation orders currently work. These are the orders that protect our nationally significant rivers.

It is also important to look at the way the test will be changed. There is quite a lack of clarity in the test of what will now be a water conservation order in the Canterbury region. This bill introduces a whole series of conflicting things that must be taken into account in any consideration of a water conservation order in the Canterbury region. It is unclear where all of this will end up. It is almost certainly the case that it no longer prioritises water bodies of national significance, which was always meant to be the whole purpose of a water conservation order. It was to protect water bodies of national significance in perpetuity. The whole idea was that it was like a national park for rivers, and that is what is being overturned in this bill. The test for getting something even into being considered for a water conservation order has now been muddied and made very unclear, because there are now multiple and competing demands on any decision maker when it has to be decided whether a body of water qualifies for a water conservation order—what used to be called a water body of national significance. These changes are fundamental to the way we manage water in New Zealand, and to water conservation orders, and we will be opposing them.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I will take up where the member who has just resumed his seat left off, and ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, to take a call specifically on the Hurunui water conservation order. We have to think seriously about what this bill is doing in terms of a process that is well and truly under way. For the benefit of the Committee, I point out that hearings are set down for the Hurunui water conservation orders to start on 31 May. They are set down to begin. A process is in train, whereby people have begun and are now part of a process, yet this bill walks in during the middle of that process and states that the process is all over and completely discarded as a result of this legislation. Government members need to stand up in the Chamber and acknowledge that that is what they are doing. A hearing is set down to begin on 31 May for 6 weeks to resolve, once and for all, issues to do with the Hurunui water conservation order, and this bill will totally remove the ability of the Environment Court to hear that. It will weaken the legal test, as Russel Norman has just said. The water conservation order will be re-notified.

At the end of this, it will be the commissioners, who will have a massive job on their hands anyway as a result of what is being done in this legislation, who will have to hear it and issue a decision. That decision will be able to be appealed only on a point of law, so in fact in this bill we are completely changing the way in which this very important water conservation order is being dealt with. No one from the Government has been prepared yet to say that they are taking away the legal rights of a number of people and a number of groups who have been involved in a process for some considerable time on this water conservation order. Nobody from the Government seems prepared to stand up and say that that is what they are doing. They are taking away legal rights, and the announcement has already been made today—

Simon Bridges: That’s what you did on the foreshore and seabed.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right, I say to Mr Bridges, we have heard announcements today on the Foreshore and Seabed Act, on which people have campaigned in the past on the issue of people’s rights to due legal process. What is happening about due legal process here? What is happening about the water conservation orders that are already being discussed, for which a process is already in place? I would ask respectfully for the Minister in the chair to take a call to clear this up and ensure that we have an understanding here. But for the Hurunui water conservation order—that process—where hearings are already set down to begin on 31 May, has that opportunity gone? Is that the situation we have? If it is, we will be putting people who have been in this process in a very difficult position.

I will also pick up the point that Russel Norman made about the question of what the test now is. The ability to impose the national park equivalent on rivers has gone. That seems to have gone for Canterbury but not for the rest of New Zealand. So now for Canterbury we have a different set of rules from the rest of New Zealand, in terms of conservation orders. I do not think this bill will lead to any streamlining of the process around the water conservation orders. In fact, I think it will make it more difficult, because the role now falls to the commissioners, who have an extremely busy process in front of them in terms of taking on the responsibilities of Environment Canterbury, and now they have this particular water conservation order put in front of them.

The process was meant to be completed by mid-July. The hearings would have been over and the court would have reported by mid-July. Now, we have a bill in which the Environment Court has been totally taken out of the process, and the commissioners will take over. First, they will give the conservation applicants 30 days to amend their applications, then the amended application will be followed by an additional public submission period even though there has already been a complete public submission period anyway. The commissioners will hold a hearing, during which they will be required to take no account whatsoever of the special tribunal that the Minister for the Environment has already set up for the Hurunui water conservation order. Then the decision of the commissioners, after they have heard this evidence, can be appealed only on a point of law.

So we are reducing the rights of a number of people who have already been heavily involved in this process, who have already made submissions, and who thought they were part of a process. This legislation is pulling that away. There are overall concerns about water conservation orders and what this will mean for them across the Canterbury region; but I would like a response specifically around the Hurunui case from the Minister for the Environment, because there is a great deal of concern out there from a number of people involved in that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I will respond to some of the points that have been made by Opposition members, so that people can be clear about the intent of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, and so that we can be helped to have a constructive and robust debate.

The first point is that Ruth Dyson made the argument that the Prime Minister today was incorrect in saying that we do not have a plan for water in Canterbury. She said: “Yes, we do. We have the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.” That, to me, spoke volumes about why we have the mess about water management in Canterbury. If that is the understanding of the law about water of a senior Minister from the previous Government, it is no wonder we have a problem. The reality is that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Smart alec. That’s not what I said and you know it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, it is actually Ruth Dyson who is being smart here. She probably does know that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy has absolutely no legal status as a plan. Under the Resource Management Act—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why isn’t it in the bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When the Prime Minister says there is no plan for water management in Canterbury, that is because the natural resources plan is still being heard 18 years after the passage of the Resource Management Act. That is why the provisions in Part 3 of this bill enable us to both fast track that plan and, for the very first time, give some legal status to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

A second question has been asked about water conservation orders. Again, I am not sure that Opposition members understand the process as it is right now; I ask members to let me explain it. At the moment, a person who wants a new water conservation order, or a variation, lodges an application with the Minister. The Minister appoints a special tribunal. There is all this rhetoric about my having my National Party mates on the tribunal—I can do that right now; I have absolute discretion about whom I appoint to the tribunal. The reason why I want water conservation orders to go to the commissioners is very simple and straightforward: if we are to properly manage water in Canterbury, we need an integrated approach. Having one bunch of people over here making a decision about a water conservation order, and a different bunch of people over there making a decision about the plan, is to me a nonsense. There is one catchment, and if there is anything I have learnt in my professional experience as an engineer with water, it is that catchments have to be managed in an integrated way. So to have one group of people making decisions in the lower part of the river and saying “Here is what we are going to do.”, and to have a different group of people making decisions in the upper part of the catchment, makes absolutely no sense. I challenge members: I say that if they want an integrated approach to water management—and it is essential that that is managed competently—then it makes great sense for water conservation orders to be considered by the commission that is making the other decisions in respect of water in Canterbury.

The next point I will make is that of course whether the decision goes to the commission or to the tribunal, the decision on water conservation orders rests quite properly with a politician, the Minister for the Environment. So in relation to all the stuff about a political agenda, I remind members that the decisions on whether or not those orders proceed come back to me in both the current process and the amended process.

The final point I will make is in respect of the Hurunui River application, and I accept that what we are doing in this process does cut across its current legal aspect. But the real choice for the Government was whether, if we had a particular view about water conservation orders in Canterbury and how they were to be integrated in the bigger picture, it was better to allow all the money to be spent on lawyers before the Environment Court arguing a particular case, when we already—

Hon Member: It’s already happened.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No; it has gone to a tribunal. It has not gone to court yet. It has gone to the tribunal; it has not gone to court—righto? So does it make sense for the Government, if it has a particular view about the orders, to pre-empt the process because I as Minister finally get to make the decision, or is it more honest and upfront to say, both to the applicant and to those who have a say, that the Government wants an integrated approach to water management in Canterbury? Is it not more honest to say, through this bill, that that Hurunui application will go to the commissioners in Canterbury—who will be making the decisions about the regional policy statement, as well—so they can make a decision in an integrated way? Let us open up the process, as we do in this bill, to all those parties, including the applicants and anybody who has made submissions to the tribunal, in order for them to have a new opportunity to be able to present that view. I suggest to members on the Opposition benches that that is a more straightforward and open way to do it, rather than to have me, as Minister for the Environment, sit back and allow all that money to be spent on lawyers and process and then come to a different decision at the end.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I will pick up on what the Minister has just said, and will refer back to clause 34 of Part 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, which I commented on earlier. I will pick up where I left off on that. I have a couple of comments I would like to make. Before I do, I will clear away one thing so that we do not have to revisit it, because I think it is rather unedifying for this House. There are various forms of ad hominem attacks, and I took some exception to the Minister in the chair casting a slight—an aspersion—on the Green Party’s co-leader Russel Norman, who asked a question in the House in good faith today. That question pertained to a conflict of interest, and I would like the Minister and his colleagues to accept the fact that any Opposition member in this House does have the right to ask a question pertaining to conflict of interest, which is a constitutional precept embedded in this democracy.

To conclude on that point, I find it somewhat gratuitous of the Minister to offer his view of what the Green Party’s previous co-leader might have to think about the standards of this party. Our co-leaders, both previous and present, aspire to the highest standards. I know them very well, all three whom I do know: the two current co-leaders and Jeanette Fitzsimons. I do not think this party needs to take advice from this Minister about the standards that the Green Party is aspiring to attain. If he continues to do it, then he would invite me and others, but particularly me, to rank this Minister in terms of integrity and dignity in the context of some of his predecessors, some of whom I know very well indeed.

On a more positive note, I would like the Minister to address one thing that has not come out in the debate to date. That is the following: I presume that the Creech report and the Minister’s judgment about the Environment Canterbury regional council are not based in any way on a judgment pertaining to the individual capabilities, competence, or integrity of those councillors. It is to do with something else. I think it would clear the air a little bit if we could invite the Minister to make a statement to that effect. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen it made before. I know at least half of the councillors, and I have a high regard for each of them as individuals. They have done good work, and if they are to be disbanded, for whatever reason—and we can debate the reasons here—then I think it is incumbent on the Minister and the rest of us to acknowledge the individual competence and good work they have each done.

The Minister was wont, just a moment ago, to refer to the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, and he complained that the Labour members had misunderstood the point. As he put it, the natural resources management strategy has been in place for the better part of 18 years, and there is no water management plan coming out; therefore, that is the principal reason, the criterion, for disbanding the council. I remind the Minister that the National Government back in 1991 introduced the Resource Management Act. Exactly 18 years later another National Government, its successor, amended the Act. Clearly, the Act was not perfect at the very beginning. Does that require that we disband this Government? It is the same period of time.

I spoke earlier about the deadlines that Environment Canterbury was meant to meet, and failed to meet, in producing the water management plan. That appears to be the principal reason that Environment Canterbury is being disbanded. I identified the fact that out of 15 regional and unitary councils, six of them did not have complete water management plans established. Three have not done any, one has made a statement, and two others have simply introduced water management plans in part only. So where does that leave us in terms of time frame? One of the issues we have to look at is the various sizes of the irrigation responsibilities, regional council by regional council.

I can offer statistics for the Minister, and he is free to correct them if he thinks they are different. These are the statistics we have gathered, and they are the following. Of the irrigation undertaken in New Zealand, 62 percent comes from Canterbury, 17 percent comes from Otago, and the rest account for 5 percent or less. So there is this huge differentiation. If we put Canterbury and Otago together, it is 79 percent of irrigation, which is huge. So it is important to regard those two regions more or less as separate and unique, compared with the others. But, as I say, some of the others have not achieved the stated goal, the criterion by which the Minister is disbanding Environment Canterbury. Let us look at them and have regard to what fate may lie in store for them.

We find that Marlborough has 3 percent of irrigation. It has a plan in part only. We have Tasman, which has 2 percent of irrigation. It has not yet introduced Part 5 of its plan. When run together, those two councils represent 5 percent of New Zealand’s irrigation. I ask the Minister what we are to do with those. Let us put a deadline on those two regional councils to complete their work, let us say by 30 June this year, the failure of which would require that they be disbanded and we can introduce an unelected commission. We find Gisborne, which has 0.4 percent of irrigation. Let us give it a deadline of 30 June. It has made a statement only. Let it translate that statement into a water management plan by 30 June, failing which it will be disbanded. Auckland is responsible for 0.2 percent of the country’s irrigation. It is tiny. But we know what is happening to Auckland, so let us give the super-city an extension. Let us give it to 1 April 2011 to introduce a water management plan, failing which we will have to disband the super-city and return to the status quo ante.

My favourite is the West Coast. The West Coast is responsible for 0.37 percent of the nation’s irrigation. Members may think that is trifling, but I suggest that it is an onerous responsibility on the West Coast to draw up a water management plan. I think we should give it only 5 months—until 31 August 2010. Failure to have a complete integrated water management plan in place by 31 August requires that it be disbanded. It should not be beyond our competence collectively, watching this Government in action, to ensure that in addition to Canterbury, the other five regional councils will go under the guillotine no later than 1 April 2011. Thank you.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I think there is a very important question to be asked: who is next? I know that a number of my colleagues have asked that question. The provisions in Part 3 are around the moratoria and water conservation orders, and I want to touch on water conservation orders in my speech.

Before I do that, I want to refer to a written question that Dr Russel Norman asked of the Prime Minister on 9 February this year, in which he asked: “In what regions of the South Island does he expect to see new water storage schemes built next year?”. The answer from the Prime Minister was: “Canterbury and potentially Otago.” I think that gives me the right to stand here today and ask who is next. Are the people of Otago about to have a local authority shake-up as well; and, if so, will they be consulted?

Last year, on 13 May, I spoke in this House on an amendment to Part 3 of the Local Government (Auckland Reorganisation) Bill, and I said to this House that I take democracy seriously. I said that what this Government was doing was not democratic, and that many of the people of New Zealand who were watching and listening were thinking the same thing. They are thinking that as we speak today. In May last year I gave the Auckland super-city bill the title “Local Government (We’ll do whatever we like because we can and we’ll be doing it to the rest of the country) Bill”.

Colin King: That’s a long title.

CLARE CURRAN: It is a long title but I think it is a correct title, and it seems that I was right about the Auckland bill and I am about this bill. I ask the Minister to reassure the people of Otago that they will not be next. I stand here as the member for Dunedin South, representing 59,442 constituents, of whom I am very proud. I welcome the fact that in my electorate there is a strong and active local authority, the Dunedin City Council, with 14 elected councillors. The Otago Regional Council has 11 councillors, and it is a strong council. Dunedin South is a long way from Auckland, but we are not so far from Christchurch.

I believe that my constituents are united on this issue in what they want and expect from their elected representatives. They want to be listened to, consulted, and to have a voice. The people of Canterbury do not have a voice in this process. The question is whether the abolition of more councils is on the agenda. Will there be a merger of councils, with no consultation with the people of New Zealand, to create super-councils that remove people’s rights to local representation? Is the Otago Regional Council for the chop?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No.

CLARE CURRAN: I am pleased to hear that that is on the record.

I want to repeat what I said 10 months ago in this Chamber when I painted a picture in the minds of members and in the minds of all the good New Zealanders who were listening and watching Parliament with a sense of increasing horror. Those people are contacting me in my electorate office and in my office in Parliament about the trampling of the rights of all New Zealanders. That picture is of a bulldozer—a big bulldozer—because this Government is bulldozing the rights of Aucklanders and ultimately the rights of all New Zealanders. If the Minister has given the answer “No” to Otago, will the Minister given the answer “No” to Wellington and to other regions around New Zealand?

From time to time central government may be required to step in and remove recalcitrant councillors, and I think that members on this side of the Chamber would agree with that, but no one would expect that the people of Canterbury would not have the opportunity to re-elect their representatives at the earliest available opportunity. One would think that the local body elections that are scheduled in 6 months’ time would be a fair and reasonable time for the people of Canterbury to elect representatives.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for that very sensible call on your part. This is the first time, as a consequence of being dragged away on other business, that I have had a chance to reflect on this very ugly example of the denial of the democratic rights of our people in the Canterbury region. At the pith of resource management in New Zealand has been a marriage between participatory democracy and resource management, and this bill, especially Part 3, fits a broader story. The story is to strip, step by step, decisions made by democratically elected representatives, delegated down to officers, and move it more into a corporate style of resource management.

I need look no further than clause 36, “Power to end moratorium”, and no doubt a moratorium will be in place as the burgeoning number of farmer-based applications come to the fore. This is actually a day where the current Government is rewarding its power base—that is, those members of that particular economic cluster, otherwise known as the farming community, who have continued to treat water as a free, unlimited resource. Obviously, once this moratorium comes off—and it will come off; I see that the Minister has the power to direct the commissioners to end the moratorium—the Minister will be under enormous pressure, enormous incentive, to open up that valuable source of wealth to the investors in that area. But that is judging the moratorium decision only in a very narrow way. It fits a broader picture—that is, to move more decisions away from local and regional government and put them in the Environmental Protection Authority; to move more decisions away from the area of Tāmaki-makau-rau and give them to shadowy, non-accountable corporate directors.

Underlying this change is not really a concern about the environment; underlying this change is a loss of confidence by the current Government in that system of governance—that is, in relying on those members of the public who step up and undertake democratic obligations, only to have the ground cut from beneath them. It might be said that they have been an abject failure and they have to go. In actual fact, the failure here is the existence of unelected and non-accountable commissioners, who will actually end up doing the bidding of central government. So the failure is that there is no more confidence on the part of these Ministers in that tenet of local government—democracy, where people in a certain region are entitled to elect their members and make resource management decisions that reflect the preferences of the region.

That idea is deeply embedded in our system of governance in New Zealand, so it would be fantastic to hear from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, as to why, when, and how that power will be used when he or she overrides the commissioners. The narrative, as outlined by Gerry Brownlee, by the Prime Minister, and by Mr David Carter—I have nothing to add other than what the Greens have said about Mr Carter—informs us that water is to be unblocked and used exclusively for an economic purpose, that is, the provision of goods and services from the application of water. No sensible participant in this debate wants to see the economy shrivel, but the fear is that the unmitigated arrival of new applications over time will see a further degradation of quality.

We cannot rely on those advocates from the farming community who influence and drive the decision makers in this Government. They have demonstrated through the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord that the modest progress that has been made is actually undermined by a deeper attitude. That attitude has been seen today in Manawatū and in other parts of the country. It seems to me that the overarching sense of their entitlement in this area—to treat water as a free good but have no obligations to the rest of society—will be exposed.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to:

to insert the following new cross heading and clause:

Canterbury Water Management Strategy zone committees

45A Zone committees to be elected

(1) This section provides that the zone committees in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy must be elected by a poll of electors.

(2) Elections for the zone committee positions must be held on the third Saturday in October 2010 as if the zone committees are community boards within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2002.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Lianne Dalziel to Part 3 be agreed to:

to omit Subpart 3.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The amendment in the name of Dr Russel Norman to omit Subpart 3 has been ruled out of order because it is the same in substance as the earlier amendment.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to:

to omit clause 46(4); and

to omit clause 47(2).

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 50 be agreed to:

to insert after subclause (3)(b) the following paragraphs:

“(c) the ecological, recreational, scientific, cultural, or spiritual value of waters; or

“(d) the value of waters as a fishery or as habitat for terrestrial or aquatic organisms; or

“(e) characteristics which any water body has or contributes to, and which are considered to be of outstanding significance in accordance with tikanga Māori.”

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 52 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to clause 58 be agreed to:

to omit this clause.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to Part 3 be agreed to:

to omit clauses 64 to 68.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Part 3 agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): New Part 4 proposed by the Hon Ruth Dyson is ruled out of order because the subject matter it contains relates to Part 2 and should have been proposed at the time the Committee was considering Part 2.

Schedule 1

A party vote

was called for on the question, That schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): I shall talk about the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. It is an oxymoron at the very least, because it is not “temporary”; commissioners are being put in place for the next 3½ years. That is a very, very long stretch of time. It is longer than the term of a Parliament. It is longer than the term of a local body in office. It is not temporary at all; the bill is totally misnamed in referring to temporary commissioners.

The second thing relates to the improved water management. I ask how it will deliver that promise when it bases itself on, and includes in schedule 1, the excellent visions and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. That strategy was patiently negotiated in a roundtable consensus by good people in Canterbury giving every commitment to a sustainable management outcome. That, in fact, is the primary principle enshrined in that schedule. It talks about water being a public resource, not one there for private gain without recourse to environmental outcomes. It enshrines as its first priority the environment. Only in second order does it come to uses such as irrigation and electricity. I note from that that schedule 2 refers to a cautious approach.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I remind the member that we are not debating the schedules; we have voted on those. We are on the title.

BRENDON BURNS: The title includes reference to the water management strategy. The document is embodied within the title.

The point I want to particularly make is that this bill is entitled the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioner and Improved Water Management) Bill. There is no legal body entitled Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury is actually the trading name of the Canterbury Regional Council. It is the name that the public knows it by, but it is not the name of the organisation. In fact, the name of the regional council is the Canterbury Regional Council. That is its legal status, that is its legal name, and I suggest that, at the very least, this bill has been shoddily drafted. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, to tell me how we can have a bill named after a trading name when, in fact, it is not the legal name of the entity involved. Environment Canterbury is not the entity involved; it is simply the name the public knows the Canterbury Regional Council by. It is not its legal name, so how can we, as this bill does, do away with the functions of elected councillors of Environment Canterbury, as it is named in the title of this bill, when, in fact, the name of the entity is the Canterbury Regional Council? The Minister needs to address this issue urgently because—

Paul Quinn: Why?

BRENDON BURNS: I am raising the question. I am no lawyer but I think this is a very relevant question for the Minister to urgently address.

Paul Quinn: He’s allowed to rename it.

BRENDON BURNS: He can rename it if he wants to. It will be another indication of the shoddy and rushed nature of this bill if the Minister is forced to do that, at the 11th hour and 59th minute under urgency, because he is not competent enough to see through a bill using the proper name and title. If that is the case, it is a further black mark for this Minister. It is absolutely a further black mark because it is reprehensible legislation, whatever its title is; it does away with the right of people in Canterbury to elect their regional councillors for the Canterbury Regional Council.

The bill is now named as the Environment Canterbury bill. It is inappropriately named, because that is the trading name of the organisation; it is not the legal name of the organisation. It is another example of the Government’s shoddy, rapid-fire approach, signalling its desire simply to get in place rapid new water management. It does not care what it does, it does not care what democratic principle it steps over; it will do anything it can to deliver fast new water so that it can have quick runs on the board in the run-up to the next election. The architect of that strategy is entering the Chamber. There will be quick runs, except when it comes to superannuation card changes, then there is quick reverse—but that is another issue. This bill is inappropriately titled. Environment Canterbury is not the organisation that should be in the title of this bill; it is the Canterbury Regional Council.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Here we have it. The big king-hit from the Labour Opposition is that the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill should actually be called the “Canterbury Regional Council (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill”. That is what the previous speaker, Brendon Burns, is arguing. I refer the member to the definition in clause 4, which has a very bold statement that will come as an enormous surprise to members of the Chamber. It states: “Environment Canterbury or ECan means the Canterbury Regional Council constituted by the Local Government (Canterbury Regional) Reorganisations Order 1989”. Is it not extraordinary that the one big objection that Labour has to this bill is its name?

I simply say that we are a common-sense Government. What do people in Canterbury refer to this agency as? They refer to it as Environment Canterbury.

Brendon Burns: They refer to you as a lot of things.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to Mr Burns that we have other legislation, in respect of accident compensation. Do members know what Labour members called that? They called it the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act, even though during Labour’s time in Government injury prevention and rehabilitation got worse. But we have a very common sense approach and we give bills names that our constituents know. Environment Canterbury is what this agency is known as, and it is perfectly proper and absolutely sensible that this bill refers to the name that the vast majority of the people of Canterbury would recognise as what we are dealing with in this bill.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I appreciate the Minister for the Environment’s attempt to give an explanation of the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I know that this is not a massive issue, but it should not be underrated, because it has to do with normal drafting principles. Given that we have been strong on logic and illogicality today, I do think there is a problem, because the definition in the interpretation clause that the Minister has read out does not come into effect until the moment that the legislation is adopted. So we have a catch 22 in logic; we have a problem. We cannot disband Environment Canterbury until we have renamed it. We have to change the name first to Canterbury Regional Council—[Interruption] Let us just clear this up, then we can move on to more important things. In fact, there have been more than a few king-hits on other issues today, but let us just clear this one up. We actually need to pass two separate pieces of legislation. We have to have one piece in which the interpretation clause states that henceforth Canterbury Regional Council is to be called Environment Canterbury for the purposes of future legislation before we can adopt the legislation with that name in its title.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I apologise for my late call; I had not realised that the previous speaker, Dr Kennedy Graham, was going resume his seat so quickly. I want to make a preliminary comment on the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill because when I referred earlier in the Committee stage to the regulatory impact statement—which is relevant to all aspects of this bill, including the title clause and commencement provisions—I said that statement had not been tabled in the House. I apologise to members for saying that, because, of course, it was tabled in the House as a result of a new procedure that has been in place only this year. I have discovered that although the Government made the very stupid decision to take regulatory impact statements out of bills, it has decided that when a bill is being debated under urgency, the regulatory impact statement will be tabled in the House. But the Government did not tell anyone about that; nobody was informed that this was a new process. So I apologise for saying the regulatory impact statement had not been tabled, but I do not apologise for my reference to the utter stupidity of the Government’s saying it is interested in regulatory reform, when a regulatory impact statement is now no longer published with the bill itself.

It is absolutely vital that people acknowledge—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate is on the title.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The regulatory impact statement is entirely relevant to both the title and the commencement date, which is—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Clause 1—the title.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: We are only up to clause 1.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Clause 1 only.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Clause 1 is the title. What I have a problem with—and this is mentioned in the regulatory impact statement—is that the title “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010” has a problem in it. It says “Temporary Commissioners”. That may be a misnomer or it may not be—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My apologies. I said we are on clause 1; we are actually on clauses 1 and 2.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: That is what I had thought.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My apologies.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I was referring to the commencement date as well as to the title.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will take that into account.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am sorry. I was referring to the regulatory impact statement having an impact on both the title and the commencement of the bill, which is what I said earlier on. I withdraw my apologies for getting that wrong, but the point I want to make is that the title refers to “Temporary Commissioners”, so there is the whole question of what this legislation is intended to lead to. The use of the words “Temporary Commissioners” makes it sound as though the only purpose of the legislation is to fill a temporary period of time between the sacking of Environment Canterbury as we know it today and the appointment of these commissioners on a temporary basis in order to improve water management. That is the way I read the title of the legislation.

But when we read the regulatory impact analysis—and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, still has not addressed this issue—we discover that, in fact, a bit of an experiment is going on in Canterbury. The analysis states: “However … because any national level decisions … have the potential to undermine the government’s New Start for Freshwater policy programme and the work of the Land and Water Forum, it is considered preferable for any intervention to have a narrow Canterbury-specific focus”—which it does in the title of this bill; it refers to Environment Canterbury—“in the first instance.” The language “in the first instance” suggests that this measure is not temporary in the sense that we would normally take into account. This is temporary in the sense that it is the forerunner of something else that is to come, and that is not a return to Environment Canterbury. I bet anything one likes that when we get all of the background documentation behind this set of decisions, we will find out that there is more to this than meets the eye.

Here is the big whammy as far as the regulator impact statement goes: this report states that “The results of any intervention”—that is, here in Canterbury—“could provide useful information for decision-makers on the outcomes of the New Start for Freshwater policy programme and potentially an opportunity to trial alternative policy settings in a confined context.” We are being trialled here; we are trialling alternative policy settings. We have called this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, but we do not know what that will mean in the long term, because it is quite clear that we are trialling alternative policy settings in the confined context of Canterbury. I ask what that will mean for the rest of the country. What will it mean for other regions? What will it mean in terms of all the other issues that were raised in the report of Wyatt Creech but that we have not had the opportunity to fully debate in this Chamber as we have gone through this part by part debate?

I think these are extremely serious issues that the Minister ought to address even in the context, at this late stage, of the debate on the title and the commencement date of this legislation.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): I am grateful for the opportunity to add to the great speeches from this side of the Chamber, and to isolate yet another egregious example of the errors that riddle the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I draw members’ attention to the misnamed proposed bill in front of us. It unwisely uses the word “Improved”. I wonder whether it is a spelling mistake or whether we ought to be dealing with improvidence. The notion that the bill will ameliorate, minimise, or reduce the negative externalities surrounding the wholesale slaughter of that valuable water resource by the friends of the National Government shows that the word “Improved” cannot stand—

Paul Quinn: Shane, I can’t understand you. One syllable words, mate.

Hon SHANE JONES: I know that self-improvement is needed by that member over there, but for fear of inviting an unnecessary level of criticism by the Chair I will overlook his many failings in other places.

I will come back to why the Minister is so insistent on selling a series of broken dreams to the people who will suffer the burden and pay the costs for this misnamed legislation. When we think of an improvement, we are dwelling upon the way in which society can derive maximum benefit in terms of the water resource, through this legislation with its ill-fitting name. It cannot stand that the bill ought to be seen as an example of improvement, because there will be no improvement in the standards of local democracy. There will be no improvement in relation to the efficiency or the transparency of how a valuable resource will be used in that area, so the word “Improved” cannot be applied to that part of the agenda. It will not remind the people from that part of the country how valuable the multi-faceted nature of the rivers—

Paul Quinn: Oh, what does that mean?

Hon SHANE JONES: I cannot be held responsible for the absence of an education for the rowdiest member on the Government side of the Chamber; that lies with Anne Tolley. If she could apply her standards to Paul Quinn, a few of us might start to take her a bit more seriously.

However, I come back to the name of this legislation. I warn the Minister, and in the gentlest of terms I remind the backers of the current Government—who have driven Ministers to take this very dangerous step so that the backers can maximise the exploitation of water for their narrow, self-centred purposes—that improvement relates to better stewardship of water. Management is too narrow a term; we are talking about stewardship. I will come to management shortly, because there are outstanding issues on which the Committee is required to give due consideration. Unless the values associated with aesthetic, ecological, and cultural interests are considered, and not just the narrow, commercial, bank-driven pressures that so many of our folk in the farming sector are facing in that part of the country, the word “Improved” cannot be allowed to stand. Through this legislation it represents absolutely no positive impact in terms of those other types of interests and values, which cannot be monetised. In that sense, this legislation is grossly ill-named.

Let me come to commencement. The Minister needs to acknowledge that the commencement of this legislation, foul though the legislation is—we will hold the architects responsible next year; we will ensure that the voters who have been completely stripped of any opportunity to participate unless they are well-heeled supporters of the current Government will have participation opportunities—will not come to pass until the Minister uses his regulatory power. When the Minister starts to use that level of regulatory power, there will be only the flimsiest of opportunities for full democratic oversight to be visited upon the Minister’s decisions. So it is not correct for us to allow this commencement section to stand as it is, because there is no way of assuaging the deep anxieties there in Canterbury, in Te Wai Pounamu, as to when this ill-conceived and mean-spirited strike at the heart of our citizens’ rights in that part of the country will commence. There is no way whereby people can be informed, through either the mass media or this House, about when they will feel the fangs of the friends of the National Government sucking as much water as possible for their narrow, dangerous, and exclusive purposes.

This commencement section needs to isolate the time when the Minister imagines himself or herself enacting the necessary regulations to bring these odious provisions into law. I ask when the provisions will be operationalised, because the point at which they are operationalised is the time when there will be a call to step up to the plate and protect the resources of this area. We will not know when that regulatory power will be exercised. The families, communities, and all varieties of stakeholders in that part of the country will not be given, as they are in this Chamber, an opportunity through their proxies to debate the issue of commencement. It will happen in a very surreptitious and sneaky way in some concealed room near the offices of the current Minister, so the commencement provision for these new rules to be imposed on the community is a very sad example of what should have been a transparent and candid display in this Committee. It might be said that that is a very trivial matter, and it might be said that that is a minute part of the legislation, but people need the certainty to know when they will see their water handed over to the very narrow, ill-defined, shadowy group of supporters of the current Government that has forced it to overthrow democracy. As a standard of parliamentary democracy it is important that this piece of information is inserted into the legislation; although the addition of the Royal assent in the legislative route is very important, the most important thing is actually the time when the Minister, through the Order in Council, will enact the regulations.

Although it does not bring any great honour to us as parliamentarians, it falls upon us to point out yet another error in this legislation. That lies in the fact that once we focus on the legislation as being hopelessly misnamed, we also focus on the fact that the point at which it will become operational is now hidden from the public. This is all about hiding things. This is all about concealing an allocation debate, and concealing private property rights away from the democratic glare. Anyone using water ought to be required to face the full glare of a transparent resource management process. Given that improvement will not take place when water is at stake, the management will be furtive. The process will be undertaken by clandestine forces that fear democracy. These new commissioners—we do not entirely know who they are, other than knowing about Dame Margaret Bazley—will be asked to undertake something in this legislation that will not lead to broad environmental improvement.

Adding the notion of environment and improvement together, I say that we will not get the right result through this piece of legislation. This bill is designed to manage an improvement for a very narrow range of specific stakeholders. It concerns a very narrow range of interest, not the common interest. For those reasons, I tell members that both of these provisions should not stand. Kia ora tātou.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I wanted to take the opportunity for a further call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, due to Rodney Hide now being the Minister in the chair. As he is the other Minister responsible for this area of the legislation I felt it was important that I ask him to take the opportunity to respond to whether he now thinks it is a good idea to have the regulatory impact statement separate from the bill itself. This regulatory impact statement is totally relevant to both the title and the commencement date—both of these issues are touched on in the regulatory impact statement—and this is a very, very clear example of why we need to have the regulatory impact statement included with the bill itself.

On this particular occasion, as I discovered subsequently, regulatory impact statements are required to be tabled by the Bills Office, essentially because we are in urgency and some MPs will not have time to go back to their offices and download them from the Treasury website before a bill is debated in the House. This is entirely unsatisfactory and would not have arisen as an issue if the Minister had not demanded to have the regulatory impact statements removed from the bills themselves. I have never heard the Minister explain why he took this decision to Cabinet. It is such a detrimental approach. I do not know whether the Minister has read the regulatory impact statement for this bill, but the following statements, “proposals to replace the elected Councillors for all of ECan’s functions”, which is what the title of the bill is about, and “suspend local body elections or remove the right of appeal on the NRRP or Water conservation orders, except on points of law” really concerned me, and I thought would have concerned him too. The departments themselves said: “These proposals appear to present a prima facie access to justice issue, and some departments were concerned that this may not be consistent with the Government’s statement on regulation: ‘better regulation, less regulation’ which requires a particularly strong case [to be] made for any regulatory proposals that are likely to override fundamental common law principles.” This bill overrides fundamental common law principles. The Minister is silent on that point, and the title, Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, does not indicate that many people had concerns that there was an overriding of fundamental common law principles. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. The Minister whose name the bill is in is back in the Chamber, and I thought it was a requirement that he sit in the chair when he is in the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Minister can decide who sits in the chair at the time, but I understand the Minister has come back to retrieve some papers. If he intends to stay, then he needs to be sitting in the chair.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I wanted the Minister in the chair to respond to this question of the impact of the kind of decision making that has led to this bill being called the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, and, of course, its commencement date. The commencement date bothers me a lot. The bill states: “The Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” But we heard from the Minister yesterday that this bill is expected to be done and dusted by 1 May.

Do members know what the implementation date was in the regulatory impact statement? It was 1 April—April Fool’s Day. That was the original date on which the Government had planned to have this bill come into effect, not 1 May. So we are an entire month out from the original plan. In fact, this bill was supposed to have been passed on 15 March. What is the date today? It is 30 March. No, it is actually 31 March everywhere else in New Zealand, except here in Parliament, because of the irony, or—

Colin King: Process.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: The process of urgency somehow makes the parliamentary clock stop, and it has stopped on 30 March. But, according to the regulatory impact statement, 15 March was the date on which the Government was supposed to progress this legislation through Parliament. This is what bothers me. The regulatory impact statement should be an integral part of the debate on this legislation; it is absolutely fundamental. None of the stuff that we have discovered by reading the regulatory impact statement was mentioned in either of the Ministers’ speeches or any of the Government members’ speeches on this bill. We have not had a proper debate on the elements of the bill that actually matter.

The other point, perhaps, the Hon Rodney Hide might like to hear from the regulatory impact statement is this: “Options that rely on introducing legislation in a very short timeframe increase the risk of poor or misdirected intervention resulting in unintended consequences and the need for subsequent intervention to remedy these consequences.” That is exactly what is wrong with this process. It is not a robust process, and there will be a price to pay.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): I am very happy to reply to the points made by the Hon Lianne Dalziel on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, particularly about the regulatory impact statement process. I am sorry, I had thought I had explained that to the member, but I will explain it for the Committee. I have huge respect for Lianne Dalziel and the regulatory impact work that she did as the previous Minister of Commerce. Indeed, the bill that I have later on under the urgency motion is virtually entirely her work, which I am carrying on.

Let me explain to members the separation of the regulatory impact statement process from the bill. This was not done lightly or for capricious reasons. It was because we have a harder hitting regulatory impact statement process as a result, which is able to be commented on, and actually gets what the departments think. The difficulty that I discovered when I became the Minister for Regulatory Reform was that because regulatory impact statements are attached to the bill, they were seen by the department as belonging to the Minister. The view was that the regulatory impact statement was the Minister’s, and the department would write a regulatory impact statement reflecting what the Minister wanted. I was very keen that we have a regulatory impact statement process that is a step removed away from the Minister, so that Ministers have to get up and explain their reasoning for their bill, and the regulatory impact statement is a technical analysis of the impacts of the bill.

I wanted the departments to sign off on the regulatory impact statements. They were quite resistant to doing that, and I discovered that it was because they felt a divided loyalty. On the one hand they were working for the Minister to promote what the Minister wanted, then on the other hand I wanted them to write an independent report about what they thought of the bill. The matter was resolved with the chief executives and the policy advisers by separating the two out so that the regulatory impact statement would belong to the department and the bill itself would belong to the Minister. Then the departments could write an independent impact statement, which the Ministers would have to get up to defend. I fully accept the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s point that the difficulty, then, is the availability to members of Parliament. I think we need to figure out a way around that. But I ask members to bear with me and consider the importance of having a harder hitting impact statement that Ministers have to get up to defend, and an impact statement that, clearly, Ministers cannot direct on. So that was the logic of it; I hope it makes sense.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): We are debating the name of this bill, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The Hon Shane Jones said that we are talking about water, and about how valuable water is. He went on to say that the people of Canterbury will not be aware of just how valuable this resource is. I will suggest some alternative names for this bill that might reinforce to the people of Canterbury and, indeed, reinforce to the people of New Zealand, just how valuable water is. We know that water is absolutely valuable for our agricultural industries. It is absolutely valuable for creating wealth for New Zealand. If we are to improve living conditions in New Zealand, we need to take every opportunity to allow our industry to grow and develop.

So let us look at alternative names for this bill. Rather than the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, let us call it the “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Valuable, Valuable Water Management) Bill.” Why not call it the “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Windfall Profits from Water Management) Bill”? The reason I ask that is that water is a very integral part of electricity generation. We have water passing through the Waitaki River scheme through a number of dams generating renewable energy.

From 1 July this year the emissions trading scheme comes into force. That will create windfall profits for Meridian Energy and a number of other generators. It will create windfall profits, and the value of the water that flows through the Waitaki River scheme will be so much more. It will be very valuable. We saw evidence of that today when Meridian Energy announced that it was paying a $98.5 million dividend to the Government. That is right, just this very day Meridian Energy announced a $98.5 million dividend, substantially from the water that flows through the Waitaki River scheme. From 1 July both sides of this House are very happy for all New Zealanders to have to pay an extra 5 percent for their electricity.

Brendon Burns: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am struggling to connect the relevance of the issues of the Waitaki and Meridian Energy’s power price rise or profit announcement to the short title of this bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am going to uphold the point of order. The member should return to the subject material: clauses 1 and 2.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: I would be very happy to do that, but I thought I was speaking on the subject of this bill, because this bill is called the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. We heard earlier from Mr Shane Jones that it did not highlight to the people just how valuable this resource was. I was suggesting an alternative name for this bill: the “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Windfall Profits from Water Management) Bill”. I say that simply because from 1 July companies such as Genesis will add a 5 percent increase to their power prices because they produce power from coal and gas. They will have to pay an emissions trading scheme tax. As a consequence of that, Meridian Energy will also get the benefit of that extra 5 percent increase without paying the tax, and it will have windfall profits. We saw evidence of that in the dividend announcement today. Those dividends will no doubt grow even greater as years go on.

So I suggest that this bill should be renamed the “Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Windfall Profits from Water Management) Bill”.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Quite often in debates in the Chamber when we are talking about a bill’s title, a number of innovative members get to their feet and give well-considered or poorly-considered alternative names. I commend the previous speaker, John Boscawen—although, frankly, I think he spoke entire nonsense. He said some alternative names very eloquently, but I did not agree with a single word of his speech.

John Boscawen: I learnt a lot from Labour.

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is excellent, and, to be honest, Labour learns a lot from Mr Boscawen.

The title of a bill is meant to represent the purpose of the bill so that members of the public can read it and say: “Now I know what that is about.” I think they would have quite a lot of confusion if they read the title of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The first problem with it is the one that was identified briefly in the contribution of my colleague Brendon Burns, the member of Parliament for Christchurch Central, which is where the head office of Environment Canterbury is based. He alerted the Chamber to the fact that Environment Canterbury, which is the name that is in the bill, is actually the trading name of the organisation, rather than the legal title.

I will diverse momentarily from the strict debate on the title, having been given that leadership from Mr Boscawen. The bill explains later on in Part 1, clause 4, “Interpretation”, that “Environment Canterbury or ECan means the Canterbury Regional Council …”. However, if we look strictly at the title, we see that it looks quite sloppy. I think that of all Ministers, Mr Hide is probably not very tolerant of sloppiness. I am sure not all Ministers are as lacking in tolerance of sloppiness as he may be. I think that had he been responsible for this legislation rather than the Hon Dr Nick Smith, he would have preferred to say that we are talking about a legal entity. We are talking about taking away the elected representatives of the legal entity that is responsible for the statutory management of air, natural resources, water quality, water management, passenger transport, and biodiversity in Canterbury. That is a huge range of statutory functions that the Canterbury Regional Council has, so why do we not use its proper name in the title?

It seems to be such a basic point that if we talk about gutting an organisation, taking away the democratic right to vote of every single citizen of Canterbury, and taking away our democratic right to vote for our regional councillors, the least the Minister could have done was to give that organisation the respect of referring to it in the title of this legislation by its proper legal name. It is not Environment Canterbury; it is the Canterbury Regional Council. We all call it “ECan”. The Minister could just have sloppily referred to it as “ECan.” That is the first message that I would like to give to the Chamber. I think it is disrespectful, I think it shows a sign of sloppiness in the preparation of the legislation, and I think it shows a lack of attention to detail and rigour on the part of the Minister, none of which are attributes that I think this Committee would want to commend.

The second point that I want to make refers to the words that are in brackets. I want to refer to just the first two words to start with, and those are “Temporary Commissioners”. It has been very clear during this debate that there is nothing temporary about the commissioners taking up the responsibility of an alternative to our elected representatives. My colleague Lianne Dalziel referred to the regulatory impact statement, which gave a strong indication that this is just the first step. It is the first step towards the total abolition of Environment Canterbury and the total abolition of our regional council. The council will be replaced by either the maintenance of commissioners performing those statutory roles, which would be a total disaster for us, or—and for the Minister who is in the chair, Rodney Hide, this is his dream come true—the abolition of the regional council and the amalgamation of its functions into the city councils and district councils in the area. I think that it is quite misrepresentative of the actual facts behind this debate to use the term “Temporary Commissioners”.

The legislation states that the commissioners will go until the job is finished. It is really hard to work out from the rest of the legislation what one would define as “the job”. They are temporary because there is a provision in the law that states that we should have elections by 2013, but there is nothing at all to stop the Minister coming into this House after those elections, in the same way he did yesterday, and saying: “I have had enough. I will get rid of all the elected councillors. I will appoint seven commissioners, one of whom I will give the House the courtesy of naming.” We know the name of only one of the seven temporary commissioners of the controlling body of our new organisation. We know the name of only one of them, yet this bill is about to pass into law. Then Nick Smith said that in 3½ years time he will be generous enough to let Cantabrians have a vote again. “Thanks for nothing.”, I say to Minister Smith. We want our vote this year. We want the right to vote for our regional authority this year. Implying that the commissioners are temporary positions gives us no confidence, because we do not have any faith or trust in the Minister that this is not the start of the demise of the regional council. We have no that the assurances that are alluded to in this legislation—that we will get a vote in 3 years’ time—will come true. Even if they do, there is no justification at all for this law being put into place.

My final point is in relation to the last part of the words in brackets in the title, which is “Improved Water Management”. Dr Smith and I had an interchange earlier in this debate about whether we had a water management strategy. To make it technically correct, we could go as far as to say that we have two because there is a plan that was notified in 2005 and the fact that it has not yet been endorsed under all the Resource Management Act procedures does not make any difference to the way that water is managed in Canterbury. If the Minister had bothered to get any advice from his officials on that particular point, rather than trying to find an excuse for his ideological push on this issue, then he would have known that. But we also have the particular strategy that is alluded to in the title, and that is the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

I would be interested in hearing from the Minister at some stage of the debate about how this bill was designed, because it has quite an unusual layout and structure. In a very unusual move, schedule 1 of the two schedules in the bill is the vision and principle of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy: Strategic Framework in its entirety. Page 31 through to page 35 is concerned with just the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The legislation outlines the principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. The Minister said that it is so terrible that we do not have a water management strategy, he has to sack all the democratically elected regional councillors and appoint seven commissioners. The Minister then went on to say they would be paid $2,000 a day. I am really interested to know what Minister Hide thinks of the value of commissioners who are replacing elected regional councillors, who will be paid $2,000 a day, and who will only perform the statutory functions of the Canterbury Regional Council. There will be no connection with the city and no connection with the community. The commissioners will do the minimum amount of work that is possible and they will receive $2,000 a day, compared with the $50,000 a year that the elected councillors currently receive.

The worst part of all this is not only that the Minister said he was sacking our councillors but also that he was appointing commissioners to do the job and putting in place a whole lot of avoidance of natural scrutiny and public input. He is doing it all under urgency, with no select committee process, no scrutiny at select committee, and no right for the public to have their say. At the end, the Minister said that on top of all this, the ratepayers of Canterbury will pay the bill. We get to pay the $2,000 a day consultancy fee for Dame Margaret Bazley, et al, when we did not even ask for them. We asked for our elected representatives to be maintained in those positions. We said there were many options for an extension of the work. We could have a commissioner coming in and working alongside them if that was the Minister’s desire. This is expensive, undemocratic, and wrong.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Twyford to clause 2 be agreed to:

to omit this clause and substitute the following new clause:

2 Commencement

(1) Part 1 of this Act comes into force on 1 March 2011.

(2) Parts 2 and 3 and Schedules 1 and 2 of this Act come into force on a date appointed by the Minister of Local Government by Order in Council in accordance with section 6A(4).

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Noes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Clause 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I move, That the report be adopted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 4; United Future 1.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a third time. I would like to begin by acknowledging the officials, parliamentary counsel, and particularly Rodney Hide, the Minister of Local Government, who has worked with me on this difficult issue. I also want to acknowledge the councillors and staff of Environment Canterbury, and acknowledge that this has been a difficult period for them. It is my view that sometimes in politics we need to make difficult decisions, and on this occasion it is my view that these are the right decisions.

This bill is about delivering a step change in the management of water in Canterbury. In the last 18 years, since the Resource Management Act provided the framework for managing our resources, we have reached a point in Canterbury where there still is no plan for, in my view, New Zealand’s most important strategic resource, and that is fresh water. Environment Canterbury has been unable to deliver a robust and effective framework for the management of natural resources, and, in my view, that is holding back the region of Canterbury, and New Zealand, both economically and environmentally. I also note that Environment Canterbury’s relationship with the 10 territorial councils is at such a low—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The mayors, not the council.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I tell Lianne Dalziel that all 10 councils that I have personally visited have indicated support for the replacement of the regional council, or Environment Canterbury, with commissioners. There was also very broad consensus amongst the key stakeholders in Canterbury that action is needed.

I acknowledge, and I think my colleague Rodney Hide would acknowledge, that when last October we sought a formal review of Environment Canterbury it was not our expectation that this would be the outcome. I expected that a lesser intervention might have been necessary, but having received such a comprehensive report, with very clear recommendations, it would not—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It’s not comprehensive; it’s outrageous.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I draw the member’s attention to the fact that Wyatt Creech, Doug Martin, Greg Hill, and Doug Low are very respected individuals who were used by the previous Labour Government, as well as by this Government, in the review. What that review concluded was that there was an unprecedented gap between the issues that Environment Canterbury faced, particularly in respect of water management, and its capacity to act in that regard. I also note its very clear conclusion that failure to act would lead only to continued malaise around water management in Canterbury. The Government’s intervention is warranted; our response is measured, it is reasonable, and it is appropriate for the circumstances.

To turn round Environment Canterbury does require a response from the Government. As I have said, this is not a step we wanted to take, but this decision represents the best chance to move water management in Canterbury forward. This intervention is not only in the interests of Canterbury’s environment economy but, quite frankly, it is also in the interests of all New Zealanders. The appointment of commissioners is an interim measure. Commissioners will be in place for only as long as they are needed to do the job. The legislation makes plain that the period, at the very longest, will extend to the 2013 local body election. This provides sufficient time to place Environment Canterbury on a firmer footing.

The bill provides an obligation on the commissioners to seek the advice of, and consult, the mayors of Canterbury. That is an appropriate link back to those persons who will be democratically elected across the region of Canterbury in the local body elections this October. The terms of reference will also bind the commissioners so that they are required to consult Ngāi Tahu and other key stakeholders on the issue of water resource management in Canterbury. I also note that all of the requirements of the Local Government Act and the Resource Management Act about the inclusion of, and consultation with, the people of Canterbury have been carried over in these decisions.

A challenge was set down by the Labour environment spokesperson, Shane Jones, to be clear about what the provisions are in this bill that will improve the management of water in Canterbury, and I want to go through the three of those quite explicitly. Firstly, this bill provides for a targeted moratorium to be able to be placed in Canterbury, where, frankly, there is no more water. I challenge members opposite to say whether they support that view or are opposed.

Brendon Burns: We support it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is clear that they support that measure. That is welcomed. It was asked of the previous Government, by Environment Canterbury, many years ago. I think we should at least accept that that is an improvement, but Brendon Burns’ acknowledgment that that is a step forward is contradicted by his colleague Shane Jones, who says there is nothing in this bill to improve water management in Canterbury.

The second key provision in this bill is that we need to have a plan, as quickly as possible, for water management in Canterbury. That is why this bill enables the commissioners to fast track the completion of the natural resources plan and the regional policy statement for Canterbury. Again, I say that that is a step forward; again, I challenge both the Greens and Labour as to whether they support the measures in this bill to ensure that we have a plan in Canterbury for the management of water.

The third key provisions in this bill that also improve water management are those in respect of integrating decisions on water conservation orders with those of the regional plan, and having those decisions made by commissioners. Again I challenge members opposite to say how it makes sense for decisions around water conservation orders to be made by a separate group of people from those who are developing the regional plans. We are of a view that if we are to properly manage water in Canterbury, it needs to be done in an integrated way, and that is what this bill provides for.

I have been disappointed in the debate on this bill that the major contribution from members opposite has been one of misinformation and personal denigration. For instance, the latest is the claim made by Ruth Dyson that Margaret Bazley will be paid $2,000 a day. I challenge the member: where has she got that information from? Why would she want to denigrate a person like Dame Margaret Bazley—

Hon Ruth Dyson: How is that a personal denigration?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I challenge Ruth Dyson to say where she got that information from. She just enjoys making things up. Let me give that member an assurance that the amount that Dame Margaret Bazley will be paid for her work will be exactly the same amount as was agreed by the previous Government to pay Dame Margaret Bazley for her work on the royal commission in respect of the work in Auckland. I would not find any member who reasonably objects to that approach. I note that Brendon Burns has had a track record on this issue of making all sorts of claims in the newspapers about things going to Cabinet on particular days and about particular members of the commission. He has been grandstanding all the time and not making any sort of constructive contribution. I can name six times when he has made claims about his sources who tell him things that have subsequently been proved to be incorrect. I am surprised that Mr Burns wants to continue, in the name of grandstanding, to compromise his own integrity, with those false claims.

It is hugely important for New Zealand that we improve water management, and nowhere is that more important than in Canterbury. I commend this bill to the House because I think that all members of this House know, in their heart of hearts, that the Government had no choice but to act. I think the comments from the previous Minister for the Environment, Trevor Mallard, were particularly revealing when he said that everyone knew the problems in Environment Canterbury. He had taken a proposal to Helen Clark, and she had said that for political reasons they did not act. This Government will rise above politics. This Government is determined to deliver improved water management for New Zealand. That is what this bill delivers, and I commend it to this Parliament.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): What a conclusion to a shameful day for this Parliament. That Minister, who has talked about people’s integrity being questioned, used his last speech on the bill to question the integrity of other people, including myself. This bill is an absolute travesty from beginning to end. It is based on a specious review, which interviewed fewer than 20 stakeholders in 1 short month, with a conflicted chairperson, of Environment Canterbury’s performance, which had improved immeasurably in the time between the review’s taking place and the end of the time frame it was looking at.

I thought the Minister was on record as saying he wanted better water quality in New Zealand. This bill does absolutely nothing to deliver on the promise that he made repeatedly when in Opposition and in the early stages in Government. Earlier today I asked a question of the Prime Minister on the issue of what he wants to see and what he is on record as seeing. I have now tabled that reference. I quote from written question No. 291 from Dr Russel Norman, in which the Prime Minister stated that when, earlier this year, he spoke of looking forward to seeing water schemes built in the South Island this year, he was referring to the Rangitata South scheme as well as to some of the specific water storage schemes identified in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

So there we have it. There is the agenda of this Government, on paper. The Government wants to see new projects next year. That is what this bill is about: enabling those projects to happen rapidly and in a context where there are no new environmental frameworks or safeguards being put in place by this Government. During the course of question time, too, my question was rejected on the basis that it could not be authenticated by reference to Dr Smith’s comments in today’s Timaru Herald. Let me quote the Timaru Herald of today: “Dr Smith said part of the reason he replaced the council with commissioners—rather than appointing a commissioner adviser to oversee water management issues, as ECan suggested—was he was wary of the outcome of the October elections. ‘ECan put forward a negotiated solution, but one of the downsides is that there was no guarantee the commissioner-adviser would have the same powers come October,’ ”.

What he is saying is that he did not want to trust the voters of Canterbury to have their say about who should decide on the functions of their regional council on the allocation of water in their region. He wanted to have control of that, via commissioners. That is what this bill is about. It is the replacement of a democratic council function by executive fiat—the Fiji solution, as it has been referred to in the House. There is no requirement across this bill for consultation with the public of Canterbury. What we have is the requirement for commissioners to issue public notices from time to time. Where will we see these commissioners replacing the functions of elected councillors? Where will they go out and meet with people who have issues about their rates, the need to replace their fireplaces, and the need to improve the city’s bus service, scheduling, or timetables?

I ask the Minister where those commissioners will be. They will be cloistered in Kilmore Street, in the headquarters of Environment Canterbury. They will be paid, I wager, the thick end of $1,000 or more a day. A commissioner will be getting five times what an elected councillor would be getting. Will we get five times the value? Will they go out to talk to their constituents, or will they sit there and implement the Government’s agenda? What they will do is become isolated in that castle in Kilmore Street, and “ECan” will become “ECan’t”, in terms of any connection with voters. That is what they will do. There will be nobody there to look after the interests of Canterbury voters. There is nothing in the bill on the question of commissioners having to meet the public, hold public meetings, or establish consultation groups so that they can get some window of view on what the people in Canterbury want from them. We are talking about these people being in place for up to 3½ years, without any reference to the community they are supposedly serving, at five times the pay rate of the people whom they have replaced. That is what this bill is about. There is no consultation mechanism whatsoever.

It is disgraceful for a Government to put in place an enduring replacement for 3½ years, whereby people will sit in splendid isolation in an ivory tower and have no contact with the voters or reference to them. There will be no requirement to consult, to gauge, or to go and see them. All the power rests with the Minister for the Environment, and he says “Trust me. You can be assured that I’ll look after the interests of Canterbury.” Well, I do not trust him, and I do not believe he has the power anyway. This is another victory for Rodney Hide. This is doing to Canterbury what he has done to the super-city in Auckland. It is a two-fingered salute to the people of Canterbury, as he has done to the people of Auckland. Talk about democratic process. At least in Auckland there was a select committee hearing. We have not had even a flicker of democratic process here. This bill has been rammed through under urgency without any consultation whatsoever, other than the 20 groups talked to by the review group, and the Ministers trotting round and having a brief conversation with some of the councils. That is what it has come down to: Rodney Hide has won the day. I suppose we can congratulate him on that, but it is at the expense of the voters of Canterbury. We have to ask who will be next. Will it be Wellington, Waikato, or the Bay of Plenty? There will be an agenda that follows on from this. Mark my words!

I want to comment on the Māori Party, which, after opposing the bill’s introduction, has supported it on the specious belief, I believe, that it will improve the representation of Māori in whatever replaces Environment Canterbury. On the experience of Auckland, that is a fond, fond hope. Members of the Māori Party held out for Māori representation on the Auckland super-city, and it was not delivered. Rodney Hide made it an issue, basically, that he was going to win or walk, and so much for mana enhancement for the Māori Party. Its nose was dusted on that one, and I suspect we will see the same outcomes in Canterbury. There will, I think, be a Māori commissioner appointed. That is implicit in the bill, I suppose. I suspect that we will see somebody from the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. I think we will probably see Alec Neill appointed.

H V Ross Robertson: What? Not Alec. It can’t be Alec.

BRENDON BURNS: Oh yeah, they will give him a job, I would have thought. But that still does not address the issues, because the power will still rest with the Minister. There will still be conflict, in the fact that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy embodies a whole range of principles that will not be upheld by this bill. I noted the chairperson of the Water Rights Trust said last night that there would be war if the Canterbury Water Management Strategy was not implemented and held to. Well, we will see. There have certainly been plenty of protests around Christchurch already today. There were 300 people at a rally on Monday before last on this issue, at short notice. People in Canterbury are very one-eyed. They are feisty and they believe in their institutions, and they hold to them dearly. This Government takes that on at its peril.

The Canterbury Water Management Strategy states that it will uphold principles concerning the environment. This bill is going in absolutely the opposite direction. I note the Minister’s crocodile tears for the staff and councillors at Environment Canterbury. He brings in a bill to dismember them, and then says, oh, he is sorry, and he really feels for them. Talk about shallow! As for his references to a step change—we keep hearing that phrase “step change”—I ask where the step change is in terms of the delivery of the improvements we want to see in environmental outcomes in Canterbury. Nothing is happening to do that. There is nothing in this bill, and nothing signalled. The Minister has put a lot of faith and hope in the Land and Water Forum, which will report at the end of July, and it was based on the same sorts of principles that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy tried to uphold and patiently negotiated. Those principles are being put at extraordinary risk by this bill, and we will see the outcomes of that in short order.

As for the idea that water management has been holding back Canterbury, members have to acknowledge that Canterbury has been leading the charge in terms of economic growth across the country for quite some considerable time. It has produced nearly half the national growth in the dairy industry over the last 10 years. So we are not being held back. We are at risk of seeing opportunities thwarted because the costs of water management will be stitched back to the people of Canterbury. They have lost their vote. Shame on this Government, I say.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I do so because since well before being elected to Parliament I have been well aware of a high degree of frustration amongst the regional authority’s ratepayers who form part of my constituency. Despite significant changes in my electorate boundaries at the last election, the level of disenchantment has remained, and perhaps has even increased.

All levels of Government bear the brunt of the disaffection of those who feel their level of taxation might not be matched by services or outcomes. It happens to central government politicians as well as to those at the territorial local authority level. In my time as an MP I have worked with one regional council and five district councils. I have received complaints about ineptitude, whether perceived or real, about all of those entities, but the complaints about Environment Canterbury have been remarkable in the extreme. Most of the time regional ratepayers have felt a sense of disquiet in that they also feel vulnerable in complaining. There is no doubt that when someone has already battled for some 5 years to get a water consent for a small dry-land holding—5 long years—the last thing he or she wants to do is to annoy the powers that be when maybe, just maybe, there might be some progress tomorrow. I have heard stories about environmental enhancement being slowed up, then costing far more than was advised—that is environmental enhancement I am talking about. I have heard stories about economic enhancement through the obtaining of a water consent having the same problems. In the dozens of examples that I have been approached about, there has been a consistency of message in terms of distrust of Environment Canterbury’s procedures. Time and time again I have heard of council officers changing and the new case manager wanting to start again and wanting more information. Time and time again I have heard about the rules changing mid-process.

In all of the time I have spent over the years discussing issues that relate to Environment Canterbury, it has been comprehensively proven to me that there is validity in the view that the institutional failure of Environment Canterbury requires comprehensive and rapid intervention on the part of central government to protect and enhance both regional and national well-being, and that failure to intervene would lead to continued lack of progress in water management in Canterbury. How the regional council has managed our water has been critical for our economic success or lack of it, and for our environmental well-being or lack of it. All stakeholders agree on the importance of sound management of that resource, yet we do not have, after all those years, a proper water plan, we have growing problems of water quality, and we are not making progress on the opportunities for water storage and economic progress.

The principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy begin with environmental protection, so there will not be a takeover by dairying or irrigation interests, and in order to underline that I will read members the vision of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy: “To enable present and future generations to gain the greatest social, economic, recreational and cultural benefits from our water resources within an environmentally sustainable framework.” That is in schedule 1 of the bill. There have been some 10 years of work on exactly that, there is huge buy-in, and the people who feel passionately about that water strategy say it is not going anywhere under the current Environment Canterbury, and therefore something should be done. This Government has done something.

So, too, the rhetoric of coup d’état and the abolition of democracy from the Opposition parties would suggest to me that they have been watching far too much drama on TV. Democracy has been merely interrupted, to be resumed as soon as practicable, and certainly by 2013, and the interruption absolutely is because Environment Canterbury has demonstrated that it has no ability to manage the precious resource that is gold culturally, gold to our environment, gold to our recreationalists, and gold to our economic future. That resource is water.

I finish by wishing commissioner Dame Margaret Bazley all the very best, because her work is of vital importance to my constituents and to New Zealand as well. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I have to say that the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill represents a very, very sorry day for democracy in New Zealand. A very strong view has been expressed in Christchurch that this has been a set up from start to finish. I suggested a sequence of events during the Committee stage of this bill that started with the Ministers getting a National MP to ask her local mayor to approach the mayoral forum in order to write a letter of complaint. This was not denied by the member concerned, nor was it denied by the Minister. That has added fuel to the belief that this is exactly how this matter has been brought to a head.

Let us look at the process. A letter was written to Ministers by the mayors on 18 September 2009, despite the Canterbury triennial agreement, which includes an undertaking by signatories with regard to the early notification of policy and proposals, opportunities for involvement, a no-surprises policy, and joint and collaborative engagement with communities. Who would sign up to a Canterbury triennial agreement and then send a letter like that? Every single one of the councils in the region has committed to that triennial agreement—it is a requirement under the law—but that letter totally compromised the basis of that agreement.

What is worse is that the mayors behaved as if they were the local authorities, because not a single one of those mayors went to their local authority to get the authority to sign off on that letter. Not one single mayor within Environment Canterbury’s jurisdiction went to his or her councillors and asked them what they thought about the behaviour of Environment Canterbury because he or she was about to sign a letter with other mayors to the Ministers—which was completely in breach of the obligations under the triennial agreement—in which he or she would demand that the Government take action against Environment Canterbury. Not one single councillor was engaged in that conversation at the council level, which is the governance level for councils.

The mayoral forum has operated completely independently of its statutory obligations to get council backing for this kind of breach of the triennial agreement. Not one mayor has subsequently consulted with his or her council. They have taken the opportunity to put the boot into Environment Canterbury without bothering to even reflect on what they have agreed to. What on earth makes any one of those mayors think that this Government would not step in to undermine the democratic processes without wide consultation and a good deal of consensus about the way forward.

I say to members that they should look at what has happened in Auckland, because that could be coming to a region near them. The people of Canterbury should be thinking about that, because this Government may well be thinking about imposing a super-Canterbury structure over the top of the structure that we have at the moment. I know from some elements of this report that individuals within Christchurch City will certainly want to see that happen, as long as they are the ones left running the show.

This is essentially what happened in Rodney. In Rodney there was wide consultation and a good deal of consensus about the way forward. I want to put on record the true sequence of events, rather than the hysterical nonsense that we have had from the Minister. The Rodney District Council approached the Minister of Local Government to ask for a review of the council under section 692M of the Local Government Act. Who was in Government when the Rodney District Council approached the Government?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Labour.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: No, it was National. National was in Government when the council originally made the approach. A National Minister set up that review. During the course of the review, there was a change in Government. That was when the new Minister of Local Government, the Hon Sandra Lee, was asked to extend the period within which the reviewers could report to the Government. She said that was fair enough as they wanted to do a good job. They called for public submissions by having public notices go out in the media, and they held a 6-day hearing before reporting to the Minister. It was an extremely open process; not so in this case.

When Sandra Lee appointed a commission to act in the place of the Rodney District Council on 11 April 2000, she did so with a great sense of reluctance, but she felt that she had no choice because in the wake of the review’s findings, the mayor and five councillors had resigned, leaving three wards completely unrepresented. She could not ignore that. She ensured that fresh elections were held in March 2001 instead of October 2001, which would have been the normal run of events. There could not be a greater difference in process between what has happened today and what occurred in the early part of the decade.

In the Rodney case, the local National Party member welcomed the intervention. In this case, Labour MPs have been completely left in the dark, although it is obvious that National MPs have been consulted in this regard. So there has been no transparency at all with regard to this process.

This report was commissioned in November 2009 and was released publicly in February 2010. It ran for about a month—or maybe 6 weeks at the most if we include the Christmas period—and no public input was invited. The report contains a list of stakeholders, and we have heard people refer to who was consulted: “Forest and Bird, Fish and Game, White Water New Zealand, Christchurch City Council, Anderson Lloyd, Brent Cowie, Simpson Grierson, Pattle Delamore Partners, Central Plains Water, Ashburton—Valletta Groundwater Applicants, Canterbury Chamber of Commerce”—I think members will find that it is the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce—“Federated Farmers, Malvern Hills Protection Society, Irrigation New Zealand, Meridian Energy Ltd, Robert Johnston, Selwyn District Council, Red Bus Company, Staff representatives of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, A joint meeting of all territorial authority mayors and chief executives (except Waitaki District), or their designated representatives.” That is who was consulted. It does not sound like a comprehensive list of stakeholders. In fact, I would describe some of them as having a vested interest.

Vested interest is something that was debated throughout the Committee stage of this bill. No one, despite the Minister for the Environment’s nasty little asides from time to time, has challenged the competence or the integrity of any of the individuals or organisations involved in the review. We have talked about conflict of interest, and there is a difference because conflict of interest is either real or perceived. It does not actually matter whether it is real or perceived, conflict of interest must be avoided at all costs when we are talking about protecting the resources of our environment. If the Government had wanted the process to look disinterested in that regard, it would have appointed someone outside the dairy industry to chair the review. That is not a reflection on Wyatt Creech, it is just a reflection on the Government’s incapacity to work out who should appropriately do that job.

Let us talk about the other elements of process here. The review is riddled with anecdote. After stating that it had no evidence to back up certain claims made by interest groups, the review panel still used these as evidence against the council.

There is not enough time to highlight every aspect of it, but I will return to one point that I made during the Committee stage, which is on page 65 of the Creech report: “Christchurch City’s desire to become a unitary authority and ‘master of its own (expanded) destiny’ continues to detract from the relationship.” Christchurch City Council does not have on record any resolution supporting turning itself into a unitary authority. That is the mayor’s view about what it should be in the future, and it may have been the view of a previous mayor, but it has never ever been the decision of the Christchurch City Council.

I for one am completely and utterly opposed to one of the polluters being the same authority that has to determine resource consents. The city council would be continuing to discharge into the estuary on the boundary of my electorate and the Hon Ruth Dyson’s electorate if the city council had been responsible for its own supervision in that regard. We need to have regulation of our environmental protection, and that is what the primary role of Environment Canterbury has to be.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I stand to speak on the third and final reading of the “Environment Canterbury (Democracy Abolition) Bill”, which removes water conservation orders from Canterbury. The bill is all about what the Prime Minister told us in the statement he tabled at the beginning of this parliamentary year. He said to us: “The Government will also take action this year to remove particular regulatory roadblocks to water storage and irrigation in Canterbury.” The Government has decided that the elected regional councillors in Canterbury are part of the regulatory roadblocks, and it has decided to remove them, which is what the bill does.

The Government has also decided that water conservation orders—the national parks for rivers and lakes—are also a regulatory roadblock to more irrigation and water storage in Canterbury, so it will remove those, as well. That very significant part of the bill has had some attention but probably should have even more, because Subpart 3 of Part 3, which basically guts water conservation orders, is a very significant change to the way in which we regulate the environment in our country.

The bill, at its foundation, is all about the fact that water is a finite resource. Water has become incredibly valuable all over the world because it is a finite resource and humankind keeps expanding its consumption of finite resources. Canterbury has access to quite a lot of this finite resource, and it has become an incredibly valuable resource. I would say “commodity” but, of course, the irrigation and dairy companies get it for free, so to call it a commodity is perhaps stretching things a little bit. Having access to free, fantastic water has been an enormous economic boon to the dairy corporations and to the irrigation companies, and that is what is really driving the bill. The bill is being set up in order to allow more access, as if there has not been enough, to more of the water resources of Canterbury, so that more rivers can be dammed, like the Hurunui River, which is at the top of the list at the moment but there will be others; so that more rivers can be drained of their water—part of the reason why the Ashley River is in such terrible shape and why it keeps killing dogs every year is that so much water is drained from it for irrigation—and so that more water can be polluted. Anyone who has tried to go on Lake Ellesmere Te Waihora recently would have come across the high level of pollution of that lake; the same applies to many other rivers and lakes right across Canterbury.

Canterbury has been the victim of malign neglect for so long, but it looked like the regional council was going to get on top of it. It looked like there was potential for the regional council to finally take some action. However, the regional council upset some very powerful vested interests. It upset some very powerful vested interests with some very close connections to the National Party, and for that reason it is now paying the price.

The Prime Minister said that he was going to take action to remove these regulatory roadblocks; the next step was, of course, to get the Creech report. The problem with the Creech report is twofold. First, the person who headed the review had a clear conflict of interest, being the director of a dirty dairy company, but, more than that, the review had some fundamental flaws. It was a very short review; only a handful of stakeholders were interviewed. It was anti-science; the report said that the regional council should be punished for being too science-led. It was very anti-environment. It said that the regional council was not sufficiently pro economic growth. The reviewers had no idea, I guess because they had not looked at the Resource Management Act, that in fact that was part of the job of Environment Canterbury, and that was what the “E” in ECan—or Environment Canterbury—stood for. If the reviewers did not know what the “E” stood for, then maybe they were not the right people to review the regional council. Maybe they wanted to call it “Exploitation Canterbury”. Maybe that is what they thought the “E” stood for—that its purpose was to exploit the water resources of Canterbury. So the report was very critical of Environment Canterbury because it spent too much time protecting the environment and not enough time exploiting it.

The bill removes democratic rights from the people of Canterbury—about 400,000 people—for about 3½ years, or possibly more. I thought Jo Goodhew hit it on the head. She said democracy has been interrupted and will be resumed as soon as practicable. Is that what democracy is? Is that the kind of value National puts on democracy? Does it think democracy is the kind of thing we can interrupt for awhile, and when the powers that be, who are smarter than all of us, obviously—Jo Goodhew knows better than the rest of us—decide that it is possible and practicable, then the people of Canterbury can have democracy again? The people of Canterbury are children; that is what National thinks, and it has had to interrupt their democracy, and it will resume it as soon as practicable. That is what Jo Goodhew said.

Jo Goodhew also inadvertently hit the nail on the head when she said that the problem is that it takes ages to get a water consent. No kidding! There are red zones in Canterbury where water is over-allocated, and Environment Canterbury has tried to restrict the taking of more water in the red zone, and, boy, it has made the irrigators mad.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: This is the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, which National and ACT are introducing to abolish democracy in Canterbury. It is also the third reading of the bill that National and ACT are supporting to undermine water conservation orders in the Canterbury region. I think it is important to realise what that means. We can think, for example, of the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River. The application for cubicle farms on Killermont Station has been much discussed. The farms are reliant on accessing water from the Ahuriri River. It would have been very difficult for those farms to proceed with the water conservation order in place, because of the minimum flow regime that it imposed. The passage of this bill tonight, which National and ACT will vote for, will mean that the Minister for the Environment can vary the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River without going through the proper process, so that the developers—in this case, Williamson Holdings—can have access to the water in the Ahuriri River so that they can destroy Killermont Station.

As people may well be aware, the Mackenzie has been destroyed recently by massive dairy conversions. There has been the loss of tussock country, and a massive increase in pollution of the Ahuriri arm of the Waitaki River, and of the whole Waitaki River system. Part of that problem will be made worse by the fact that the water conservation order on the Ahuriri River will now be in danger as a result of National and ACT pushing this bill through the House in the middle of the night.

It is important to realise as well that there is a great paradox here. The House is passing a bill to abolish democracy in Canterbury and, at the same time, it is doing it in such a way that there is no democratic input. It is quite extraordinary. There was no select committee process. The public have had no right to submit. Members of Parliament had not even seen the bill until yesterday afternoon, and then, after we got the bill and a very short briefing from the Minister for the Environment, we were given a very short amount of time to look over the bill and try to figure out what it is on about. The other thing about the bill is that when we look at the regulatory impact statement, we see that the Ministry for the Environment states that it “has not been able to fully quantify the risks/costs of the proposal.” Well, I am not surprised. Who could fully quantify the risks and costs of a proposal that is being forced through at such short notice?

The other issue that has arisen with regard to this bill is the conflicts of interest. The Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, saw fit to put out a release in response to some of the claims that have been made in which he confirmed all the key facts. He confirmed that he has a farm on the Hurunui. He confirmed that currently very little of it is irrigated—so much of it is open for irrigation—but he said that at this stage he has no intention to irrigate. Well, I am afraid that having no intention is not good enough, because he still has the potential to irrigate, which is the whole point. That is why there could be a potential conflict of interest, and it should be declared. The other thing he confirmed is that he approached those who were applying to the Environment Court for a water conservation order in order to get them to stop doing it. This, very interestingly, is exactly what he denied doing in an answer to a written question. When I asked him in a written question to this House whether he had approached the applicants for the water conservation order, he said no. I think it is very clear that the conflict of interest claims that have been raised with regard to the bill have been vindicated by the facts that Mr Carter has put on the table for our convenience, and I am sure we will go into that further.

This bill is a bill to get rid of democracy. It is a bill to get rid of water conservation orders. It will disenfranchise 400,000 to 500,000 people for the next 3 years. It is an unacceptable bill to the Green Party. We will not be supporting it. It is shameful that National and ACT are ramming it through under urgency without proper democratic consultation.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): It is pleasing to rise to an ovation from the Labour Party. It seems to me that three issues have been discussed over and over again in the debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, and we have just heard about them. We have heard about democracy, we have heard about water, and we have heard about regulatory impact statements and reports on bills. As Dr Norman reminded us, this is a third reading debate, a debate in which to go back and reflect on the whole of the issues that have been raised over the last 24 hours with regard to this bill. Time and time again, we have heard from members on the other side of the House that this bill is about democracy: the suspension of democracy and the outlawing of democracy.

When the House resumed at 7 p.m. this evening, Dr Russel Norman talked about ACT and National introducing a bill to abolish democracy in Canterbury. That is what he said ACT and National were doing: they were abolishing democracy in Canterbury. As the member sat down, he said this is a bill to get rid of democracy and to strip 400,000 to 500,000 people of their rights. Well, Dr Norman and his colleagues are the last people who should be speaking about democracy in this House.

Phil Twyford: You’re the only one.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: No, I am not the only one, but Mr Twyford’s party certainly cannot speak about democracy. However, I suspect that Mr Twyford could speak about democracy, because he was not part of the sordid, sorry parliamentary Labour Party that governed this country from 2005 to 2008. That Labour Government saw the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill.

If members are to criticise the ACT Party and National with regard to this bill on the issue of democracy, then I think we need to go back and reflect on the record of the previous Labour Government over the preceding 3 years. That Labour Government introduced a bill that told all New Zealanders that if they wanted to spend so much as a single dollar—a single dollar—on speaking out either in support or against the Government, then they must, as a minimum, sign a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace stating, for instance: “I, Phil Twyford, promise not to spend more than $5,000.”

Phil Twyford: So how do you feel about this bill, John?

JOHN BOSCAWEN: I say to Mr Twyford that if one could not sign that piece of paper, one was required to register as a third party.

The Labour Government and the Green Party, which was in cahoots with Labour, told the people of New Zealand that if they wanted to speak out or to criticise their Government and wanted to spend more than a single dollar on doing so, at the very minimum they had to sign a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace. They said to New Zealanders that if they did not like that, they should rise up and protest. That Government said if people did not like that, they could make a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee to tell the Government what they thought, because that was its plan. I cannot think of a more despicable action for any political party to bring into this Parliament.

We heard from Lianne Dalziel this afternoon. She got up and said she had been in Parliament for some 20 years and had never seen anything as dramatic as a bill such as this one. Well, I cannot think of anything worse than saying to New Zealanders that if they wanted to rise up and speak out against the Government, and if they wanted to put as little as a single piece of paper through a xerox machine in order to make that statement, they had to sign a piece of paper in front of a justice of the peace.

I will move on to the issue of water. Water is very valuable, and we know how important it is to conserve water. But this country of ours has much potential. It has much potential, and we wonder why we are not as wealthy as our neighbours across the Tasman in Australia are. The reason is that we have not governed this country properly. We have not realised its potential. We have not put in place the policies to create the prosperity that this country can create. This Environment Canterbury bill goes part of the way towards that, because we have a rural economy. We depend for our exports, our livelihoods, to a large part on the farming sector. The Prime Minister, the Hon John Key, said recently that Australia might have its minerals, but that once they have been dug up, they are gone. What we have is water. Water comes from the skies, and, long after Australia has dug up the last of its mineral wealth, the rain will continue to fall on New Zealand.

We can do a lot to harness the power and the value that is in that water. Currently, we harness only some 1.5 percent of the rainwater that falls on New Zealand. Can members imagine the prosperity that would come to this country if we could just double that—just double that, from 1.5 percent to 3 percent? If we could catch and utilise just 3 percent of the water that falls on this country, we could put that water to great use. We could put it to use in agriculture. We heard the allegations this afternoon from the Green Party about the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is a farmer. Well, I say farmers work very hard, and they are the backbone of this economy. But we can do something else with water: we can generate electricity with it.

The water in the Canterbury basin and the Canterbury region will become a lot more valuable on 1 July.

Hon Shane Jones: It makes you wet.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: I find it fascinating to stand and speak while being shouted at and abused. I will go silent, so that I can hear what Mr Jones has to say.

Hon Shane Jones: I described you as being wet—a drip.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: It is more than a drip, I tell Mr Jones; it is a flow, and the water that flows down the Waitaki River generates wealth. It generates wealth for our farmers. It allows our farmers to irrigate our farms, and it allows us to generate electricity.

But the tragedy with regard to harnessing water is that from 1 July, this country will go where no other country has gone before. We are introducing an emissions trading scheme, and its effect will be to raise the price of electricity by 5 percent. Treasury told the Finance and Expenditure Committee—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The emissions trading scheme has nothing to do with this bill, and I ask the member to focus in, please, on the third reading. This debate is about what has been discussed earlier, and the emissions trading scheme is not part of that.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that what is being discussed in this bill is the introduction of commissioners in the Canterbury region to administer, among other things, a water plan—a plan to manage the resources of the Canterbury region. Water is a very valuable resource. It results in power generation, and I was trying to explain to the House that come 1 July, when electricity prices are forecast to go up, the companies that generate electricity with water—and in particular I am referring to Meridian Energy and the dams it has in the South Island—by virtue of the way that the electricity market works, will be able to push through a 5 percent increase in the price of electricity without paying for any emissions, which their competitors, like Genesis Power, will have to do with regard to thermal energy.

We will see windfall profits. We know the profits that Meridian is currently making, but we have seen nothing yet like the profits that it will make, because from 1 July we are essentially introducing a 5 percent surcharge on water. That will see massive windfall profits being taken, and a massive value being put on water. Every single New Zealander will pay for that. I am very proud, but sad, to think that I am one of only five MPs who are standing up and opposing a 5 percent surcharge being imposed on the cost of electricity from 1 July—a surcharge that will go on every single New Zealander, young or old, poor or well off. The elderly, particularly in the winter, will have to pay more for their electricity simply so that companies like Meridian can earn more for its water, that valuable water.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have mentioned to the member that this is a debate about what is happening with regard to Environment Canterbury, and it is not a debate about Meridian, electricity price increases, or whatever might be affected from 1 July. I ask the member, who has 40 seconds remaining, to focus in on the bill.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason I am conducting the debate in the way that I am is that, as you say, this bill is about Environment Canterbury—the regional council—the appointment of commissioners, and water.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, if the member had mentioned that, that would have been fine. But I say to the member we have had about 8 minutes of other things, and I did warn the member earlier on. I ask the member to come back to the bill; he now has 39 seconds remaining.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is, I repeat, about Environment Canterbury. It is about the appointment of commissioners, including Dame Margaret Bazley, who will be taking a lead role. She and her fellow commissioners will have the job of putting in place a water management plan for the Canterbury region, which is something that Environment Canterbury has not been able to do in the last 18 years—18 years. This Government has been required to make these changes in order to put in place that plan to provide for the better use and conservation of our water resources, so that we can use more water wisely. As I have said, from 1 July that water will become even more valuable. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): A statement was made by Anake Goodall, the chief executive of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, which I will quote in full, as it sets the scene for the way in which I have seen this bill: “Ngāi Tahu regretfully recognises the need for intervention in ECan and reluctantly supports installing commissioners as a temporary measure, that while not optimal for the important principle of democracy, is a necessary practical solution in the circumstances.” The words “regretfully”, “reluctantly”, and “not optimal” do not indicate wholesale, complete, and utter satisfaction with this bill, rushed through under urgency. The Māori Party is also regretful—regretful that urgency prevents people from having a voice. For any legislation to be authentic, it should reflect the processes of negotiation and discussion that would emerge from the process of consultation.

Ngāi Tahu used that word again in a letter to Ministers Hide and Smith, advising that “Ngāi Tahu regretfully support the recommended transitional arrangements to install commissioners in place of the council.” The interesting issue for us as the Māori Party is how the Government can overturn the democratic process in one region—by dismissing the councillors of Environment Canterbury—while in another region, Tāmaki Makaurau, it is passionately fighting on an argument to uphold democracy by refusing to invest in Māori representation through the establishment of Māori seats. I want to be really clear. This bill is not just an issue about water, although that is vitally important; this is an issue about power sharing, or, indeed, about not power sharing, in this case.

As a local MP, I have taken a close look at Environment Canterbury, not just because of its significance across Te Tai Tonga but also because the way in which we work through these issues is likely to be nationally significant in terms of the place of local government and approaches to the management of fresh water. The Māori Party has consistently stated that issues about water management must include mana whenua, including water rights and privatisation. We believe also that Treaty claims in relation to water ownership and interests in fresh water must be resolved in the review of the Resource Management Act. It has been a matter of some pride to the party that we were able to overturn the commitments made pre-election by National to remove any Treaty references, or references about the capacity for Māori to object on cultural grounds, from the Resource Management Act. These sections include section 6: that “all persons exercising … powers … in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide for … (e) the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga:”. Section 7 states: “all persons … shall have particular regard to—(a) kaitiakitanga:”, and section 8, “Treaty of Waitangi”, states: “In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers … in relation to … natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of … (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).”

I repeat these key legislative provisions, because they are critical in guiding councils and communities about the way in which we protect our streams, lakes, rivers, and waterways from agricultural, industrial, and domestic waste. There are many vital issues around freshwater management, which the Māori Party signals will need to benefit from nationwide discussion and input, and these three sections in particular provide us with a strong starting point for those discussions.

Turning then to the specific legislation, we accept that this bill is a temporary measure, designed to respond to the longstanding concerns about the performance of Environment Canterbury. Our decision to support the legislation was made both regretfully and reluctantly, but made also in response to the guidance of mana whenua. We did so, also, knowing that the existing situation regarding Environment Canterbury was untenable. This, after all, was a council that came 84th out of a possible 84 councils in the 2007-08 biennial survey of resource consent processing. This was a council that frequently appeared in the Environment Court as a result of criticisms having been highlighted about the management of fresh water in Canterbury. The proposed response to the review of Environment Canterbury, therefore, could have no stronger basis, in my mind, than that provided by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and I quote: “ECan even within its current statutory framework has demonstrably failed to reach the standard of best endeavours to give effect to its broader responsibilities to Ngāi Tahu.” So there is no suggestion that there was not a dramatic need to do something.

The question is, however, what exactly is the something that will be done? We have been concerned that the Canterbury Water Management Strategy is being given legal effect in the empowering legislation. It is the view of key stakeholders that this strategy is not well developed, that it has real policy holes, and that there is risk that it erodes the Treaty rights of Ngāi Tahu. Although we appreciate that there is support from many key stakeholders, including Ngāi Tahu and the region’s territorial authorities, we want to ensure that the rights and interests of Ngāi Tahu under both Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 are given full cognisance in further development of that paper. In this context we acknowledge the move made by the Minister to ensure that in the appointment process of commissioners there will be explicit recognition of the collective knowledge and expertise of commissioners in relation to tikanga Māori as it applies in the Canterbury region. We welcome the opportunity for Ngāi Tahu to be represented in the temporary commission that is likely to replace the council of Environment Canterbury. But we would also recommend that Ngāi Tahu be represented in the new statutory entity that will be created, separate from Environment Canterbury, to manage water in the region and to be known as the Canterbury Regional Water Authority. As we consider the ongoing tension between kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga, we also raise the question that one person on a commission of seven is for ever relegated to the minority seats.

Finally, I remind the House that the report of the review of Environment Canterbury revealed that there are significant issues in relation to water management in terms of meeting the Treaty obligations of the Crown, and it also recommended that iwi liaison should be elevated in importance within Environment Canterbury. We fully support the approach proposed by Ngāi Tahu, which seeks a commitment from the Government to a structured joint work programme so that the various governance arrangements can be structured in a Treaty-consistent manner. They would also expect that any existing undertakings by Environment Canterbury to Ngāi Tahu, such as the iwi management plan, should be honoured.

We have supported this bill in order to respond to the urgent need of the situation outlined in Canterbury, and in line with our respect for the guidance of mana whenua, but as the debate proceeded we have become more troubled about the new powers of the commission to determine water conservation orders in the Canterbury region under new criteria. The bill clearly states that they will hear appeals against points of law only. Therefore, it is not an Environment Court substitute. We are absolutely committed to effective compliance with the Treaty requirements of the Resource Management Act, and the requirement to look nationally at water management issues across the nation are a key priority of our party. Ultimately, tangata whenua Māori perceive natural and physical resources, such as water, as a taonga, an invaluable treasure gifted by their tūpuna for the benefit and use of their descendants. It is our responsibility as tangata whenua, as kaitiaki, to ensure that the resource is conserved and handed on to future generations in a similar condition. It is my duty to advise the House that in light of the concerns we have raised during the course of this debate, we have reconsidered our position and regretfully we conclude our struggle with this bill by voting against it at this final reading.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The Waimate mayor, John Coles, said: “Good on the Government for having the guts to come out and do something like this.” The Mackenzie District mayor, John O’Neill, said that it was a bold move that would have the full support of the district’s ratepayers. The Waitaki mayor, Alex Familton, believed that it was the right decision and that the commissioners would have his strong support. I suggest to the House that these are the people who know. Members opposite may not understand how rural local authorities work, but the 10 mayors, particularly the rural mayors, understand only too well the deficiencies of Environment Canterbury after the past few years.

I am proud to stand in support of the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. The debate over the last 24 hours or so has been characterised by arguments from the Opposition, promoted by Christchurch-based Labour MPs. I acknowledge that they cannot help but promote the Christchurch City view, because they do not represent the provinces and have little and limited understanding of the issues that have been faced by rural constituencies in their dealings with Environment Canterbury. Interestingly, though, the Christchurch Central member did acknowledge that Labour had failed to act on water management issues while Labour was in Government, and I congratulate him on that acknowledgment. Trevor Mallard, when he was the Minister for the Environment, said: “Everyone knows there was a problem here.”

The city Labour MPs have no idea what has been happening in the provinces in the area of Environment Canterbury. Labour members have no courage to deal with this hard issue. Their Sustainable Water Plan of Action—or should I say, their water plan of inaction—went nowhere. So I say to the House that Environment Canterbury’s failure is also Labour’s failure. It hard for them to face up to, but it is true. All the Canterbury district mayors, themselves democratically elected, have had enough of Environment Canterbury, which they characterise as dysfunctional. All 10 mayors and councils were consulted during the course of the development of this bill. I was at meetings represented by four of those local authorities, which is nearly half of those involved, and all of those democratically elected mayors and councils have welcomed the introduction of this bill.

The regional council has, after 19 years, failed to produce a regional water plan, while other regional councils are on their second-generation water plans. Environment Canterbury has been making consent decisions in a policy vacuum, which has resulted in policy making on the hoof, and that has been hugely costly in terms of time and expense to the applicants. They have made applications to Environment Canterbury in a policy vacuum. What is needed for the management of an area that has 70 percent of New Zealand’s fresh water is clearly beyond the capabilities of Environment Canterbury. Environment Canterbury has let down its constituents and proved to be a handbrake to both the development and the protection of natural water resources in Canterbury.

The Government wants to consider carefully the Canterbury Strategic Water Study, the Land and Water Forum, and the work from the Environmental Protection Authority, and will take on further advice from the commissioners. This legislation gives the Canterbury Water Management Strategy recognition and provides commissioners with a sorely needed and clear framework for managing Canterbury’s water. This bill looks to fix the problems we have now and set a good policy framework for water management in the future.

The explicit intent of this legislation is for the commissioners to withdraw and be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task of addressing the institutional and planning problems is achieved. The Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill empowers commissioners to do what is required to turn round Environment Canterbury to the benefit of the people and the environment of Canterbury. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I will begin my final contribution to this debate by going back to the very beginning and asking “How did all this start?”. Well, we have heard during the course of this debate that one of the National members of Parliament approached her local mayor and said that there were major concerns with Environment Canterbury within central government, and that that mayor could start the ball rolling by writing to the mayoral forum. Jo Goodhew approached Janie Annear to write to the mayoral forum, saying there were major concerns about the operation of Environment Canterbury. The mayors then decided, on the assumption that they were not just mayors but also the local authorities, to take the matter further. That is how this sorry saga began.

My message to the public, as a result of this debate and of what has happened in the last 24 hours, is not just to look at Auckland any more and say “Be very afraid of your democratic rights.”, the public can look now at Canterbury as well, and be very wary because it could be coming to a city near them soon. We have lost all our democratic rights in terms of voting for our regional council.

The Minister for the Environment has introduced a shoddy little bill. I say that with the greatest respect to officials, who, I guess, had no other option but to write it. But if the officials had been given a decent amount of time and guidance, perhaps the bill could have been a bit tidier. The shoddy little bill was given to us in draft form half an hour before it was publicly announced as being introduced. It was introduced into the House yesterday afternoon at 5.30 p.m. It was debated until 10 p.m., with just an hour and a half for the dinner break, and then begun again at 9 o’clock this morning. Soon the debate will be concluded.

Well, what is urgent about this legislation? What is not only urgent but so urgent that this Parliament considers that it is OK that not a single submission can be called for and not a single submission can be heard? People in Canterbury are really outraged. Some people would have actually come along to a select committee and said “Good move, Minister. Get rid of ECan.” But they cannot. Others would have come along and said, with a more considered opinion, in my view, that they did not agree that this measure was the way forward for our regional management in Canterbury. But neither of those perspectives, nor any in between, have had an opportunity to be heard, because the Minister unilaterally decided that the legislation had such a high priority it had to be passed under urgency and not a single submission would be called for. I think that that is an outrage.

We have done our best through the first and second readings, through the Committee stage, and now through the third reading to try to put the facts of the situation on the table. I mentioned in the dying stages of the Committee stage the water plan excuse that the Minister has constantly raised. He has been going on and on about the fact that there is no water plan. I said then that not only did we have the Canterbury Water Management Strategy—and asked whether he had noticed it, because it is actually in the bill—but we also had the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan, which members of Parliament like Amy Adams, Jacqui Dean, Jo Goodhew, and Nicky Wagner would do well to familiarise themselves with. They are attacking the council on the basis of misinformation, and that is not a good basis for debate. It is OK when trying to score cheap political points, I guess, to make things up and not tell the complete truth, but when the action is about disestablishing a regional council, then it should be done on the basis of facts, truth and honesty, and open debate.

Environment Canterbury notified its proposed Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan in 2004. The plan was notified in 2004 and it is operating. It does not have full legal force under the Resource Management Act because of various things such as submissions, hearings, decisions, and appeals, which all have to go through a process before the plan can become operative. But the objectives, policies, methods, and rules of the natural resources regional plan have continued from 2004 to guide decisions on resource consent applications. So the Minister said something that is completely and factually untrue, because we have two plans: the first, the Canterbury Water Management Strategy, was specifically developed because of the huge amount of tension around Canterbury and water, and the second is the Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan. So the Minister is just wrong, and I hope that he takes the opportunity to say he is sorry to the people of Canterbury, and particularly to the staff and the councillors who have been working on those plans for many years.

The other issue that I will shine again, and take a brief opportunity to have some factual input on, is the comparison that National was making—I noticed it stopped yesterday—between the process that this bill is going through and the process that the Labour-Alliance coalition Government went through in May 2000 in relation to the Rodney District Council. The first difference is that the Rodney District Council voted unanimously to ask the then Minister of Local Government, the Hon Sandra Lee, to intervene and appoint a commissioner. That was a unanimous decision of the council, whereas there has been no such decision from Environment Canterbury. The Rodney District Council agreed that it should write to the Minister and ask for her intervention; no such request was made by Environment Canterbury. The Rodney District Council said that a commissioner should be appointed; no such recommendation came from Environment Canterbury.

So the processes started from a completely different basis, and the Minister made sure that the people in Rodney were involved in looking at the options and deciding what the problem was. She said for them to agree on the problem and then look at some solutions. They agreed on the solution. The Minister made sure that the role of the commissioner was not to take over the council, as it is in this case, but to ensure that relationships were mended and that systems and infrastructure were in place to deliver efficiently so that the commissioner could walk away and leave an elected council, once again, to take over. That happened in about a year. The Minister even ensured that the Rodney District had its elections early rather than having to wait until October. There is no such commitment to a return to democracy in this legislation. In fact, one of my colleagues said that we should have a bet on who will get the vote back first: Fiji or Canterbury. Who will get a democratic vote again first? Will it be entitlement in Fiji or will it be democracy in Canterbury for our regional council? It could be Fiji.

The other factual point that I will make is in relation to what the Creech review actually said. That has been the cause of some frustration for members on this side of the House, because National has insisted on misrepresenting Wyatt Creech and the recommendations. I will put on the record what the Creech report said in relation to the negative perception of Environment Canterbury—and there is no debate that there is a negative perception. The report said: “Almost all external parties interviewed had a negative perception of ECan’s governance.” But the reviewers interviewed only 20 parties in the whole of Canterbury, and it was a very narrow list. The reviewers said that they had heard that the councillors were “polarised” and “dysfunctional”, that there was “insufficient leadership”, and that the council was “too busy protecting individual/Party perspectives” and failing to pay enough attention to the region. But the Creech report said “Our investigation did not bear this out.” The reviewers had heard the stories. They had heard the rumours. They heard them repeated by National members, but the repetition of stuff about Environment Canterbury is just not true. This is what the Hon Wyatt Creech said in his report: “Our investigation did not bear this out. … The Review found that while the process for debating strongly opposing views has been marred by poor behaviour and reflects past grievances in some cases,”—well, that is not good, but it is not unusual—“the governance of ECan is functional and enables it to meet its statutory obligations.”

There is no need for this disembowelling of Environment Canterbury. There is no need for us in Canterbury to have our democratic right to vote taken away from us, and there is no need for this legislation to proceed.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): We come to the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill and it is my final opportunity to contribute to this debate. I am very happy to stand in support of this bill because, unlike members opposite, I reflect the concern that has come through my office every day since I have become an MP about the way in which Environment Canterbury is operating. Despite the rhetoric and despite the scaremongering, this concern is coming not just from one side of the debate; it is coming from people who deal with Environment Canterbury in many ways and who express constant frustration about delay and excessive cost, and about being absolutely powerless in dealing with an organisation that has got into a mind-set of thinking that it does not have to listen to its people.

In the first reading debate I started talking about the importance of Canterbury as a region. I am quite happy to stand here as one of the Canterbury MPs and say that Canterbury is one of the most important regions in this country. It has a spectacular environment and it is one of the most important regions economically. Water is crucial in Canterbury. There is no bigger issue, I think we can safely say—certainly facing the people of Selwyn—than the proper management of our water. Every single person I have come across in this debate—and I ask members opposite who disagree to let me know—would agree that water has not been managed well in Canterbury. If anyone has a different view I ask that person to let me know. I have not heard anyone who is prepared to stand in this House to say that water has been well run in Canterbury—[Interruption] Mr Jones thinks that it has been. He thinks that everything is fine in Canterbury.

Frankly, anyone in this House who is not prepared to back this bill is saying that everything is fine with Environment Canterbury, that we should not do anything—let it keep going as it is, let us just bumble along with our heads in the sand for another 10 years, it will all be OK mate, and it will all come out in the wash. It will not. I can tell members that I have lost faith in Environment Canterbury’s ability to fix this crucial, crucial issue. I have lost any confidence that it can turn this round. I am not saying that members of Environment Canterbury are not good people—they absolutely are. I am not saying that they have not done some good work—they have. But I am saying that I do not believe that Environment Canterbury can deal with the problem of water in Canterbury. The Government needs to step in. The Government, in my view, has an obligation to step in when the job is not being done properly.

Regional councils operate under legislation from this House. We have the authority as a Parliament to step in if that job is not being carried out. It has not been done properly and there is a need for urgent action. Let us be quite clear about this: those problems have been around for a long, long time. Trevor Mallard was quite honest in saying that his Government knew that there was a problem. He wanted to see action on Environment Canterbury, but the Labour Government did not act because there was an election coming up.

At the very first briefing Minister Smith received as the new, incoming Minister for the Environment he was told about the pressing issues in Environment Canterbury, and this Government is going to deal with them. It is not an easy decision to make, it is a courageous decision to make, but it has to be done. We recognise our obligations to get this right; water is simply too important for us to bumble along and pretend nothing is wrong. There is a problem, it needs urgent action, and we have to put in place commissioners to get this right so that we can return to normal operations in our regional councils. They will not do it on their own; they have shown that over a long period of time. This bill is necessary and I am very pleased to see it happening. I commend it to the House.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): The tension between private and public interests, and the tension between the many and the few, lies beneath hundreds of years of struggle in our political tradition. I take members back to the 14th century to the Peasants’ Revolt, to the Levellers in the 17th century, and to the English Civil War between the parliamentarians and the royalists, which raged across Britain for nearly a century. I remind members about the Chartists in the 19th century, who campaigned for popular sovereignty and universal franchise. I remind them of the fight to give women the vote, of those who gave their lives in the Second World War to defend democracy, and of the spread of parliamentary democracy around the world in the 21st century.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. There is far too much noise coming from the Government benches. I am having difficulty hearing the member. If members want to discuss matters, then that is what the lobbies are for.

PHIL TWYFORD: I know that members opposite do not want a history lesson, but, in my humble opinion, they need one. We should not take the history of our democratic traditions lightly. This House is a shrine to that tradition, and tonight the members on that side of the House are desecrating that shrine.

I know that the members on the National benches think that this issue is not about democracy. I know that they think it is just a technical thing, a pragmatic solution. They think that we are just twiddling with the knobs so that we can get the outcomes we want on water management in Canterbury, and that it is not about democracy. Jo Goodhew said that it is just a temporary interruption of our democratic traditions and that they will be resumed in 3½ years. I know that is what National members think, but I urge them to stop to think about what they are doing to our democratic process.

The problem is that the constant companion of this National Government is the temptation to undermine the public interest and the common good in favour of stacking the deck in the interests of its business mates. It has done that in Auckland over the last 12 months, where we have seen Rodney Hide, John Key, and Steven Joyce kicking away the safeguards against the privatisation of our public assets. We have seen it in the corporatisation of local government. In Canterbury, with the thirst for irrigation and the insatiable hunger for more dairy farming on the Canterbury Plains, it is so tempting for powerful business interests to say that the process of democracy is too slow, too messy, and too inefficient, and that they could run local government so much better if the Government could just get the people out of the show and let them make the decisions.

Subsidiarity is a principle that is much spoken of. It is allegedly the founding principle of our system of local government. I say “allegedly” because there are very few checks and balances on executive power in our system, even with the advent of MMP. We have a unicameral Parliament and a system that allows very little challenge to the power of the executive. Local government, in our system, is one way that power can be shared between the powerful and the powerless, and between the centre and the periphery. What this Government is doing tonight in this House with this bill is the opposite of subsidiarity. It is showing an absolute contempt and disregard for local government as part of our constitution in this country. It paid lip service to subsidiarity in the Auckland super-city reforms, while stripping out the decision making in the powers of local communities and centralising it.

What is the Government doing with this bill? It is abrogating the democratic rights of up to half a million people in Canterbury so that it can more efficiently allocate rights to water. I say that that is dangerous. It is dangerous to our political system, it is dangerous to our democracy. Why is that? It is because to shut the people out of decision making, even for a 3½-year interregnum, sends a powerful message. And what is that message? The message is that the people are not capable of governing themselves. That is the message. The message is that even if people pay the rates, even if they pay the taxes, and even if they have to live with the consequences of the decisions of their elected representatives, they are not capable. But there is a superior class of person that the Government knows it can shoulder-tap that can make those decisions. In that superior class are the hand-picked mates of the National Government, whom this Government trusts to make decisions on behalf of the people of Canterbury.

You see, it turns out that for this National Government, not everyone is equal. Not every person is equal in value or in importance. The people are not trusted to make the tough decisions. They are not trusted to govern themselves, not in Auckland and not in Canterbury, and I ask where it will be next. This bill strikes at the heart of our democracy and at the idea that in the political sphere, no matter whether one is rich or poor, no matter whether one is brown, white, or yellow, no matter which side of the tracks one grew up on, and no matter which political party one supports, we are all equal and that each of us can have a political voice.

One of the two Ministers who are responsible for this disgraceful bill is Rodney Hide, the Minister of Local Government. He is fond of quoting the sacred principle of one person, one vote. Rodney Hide talks about democracy out of one side of his mouth, but out of the other side he is busy handing over the assets of Auckland to his mates, and at the same time he is abrogating the democratic institution of regional government in Canterbury by suspending elections for 3½ years. Suspending elections has a ring to it that we are familiar with.

Hon Darren Hughes: Mugabe.

PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, and from other places closer to home. Why is that? It is because the 14 democratically elected councillors in Environment Canterbury could not resolve a system for allocating water rights—that is why. So I ask whether, if the Auckland super-city cannot agree on a plan for regional public transport next year, we will just sack the new Auckland Council. What if some provincial council cannot agree on whether Rio Tinto should be allowed to build a mine in its area? Well, let us sack them. What about if other regional councils cannot agree on a merger plan? Well, let us just do away with them because they obviously cannot be trusted to govern themselves. They cannot be trusted to make decisions in the interests of the people who elected them.

I will quote from the regulatory impact statement, which makes a very powerful case for the kind of decision that these Ministers have made with this bill. The paper sets out a number of options that were open to the Government in considering a response to the problem of water rights in Canterbury. The Government could have done a number of things. It could have installed a commissioner/adviser, it could have used the existing powers in the Resource Management Act, it could have put in commissioners only for the business of allocating water rights, it could have invested energy and resources into the Canterbury Water Management Strategy specifically, and it could have provided targeted assistance. What did the Government do? It chose the most intrusive, most undemocratic, and most authoritarian solution by sacking 14 democratically elected councillors.

In a few weeks, members of this House will be turning out on Anzac Day at cenotaphs and memorials up and down this country. We will pay homage to those who gave their lives in the Second World War and other conflicts to defend democracy. I hope that the members on that side of the House will hang their heads, not in reverence but in shame.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak in the third reading of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill. I thank the officials, and I also thank the 10 mayors of Canterbury. Sadly, the Opposition does not understand the potential of water for Canterbury and for New Zealand. It is common sense to store water and to use it during the dry periods of summer. This conversation has been going on for 20 years. This bill is the first step on a journey to ensuring that we have a good regional water plan in Canterbury.

The Hurunui River features in this bill because it is part of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. It is not some conspiracy, as the Opposition tries to lead members to believe. It is no secret that farmers within this region would like to be able to store water and to meet the needs of all the other stakeholders and the environment. I say to Opposition members that if they can do that, then why should they not be able to?

We have heard a lot of statements from members on the other side, such as “Stop stealing our water.” I think it was Ruth Dyson who made that statement. Sadly, it is that dog-in-the-manger attitude that has brought us to this impasse, and we have to get past it. This bill is the light at the end of the tunnel. This Government is taking brave steps to be able to manage water, and we will certainly make things work in a very positive way.

The Minister in the chair, the Minister for the Environment, spoke about a step change. When we look at what has not happened over the last 20 years, we see that there needed to be a Government that had great confidence. Gone are the days when we saw crocodile tears from the other side—rhetoric and no action. It is an indictment, an absolute indictment, on the Opposition that during its 9 years in Government it did nothing. So when we listen to the Greens talking about how the Government is running roughshod over the water conservation orders, we can understand that, in actual fact, the Greens do not understand the importance of them. It has been mentioned many, many times on this side of the House that Government members recognise the value of water, so I make the point that this is not the end but the beginning. I extend the hand of collegiality to the Opposition and ask to put our differences aside. Let us manage water in a sustainable way, and on a positive note. A vote for this bill is a vote for the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. A vote for this bill is a vote for better environmental management in Canterbury. A vote for this bill is a vote for the future prosperity of New Zealanders and a brighter future, not only for Canterbury but for all New Zealanders.

It gives me great pleasure to recommend the bill to the House, in the sense that we have to work hard for the distant future. There is so much to be said, and, very important, it comes from the point of view of being positive. When we talk about the vision that this Government has—we extend from the Waitaki to the Clarence River—and when we stop and think about the disregard for installations like wharves, and harbour installations such as in Kaikōura, we think of some of the sad things that occurred before the introduction of this bill. One of the very sad things that we witnessed was in the coastal management plan. Environment Canterbury had not recognised any of the installations of wharves or harbour in its coastal plan. On that basis, it has shown its dysfunctionality, and it is a real shameful situation to be in. But this Government has moved to introduce this bill, and I must commend the Ministers for having the courage to do so. This is the light at the end of the tunnel for water storage in New Zealand. It is the start of a journey, and I extend my hand of collegiality to the Ministers. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a first time. The Minister, the Hon Jonathan Coleman, is not here tonight because he and his wife have just had a child, and that is a cause of great celebration. But I will not talk about squawking children too much, because I certainly do not want to upset Mr Chauvel.

I do not intend to use my full quota of speaking time for a bill that is as short as this one. I would like to take the time, however, to note that the Immigration Act was passed in this House last year with considerable support. Both the Government and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition understand the importance of immigration, and understand the importance of this Act in modernising and future-proofing the immigration legislation. Work towards implementing the Act is under way, and this bill will support the continuation of that work. It will ensure that specified powers and functions in the Act can be exercised early.

For example, it will allow the Immigration and Protection Tribunal to be set up, and will allow the chair of that tribunal to initiate the education and training of members before the tribunal starts to hear appeals. It will also allow the chair to begin to work, for example, on a code of conduct for members. The new tribunal is a cornerstone of the new Act, as it will enable the streamlining of the appeals system. It has been put in place to reduce duplication and delay in the system.

The principal Act is significant legislation, and the implementation of the changes that are being introduced is indeed a sizable task. Section 474 was included in the Act to allow certain implementation work to be done by the Department of Labour before the rest of the Act comes into effect. This bill will bring that section into force on the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): Firstly, in the spirit of the House I congratulate the Minister, the Hon Jonathan Coleman, and his wife on the birth of the latest asset to their family, their child. I am sure we all join in congratulating them. It is a wonderful moment.

I acknowledge the speaker who has just sat down, and offer my sympathy to him. He has obviously drawn the short straw. Had Mr Finlayson, as an eminent lawyer, been in charge of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill he would not have done what his Cabinet colleague did—that is, make an omission on the Supplementary Order Paper in respect of section 474. I commend the Attorney-General for biting the bullet, drawing the short straw, and leading with his chin to correct the mess-up of both the Minister of Immigration and his venerable Associate Minister, Kate Wilkinson, who, as we speak and as I said last night, is probably dropping acid—that is, folic acid. Everything that woman, as a Minister, has touched has turned to mush. From the folic acid issue to the Department of Conservation issue, there has been a litany of mistakes. I commend Mr Finlayson and I again say that had he been in charge of this bill, as he is an eminent lawyer, which I am not, I am sure there would have been no omission.

The reason we are standing here tonight, spending taxpayers’ money, is the incompetence of this Government. The Labour Opposition will support and facilitate this amendment bill, but we will make a couple of points going through. We wrote most of the Immigration Act when in Government and we supported its passage and the passage of most of its amendments, which this Government passed on coming to office. But it is amazing that there was an omission in relation to the commencement of section 474 of the Immigration Act, which, as the Attorney-General pointed out, allows the Governor-General to appoint the chair and members of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, and allows the tribunal to publish immigration instructions for the granting of visas under the new legislation and to approve and issue the forms that will be used for the application process under the new legislation, among other things.

I note that the Minister of Immigration earned the title of “The Maestro” in this place and in other places. He was the maestro of the Mt Albert by-election that went so wrong. He is the person who was in charge of the Rugby World Cup broadcasting debacle. He is the person who earlier this month announced a new retirement immigration package. Of course, embarrassingly for him, he did not look back in history. The same policy had been investigated by the former National Government in 1999 before it lost office, and the policy was dismissed because it was unworkable. I also note, and I hope the Associate Minister of Immigration takes a call because she shares responsibility for the hash that has been made of this, that it is interesting that we are spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money to come down to this House—

Hon Darren Hughes: Thanks to Tau Henare.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —I could not possibly comment on that—to correct a basic error in a Supplementary Order Paper. The Government cannot blame the officials for this, because under our Westminster system the Minister is responsible. Thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money is being spent to correct a basic error.

David Garrett: So sit down and we’ll get it done quicker.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I hear from the back a squawk from Parliament’s man, Mr Garrett, who tells me to sit down and we will get it done faster. On the one hand, Mr Garrett comes from a party that believes in open, public debate—

Hon Darren Hughes: No they don’t.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, he says he does. His leader says that he believes in empowering communities and having open, transparent debate. It is a principle that this member has never exhibited on the select committee on which he sits. He is a person who is led by the nose by the National Government—

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points. One point, which I guess is no record here, is that Mr Cosgrove is talking about something utterly unrelated to the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. Secondly, he is referring in derogatory terms to members of the House who are both present and not present. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I am on my feet, and there will be no correspondence entered into when I am ruling. I just make the point that yes, I think there is some merit in what the member who raised the point of order said. Mr Cosgrove was straying out of the area. He was provoked, I guess, because of interjections but I think he has had his fair share and should come back to the bill. Secondly, I did not take from his comments any particular offence that persons could have taken. I make the point to the member raising the point of order that offence cannot be taken on behalf of another person. I call on the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to speak to the bill.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Absolutely, and in speaking to the bill I say that it is important that we have public and parliamentary debate on this issue. It is very germane to this bill. Mr Garrett and other members may want us to sit down, shut up, and let these things go through, because of course it suits that member. I will say again that despite being Parliament’s man in this place, he is led by the nose by the Government to stifle any parliamentary debate that may not suit his purpose. I am sorry but Mr Garrett will have to stay awake. He will have to do his job and earn the taxpayers’ shilling. He will have to sit in the Chamber and listen to the debate.

Hon John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought I heard you, just a minute or two ago, give a direction to the member on this feet that he should address the bill. From listening to his address since the time that you gave him an instruction, he has done nothing but berate a member of this House. He has not made any reference to the bill at all.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I have some sympathy with the point the member has made. I invited the member to address the bill. What Mr Garrett’s views are on anything is not relevant to this member’s presentation on the bill. I invite the member to come back to the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman—I am sorry, I mean Mr Speaker. You will be Chairman very shortly. I have great faith in you.

Hon Rick Barker: Is this a demotion or a promotion?

Hon Darren Hughes: It will be a big promotion for you. Within 30 minutes I see great things in your future. I think you will be a Chairman very shortly. This bill was laid on the Table just minutes ago, so the member has not had a chance to look at it. Clearly the debate will be a little wide. If the members of the Government’s support parties are going to interject and be just plain nasty and, to use the language of Dr Nick Smith, resort to personal denigration, then of course Mr Cosgrove, as a senior Labour front-bencher, will defend his honour in that respect. All I can ask is that the Acting Leader of the House, Mr Power, bring his calm hand to the proceedings at this time. It seems to me that at this rate we risk spiralling way out of control.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I will not respond to that. I refuse to respond to that, and I simply invite Mr Cosgrove to address the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am reminded of the words of my predecessor, Mike Moore, and I am sure members will appreciate this: “You’re only in trouble in this House when they’re praising you.” This bill is a relatively cosmetic amendment. I see that it is a four-clause bill.

Hon Tau Henare: He hasn’t even read it.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I have had a quick skim read, because it was put on the Table about 2 or 3 minutes ago and that is it. That is why we are spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money, because the Minister of Immigration either could not read or wanted this done under urgency in order to correct an error in a Supplementary Order Paper. The Minister of Immigration, by his own definition, considers himself to be an expert in this area—“The Maestro”, some people would call him—but I invite the Attorney-General to perhaps hold some tutorials, because I think the Attorney-General, in another life, was an academic who lectured in the law. Maybe he could hold some tutorials on legislative drafting, or whatever, to assist the Minister of Immigration.

We will support this bill, because we believe in the bill’s objectives. But in passing it, it is appropriate that, despite those who would stifle democracy and parliamentary debate in this place, we make the point that this is another brick in the wall for the National Party. It is another error, another piece of incompetence. I believe that the Acting Leader of the House is somewhere in the Chamber. Perhaps he is emanating from it. Perhaps Mr Power is offering Dr Coleman some tutorials. But this is another case of mismanagement as we sit in urgency tonight to debate a five-clause bill to insert a date to trigger a Supplementary Order Paper that should have been dealt with in the body of the legislation weeks or months ago when it was put up.

I say to the National Party that yesterday, I think, we saw on the 6 o’clock news that the issue of moment before Cabinet was whether we should drink beer out of cans or pottles at the Rugby World Cup—not that we should go there, because this an immigration debate. Today the issue of moment before Parliament is the correction of a date and the correction of an error in a five-clause A3 piece of paper that is supposed to be a bill.

Hon Tau Henare: Sit down and let’s get on with it.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am told that I should sit down. There is only one reason that Mr Henare would say that. It is the old saying from Dad’s Army: “They don’t like it up ’em”. “They don’t like it up ’em” in a political sense. They do not like it when the Opposition holds them to account, exposes their incompetence, exposes their mismanagement, and exposes their stupidity.

I pay my respects again to the Attorney-General. He tonight has shown bravery, elegance, honour, and he has bitten the bullet. He obviously volunteered in an honourable way to accept the short straw in Cabinet and come down here to correct the incompetence of his Cabinet colleagues—of both the Minister of Immigration and the Associate Minister of Immigration. I will give due respect to the Attorney-General during the Committee stage. We look forward to a lengthy explanation as to why this error occurred, and as to what he will do to correct the future behaviour of his colleagues so that we have bills brought to this House that are complete, are correct, and are not led by incompetent Ministers.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I will take a short call on the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill, regarding section 474 and the nature of this slight change that is necessary to give it the ability to achieve its purposes. We look forward to the support of the Opposition parties in making this bill a reality tonight, so that the Act, which most parties in the House have worked on very hard over a number of years and have supported, can become the realistic and effective legislation that everyone wants it to become. It had been many years in the making. We look forward to that support. This is a very minor amendment. I look forward to the House pushing it through. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I will also take a short call on the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. I understand that the reason the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Jonathan Coleman, is not available tonight is that congratulations are due. As a fellow MP in the Northcote area, I put on the record my congratulations on the birth of another member of the Minister’s family. That is great and I am really pleased for him.

As other people have said, the bill is non-controversial. It fixes up an accidental omission in the Immigration Act, so Labour will support it. It was made in the National Government’s Supplementary Order Paper on the Immigration Bill, a bill that had been introduced by the previous Labour Government prior to the election. The Minister has described the bill in his aide mémoire. He said the omission of a reference to section 474 in the amendment to clause 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in his name was an unfortunate mistake. I have to say it was indeed unfortunate, and it is unfortunate that the House is once again in urgency and that we are once again spending time on rushing through legislation. I reflect, in particular, on the undemocratic “Sack Canterbury Democracy Bill”, which was passed earlier today. But as I said, the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill is a minor and non-controversial amendment.

However, there are a whole lot of immigration issues that I hope I will get the opportunity to talk about in the Committee stage of this bill. In particular—

Hon Tau Henare: This is not the Committee stage of the bill.

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, I will get there, Mr Henare, but I just want to put it on the record in the first reading that I will want to talk about some things that have happened since the Immigration Bill was introduced, such as the introduction of retirement visas for cash. We are rolling out the welcome mat to the world’s retirees and are discriminating on the basis of wealth. We are creating a “rich people’s visa”, and New Zealand is to become an international retirement home. I will say a little more about that when we get to the Committee stage, but in the meantime I reiterate Labour’s support for rectifying this unfortunate mistake and I give our support to its correction.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I begin by doing what the other speakers have done, and add the congratulations of the Green Party to Jonathan Coleman and his partner on the new addition to their family. I am sure it will be a great, joyful time for them.

The Green Party will be voting against this bill for the same reasons it voted against the passing of the Immigration Bill last year. This amending bill implements many of the provisions in the Immigration Act that undermine civil liberties, and we complained about them during the passage of the Immigration Bill. This is not to say that the Immigration Act is all bad. It does provide a more comprehensive and systematic approach to processing visitors and migrants than the previous legislation. Some of the really bad procedures in the old Act were excluded, such as the security risk certificate procedure that Ahmed Zaoui fell foul of. There was a weird provision in the old Act that the Minister of Immigration could get a security risk certificate briefing but it had to be oral, and the Minister could not even take notes. This involved misplaced trust in the authority of intelligence agencies, and, in this case, the SIS, which is an agency that got it so wrong in the Zaoui case. Thankfully, Mr Zaoui and his family, including his children, are now well settled in New Zealand and he is doing very well.

Such improvements in the Act last year as against the previous Immigration Act were no doubt behind the United Nations Human Rights Committee recognising our Immigration Act as positive, in many ways, in the UN report that was issued just last week on 25 March, when the committee considered the application of human rights by the New Zealand Government. However, this same UN report also criticises several immigration procedures. It proposes that the Immigration Act be amended to “ensure that no asylum seeker or refugee is detained in correctional facilities and other places of detention together with convicted prisoners”, and unfortunately that is still the case in New Zealand.

The committee also wants the Act brought fully into line with the principle of non-refoulement. This means, according to the committee, that New Zealand should not refuse to hear a refugee claim simply because the applicant could have applied in another country, deemed to be a safe third country, only later to find that that country had deported the person back to persecution in his or her homeland. I could give examples of that happening, cases of people being deported back to places like Singapore, and then on to a country of torture, where they have actually been tortured.

The committee also wanted the New Zealand Human Rights Commission to be able to “receive complaints of human rights violations related immigration laws”. That is something the Greens endorsed. In fact, last year we moved an amendment in the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill on this very question. As the Human Rights Commission has pointed out, it is wrong for it to be excluded from this important immigration area, which commonly presents difficult human rights problems.

One of the big problems in the Immigration Act, as it was passed last year, was the more extensive use of classified or secret information in immigration cases. There are now 11 Government agencies beyond the police and intelligence agencies—the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau—that can now determine that their information is classified and not to be fully disclosed to the person affected. Those agencies include such bodies as the Aviation Security Service, Maritime New Zealand, the Ministry of Fisheries, and the Department of Corrections.

Let us look at section 474, which this amending bill is mainly concerned with. Under the different provisions of section 474 there are broad powers to designate a person as a refugee and protections officer for the purpose of making decisions based on classified information. One of the provisions authorised by section 474 gives the Prime Minister a free hand in designating a body as an agency and enabling it to appoint what is called a special advocate to, supposedly, handle classified information on behalf of what might be called the defendant, or the person affected.

But there are big problems with this special advocate system. Special advocates are hamstrung in that once they have received the classified information, they can no longer communicate with the person they are supposed to be helping defend, and that means that the relevance and the full context of the information they have received cannot really be understood by the special advocate. This has been explained by the special advocate in the Zaoui case, a solicitor called Stuart Grieve, who presented a submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Immigration Bill. He was very critical of the whole special advocate procedure and the nature of the classified information he saw. He told the committee that 90 percent of it was information that should have been in the public domain or was in the public domain but had been wrongly put into the classified information basket.

Under the Act, the heads of these 14 what are called “relevant agencies”—and I have said that they go well beyond the traditional police and intelligence agencies—can determine through their chief executive officers what is classified and what remains classified. Even the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, whose set-up was provided for by the Act, cannot overrule the decisions of the chief executive officers of those agencies in that respect. The State and its departments have veto power over the system, even veto power over the tribunal in regard to classified information.

Reference was made in the introduction to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which is being set up now by this amending bill, if it goes through. There is a problem with its make-up, in that it does not, according to the legislation, have to have on it a person with expertise in refugee law. Refugee law is a specialist body of law, and it is important to have someone on that tribunal who understands it, particularly as this amending bill and the Act will extend the rights of detention by Government officials. The United Nations Human Rights Committee said that there should be no detention of refugees and asylum seekers with ordinary prisoners, but unfortunately that is still happening. In fact, under this legislation there will be room for them to be detained even longer. There is an extension of the time of initial detention after an asylum seeker arrives at the airport, from 72 to 96 hours, without any justification being provided for that increase in time.

Section 474 also gives immigration officers more powers to detain, and to determine that premises can be a place of detention. This is a really important issue, because we have, particularly in relation to Iranian Christians who have converted from Islam, cases where asylum seekers have been detained for a very long time. One of them, Amir Mohebbi, who has now been granted status in New Zealand, was in jail for 4 years. What is in the Act is quite a challenge to what the Human Rights Committee has said in its view that asylum seekers should not be detained in that way. The whole trend of the Act is towards increasing State powers over people who are coming here, to an unreasonable degree, and towards too much secrecy in respect of immigration processes. Thank you.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): It would be remiss of me not to take a call, given the warm congratulations I wish to extend to the Minister of Immigration, and, I am reliably informed, his wife. Of course, those on this side of the House are more often married than in a partnership or some other loose arrangement, such as the previous speaker alluded to.

On the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill itself, I do not intend to take 4 hours, as the previous speaker seemed to take. It reminded me of listening to recordings of Castro speaking for 4 hours about nothing.

Darien Fenton: You can sit down now, then.

DAVID GARRETT: Yeah, I will, very shortly. This bill is a very short bill. I think Mr Chauvel knows what I am talking about when I say that there is a very helpful High Court rule that is known as the slip rule, which allows inadvertent errors to be corrected. But apparently there is nothing quite so sensible here, and we have to come back, as Mr Cosgrove has informed us, to correct this legislation. That is a bit of a shame.

But I do not intend to speak about Ahmed Zaoui’s history or his various potential connections. ACT will be supporting the amendment bill.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): We also extend our congratulations to the Minister of Immigration and his wife on their new arrival. We trust that all permits are in order and that nothing went wrong with the delivery.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The terms “no guts” and “no courage” have been ruled out thousands of times in this House, but that member sitting across the way from me, Clayton Cosgrove, has just blatantly accused our colleague Peter Garrett of having no guts and no courage.

Hon Members: David Garrett.

Hon Tau Henare: Oh, David Garrett, not Peter Garrett.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Firstly, I do not believe we have a member in the House called Peter Garrett. I think he resides in the Australian Parliament.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I want members to reflect a moment. This House will get out of order when we have personal reflections, and I want to say—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yeah.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): —excuse me, I am ruling here; I do not want any correspondence on the matter—that personal reflections cause disorder. When reflections are made, whether of a general nature or a particular nature, offence is taken to them. Just as it is out of order to refer to an individual as having particular characteristics, for example, being controlled, it is out of order to refer to a party in the same manner. When a member makes reflections to someone on the other side, it can cause offence, and people will react to it. I say to members of this House that personal reflections and derogatory comments are unacceptable, in general.

During the particular point raised by Mr Tau Henare, I was busy looking at the Speakers’ Rulings to speak about this matter and I did not hear the interjections, so I could not take offence at them. I say further to Mr Henare that a member cannot take offence on behalf of someone else; the other person has to do that. But the member’s point is well made. I say to members that if they play it with a straight bat and do not make personal reflections against individuals or others in general, this House will be much better.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not take offence on behalf of anybody; I took offence.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I withdraw and apologise.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two sets of Standing Orders in this House. There are the written Standing Orders, and, as somebody else said—a venerable parliamentarian—there are the unwritten standing orders. I simply make the observation to you that for personal reflections—which I did indeed make, and I again withdraw and apologise; Mr Henare was absolutely correct—there is also another convention in this House. When a member of Parliament brings one’s spouse, partner, or family into a debate, that is generally observed by both sides of the House as a no go area. That is under an unwritten standing order. I simply observe to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that in my view that member made some very unparliamentary remarks about members in here. I am not asking you to take action, because I suspect that that is in the unwritten standing orders, but it is called a principle, which perhaps that member knows very little about.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I will just say to the member that that was in some ways helpful, but in other ways it was unhelpful. If the member had reflected on what I had said, he would know that it was almost exactly the same, point for point, so it was unnecessary to relitigate. But I guess the member felt he had to get something off his chest.

Having said that, I think we should get back to business. We are here to debate. I know that the House is sitting under urgency and that it is a bit late, but we should keep ourselves under a bit of a short rein and debate the issue. I ask members to play the ball, not the player.

RAHUI KATENE: It made for fascinating timing to receive the observations of the 98th session of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in New York just as the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill was being primed for introduction. Two aspects of that report in particular are relevant for this bill. The first is the recommendation to consider extending the mandate of the Human Rights Commission so that it can receive complaints of human rights violations relating to immigration laws, policies, and practices, and report on them. The second is that New Zealand should continue its efforts to review the status of the Treaty of Waitangi within the domestic legal system, including the desirability of incorporating the Treaty into domestic law, in consultation with Māori groups.

The first recommendation is of particular relevance to the legislation we are debating today—that is, legislation that is about appointing members, including the chair, to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. In effect, this legislation is about one section of the Immigration Act, section 474. The Immigration Act 2009 was assented to on 16 November 2009. Within the parameters of this legislation, section 474 of the Act authorised certain persons to exercise specific powers and functions before the relevant provisions of the Act had begun. Yet when it came down to the wire, section 474 was inadvertently omitted from the commencement provision. Today, then, we are facing legislation that will require section 474 to be brought into force as soon as possible, to allow the necessary implementation work to be done. In real terms, the bill will bring section 474 into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

In this way, then, the bill appears to be purely administrative in nature. In fact, it appears to be purely a response to an anomaly that was not identified at the time, whereby the powers and functions of the appointed chair and the Governor-General were overlooked. The bill basically corrects that anomaly. The powers of the Governor-General addressed in this bill are related to the capacity to appoint a chair to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. The powers also enable the Governor-General to appoint members to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which will decide all immigration, deportation, refugee, and protection appeals in New Zealand. Clearly, that is an area of considerable sensitivity and controversy. The bill specifies the powers and functions that may be exercised early, including the directions for the education, training, and professional development of members of the tribunal. Another part of the legislation establishes a process by which the chair of the tribunal can develop a code of conduct for members of the tribunal. In accordance with the recommendation from the United Nations Human Rights Committee, this would enable complaints of human rights violations that might emerge from members of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, and that are related to immigration laws, policies, and practices, to be heard and reported.

The second recommendation of the United Nations Human Rights Committee is about reviewing the status of the Treaty of Waitangi within the domestic legal system. Even though we had considered that this bill might provide an opportunity to incorporate the Treaty into the bill, it appears that the bill does not provide the process to make overarching effects to immigration, and, as such, we have been advised that any amendment we might make to bring the Treaty into this legislation will not affect how the Immigration and Protection Tribunal will make its decisions. Notwithstanding these issues, the Māori Party will support this bill, which we see basically as a means of improving the administration around immigration policy implementation. The bill also provides us with an excellent opportunity to advertise our keen interest in putting forward an eminently suitable applicant to be appointed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. We will support this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 113

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In the first reading speeches I thought there were a number of helpful contributions. Perhaps I can be indulged to say I heard what Mr Cosgrove said about the omission. It is a matter that I myself have raised, and it could well be that this kind of drafting of commencement clauses needs to be revisited. As I have said, I heard what Mr Cosgrove said, but at the end of the day, as Alan Martin said—and Mr Cosgrove is a Cantabrian, so he may not know about L V Martin—it is the putting right that counts. I think that is important to acknowledge.

I think too that we are dealing with very good legislation. Again I heard what Mr Locke said about human rights concerns. I respect that he is a person who has a great passion for human rights and that he is one of the staunchest advocates of human rights in this place, but I have to tell him that last week the United Nations Human Rights Committee commended overall the adoption of the Immigration Act, in its opening statements. That committee has recognised that the Act is a good piece of work.

Equally, I think, it is very important that we get on with implementing that Act it as quickly as we can. The implementation of the changes to immigration made in the Act is a sizable task that is moving full steam ahead. Section 474, which is a very complex section, was included in the Act in order to allow certain implementation work to be done before the rest of the Act comes into force, so the bill will bring that section into force on the day after the Royal assent. I will not go through the detail of the bill, but I say a number of important tasks need to be undertaken, and the sooner we get on to that the better it will be.

I do not intend to waste the time of the House on what everyone acknowledges was a drafting error. I will apologise to the House if it helps to soothe matters, but in any event I am pleased to commend the bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I thank the Attorney-General on behalf of the Minister of Immigration for his wonderful speech. From our side of the House, we say that no apology is necessary—from that Minister, at least. I think he has been very gracious to bite the bullet on this one. I am interested in his comments about what changes he may foresee in the legislative drafting process—and we may explore this in the Committee stage—and any recommendations or suggestions he has that could avoid this situation happening again.

I suppose those recommendations could be perhaps that Ministers read the bill, that Ministers read the Supplementary Order Paper, and that Ministers take the advice of their officials. Having been a Minister of Immigration, I know that there are some very venerable and highly skilled officials in the department and some very sound legal minds. I will not destroy their careers by naming them individually, but there are some very, very sound legal minds. I know that if Mr Finlayson had charge of this legislation, he would have gone through the Supplementary Order Paper with a fine-tooth comb and cross-referenced the various pieces and clauses to ensure that it was completely quality controlled, and we probably would not be in the situation we are in tonight. Equally, he would have read the bill and he would have taken the advice of his officials—

Hon Ruth Dyson: If only they were all that good.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: As my colleague Ruth Dyson says, if only all Ministers were as good as the Attorney-General, who I believe was taught by Gerry Mills, as I was. I think we both passed School Certificate English but in different colleges, and I know that Mr Finlayson is very diligent about his work. That is what Gerry told me before he sadly passed away.

Like the Minister, we will facilitate the passage of this legislation, but we note that these are things that should be dealt with efficiently, with good management, and appropriately. I am gratified that the Minister who is taking the lead on this, at least tonight, is looking to solutions so that these errors do not occur again.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I too would like to offer my thanks to the Minister Chris Finlayson for his suggestions and openness in looking for solutions. I was involved in the passing of Immigration Act 2009, as indeed many of my colleagues were. I was involved with the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I know the amount of work that went into this Act. Many years of work and many Ministers were involved in it. The work on the legislation was started by the previous Labour Government, and we worked through lots and lots of issues that were quite difficult to deal with, which we talked about when we were passing the Immigration Bill several months ago. Immigration is a very difficult area of law. It is very complex law, and I suppose we can forgive the error made on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Jonathan Coleman a little bit.

Labour was committed to the Immigration Bill. We helped to facilitate it and we worked with the select committee on it. In fact, we introduced that bill when we were in Government. We want to make sure that the commencement date for section 474 is brought into effect, so that when the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is appointed and ready and the rest of the Act comes into effect, it is all ready to go. With those few words, I am happy to support the second reading of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party will continue to oppose the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill, but I think that the way the Attorney-General has engaged with the debate is good. He is treating the United Nations Human Rights Committee and its report on New Zealand very seriously. As I said in my first reading speech, I recognise that the committee saw the Immigration Act 2009 as a positive development, particularly when compared with the previous Immigration Act. I know that previously the committee had been worried about things like the security risk certificate provision in the old Act. In certain respects, the Immigration Act 2009 represented a step forward, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee was right to recognise that. In its specificity on immigration procedures and the Act, it made very clear proposals, which I hope the Government will listen to, to not allow refugees and asylum seekers to be imprisoned in normal prisons with other prisoners, as Amir Mohebbi, the person who was detained for 4 years, was.

There are some very bad additions to the Immigration Act that deny human rights. One is under section 163 of the Act, where the Minister of Immigration can deport anyone whom he or she deems to constitute a threat or risk to security. It is a very short, direct provision that means that people can just be whisked out of the country in no time, without any right of appeal. That is something that denies basic human rights.

The other provision that really struck the Greens when the Immigration Act went through in 2009 is in what were then clauses 271 and 289. Those provisions take away from a judge the discretion to give someone in Amir Mohebbi’s position—someone detained prior to deportation—the right to be let out on bail. There is a clear definition that the judge can let someone out on bail only in exceptional circumstances. Clause 289 said that the judge cannot determine that the period of time a person has already been detained—in Amir Mohebbi’s case, 4 years—can be taken into account by the judge in granting bail. Technically, someone can remain in jail for ever, which is a complete denial of habeas corpus. Provisions like that run up against internationally accepted principles and the principles that are accepted by the Human Rights Committee.

With those few words, the Green Party is sticking to its original position. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 113

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House): Following agreement in the Business Committee, I seek leave for all the provisions of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill to be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

Clauses 1 to 4

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): Mr Hughes is very modest in allowing me to take the call; it is one of his endearing qualities that we love so much. I want to briefly address a couple of things in the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, may want to touch on. As I said in the previous debate, I would be grateful if he might advise us on what legislative solutions he may be proposing in terms of the legislative drafting process. I also want to address some of the wider issues, as posed by Mr Locke, around this bill.

As a former Minister of Immigration, I say that the first responsibility of whoever is that Minister in the Government is to secure the borders of this country, and I think members on both sides of the Chamber agree with that. Mr Locke referred to a number of cases where alleged—and I say that advisedly—refugees were incarcerated for allegedly, in at least one case, converting to Catholicism, thereby inviting some sort of threat because they had gone public with that in their homeland. I believe that in the reported case that homeland was Iraq. I said in the debate on the substantive legislation that I was aware of that case and of others. Where it becomes difficult is where the United Nations deems that there is not a threat, and we have to be guided by that.

I recall that on a number of the cases that I dealt with as Minister, there were great protestations by members of my own church. In respect of one or two cases, certain people were very nice individuals. I think that one was a chef who had cooked for Bill Clinton. But in my view, those were not valid reasons to walk away from the rule of law or the legislation and to not take officials’ advice and the advice of intelligence agencies in terms of the veracity, or the lack of it, of those people’s claims. I say to Mr Locke that when people convert at the airport in Seoul to any religion, fly over to New Zealand, tear up their passports, and then claim as they yell from the highest building that harm may come to them if they go back home, and, on top of that, when the UN Human Rights Council does not make the same recommendation in respect of a threat to their life, then I say that we should respect the advice of agencies, including our own department and intelligence agency. At the end of the day, Ministers must make a judgment, and they do. It is our job as a Parliament to secure our borders as a priority.

This amendment bill has resulted from an omission on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in relation to the commencement of section 474 of the Immigration Act 2009. I note that the powers referred to in the bill are in respect of the Governor-General appointing members, including the chair, to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal; the chair of the tribunal directing the education, training and professional development of members of the tribunal; and the chair of the tribunal developing a code of conduct for the tribunal’s own membership. As I said, the Attorney-General has been good enough to proactively suggest that he will be proposing changes to the drafting process to avoid this happening again, and we endorse that.

I come back to the original Immigration Act 2009, which was passed earlier in this Parliament. I believe it had the support of nearly every political party in Parliament. I say to Mr Locke that maybe he would like to reflect on where his allegiance lies. This is New Zealand. We have to treat people appropriately and we have to be humanitarian to all those who come across our borders, but, equally, we expect them to be legitimate and to not abuse our rules, laws, and good graces by making false claims. At the end of the day, whichever party the Minister of Immigration is from in this Parliament, be it Labour, National, or otherwise, he or she is charged on advice to make a decision on the veracity, or lack of it, of those claims.

If people choose to stay in prison because they will not adhere to our immigration laws, then I say to Mr Locke that that is a matter for them. If we look at the international jurisdictions around the world, I would wager that very few of them now do not look to the security of their borders and do not look to differentiate between those who make false claims as refugees or otherwise, and who abuse our humanitarian systems. If we let in someone who abuses that system, then he or she will also take the place of a true refugee or true person who crosses our border to escape tyranny from another country. Finally, I would invite Mr Locke to reflect on those comments.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I take up the challenge from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove with great pleasure. Of the people whom he referred to, like the Iranian Christian convert who was a cook and the four Iranian Christian converts from Islam who served long terms in prison, from several months to 2 years—and 4 years in Amir Mohebbi’s case—every one of them now has proper immigration status in New Zealand and is living here as a legitimate person in our country. They are doing very well. They are not committing any crimes. Clayton Cosgrove’s idea that somehow those people should be rejected was actually a view that was turned down by the immigration authorities in New Zealand in the end. The problem was that someone like Amir Mohebbi had to be detained for 4 years, because he did not want to be deported back to Iran, where he may well have been persecuted as a Christian convert from Islam.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The UN didn’t agree with that.

KEITH LOCKE: In regard to Clayton Cosgrove’s reference to the UN, I say that the UN does not always get it right. There is a simple fact governing the UN’s attitude to the situation in Iran, which is that Iran takes many thousands of refugees from Afghanistan. The UN does not want to endanger that, so it does not look at—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am trying to get my head around exactly which part of clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4—

KEITH LOCKE: I am responding to—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I cautioned him as well. One errant speech that is quite broad does not open space for everybody else. We are debating the Committee stage. The member can make illustrations in comparison, but he must tie them back to the clauses.

KEITH LOCKE: I relate this point back to the Immigration Act and the provisions in it, as I did in my original speech. But when a member stands up and spends virtually his whole contribution criticising me on those points, surely I have the right to defend myself on those points. I think that the whole question that the United Nations Human Rights Committee raised, and on which it was critical of New Zealand’s immigration procedures in the Immigration Act, section 474 of which we are implementing, was on the question of non-refoulement—that is, people being returned to their country of origin, where they may be persecuted. That was specifically stated in the report issued on 25 March by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

In the case of the Iranian Christian converts from Islam, the Iranian Lower House has passed the first reading of a law providing for the execution of people who convert from Islam, the religion of their birth, to Christianity. It is actually in a law that has passed its first reading in the Iranian Parliament.

The other thing that we have to put in that context is the fact that a few days ago Amnesty International issued a report on executions around the world. No. 1 was China, and near the top was Iran, where they have been executing people, particularly since the recent protests. If we combine all these factors, particularly where asylum seeker’s names are known, we know that people who are deported back to Iran are under some risk of persecution. We have to take all of that into account. We should not let people just rot in jail for the rest of their lives in violation of habeas corpus, and have provisions in our Immigration Act that allow that to happen just because they will not sign bits of paper. We cannot allow them to be deported back to Iran to possible persecution and even execution, in terms of the law being passed through the Iranian Parliament. That is why many Christian people, particularly those of the Catholic faith but also of other faiths, were so strong in their support for the people whom they knew were good parishioners in their church. They knew that they were true converts. I take Mr Cosgrove’s point that some people can use that as an excuse, and no doubt some people have used that as an excuse, but the people in the cases that he raised are now solid, determined people with the proper immigration status in New Zealand.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Let me say right now that I blame myself for that; I do. I am flagellating myself. The score is now one all, and we will now talk about the commencement date and the issues surrounding that.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): That is indeed what I intend to do, Mr Chair. I do intend to speak about clauses 1 to 4 of the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. I will start with clause 1, “Title”, which reads: “This Act is the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Act 2010.”

Indeed, we could call this bill, if we wanted to, the “Immigration (Unfortunate Mistake) Amendment Bill 2010”, or we could call it, if we wanted to, the “Immigration Act the Minister Intends to Find Other Solutions for”—which, of course, we welcome—“Amendment Bill 2010”. I could go on about that, but members on the Opposition side of the Chamber are generous, and as we have noted, the Minister has said the omission of a reference to section 474 of the Immigration Act on Supplementary Order Paper 32 should not have happened, and he will be looking to find solutions. I do not want to blame the drafters of the Immigration Bill, but I will say, as I said earlier, that it was a huge bill. It was a bill that took many, many years to work on. Those of us who are now on this side of the Chamber worked on it; we began the work on that bill. We worked on it in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and in fact—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: We wrote it.

DARIEN FENTON: —as my colleague says, we wrote it—we took it through all of its process in the select committee, and then it came back for its second reading under this Government. So I do not want to spend too much time on trying to debate whether there should be a different title.

I would like to talk about clause 3, if I may, which states: “This Act amends the Immigration Act 2009.” I think that one of the things that the Act does is to set up the whole kind of platform for future immigration. Unfortunately, there have been some pretty awful announcements since it was enacted, and I am sure that I am allowed to refer to those, because this bill is about the commencement date of that Act and what happens in bringing it into force. I mentioned in my first reading speech the cheque-book immigration policy announced by Minister Coleman. I do not want to be too unpleasant about that Minister’s life; I know that he has things to celebrate. But I have to say we are very concerned that the prize of New Zealand citizenship is being sold to the highest bidders, never mind what skills and values those people may or may not possess. I do wonder about this whole thing of bringing retirees into the family category—the parent category—and whether we are talking about the Government’s latest make-work programme. You know, we are going to bring in these older people—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, commencement.

DARIEN FENTON: Commencement? OK—no principal Act. Are we bringing people in for a make-work programme?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No!

DARIEN FENTON: All right, Mr Chairperson; I will move on to the next clause, which deals with the commencement of the legislation.

Clause 4 is about the commencement date of the principal Act, and some announcements have been made since that Act was enacted. A change to the registered seasonal employers’ scheme removes the minimum wage for workers there. That change has been made since the 2009 Act was enacted, and it will be affected by the commencement date of this bill. We on this side of the Chamber are very concerned about that. So in relation to the commencement provisions in clause 4, we are saying perhaps we should backtrack a little and go back to the situation that existed when the Act was brought into being in 2009. The Minister should retract the announcements that he has made, because, quite frankly, they are appalling. They are affecting New Zealanders; they are affecting New Zealand workers and other New Zealanders. As I said, it is cheque-book immigration. It is about providing visas for cash, and we do not support that. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): In speaking to these clauses, I note that in respect of clauses 2 and 4, and in light of the Attorney-General’s comments about changes that he may wish to make to the legislative process, it is worth reflecting on the history of why this omission occurred. I am advised that the omission of the reference to section 430—which is section 474 in the current Act—in the commencement section of the then Immigration Bill occurred between versions 22 and 23 of the Supplementary Order Paper. I was quite astounded by that. In version 22, the commencement section contained the required reference to section 430—I am mindful in making these comments of being extremely specific about the bill—in Part 12 of the bill. I am told that in version 23, the references to sections 430 and 431 were changed to refer to “Part 13”. I am also advised that the department noted that that was inconsistent with the subsection dealing with information sharing with employers, and I am also advised that the department requested that the Parliamentary Counsel Office change “Part 13” to refer to the specific sections being brought into force. Indeed, in making that change, section 430 was unfortunately omitted.

That, I know, for those people like myself who are not lawyers, sounds to be quite a convoluted process in respect of the bill’s drafting, and it was unfortunate that the mistake was not identified by the Minister in the drafting process, especially when there are, as I have said, errors occurring in versions 22 and 23 of a Supplementary Order Paper. I feel sure that the Parliamentary Counsel Office has a pretty formidable reputation, as do our immigration officials, I know, having worked with them for some years in combing very, very carefully through legislation.

I do not have the legislative history of others, but where a Supplementary Order Paper has various chapters, or shall we say various versions, and we go to versions 22 and 23, I would have thought that somewhere down the track the Minister, having read 22 previous versions, might have picked up on that error. I would have thought so. But as the Minister in the chair, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, has said again with a great deal of grace and honour, as the person who is trying to shepherd this omission through Parliament, these things do happen. Even though I am a South Islander, I tell the Minister that I remember L V Martin with some interest, and I remember his slogan, as the Minister pointed out. But, again, I would be interested if the Minister would take a call—

Hon Darren Hughes: Uncanny resemblance, really, with the Minister.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I would never say that; that would be deeply unkind and offensive—

Hon Darren Hughes: Why? They’re both successful.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —to L V Martin! I would be very interested if the Minister would get up and give us a quick burst, perhaps, on how he would change, or recommend changes to, the drafting process. I think we have to go through the parliamentary stages, but we would hate to get through this stage and pass this bill, and then come back after Easter in urgency again to perhaps correct another error. So I ask the Minister, on this A3-paged bill, whether he could just reinforce to the Committee that we will not be back here in urgency the week after next to correct another error—perhaps a spelling mistake, a date, a clause, a number, or, I do not know, the grade of paper the bill is printed on. Who knows? But we do not want to be back here again. I feel confident, now that we have a competent Minister in the chair, that he will give us such assurances, and we will not be back here to deal with such minutiae again. I look forward to it, and invite him, if he would be so gracious, to elucidate on those points.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I would like to follow up Darien Fenton’s point, which I think is relevant to the bill. If we look at section 474, which a mistake was made about and which this bill corrects, we see that it talks about publishing immigration instructions and giving general instructions. A lot of immigration is put into effect not through direct legislation but through regulation, like published instructions. We had the example that Darien Fenton mentioned, of giving easy access to New Zealand and residency to those who are retirees. The category that Darien Fenton was I think rightly concerned about was for those who effectively buy their way in, through having pots of money. They probably can do a bit of a money-go-round when they get here. Whether they actually invest in the future of our country is always a bit doubtful, because there are always ways of shuffling money around in between countries, and whatever.

But without getting into that detail, I ask what the underlying principle is. Should people come here to be genuine New Zealanders, or just as people who are buying their way in because they happen to have a lot more money than someone else? Then there is the other aspect of that, in terms of the demography of New Zealand. Do we need the piles—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Come into this debate.

KEITH LOCKE: This is related to section 474(4)(a) and (b): the implementing of general instructions, in particular. Do we need a whole lot of older people, or is there a greater need, if we are to redress the problem of too many older people in the population, to put the emphasis more on younger people?

That being said, of course, the Green Party is very much in favour of family completion, and regulations in that respect—whether the people coming in to complete the family are old or young, or brothers or sisters, or whatever. We are very much in favour of that, and we do not want that confused with people buying their way in just because they have tons of money. It has not really worked in New Zealand’s benefit in the other ways it has been tried, and I do not think it will work in terms of allowing retired people with pots of money to come and settle just because of that fact.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I would not want honourable members to think I have an unhealthy obsession with the machinery provisions of bills, but I thought Mr Cosgrove made a very helpful contribution. He identified exactly what the problem was in the legislation, which is what happens, perhaps, when we have overly prescriptive provisions in transitional arrangements or commencement clauses.

One of the issues I will look at from a legislative point of view—and I am getting away from the particular bill before the Committee—is whether things can be streamlined, because quite frankly it is not overly satisfactory that we have had to deal with this matter in this way. So from the point of view of an Attorney-General, with responsibility for the Parliamentary Counsel Office, I tell members that I will talk to a few people to make sure that it does not happen again.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour): I rise to take a reasonably brief call during the Committee stage of this Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill. I am motivated to do so because I had hoped that the Māori Party might take a call during the Committee stage. The member for Te Tai Tonga, Rahui Katene, spoke very eloquently during the first reading of the bill, and I thought we might hear from the member for Te Tai Tokerau, Hone Harawira, during the Committee stage. Clause 1, in the clause by clause analysis, refers to the change in the title clause taking place to ensure that that clause explicitly refers to the Act in which the enactment originally occurred—in other words, it will enable the bill to do what Parliament thought it had done in the first place. I thought that the member for Te Tai Tokerau might have had a view on making sure that laws did exactly what he thought they would do at the time they were passed by Parliament—

Hone Harawira: Steal Māori land.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: —in respect of the foreshore and seabed legislation, or the provisions that were going to be referred to in the news today. The member refers to stealing land, by way of interjection, yet I do not think that the legislation that will come to the House will explicitly refer to the remedy he seeks. So I will be very interested to hear from him, and I would like him to make a contribution to the Committee of the whole House about how legislation can explicitly refer, as the clause by clause analysis says, to clause 1, in respect of that. He had quite a lot to say on the television news tonight, and I am hoping he will share with the Committee of the whole House his views on that.

That point I am making goes to the heart of the mistakes that are made in legislation. The member opposite thinks that major mistakes were made; he is looking for remedies. This bill is a remedy for a particular mistake that the self-described maestro of New Zealand politics, the Hon Jonathan Coleman, managed to bring through with this bill. But tonight is a night for congratulating Mr Coleman. He has a new child; we are all very happy for him in that respect and we wish him well, and that is why we are happy that the bill has been handed over to the Attorney-General. It is a good night for Jonathan Coleman.

But that analysis of clause 1 refers to that, so I hope that once I have finished my remarks, Hone Harawira will speak to us about that. There will be a lot of people waiting to hear what he has to say about it, I am sure. I am certainly one.

Hone Harawira: Ha, ha! Guaranteed.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: That is good. If he had said no, I would have pointed out that this is one of those fortnightly Wednesdays that is pay day, and he should get to his feet and explain what his views are on that. It seemed to me that there was a slightly different position tonight between that proposed by Government MP Hone Harawira, who is member of the National-Māori-ACT Government, and what the Ministers were proposing, in respect of that law.

I have a question for the Attorney-General, who is standing in tonight for the Minister of Immigration, and it goes to that correction to section 474. The aide-mémoire refers to the certification of immigration consultants under section 22(1), and that they can thereby be classified under section 23(1), and I wonder whether the Minister can explain to us exactly—well, not exactly; that is unfair on him—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, no—exactly.

Hon DARREN HUGHES: No, he is prescient, but even this close to Easter the Minister is not quite prescient in that respect; by Sunday, of course, he will have the answer to everything. But I ask whether he could explain to us exactly what instructions will be classified differently as a result of this reference, because the bill itself does not make that clear. Even the aide-mémoire, although it refers to what will happen mechanically, does not go through the issues of substance in terms of the legislation.

My second question to the Hon Christopher Finlayson is about the appointment of tribunal members, which I understand was the subject of the mistake made between versions 22 and 23, as referred to by Mr Cosgrove. A mistake was picked up there, and it referred to the tribunal members. I wonder whether the Minister could tell the Committee, just for our own interest, to what extent work has been done to begin to appoint those tribunal members. Was the mistake discovered because tribunal members were about to be appointed?

In other words, has it been decided who the tribunal members will be, or has it pretty much been decided who they will be? How far down the road has that process, through the Cabinet appointments and honours committee, travelled? We certainly do not need to know names; we are not on a fishing expedition for that. We are almost certain that an appointment could be part of the severance package for the Rt Hon James Brendan Bolger, but we are not sure about that. I certainly hope the severance package is much more generous than that, because he has worked hard for our country and deserves it. But now that the Minister has told us how much work has gone on with regard to those appointments, I would like to know, if we passed this law tonight and we specifically did not give a commencement date this time, when they would be made. Jonathan Coleman made us give a date last time and he was wrong about that, so we are correcting it tonight. We are very happy to do that; there is support from the Labour Opposition in that regard. But when can we expect tribunal members to be appointed under this particular provision?

Those are the two questions I have. In addition I am waiting for Hone Harawira’s contribution, which I am anticipating will take place now.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 113

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: I move, That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Once again, I thank honourable members for their generosity of spirit in facilitating the expeditious passage of this bill.

Can I simply say that during the Committee stage an issue arose about the appointment of the tribunal. My understanding is that those particular matters have barely advanced, so we will get on with that now. This bill is looking as though it will pass. This bill is an important bill, though a very specific one, and it will help the implementation process by ensuring that certain implementation tasks can be done in advance of what could be called the “go live” date of the commencement of the bill.

Hon Darren Hughes: Such modern language.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: My response to the chief Opposition whip is to tell him to get with it. It is time to move on. One cannot live in the past all the time.

I will not go through section 474 in any great detail, because there are certain things the Governor-General has to do—for example, appoint members, including the chair, to the tribunal. The Prime Minister has to do certain things, the Minister has to do certain things, and the Attorney-General has to do certain things with the chair of the tribunal, like agree on any general practices and procedures that may be necessary in relation to proceedings involving classified information heard by the tribunal, which could be a very important matter once the tribunal gets under way. Then I have to agree with the Chief Justice on any general practices and procedures that may be necessary for other proceedings involving classified information provisions.

There is a lot of practical work that needs to done, and that is why we need to get on with it as quickly as we can, why the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill has been needed, and why I have come down to the House in sackcloth and ashes to accept blame on behalf of the Government. I will flagellate myself later on, and then I will go to confession. There we have it; a mistake was made, and I have manfully and with some courage accepted it. Now, having accepted it, we move on, as I am exhorted to by the chief Government whip. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): If only there were more moments like this in the House. I want to extend—

Hon Darren Hughes: Nick Smith could learn a thing or two.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yes, Nick Smith could learn a thing or two, absolutely. I want to extend the parliamentary olive branch to the Minister, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who has been even more gracious than I think all of us expected him to be. Like myself, he went to a Catholic school—a second-rate one in Silverstream, as opposed to St Bede’s—but I have to say that he has acted—

Hon Christopher Finlayson: St Pat’s Town.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Sorry, it was St Patrick’s College, Wellington. I apologise. The late Gerry Mills would be looking down in shame. I say that the Minister has acted gracefully and with a high degree of honour. We hope that he will not return to his office in the dead of night and flagellate himself, as he said he would.

Hon Darren Hughes: He promised.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: He promised he would. Indeed, it may be appropriate that instead of the Minister flagellating himself, perhaps the Leader of the House, who has made many, many more mistakes than this Minister, may take up that sort of biblical challenge as another Marist old boy of St Bede’s. Perhaps Mr Finlayson, in giving Mr Brownlee some lessons in House management and legislative management, may also give him some lessons in self-flagellation.

This is relatively benign legislation. I note that the debate has been conducted with a degree of good humour, apart from—and I have to say this, as I will not let it pass—some very derogatory comments made by a member of this Chamber, that bastion of principle, Mr Garrett, about members’ partners, relationships, and families. He would be the only person in a debate like this, where there is a little jocularity and good humour but a degree of scrutiny, who would lower himself to that level and bring the debate down into the gutter, from where he seems to slither from time to time.

In respect of the Green member, I know his points are heartfelt in respect of the human rights aspects of the Immigration Act itself and this amendment to it. I simply reiterate the points I made to him before. I agree with him that when people cross our border in a genuine fashion, perhaps as genuine converts to religion, and enter New Zealand in fear of their lives if they return to their country of origin, I believe that our past immigration processes, inefficient as some of them were, and the new Act would allow the Minister and the department, on evidence, to act in a humanitarian fashion. The member who laughs has little experience in immigration matters. It is appropriate that the relevant Government agencies scrutinise the veracity, or lack of it, of an applicant.

Mr Locke asked how we will know that the UN will always get it right, and that is a good point. He then went on to quote Amnesty International, which I have great respect for as a non-governmental organisation but which I would put in a second order of priority after the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I put it back on Mr Locke and ask him how we know that Amnesty International and other non-governmental organisations that do not have the ability, the intelligence capability, and the intelligence agencies that the UN, Governments, and other Crown agencies have are able to make those judgments. I put that back to him, because maybe he has a crystal ball that many of us in this Chamber do not have. Maybe he can judge the righteousness, or lack of it, of those who choose to take advantage of our humanitarian Kiwi spirit. Maybe he can judge that through some sort of crystal ball that we do not have.

Shane Ardern: Divine intervention.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Maybe that is the case. Mr Finlayson, being a pillar of the Catholic Church, may rise to his feet and elucidate on that purpose. But in all seriousness, this comes down to Ministers, whether they be Labour or National or any other flavour in this House, who sit in the chair of the Minister of Immigration, being forced to make judgments on the veracity, or lack of veracity, of cases. Mr Locke seems to have taken my comments to heart, as if I am saying that we should be sceptical of anybody who crosses our borders and makes a claim. No, we should question, we should seek evidence, and then we should make judgments. But as Minister of Immigration I never accepted pressure from groups based on a lack of knowledge and a lack of evidence. It is not enough to say that somebody is a pillar of a church. I am a Catholic and I do not think I am a pillar of my church, but I think I have to be judged, perhaps, on evidence. It is not enough to say that somebody is a good bloke. It is not enough to say that that person has been incarcerated for a number of years by their own choice, I say to Mr Locke.

In one of the cases that he talked about, the incarceration of that person was that person’s choice. That person could have ended his or her incarceration. I recall those cases. Ministers of Immigration must be guided by international agencies. Maybe the UN has changed its mind, but when I was in the chair, and perhaps until recently, the UN took a far different view on Iran than Keith Locke did at the time. I think we may have discussed this at the time, over a number of cases.

Our job as a Parliament, as a Minister of Immigration, as an Opposition spokesperson, as a constituent, or as a list member of Parliament representing those nationals who wish to take advantage of our Kiwi humanity is to make judgments on evidence, and to represent them on evidence. But at the end of the day—and Mr Finlayson has to bite the bullet on this one tonight—Ministers and Government agencies have to bite the bullet and sometimes make unpalatable decisions. Maybe Mr Locke has the view that we should open our borders and, without evidence, accept all those people who come across them. Well, I have to say to Mr Locke that there are some bad people in the world, some people are a threat to our borders and the borders of other countries, and it is our duty as a Parliament and as a Government to ensure that our citizenry first, and our border first, is secured.

With those comments, the Labour Opposition, as we have said throughout the debate, will support this legislation. We wrote most of the Immigration Bill; National passed it. We supported it. We believe in the bill and the consequential amendments, and in Mr Finlayson’s cast-iron, rock-solid, pot-riveted guarantee that we will not be back here on the Tuesday after Easter Monday, or after the adjournment, in urgency correcting another mistake made by Mr Coleman, “The Maestro” of the Parliament. I am sad that Kate Wilkinson, the Associate Minister of Immigration, who has some oversight for this area, has not taken a call, but it may well happen. She may do something that is completely out of character for her—front up, grit her teeth, and take some responsibility.

Hon Darren Hughes: Not a chance.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I will not be taking up Mr Hughes’ wager on that.

I conclude by congratulating the Minister. He has treated this issue with a high degree of seriousness, as we all have. He has been magnanimous and said that he will look at the Parliamentary Counsel Office, talk with its drafters, and make recommendations to perhaps stop the error from happening again. As I say, after 22 or 23 versions of the Supplementary Order Paper going through, still we had errors.

Hon Darren Hughes: A Nick Smith special.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The member says it is a Nick Smith special. I am not quite sure what he means by that, and I will leave that to Mr Hughes. But Mr Hughes did make a very pertinent comment in respect of the conduct of the Minister, Mr Finlayson, being gracious and honourable, and his preparing to take responsibility. There are one or two members—one, Dr Nick Smith, sits opposite me—who could indeed, as Mr Hughes said, learn from Mr Finlayson’s example. There is no politics in this; it is one of those rare moments in this House when, in that old-fashioned Westminster tradition, a Minister will come down to the Chamber and not blame his officials, not blame anybody else, but actually grit his teeth and say he is responsible. The ground-breaking thing that has happened tonight is that Mr Finlayson is not actually the responsible Minister. He has ridden the horse very well tonight as Attorney-General, but he is not the responsible Minister.

I pay tribute to and congratulate Dr Coleman, who could not be here. I am not breaching the Standing Orders by saying that. He has a very good reason for not being here, with his wife having had a child this evening, and we congratulate him on that. That, obviously, was not a mistake. We look forward to further debates with Dr Coleman, and I look forward to Mr Finlayson in the future, as Attorney-General, implementing those strategies, plans, and procedures to streamline the legislative process. Along with Mr Finlayson, I commend the bill to the House.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): I think the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill has generated better debate than I had expected, and I welcome the contributions from various members—Clayton Cosgrove, Darien Fenton, and Chris Finlayson—in that respect. I do not disagree too much with the framework that Clayton Cosgrove outlined in the last speech, because I too believe that immigration decisions should be based very much on the evidence at hand. But it is important to pull in all of the evidence possible and not rely on one bit of evidence.

Clayton Cosgrove said the United Nations’ evidence might be the highest form of evidence. I do not think that is always the case, particularly because, as anyone who studies the United Nations knows, it is balancing competing interests and operating in a certain geopolitical reality. One of the key features of the Iranian situation is the tens of thousands of refugees it receives, particularly from Afghanistan; the UN is very grateful that the Iranian Government allows those refugees to be hosted on its soil. That could colour the UN’s decisions on the danger to Christian converts from Islam. I think the other evidence that we consider in making these decisions—and I am using this one as an illustration in the context of this bill—is what happens in Iran. The Lower House of the Iranian Parliament is actually debating and passing a law that says that Christian converts from Islam can be executed—not just imprisoned but executed. “Apostates” is the term that they use. Our embassy in Tehran could gather evidence. Under the 1951 refugee convention, we are supposed to collect evidence and make our independent judgment on whether people returned to a country will actually be persecuted—not just do what the UN, or whatever organisation it is, says. We have to look at all the evidence. Our embassy in Tehran could gather evidence. Also, it is important to look at the evidence provided by the Catholic Church, because it has people in Iran. It has a big international network to gather evidence. It has been involved in campaigning to stop people like the people we have talked about tonight being returned to possible persecution in Iran.

I realised as the discussion went on that there is a common bond between me, Chris Finlayson, and Clayton Cosgrove. Mr Cosgrove referred to St Bede’s College, and I taught two terms at St Bede’s College many years ago. I think it was before Clayton Cosgrove arrived. I do not think I could have controlled a young, fourth-form Clayton Cosgrove. He is bad enough when he is this age.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I feel that it is appropriate to confirm for the House that Keith Locke never taught me at St Bede’s.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order.

KEITH LOCKE: Thank you, and I thank Clayton Cosgrove for that point of order.

Hon Darren Hughes: No, thank God!

KEITH LOCKE: Thank God! That was my only problem at St Bede’s—I did not have God on my side in the way that the priests did in disciplining rather rough fourth-formers and third-formers, but there we are.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating in a lot of refugee cases. Clayton Cosgrove and I may ultimately agree on this: the reason why I think people were right not to sign papers to be deported to Iran—and I am talking about Amir Mohebbi, who was in jail for 4 years, Ali Panah, who was in jail for 2 years, and Thomas Yadegary, who was in jail for 2 years—is that if they had signed that bit of paper, they might be back in Iran being persecuted today. Instead, they are sitting in New Zealand as good New Zealanders. That is the result, in the end, of a thorough immigration process. I think that people like me, who defended those people, have been proved right in all of the cases that were prominent in the media.

It is important for us to pay attention to immigration issues, because every MP knows that we get a lot of them, and that people get very distressed if they are not being treated fairly by the immigration system. We are often defending immigrants and making sure that they are treated fairly. So we all have a vested interest in getting it right.

Towards the end of the Attorney-General’s contribution he raised a point that, in my opinion, indicates that this bill gives the Attorney-General too much power. That may be OK at the moment when we have a very good Attorney-General, but he himself indicated that the bill provides that when the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is dealing with classified information it has to work with, and get the consent of, the Attorney-General; in effect, the Attorney-General can veto the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which is not a very good procedure to have, because that tribunal should be truly independent and determine those matters for itself. Sure, there should be a provision for consultation, but not a provision allowing the Attorney-General to veto tribunal decisions. The other thing the Attorney General mentioned, I think, was that in terms of process and classified information there has to be agreement not only between the Attorney-General and the Immigration and Protection Tribunal but between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice. So the Attorney-General can veto the Chief Justice, which is not necessarily the best situation. Again, that could have been written as a consultation procedure, not, effectively, a right of veto.

So there are a whole lot of things that are important to address under this bill. It is good that the UN Human Rights Committee has discussed our Immigration Act and our immigration procedures. It has come down with some criticisms and some praise—a combination of the two. Hopefully, that will continue.

I think the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, when he went to New York to participate in that assessment of New Zealand’s human rights, including immigration rights, by the UN Human Rights Committee, enjoyed the experience, as he enjoyed a previous experience in Geneva a couple of years ago. It is good when we are engaging with the world community to try to meet the standards of the world community. There are so many countries that do not. In general, we are better than other countries but that does not mean to say—particularly on this often fractious issue of immigration and the rights of people who are trying to come here, to settle here, and to visit here—that we should not have the fairest processes possible. Unfortunately, the Greens will have to continue to cast a vote against this bill, because it still offends too much against our civil liberties, particularly in undermining fair, open, and due process for visitors and migrants to our country. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the very non-controversial Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill, which was drafted to fix up an accidental omission in the Immigration Act. As we have said, Labour is supporting it.

I pay my respects to my colleague from the Green Party, because he is very well versed in the very controversial issues around immigration. We heard about a lot of them when Keith Locke was sitting alongside me on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as the original Immigration Bill went through the select committee process. As I said earlier, it was a very long process and quite a difficult one too, because immigration by its very nature is discriminatory, and our country has to make decisions about who we will let cross our borders and who we will not, and that is very, very difficult.

I pay tribute once again to the various Ministers of Immigration who helped put the original bill together, including David Cunliffe, Clayton Cosgrove, and Lianne Dalziel, and—forgive me if I miss anyone—also Mark Gosche, who was the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We went through a very long process on that Immigration Bill, and we heard from many very, very powerful submitters. They were powerful in the sense that the stories they told us were incredible, and we could only wonder at the lives that some people are forced to lead.

I am no expert in the international scene, but, along with most other MPs, I get people coming to talk to me about their situation and about what they are trying to do. They are trying to enter the country, to get a work permit, to get permanent residence, or to stop themselves from being thrown out of the country because their work permit has expired and so on.

In this third reading speech I particularly want to mention, as I have in previous speeches about immigration, the Chorus workers who were employed by Telecom. They were mainly Filipino and they were brought here on work permits to do jobs we could not get anyone else to do. They were highly skilled workers. Their work permits were revoked and they were eventually sent home because Telecom decided to end its contract with Chorus, the new contractor decided to make all those workers owner-operators, and under New Zealand immigration rules people on work permits cannot change from being employees to small-business owners. I think New Zealand got the worst end of the deal. Certainly, the workers were treated appallingly. I appealed to the Minister of Immigration on many occasions to intervene, and I personally met a lot of those workers. Many of them came from the North Shore, and, in fact, from Northcote, where the Minister is the electorate MP. Unfortunately, many of them have had to go home, and I do not think that has done our reputation any good at all.

We acknowledge that it is important that the commencement date for section 474 of the Immigration Act is brought into effect so that the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is appointed and ready when the rest of the Act comes into effect. We will be interested in who the members of that tribunal are. We look forward to hearing the announcement from the Minister.

As I have said, this bill is a very minor and non-controversial amendment and that is why we are supporting it. I congratulate the Minister Jonathan Coleman and his wife on the birth of their child. It is probably a good thing that it happened tonight, because we had quite a long list of things we were going to talk about regarding Jonathan Coleman’s errors and embarrassments. In the spirit of a new life coming into the world we will not go there, but I do want to talk about decisions made since the Act came into force—decisions that I have already referred to.

In particular, I want to talk about retirement visas for cash—if I may return to that theme—which roll out the welcome mat for the world’s rich retirees. It is discrimination on the basis of wealth. The Minister has made a mistake, because that policy was looked at 10 years ago and was dismissed as an expensive mistake by the then Associate Minister Lockwood Smith—in 1999. It was pointed out to him that the benefits of bringing in people of retirement age who contribute cash and sign up to health insurance were marginal, while the risks were significant. Those visa holders would receive at least some of their health care from the public system, New Zealand taxpayers’ resources pay for that, so the retirees would not be paying for themselves. There would be the possibility of lobby groups forming in response, as well as the possibility of no health insurance being available. Officials certainly bagged this policy 10 years ago, but Minister Coleman has resurrected it. I am not sure why he did not look back at the advice from 10 years ago, because nothing has changed. Those risks still exist today, and even Jonathan Coleman admits that the benefits of this scheme are marginal at best. He said that the policy is not a huge deal and is unlikely to be a cash cow, so we will not be overrun with people. Well, he hopes we will not. But as with some of the other decisions the Minister has made since the passage of the Immigration Act 2009, I have to ask what is in it for New Zealand. Will it have any noticeable effect on our economy? I think that is unlikely. I think the potential costs for New Zealand associated with allowing retirement-age migrants to settle here will be greater than the potential investment earnings.

The number of people granted residency under the family (parent) category has not been increased, but those with enough money who fit under the new parent retirement category will have priority. I think that is incredibly unfair. It means that people with most of their family living in New Zealand already, but who do not have a lot of money, will miss out. As MPs we hear from people who have settled here and want to bring their parents to live with them. But if they have not got the money, they will be at the bottom of the list—that is the truth. I think it is very inappropriate to prioritise an investor migrant under the family migrant category, which is what that policy does. It is cheque-book immigration. The prize of New Zealand citizenship is being sold to the highest bidder, whatever that person’s skills and values. I suppose it could be a make-work programme, because we will need lots and lots of caregivers to look after these rich retirees. We already have reports stating that there are not enough caregivers to look after the people who are already in New Zealand. There already is a shortage of caregivers—low-paid caregivers earning the minimum wage. The report I saw said we will have to import more of them. So I suppose that that immigration policy could be a make-work scheme.

The other decision made under the Immigration Act 2009 that I mentioned earlier relates to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. The Minister decided to undermine the requirement that those workers must be paid a minimum wage that includes the cost of their accommodation. I think that is shocking. In the last few weeks there have been a couple of high-profile cases where workers have been paid well below the minimum wage. There are some real questions to be asked. Meantime the Minister has been trumpeting the policy, which Labour introduced, but Labour put in a lot of safeguards round it, which have been removed. Now we are starting to see exploitation of those workers, which I think is shameful.

To return to the bill, it is non-controversial, and Labour supports it. It has to happen. A lot of work was done on the Immigration Act 2009, and most of it was Labour’s work. Immigration is a very, very difficult area. We are not happy with the decisions that the Minster has made since the Act came into force but we will support this amendment. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Immigration Act 2009 Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 113

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk PricingMethods) Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Acting Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill be now read a second time. The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill was tabled in the House in October 2009. It had its first reading on 28 October 2009, after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The committee received and considered 11 written submissions and heard nine oral submissions on the bill.

This bill improves on the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 by providing more flexibility in the pricing and allocation of regulated raw milk, both now and in the future. The Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 permits the Minister of Agriculture to make regulations that require Fonterra to sell up to 5 percent of its milk supply to independent dairy processors. The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 currently require Fonterra to supply up to 600 million litres of raw milk to independent processors, at a price determined by a formula in the regulations. The formula was originally required because of the historical industry practice of bundling milk and capital returns into a simple payout for farmers. The industry has since moved on, and Fonterra now provides a distinct milk price that is separated from capital returns. It is now time for the regulations to move on, too, and adopt a more modern approach to pricing.

Upon the passing of the bill, I will replace the old formula with the Fonterra farm-gate milk price plus 10c per kilogram of milksolids. The Fonterra farm-gate price represents the average price Fonterra pays farmers for raw milk across the season. The additional 10c per kilogram of milksolids represents some of the additional costs to Fonterra of providing independent processors with an even quantity of milk through the season. An even supply is more valuable than the seasonal or bell-shaped supply that Fonterra receives from its farmers. The new price will apply from 1 June 2010, which is the start of the 2010-11 dairy season. The new price will remove the immediate mispricing of raw milk that was identified during the 2008 review of the regulations.

Some submitters on the bill raised objections to the new pricing system, as they were concerned about the impact of a price increase on their business. Although this objection can be expected, the change is needed to ensure that the independent dairy processors that buy milk under the regulations will pay the same price that Fonterra pays its farmers for the supply of that milk. The new price will provide independent dairy processors with improved economic incentives to source milk directly from farmers, where practicable, rather than under the regulations. By promoting contestability in the market for farmers’ milk, this new price will better reflect the purpose of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to promote the efficient operation of dairy markets in New Zealand.

The bill also allows for regulated raw milk to be allocated through an auction system or any other method. This future-proofs the Act by providing extra flexibility in the way that regulated milk is allocated to independent processors. Developing a system for managing excess demand for regulated milk will become increasingly important over the next three to four seasons, as the dairy industry is becoming increasingly diversified and the number of independent dairy processors has increased. An auction would provide one method for efficiently allocating regulated milk amongst competing processor demands, and is one possible long-term solution to regulated milk pricing. Submitters on the bill raised concerns about, mainly, the design features of an auction system. These features would be critical to ensuring that an auction system produced efficient prices and resulted in an efficient allocation of milk. If an auction system is to be introduced in the future, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will further consult the industry on the appropriate auction design features.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is currently reviewing the longevity of the entire pro-competition regime that regulates Fonterra. The review is looking at the regulatory regime to see that it remains fit for purpose, given the evolution of the structure of the dairy industry since 2001, and therefore should be continued for longer than currently planned. If the review finds that the raw milk regulations should be extended into the future, then it may become necessary to introduce another mechanism for ensuring that regulated milk is both priced efficiently and allocated to those it was designed to protect, without discouraging important contestability in the market for farmers’ milk.

The flexibility provided by this bill means that a number of policy options, including an auction system, will now be readily available through amendments to the regulations only. The bill also includes a provision to allow our external documents to be incorporated by reference in any regulation made under the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. The Primary Production Committee has recommended amendments to the incorporation by reference clauses in the bill, in order to ensure that these are consistent with current standards. I support these recommendations.

This bill is about a more modern and flexible regulatory framework for pricing and allocating regulated raw milk. By promoting contestability in the market for farmers’ milk, this bill builds on the purpose of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to provide for the efficient operation of the all-important dairy industry and its markets in New Zealand. I particularly thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for the hard work and effort that has gone into this bill. I think that the Primary Production Committee is respected as one of this Parliament’s most effective committees for our most important agricultural industries, and I thank the committee for the work that has gone into the report that was tabled on 22 February. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive): Since 2001 the Minister of Agriculture has been able to require Fonterra to supply up to 5 percent of its milk supply to independent processors at a regulated price. This was brought about by the formation of Fonterra and the need to protect independent processors in competition with it. At the time, Fonterra might have been inclined—and there were signs that it was—to overprice those supplies to independent suppliers. A regulated price was brought in to ensure that independent processors got milk supply and got it at a reasonable price. In fact, the supply of milk to independent processors tended to be underpriced, if anything, and the cost to Fonterra and, therefore, to the dairy farmers who supplied it was somewhere between $5 million and $17 million a year, depending on the farm-gate price that Fonterra paid at the time.

In addition, the value of an underpriced milk supply to some independent processors was further enhanced by their ability to take advantage of the flexibility to increase or decrease the quantity of raw milk that they purchased through the season, which was a flexibility that Fonterra itself did not enjoy. It had to take all milk delivered to it, whenever it was delivered, and pay for it. Fonterra, not to weep too much on its behalf, had received a very significant benefit from the original merger, which took place due to the Commerce Act being suspended by the then Labour-led Government. But it would be unfair if suppliers to Fonterra paid an unfair subsidy to the competitors of Fonterra, which, in the event, proved to be the case.

This Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill provides some balance and certainty to that situation. It permits regulations to be made that replace the current wholesale milk price formula with the Fonterra farm-gate price, plus a seasonal margin of 10c per kilogram of milksolids, from the 2010-11 dairy season onwards. It also allows for raw milk to be allocated through an auction process in the future. This will mean that a framework and a system will exist to manage excess demand for regulated raw milk by independent processors, and therefore manage the transition risk associated with the approaching end to Fonterra’s statutory obligation to supply regulated raw milk, which runs out very soon—thus there is some urgency about this bill.

The previous Labour Government had intended that the auction should start in the 2009-10 season. The auction was to allow for excess demand to be priced rather than regulated through quantity of supply. The price mechanism would also have a component that would guarantee supply to small processors, so all elements of the dairy industry were taken into account. For a variety of reasons this option ran out, and the first auction will now take place in the 2010-11 dairy season. This change has created considerable uncertainty for the dairy industry, and it is very desirable that that uncertainty is ended as quickly as possible so that informed investment decisions can be made for the 2010-11 season.

The option that this bill supports will mean there is a fair and efficient price, any excess demand is managed efficiently, uncertainty in the industry is removed, and there is a stepping stone provided to introduce an auction system. It will also mean there is no incentive for Fonterra to manipulate its wholesale price, because to do so would mean that it would have to overpay all of its farmers—not just the 4 percent who are being supplied as independent processors but the other 96 percent of Fonterra’s suppliers. That is not economically credible or viable for Fonterra to do, so any temptation it might have had to overprice will be dampened somewhat by the cost of any such action. I think that is rather a neat solution to what could have been a significant problem.

Replacing the current regulated price formula—that is, the wholesale price of milk—with the Fonterra farm-gate price, plus 10c per kilogram of milksolids from 2010-11, requires amendments to the original Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill provides for those amendments. I support its second reading and its progress through the House. The dairy industry is our major export industry. It is among our most efficient industries. It is highly competitive on world markets. It has been innovative and it has expended a significant amount of New Zealand’s research and development budget to ensure its position as our No. 1 exporter. It well behoves the House to take this bill seriously and expedite it so that all of the measures I have mentioned in the words I have addressed to the House so far can take place in a timely manner.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I rise in support of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. In doing so, and at the beginning of my comments, I declare that I am a shareholder of Fonterra. In accordance with the Standing Orders, I declare that interest.

What we are talking about in this bill, and what two earlier speakers have talked about, is the raw milk regulation under which Fonterra has to provide milk—up to 600 million litres, or up to 5 percent of its total milk production—to its competitors. Those are the small companies, and sometimes not so small companies, that also participate in the international market and in the domestic market in New Zealand. I will mention a figure, and I ask members to take note of it. Fonterra now represents 84 percent of our export milk, not the 93 percent, not the 95 percent, not the 100 percent monopoly, and not the other figures that we often hear about, but 84 percent of our export milk—that is, products made from milk that are exported annually from New Zealand.

The Primary Production Committee, as the Minister said in the first reading debate, considered a number of issues, listened to many submissions, and made some recommendations, which I am pleased to say have been accepted. One of the submissions was from Westland Cooperative Dairy Co., which was one of the companies that were originally involved in the Dairy Board. I guess it was one of the legacy companies, at the beginning of the process, that chose to stay out of the merger that originally formed Fonterra. Westland Cooperative Dairy Co. made an excellent submission, in the sense that it identified the intent of the legislation—the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001—and said the company had been disadvantaged by that Act. That is another side of the argument. The company said that it was disadvantaged because of its location, and that because the company had understood entirely the intent of the raw milk regulation when it was first set up, the company had chosen not to take up its entitlement to collect the 50 million litres of raw milk that it would have been entitled to collect from Fonterra.

As it has turned out, the milk provided by Fonterra to other companies was provided at a subsidised price, and because other companies that export into the same markets as the Westland company chose to take that milk, the Westland company felt that it had been disadvantaged. So its submission was about whether the Act should be extended beyond the point where, of course, the triggers within the Act will be met. Those triggers are a percentage of milk in the South Island that is not going through the Fonterra structure, and a percentage of that milk in the North Island. As previous speakers have said, the South Island trigger is probably about 12 months away from being met and the North Island trigger is 2 or 3 years away from that, on current forecasts. So within 3 years, or maybe 4 years, the current raw milk regulations could expire.

The debate is about whether the triggers in the Act should be extended. The question is what percentage of milk going through Fonterra and into our export markets is acceptable. If 84 percent is still considered to be too high, then what percentage would people be happy with? If we compare that system with the structure of other primary industries, such as our meat and wool industry structures, and if we talk to people involved in those industries, we find they feel that their industries are too fractured. They will potentially come to the Government at some stage and ask for some assistance, somehow or other, to merge companies so that they can get more critical mass into their export structures.

That is the debate in essence. The select committee was happy with the general direction that is being taken, as the Minister said when he announced changing from the raw milk regulation we previously had, in terms of pricing, to the current proposal—that is, it will be the Fonterra farm-gate price plus 10c per litre, to take into account the “shoulder milk” or seasonal supply of milk. I think that is a good step forward. The 10,500 shareholders and farmers who represent Fonterra, and who also represent something like 25 percent of this country’s export earnings, will be happy to hear that that has happened, because there was a subsidy previously. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I stand to take a brief call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill on behalf of the Greens. I should also start by making a declaration of interest. I am not a shareholder of Fonterra but I am a fan of Fonterra, even though at times I have been quite critical of some of Fonterra’s water issues. Fonterra is one of our most important companies—in fact, it is by far our most important company. Fonterra is a producers’ cooperative. I think that a lot of New Zealand industry could learn from the cooperation that dairy farmers have shown and the effectiveness of the producers’ cooperative when competing in the global market. However, Shane Ardern’s point is right: the proportion of milk exports that Fonterra controls is now down to 84 percent, and that reflects the changing nature of the dairy industry in New Zealand.

Two different groups in the industry take advantage of the regulations within this bill. One group, which the Greens are very fondly disposed towards, are the small New Zealand producers that further process raw milk and add value to it, whether for the domestic market or the international market. Those smaller New Zealand producers make a very positive contribution towards the New Zealand economy, and we are very supportive of regulations that ensure they get raw milk at a competitive price.

However, another group of much larger producers, which is increasingly foreign-owned, is taking advantage of the raw milk regulations in order to access cheap milk. They have to be subsidised by Fonterra shareholders, and for that reason we certainly support the changes in this legislation that give Fonterra and its shareholders a much fairer price for their milk than under the current arrangements. The current arrangement means that the foreign-owned processors are basically getting a subsidy from New Zealand dairy farmers, and the Green Party thinks that is totally unacceptable. The reason this is particularly pertinent at the moment is, of course, the large foreign interest in buying up the New Zealand dairy sector. That is happening both at the processing level and, increasingly, as we have seen in the most recent applications, in terms of dairy land. It is quite critical that as these large foreign firms look at buying up the New Zealand dairy sector, we provide some protections to Fonterra so it does not find itself having to provide subsidised milk to Chinese Government - backed processing firms so that those companies can export that product back to China.

It is important to note as foreign intervention goes into the New Zealand dairy sector that it is not just any old competition. We should not treat it as just another capitalist company coming into New Zealand. In fact, these companies are often backed by the Chinese Government, which has made it very clear that it expects Chinese companies to buy up agricultural land overseas and has given directions for Chinese companies to do that. When Fonterra finds itself competing with these companies and having to provide them with milk at a regulated price, these are not just regular, everyday, any old companies that are trying to make a profit around the world. These are companies that often have the backing of the Chinese Government, which is of course a totalitarian State. The Chinese Government recently locked up some people from Rio Tinto because the attempt by Chinalco, the big Chinese miner and processor, to buy Rio Tinto was turned down.

It is very important to realise that we are dealing with some very aggressive competitors that are trying to take over the New Zealand dairy sector and take advantage of whatever regulations we have in place. It is quite important that we change the regulatory structure, using this bill, so that a fair price is paid to Fonterra shareholders. I think that we probably need to look a little bit further. In my view it is only fair that we should discriminate between smaller scale New Zealand processors and large-scale foreign processors. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that within this bill as it currently stands we do not discriminate between providing milk at a regulated price to small-scale New Zealand producers and large foreign-owned producers.

It seems to me that it is not in New Zealand’s interests to force dairy farmers to provide raw milk at a regulated price to our foreign competitors—often backed by the Chinese Government and others—that are coming into New Zealand in an attempt to undercut the New Zealand dairy sector. Given the dominance of Fonterra within the market, I certainly support providing milk at a regulated price to smaller scale New Zealand producers, but I am not at all supportive of the situation where the dairy farmers of New Zealand should be made to subsidise and support the large foreign multinationals backed by the Chinese Government in their attempts to undermine the New Zealand dairy sector.

Fonterra is a fantastically successful example of cooperation. It is a fantastically successful New Zealand cooperative and company, and it has played an enormously important role in the New Zealand economy. These regulations will continue to help Fonterra to do that job, but I think we need to future-proof these regulations and to look at how we will deal with the continued attack and intervention by large foreign multinationals that are trying to undermine our cooperative.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): It is an honour to speak on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. This bill has been supported by every member of the Primary Production Committee, and I acknowledge and applaud the chairmanship of Shane Ardern. As he said, he is a farmer and a shareholder in Fonterra. He disclosed that up front, and he has done a really good job.

This legislation is so important because we are dealing with New Zealand’s single biggest industry. The dairy industry produces 25 percent of our exports, and that is not something this House should trifle with. Any change in, or consideration of, the dairy industry that comes before Parliament should be considered very, very carefully. Fonterra is also our only truly multinational company owned by New Zealanders. All the rest of them have large shareholdings offshore or they have bailed out completely. This is one multinational that is owned by New Zealanders for New Zealanders, and it produces 25 percent of our exports.

Fonterra is so successful that it controls almost 40 percent of international tradable products in the dairy industry across the world. That makes it a considerable player in the world of food exports across the globe. It has huge potential, and that is something that we must realise if this country is to go forward. Nokia is to Finland as Fonterra is to New Zealand, and we must keep it that way.

This legislation deals with, at most, 5 percent of the milk produced in this country. However, it is a 5 percent block of milk that is either sold at higher value through domestic consumption or goes into many value-added products. I think Fonterra and its managers and officials should be reminded that they are not the success story; in fact, they have built on the success of the New Zealand Dairy Board and its predecessors in the dairy companies. There are many senior executives who think that they themselves have created this amazing company, but they should be reminded on a regular basis that it has been built through the good work, investment, and wisdom of New Zealand dairy farmers, and they have an obligation to ensure that Fonterra stays in the hands of New Zealand farmers, as well.

It is 5 percent of the milk produced in this country that we are dealing with, and a number of speakers have talked about what we are doing here. Effectively, we are setting up an auction system for the up to 5 percent of milk that was addressed through the original formation of Fonterra to ensure that we had competition on the local market, that dairy farmers were able to enter and exit Fonterra, that there was some balance to the monopoly position that the dairy board was in as the buyer of milk from farmers and the exporter and seller of milk products, that there was not an abuse of that monopoly power, that we had some competition in the domestic market so consumers in New Zealand had fair prices for dairy products, and that farmers were not locked into an organisation that might not pay them a fair price for their milk.

It has been quite a process, and this legislation is an evolution of that domestic supply situation. I have to say that it is a bit late in coming to the House. The National Government, for all its rhetoric in saying that it supports farmers, has mucked around—to use a rural term—on this issue. Mr Ardern knows that. The Minister, David Carter, came in and could not quite grasp the problem. The previous Minister, Jim Anderton, had done a lot of good work. He had got to the point and recommended that an auction system be put in place. It should have been in place for this season, but the Minister came in and hesitated and procrastinated. He did a U-turn, as the National Government has done in a whole lot of areas, and decided that we could not get it in place this season, so we will bring in a new pricing structure.

Hon David Parker: For a year and a half.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, a year and a half is a short time for the National Government to procrastinate, believe me. The Government will do about two or three U-turns in that time. Anyway, thankfully we have got back to a sensible situation here, which is why the select committee and all its members have supported the bill going forward.

In passing this legislation, I think it is important in a second reading speech to mention the likelihood—in fact, the strong possibility—that we will have other legislation in this House dealing with Fonterra in the near future. Fonterra has just announced that it is about to start discussions with farmers on a capital restructure. A lot of farmers are not quite sure what this means. They have been told, and there are many people running around the country saying, that Fonterra needs more money to grow the business. That is true. I have to say that Fonterra and the New Zealand Dairy Board have done very well so far. I do not think there is an industry that has grown so steadily, so sustainably, and so profitably as the dairy industry has. Do members know how they have done it? Through caution, retained earnings, smart investments, and not allowing its debt to get out of control.

I have to say that the new management of Fonterra has allowed debt to slip out beyond the level that is comfortable. They should have retained the earnings in the year that they paid record money to the farmers. They should have retained a billion dollars of that money on their balance sheet, and they would not have had an issue. But they chose not to, and I do not think they deserved a bonus that year. But that is by the by. We have moved on. We are likely to have legislation in this House supporting a capital restructure, if the farmers deem that this is necessary.

Before this House agrees to any change we should look very carefully at Fonterra, its success, and its importance for New Zealand and in the international tradable market for dairy products. There has recently been a report from Desiree Reid, who is a Nuffield Scholar. She is one of the smartest, brightest leaders in the dairy industry. She is currently in Ireland and Europe looking at the dairy industry, and she has reported back. She has visited Irish farmers who are working hard to replicate our low-cost, pasture-based advantage. They are using our crossbred genetics and all of our wisdom to try to catch up. But they have said that Fonterra is the jewel in the crown of our dairy industry.

There are proposals to recapitalise Fonterra, because there are claims that it does not have enough money to grow. I am not quite so sure about that. The question is why people would be doing it if that is not the case. Well, there may be some people who think, for philosophical reasons, through blind ideology or whatever, that we need just to get some outside capital into Fonterra. I say to this House, and I think the dairy industry should say to this House: “Don’t mess with us. Don’t mess with success.” If Mark Weldon, John Key, or others think that there is a need to bring in outside capital, outside control, and, ultimately, outside ownership into Fonterra, then they should be warned. I think farmers will dig in for a big fight.

I cannot help but mention a situation that the Prime Minister finds himself in. He is a big investor in a company called Dairy Investment Fund, which is a private equity investor focused on deregulating the dairy industry, to quote the New Zealand Herald of 2008. I am not sure what the Prime Minister’s current situation is. But before we do anything else to the dairy industry, before we pass any further legislation—in fact, even before this bill is passed—he should disclose in this House whether he is still a major investor in the Dairy Investment Fund. There are vultures waiting out there to take control, whether they be Chinese, whether they be New Zealanders, or whether they be any other people around the world. If control of Fonterra is taken from the dairy farmers in this country, we will see that control slip offshore.

Fonterra is our multinational company. It is the most successful industry in this country. It is very important that this legislation that we are passing, dealing with only 5 percent of the milk, is sound—I believe it is, and that is why Labour supports it—and that any other legislation we bring to this House is sound also.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak in the second reading debate on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. I must acknowledge the experience that is in the Primary Production Committee, both the chair and the previous chair, and also other people within the agricultural industry. The point I want to make—and I will not take too long a call because I think the matter has been canvassed pretty well—is that we listened to submissions, and the submitters were a number of the processors who take milk that is made available under regulation and legislation. There are 600 million litres available. There are 21 processors that take milk. Out of those, 13 take 4 million litres or less, so that is quite a few.

The argument from the submissions really came down to whether there was justification for the principle of a Fonterra farm-gate price, plus 10c per milksolids. It is clear that the evidence came down on the favourable side—that that should be the way it is run. The premium on the farm-gate price is because of the seasonality of milk production. It was important to square up those shoulders. There is a mechanism for an auction system in this bill, and on that basis we look forward to that being progressed at an appropriate time. No doubt the Minister of Agriculture was given sound advice that there needed to be more work done on that. We look forward to that being progressed, and this bill makes that provision. I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill to examine some of the clauses that have been introduced. I take pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): I rise to support the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. In saying so, I am delighted to acknowledge my colleagues in the Primary Production Committee. The select committee is chaired by Shane Ardern and I must say that he does a good job.

Hon Damien O’Connor: He should be the Minister.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: Indeed, Damien O’Connor took the words from my mouth. Shane Ardern should have been the Minister of Agriculture because he does a good job on the committee, and I thank him for that.

In talking about this bill, I will say a few words about the dairy industry. The white gold that we have in New Zealand is well known around the world, where, as has been said before, Fonterra exports 80 percent of our milk. We earn about 25 percent of our export income from the export of dairy products, including milk, which are very well known around the world. The main purpose of this bill is to replace the current regulated pricing formula that we use with a new formula, which will include 10c per kilogram milksolids. This bill will also allow an auction system to be put in place in the future.

John Hayes: An auction system for visas?

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: I will leave the member’s comment there. We are talking about 600 million litres of milk, or 5 percent of our total milk, for auction. The key thing is that the new regulations allow for fair and efficient pricing for regulated raw milk and they ensure that the excess demand for regulated raw milk is managed efficiently. The regulations also remove any uncertainty from market conditions for people who are suppliers, particularly for those who process the milk. So it is important that the regulations are upgraded for the future of our dairy industry.

The committee received 11 submissions on this bill and we heard nine of them. Of course, many of them supported this bill. However, there were some small players in the processing area who did not quite agree and were not quite happy with this bill. In particular, Green Valley thought that the proposed auction system would create ambiguity in the milk market and was not sure what would happen. It was concerned about the impact of the auction system on the price paid for milk, and also about a possible increase in risk for independent processors and local market operators. Clearly, Green Valley was a bit concerned about the impact of the auction system. Similarly, Cadbury’s had some concern. It thought that the auction system may not be equitable for all the players and it wanted the opportunity to have input into the consultation process.

This bill is supposed to become an Act by tomorrow—by 1 April—

Colin King: In 2 days’ time.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: Of course, yes, the date here in Parliament under urgency is a couple of days ago, but this bill is supposed to become an Act on 1 April. In a way, it shows that this is a lazy Government. It has left it until the very last moment to pass this bill under urgency, at midnight tonight.

This is a useful bill for the industry to ensure that we have a fair and equitable system, particularly for the auction of 600 million litres of milk. Fonterra and Federated Farmers supported this bill. On this side of the House, we are delighted to support the bill going forward, given that our dairy industry is well known around the world and we are the largest exporter of milk and milk products. At the same time, the other day we were talking about the perception of dairying when we discussed the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. We have to make sure that our dairy industry is well perceived around the world, including potential news about the treatment of animals. We talked about cruelty to animals. We must make sure that those issues are dealt with properly and in time. This industry is a major source of income for New Zealanders—25 percent of our income comes from dairy industry exports—and we have to make sure that overseas markets perceive the industry here to be clean and green, and that potential issues of dirty dairying and animal welfare are dealt with before any bad news gets out to the market.

The food safety issue is particularly important. It is important that in relation to our food safety regulations around the manufacture of foods, particularly in the dairy industry and the meat industry, importing countries are sure about the quality and safety of the product they are receiving. We have heard about some of the issues, such as melamine in China and similar problems. They are not good news for New Zealand. We need to make sure that the milk products we export are well regarded and continue to be well regarded, for the future of this country.

As an agricultural scientist, I can foresee the markets gaining a big momentum, particularly in China and elsewhere in Asia. We will soon have a free-trade agreement with Hong Kong and other countries. We are in the process of it right now. In my view, the dairy industry is the industry that we have to protect and enhance, particularly in relation to research and development. Unfortunately, when this Government came in it scrapped the Fast Forward fund we had for research and development.

Colin King: Be constructive.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: No, I have to be honest about that. I think that this Government has taken a very short-term view on research and development. The $700 million we had put in that fund was money allocated for research and development, particularly in pastoral farming. I think we need to invest a lot more money into pastoral farming because our future is dependent on the goal I mentioned. I think that the farmers on the other side of the House, members like Shane Ardern, understand that. Unfortunately, another MP has been a bit of a disappointment. Phil Heatley was one of our students at Massey University, but he has been a disappointment. With those few words, I commend this bill to the House.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel): I am delighted to take a call and concur with my colleague across the House, Ashraf Choudhary, that Shane Ardern is an excellent chair of the Primary Production Committee. We all work so well together because we all fully understand the importance of agriculture, and that it is the backbone of New Zealand’s economy.

Although the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act is meeting most of its intended purposes, the 2008 review of regulations found that the regulated price formula was flawed. This formula requires Fonterra to sell raw milk at a lower price than it pays farmers for the supply of raw milk. That was never the intention of the regulations, and we needed to change it. The bill ensures that the price paid by independent processors for raw milk is the average price that Fonterra pays its farmers for the supply of the milk and includes the additional cost to Fonterra of supplying a uniform supply profile to independent processors across the season. I hope members all understood that. This price ensures that Fonterra is fairly compensated for supplying the raw milk. I wanted to take just a short call on that.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): As a member of the Primary Production Committee, I am very pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. Labour supports this bill. It flows on from the dairy industry restructuring that we, as a Government, undertook some 9 years ago. I concur with the comments made about the chairing of the select committee by Shane Ardern; he does a good job as chair. Perhaps he should be the Minister of Agriculture, and perhaps Colin King should be the “Minister for Small Grains and Seeds” in support.

The main purpose of this bill is to replace the current regulated pricing formula that independent processors pay to Fonterra for farm-gate prices, and to add a premium of 10c per kilogram of milksolids. I should say at the outset that I do not need to declare a conflict of interest on this issue. Unlike Shane Ardern, I do not have an involvement in the dairy industry, but, I guess, I do have a connection of a kind that I need to declare. My daughter is getting married on Saturday. Her husband-to-be is the son of a dairy farming couple from Northland who have recently retired. They are good people. They are not of my political persuasion, but they were loyal Fonterra suppliers. There is a little irony in all of this. Over a couple of glasses of wine one night after we first met, I remarked that Fonterra was a good socialist organisation, and the parents baulked somewhat at that description. But, as I reminded them, the dairy farming industry was in dire straits in the 1930s because of the activities of the then party in Government, which was the predecessor of National. Mickey Joseph Savage and the Labour Government came in and delivered loans to that industry. They provided guaranteed minimum prices. They supported the expansion of the cooperative system. A good socialist system has seen that industry grow and grow to the point where today it is our biggest single export earner, and that is a great thing to see.

I have to declare my support for Fonterra. It is 100 percent New Zealand - owned, and long may it continue to be so. We would rue the day when there were changes that saw foreign capital flow into Fonterra, because it would start a whole chain of events that would, I think, be potentially cataclysmic for New Zealand. I acknowledge that Fonterra has led the growth in the dairy industry in my region of Canterbury and Southland. That might sound a little curious coming from somebody who is known to hold very, very strong views in terms of issues such as water quality. But whatever issues we have about water quality, certainly in any contact that I have had with Fonterra and its leadership not one person in the senior team has ever been anything other than absolutely committed to improving the current water-quality in my region of Canterbury, and to working with Fonterra’s farmer base to try to lift that quality. If we have a New Zealand - owned entity like Fonterra, I think we have an odds-on chance of getting the balance right, even with regard to the less positive events in the House earlier today. The Dairying and Clean Streams Accord with Fonterra may not be delivering the sort of progress that we want to see, but it is certainly a lot better than nothing. I commend Fonterra for its support.

There is certainly a question as to whether we would see the same sort of commitment if we moved to an industry with a strong and growing profile of foreign investment. It is a valid question to be asked, and I pose it in the House. I believe that the commitment over the generations to New Zealand of the farming cooperative system that Fonterra represents is the sort of commitment that represents outcomes in environmental values as well as the bottom line. I think that is truly important because Fonterra is the jewel in our economic crown. It is our single biggest export earner. It level pegs at times with the tourism industry, one has to acknowledge. Obviously there are some tensions between those two industries that we have to get right. We want to see both do well in respect of our revenues and export income receipts. But I think New Zealanders need to know where the Government will stand on the issue of Fonterra’s capital base. I ask the Government whether it will take a position of following market ideology and whether we will be seeing a public float of Fonterra’s shares. I think that would be a really backward step. The pressure is on. We have seen proposals to float those shares on the sharemarket, which, luckily, the Fonterra stakeholder base has managed to thwart, but the issue will come up again. I think we want to see Fonterra held in New Zealand hands and using its own shareholder base as the way to create some new capital for it.

There has been considerable commentary in the last week about the Chinese company with a billion and a half dollars to spend on the purchase of New Zealand farms and infrastructure. I believe that one of the intended targets for it would be the Synlait company based in Dunsandel, which was set up as one of the offshoots of the dairy restructuring changes that we introduced as a Government back in the early 1990s. I visited Synlait last year, and as somebody with no deep understanding or knowledge of the dairy industry or how it operates, I have to say that I was surprised to see Fonterra tankers pulling in and out of the Synlait plant in Dunsandel as well as Synlait’s trucks, although I think the Fonterra trucks outnumbered them. It was explained to me that that was the basis of the dairy restructuring—Fonterra was obliged to supply milk to Synlait.

We now begin to understand through this bill that the basis of that has been uneven. It has been tilted a little too much in favour of the competition that the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act provided for, and this bill brings back some measure of balance to the equation. Competitors will pay a premium of 10c per kilogram of milksolids to ensure that they are given competitive reasons to provide their own facilities, rather than simply, if you like, milk the tit of the Fonterra machine.

One of the concerns that I have about the future of the industry relates to the Overseas Investment Office. Last year one of the first acts of this Government was to weaken the overseas investment rules. I think that is a concern. We all acknowledge the role that foreign capital has played in the creation of our nation and the role that it continues to play. We are not talking about shutting the gate, but we have to be judicious about the way that we allow foreign investment to flow into this country, as any other nation is. If we were to see further loosening in respect of our dairy industry, then I believe that would be detrimental to New Zealand’s interests. At the moment I think the landscape is tilted in favour of foreign investors anyway, because our monetary policy settings give them interest rate advantages over other domestic New Zealand capital. It brings to mind the call that Labour made about having some reconsideration of current monetary policy settings.

I was interested to hear the comment from Shane Ardern about the percentage of exports that Fonterra now commands—84 percent was the figure he used, I think. That surprised me a little, given that we know Fonterra still holds about 92 percent of the industry in terms of the milk flows. Obviously the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act created competition. It is truly there in place. This bill is trying to make sure that those supplies of raw milk do not continue to give rival companies some sort of competitive edge, and that we have a flow through the season that does not see them given all the benefits of being able to buy through the season at prices that are not available to Fonterra—they obviously enjoy the peak of the season prices.

In conclusion, I note that this bill makes a change to the wholesale milk price. It adds 10c per kilogram of milksolids. I think that is a sensible, solid move towards assisting Fonterra. It is a rebalancing exercise. It is an appropriate way to try to ensure that we maintain this jewel in the crown, to keep it functioning, to keep it producing, and to keep it delivering export receipts for New Zealand. Yes, we want the competition there; it has a place in the market. But we do not want the field tilted in such a way that we give an undue competitive advantage to other organisations, some of whom currently—let us be blunt about it—certainly have more foreign shareholding than Fonterra, we hope, will ever have.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki): The Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill is a good bill and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House): Following agreement in the Business Committee, I seek leave for all the provisions of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill to be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.

Clauses 1 to 6 and schedule

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): I guess that this gives us the opportunity to go through the nitty-gritty detail of the legislation, which we have all agreed we support. Once again, I have to raise what I guess is the urgency of the situation. As the Acting Leader of the House probably knows, and as the Committee definitely knows, unless we get this legislation passed by midnight, the dairy industry will be in trouble. It is not quite sure how it will then supply milk, or what system it will use to supply milk—up to 600 million litres of milk. Actually, I do not think that too many people out there will understand how much 600 million litres of milk is. It is a hell of a lot of milk, and producers want to know what they are to do with it.

Shane Ardern: It’s a few tanker loads.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It is a few tanker loads, and if it is not dealt with properly it becomes a huge burden and, one might say, an environmental dilemma.

I will take the opportunity to go back to the regulations. The legislation was passed in 2001. In 2008, through that process, we became aware that there were difficulties in pricing the milk for the people buying it—that is, Cadbury’s, Open Country Cheese Co., and Tātua. It was not the Westland Cooperative Dairy Co.—not yet, anyway. All the companies purchasing it, for value-added purposes for the most part, or for domestic milk supply, were not quite sure whether they were getting a fair deal, whether they were paying too much, whether Fonterra was getting ripped off, or whatever.

In Labour’s wisdom, as we always were wise as a Government, we conducted a review. It identified three main issues. Firstly, the wholesale milk price formula systematically underpriced regulated raw milk—that is, the farmer-supplier shareholders of Fonterra were effectively subsidising the companies that purchased the milk from Fonterra. They could get on the phone, ring Fonterra, and say: “We want a tanker load of milk.”, which is a huge privilege for any business dealing in a perishable product. They could do that, then not ring for a week or two, but Fonterra had to process that milk that kept coming out of the cows’ udders.

We must understand—and many out there probably do not; a lot of young kids think that milk comes from bottles, which is understandable if one has been brought up in the city—that cows need to be milked twice a day. In fact, there is one farm down in Ōāmaru milking 2.7 times a day, but we will not go into the detail of that. In very efficient production systems, it is up to three times a day. For their own welfare, cows need to be milked. The milk has to be taken from them and processed somewhere; there is an obligation on Fonterra to do that. The original legislation said that it had to take the milk from the farmers who were supplying it. The companies that wanted up to 400 million litres, or up to 500 million litres as it was at the time, could ring up and get it when they wanted it and not get it when they did not want it. That placed a huge burden on Fonterra and its shareholders to build the stainless steel with the potential to process that full amount of milk when it might come from the cows in the peak of the season, not knowing whether someone would ring for a tanker of milk, or not. That is a huge impost on the system. It is a cost, and the review of the regulations conducted by the previous Labour Government identified that those people were getting the milk cheaply. Understandably, the farmers were getting pretty agitated about that. They could have got another few cents a litre, or a few cents per kilogram of milksolids, for the milk they supplied to Fonterra. So there was a need for the Government to do something.

The second thing discovered is that there was no system for managing the excess demand by independent processors for regulated raw milk. Some of those businesses grew and wanted more milk. They did not know whether they could come to Fonterra and get that milk, or whether Fonterra would just say: “No, sorry; go away.” Obviously, that would place constraints on their ability to grow businesses that were often adding really good substantive and sustainable value to our milk in this country. We wanted to enhance that—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the honourable member again, I just say that this is the Committee stage of the bill. We are addressing the nuts and bolts of the bill. This is slightly different from previous debates. This bill has been to a select committee and has come back with a select committee report. I know we are going across the bill, but I want to start as we intend to continue, and not have wide-ranging speeches. I just want to bring the member to the contents of the bill.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Thank you, Mr Chairperson; I respect that. I guess I am trying to give some context to a bill that for many people seems to be rather minor, but a huge transfer of wealth was taking place and that needed to be addressed. Everyone in this Chamber who has any connection to the dairy industry knows that farmers were demanding it, but farmers are disappointed that it has taken so long to do it.

The legislation that was drafted and put to the Primary Production Committee did not require a huge amount of amendment, because I think we had all agreed that we needed to address the issues. The third issue identified in the review was that there was an unmanaged transition risk associated with the prospective ending of the Fonterra statutory obligation to supply raw milk. At some stage those people building their businesses could actually have lost all supply, so we had to bring in a fair system.

An auction is an obvious way of addressing that, and this bill effectively sets up an auction process for raw milk. We applaud that, because there were companies involved such as Synlait; New Zealand Dairies, which has Russian shareholdings; Open Country Cheese, with Singaporean shareholders; Goodman Fielder; and Cadbury’s. All these companies were taking milk from shareholders, and we needed to make sure they were paying a fair price for it.

I will go back to the legislation, as you have advised Mr Chairperson, and look at some of the submissions that came before the select committee. These are submissions relating directly to the bill. I cannot help but refer to the wise words from the Westland Cooperative Dairy Co. Ltd. That company has stayed outside the Fonterra structure. It is an independent company. It was, until recently, the second-largest processing company, processing about 2.5 to 3 percent of the milk in this country. It decided to stay out of Fonterra. It firmly believed in and supported the single-desk structure—that is, that we should have one seller offshore. But it stayed outside because it thought it would lose control of its destiny and be controlled by Auckland, which I think was very astute and very visionary of that company, and I think that many farmers accepted that. That company came to the select committee, brought its submissions, and it was upfront and honest. It supported Fonterra’s position that there should not be an obligation to continue to supply up to 600 million litres of milk to those companies. Fonterra believes that time has moved on, and that many of the companies taking milk should be working on a process of ensuring their own supply. I agree with that. If companies are big enough and mature enough—be it Open Country Cheese, Synlait, or Cadbury’s—they should sit down and negotiate with farmers to secure supplies.

Hon David Parker: That’s what Cadbury’s used to do.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Cadbury’s used to do that; there is no problem. In fact, if companies are truly developing value-added products, then they are in a position to offer a bit more to farmers, and should be able to secure regular supply in normal commercial arrangements. So Fonterra believed that, and Westland came to the select committee and supported Fonterra absolutely, because Westland is a fair, honest, and very astute dairy company, I have to say—not that I am of course praising people—

Hon David Parker: Director, Mr O’Connor?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No, I have no vested interest; I am not a shareholder in any way. I have brothers who are, and a father, but I am not in any way a contact. Westland also said, however, that if we are intent on continuing with this structure, then it will apply for milk, which seems a little bizarre, given that that company actually objects to the whole set-up, anyway. But it said that it was in its commercial interests—and it has an obligation to its shareholders to maximise returns—to ring up Fonterra and ask for tankers of milk to be supplied in Hokitika. Of course, it will pay for transport, but it is still worthwhile for it to do that, because being able to square one’s supply curve—that is, fill in the gaps and get consistent supply into one’s factories—is invaluable in any large processing structure.

There is a value in that that had not been assessed by Fonterra or those purchasing. I thank the Westland Cooperative Dairy Co. for its honesty, because it did help the select committee and, I guess, reinforced the view that we need to move towards an auction system where the market will identify the true value, and we will not be attempting, by regulation, to set a fair price on a commodity—milk—the price of which fluctuates on a regular basis in the international market place. In fact, it fluctuates quite a bit domestically on the basis of those international prices. So I hope that Westland does not have to continue to access milk from Fonterra, because it will be a transfer of wealth from Fonterra to Westland shareholders. Maybe that is quite a good thing, actually, but, anyway, I have to thank them for their submission.

There were a number of other submissions, one from Federated Farmers, which, I have to say, was fairly consistent. They still believe that the market will deliver everything without regulations. I think it is a little naive of them, but they do understand that there was a dilemma and their farmer shareholders were searching for and seeking a resolution to this. I have to tell them they are getting it a year later than they should have because of the National Government’s procrastination, and that is unfortunate. It is not because the select committee sat on its hands. We moved immediately. We heard submissions. We processed this as quickly as we could, and I think we have done a pretty good job with it.

I will refer to just one other submission, which was from Open Country Cheese, a large and growing company in this country. It has concerns. It has enjoyed the benefits of accessing milk. I think it is prepared to accept that an auction system will be the fairest way for it to move forward. But it has views too around the capital restructuring of Fonterra—the next step that we will see in this House—and how it thinks that it may lock farmers into Fonterra. That is not the intention of this House, and was not in 2001 when we passed the legislation. Farmers need to be able to come and go. Land use needs to be able to change, although in my humble opinion there is a loss of value to this country of continued land use change and a waste of capital. But I think we will look at that in hindsight—[Interruption] Of course, if that Minister, Steven Joyce, gets his way, Fonterra will be listed on the stock market, his friend Mark Weldon will be enjoying a slice of the action when the shares are bought and sold, and he will be patting himself on the back saying what a wonderful thing he has done for New Zealand agriculture. In the end, as the stock market has done before, time and time again, those shares will disappear offshore, but Mr Steven Joyce has no fears about that. It does not worry him who owns New Zealand, as long as there is someone around making a slice on the transactions as those shares come in and out. That is the warning that I have.

The detail that the select committee has worked through on this legislation has been done because the chair and the committee members are firmly of the view that we are doing this to improve the situation for the dairy industry, in the belief that it will remain in New Zealand hands. If we were—and I think we have checked and double-checked—making a mistake by bringing in an auction system that will better facilitate the capital restructuring and will allow shares to be traded on the stock market, then I would not vote for this piece of legislation. But I think that in the staged way that we are approaching this, this is a good piece of legislation.

The technical details in this bill—which I have not dwelt on too much, I have to say, even though this is the Committee stage—I think are all sound. We have amended, through clause 4, section 115, which deals with the issue of auctions and what may be required. The Minister of Agriculture will have the right to set a reserve. There are some concerns about that. The chief executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry—and I see some officials in the Chamber who I am sure will be listening carefully—is required to maintain the auction system. The chief executive is required to maintain a sound, fair, and honest auction system. That does not always occur when there are a couple of big players and some small players. That is why the concerns that some of the smaller players had have been addressed, and there will be a certain amount of milk available for smaller players—I think it is up to 40 million litres. So if one wants to start a little cheese factory then one will be able to bid at the auction and one will not have to compete with Open Country Cheese, Westland Dairy, as they might bid into it, Synlait, or the Russian-owned companies, as who knows what foreigners may come into this country, the Chinese, or anyone else. Opportunities for small, innovative, entrepreneurial New Zealanders have been protected with the set-up that we have and the changes we have made.

New section 119A has been inserted to allow regulations to be made under the Act. We need some protections to ensure that there is decent consultation. We have dealt with those technical issues as best we can in the bill. Maybe one of the Government members or the chair of the Primary Production Committee can get up and give us an assurance on that. I feel comfortable with it. We have to make sure that the regulations that this bill allows do apply and that we can have a fair and honest auction system. Thank you.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): I rise to highlight two points in particular. One is about what Fonterra wants out of this, and one is about the concerns expressed by other players in the dairy industry about how the Minister of Agriculture and the officials will handle those situations. Fonterra believes that the auction system must be limited to no more than 600 million litres of milk. That is its the bottom line. Also, it wants the reserve price to be at least 10c per kilogram of milksolids and to set the seasonal value of the milk. It wants that to be included in this arrangement. But some of the other players, the processors like Green Valley, and other industry players like Cadbury’s, for example, have concerns that the auction system will not be fair and equitable. Also, they wanted to ensure that there is consultation prior to the auction system being put in place. I think that is where the concern is. They believe that the new system, particularly the auction system, will not be fair and equitable to them, and they want to have consultation in setting up that system.

So I would appreciate it if the Minister, as a stand-in Minister, or the chair of the select committee, would take a call and perhaps give some assurance to the small players, the processors who are likely to buy this extra milk, that the auction system will be fair for them. As I understand it, there will be at least 300 auctions per week. So there will be a lot of auctions of milk, and if the milk is not auctioned it will be subtracted from the total milk available. So, clearly, we need to have a system in place that is fair, otherwise we will be back in this House asking for changes to be made. Small players in the industry have some concern about this issue. Clearly, there is a concern that Fonterra will not be fair to processors and will want to charge 10c for a kilogram of milksolids at a seasonal value. Some of them are suggesting that this is an unnecessary extra cost they have to pay. I would be very keen for Shane Ardern or the Minister in the chair to be able to give an assurance to processors that they will have a fair go, if you like, once this auction is put in place by 1 June of this year. We want to make sure that all players in the “white gold” industry in New Zealand, which is well regarded overseas, have equitable access to available milk, and that they feel they are part of the restructuring of the industry.

As my colleague Damien O’Connor has said, other bills are coming through regarding the capital restructuring of the industry. We must make sure that this bill, and particularly the auction system, is fair to all parties. At the moment we have an online auction of milk sold overseas, which I understand is working very well. In the local situation, we need to have an auction system that is fair to all players.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Acting Minister of Agriculture): I will take only a brief call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. I know that members will be nervous that I am the Acting Minister of Agriculture, particularly colleagues of mine like Shane Ardern who are far more knowledgable than me on such issues. There is a healthy tension between me and the Minister of Agriculture.

There are two points that I want to answer. Firstly, a very reasonable point has been made by Ashraf Choudhary on the auctioning system, the number of small players, and what reassurance they can be given that the auctioning system will be fair to those businesses. I reassure him that the law requires a process of consultation by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. If the Minister of Agriculture wants to use the regulating powers that the bill provides, that process of consultation will provide some reassurance for those players that it will be fair.

Secondly, I will also make a brief comment about an amendment to clause 2 that has been tabled in my name. I confess that it is an area of the bill that I do understand properly, and that is the date of commencement—that is something I can cope with. The issue is that the Governor-General will not be available to sign this bill tomorrow. The commencement date currently in the bill reported back from the Primary Production Committee is 1 April. The amendment simply changes the date of commencement from 1 April to the date of Royal assent, which is likely to be the beginning of next week. It is a pragmatic little response. My big contribution to agricultural legislation will be getting the date of commencement right on the bill.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Outrageous!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is an outrageous decision. I assure Damien O’Connor and other members of the Committee that that will probably be the extent of my contribution to agricultural law in this House.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): I follow in sequence from the Minister in the chair, the Acting Minister of Agriculture, in acknowledging that I am no expert on the dairy industry, either. However, we are partners in crime in respect of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill as we go through the Committee stage.

I will comment a little further on the current beneficiaries of the raw milk pricing system. A number of those are present in the market place, one of which is the Synlait dairy factory in Dunsandel. I understand that currently it has a shareholding owned by Mitsui of Japan, of 22.5 percent. I have talked about its plans to quintuple production, so obviously it will be seeking to expand greatly. The details of this bill will be important in terms of Fonterra being able to ensure that in the future its supply to that dairy plant in Dunsandel is done so on an equitable basis.

New Zealand Dairies will be a dairy company known to many members in relationship to the Studholme family, who started it, but its total shareholding now belongs to a Russian company called Nutritek. That plant is at Waimate, near the Waitaki River, and the growth in the dairy industry has fed into that plant.

Open Country Cheese is a Waikato-based dairy company. Amongst its shareholders is a former Deputy Prime Minister, one Wyatt Creech, who is known to the Minister in the chair at the moment. Olam International, a company from Singapore, is a major shareholder there.

We also have the Cadbury’s factory in Dunedin, a proud institution on the Dunedin landscape. Britain is the major shareholder, or, I think, wholly owns that Cadbury’s factory. There are two others. Tātua has already benefited from the raw milk supply from Fonterra, which is the subject of this bill, and I think there are predictions that Westland Cooperative Dairy will in the next season also become a recipient of milk from Fonterra.

One of the issues that the Primary Production Committee had to consider was the balance. It considered whether Fonterra was too dominant and whether it was getting the benefits it deserved from the current system, and I guess there was a sense that Fonterra is not the bully over the little guys in this respect. Those smaller players are growing in strength and size, and obviously we want a system that balances those interests. Some of those players can hardly be described as small. When we consider that Open Country Cheese collected about 850 million litres of milk last year, it is not exactly a small player.

In relation to the issues of the auction, and that option is provided for in future, the basis is that although the Fonterra farm-gate milk price reduces the underpricing associated with the current wholesale milk price—and the addition of a 10 percent premium provides an allowance for the seasonal pricing to smooth it out, if you like—the fact remains that the current regulated milk remains underpriced. The full value of the seasonal price has been calculated at around 15c per kilogram of milksolids, rather than at 10c per kilogram, and the 10c premium does not attempt to capture the benefits for the independent processors. They are able to limit the risk to their factories through having a diversified milk supply, and they have the enormous convenience provided by effectively being able to dial up a Fonterra tanker. That provides them with enormous financial strength, effectively at the expense of the balance sheet of Fonterra.

The reason to use the farm-gate price is that it ensures independent processors do not purchase raw milk from Fonterra under the regulations at a lower price than the average price that Fonterra pays its farmers for raw milk over the whole period of the season. Therefore, employing the farm-gate price to regulated milk establishes a price equivalent of about 4 percent of the raw milk that Fonterra has to divest under the current regulations, with Fonterra keeping the price of the remaining 96 percent. We have heard the figure from Shane Ardern that although it takes 96 percent of the milk, it provides from that only 84 percent of the exports, so that again really enshrines the nature of competition that Fonterra is facing. The price adjustment of 10c a kilogram of milksolids reflects the additional costs to Fonterra in providing what is called a square supply curve, which is one that goes right the way across a season. The additional price above the farm-gate milk price is required to ensure a fair and efficient price, because that farm-gate milk price reflects the average price paid by Fonterra for a farmer’s annual milk supply profile.

I reinforce the point that Fonterra is our largest and our only truly large-playing New Zealand private company. Its success is our success. When Fonterra’s milk price drops, the economy dips with it. When the milk fat price rises, the economy rises with it. Farmers gear up on that milk fat price—sometimes, one would have to acknowledge, in a rather profligate fashion.

We know that some of the banks at the moment are doing some restructuring in the dairy industry due to the expansion that a number of farmers engaged upon because they began to believe that prices nudging towards $8 a kilogram would be sustained. That is a foolhardy proposition. Anybody with any experience in the industry would know that prices can range from between $3 and $4 a kilogram, and the top end price of, I think, $7.80 a kilogram, which was achieved in the season before last.

Dairy farmers in the Fonterra structure are given a lot of confidence in the future of the industry. It has been around a long time under various guises. It has had enormous growth. Through this bill we want to ensure that the success of Fonterra, which has been a large part of the success of the New Zealand economy, continues. We want to see that those who have taken their positions in the market as a result of the dairy industry restructuring of nearly a decade ago are not given golden windows of opportunity and are not having windows shut. I am confident that this bill, as it was passed through the select committee process, will deliver the sort of balance that we want to see in the New Zealand dairy industry.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 2 be agreed to:

to omit “1 April 2010” and substitute “the day after the day on which it receives the Royal assent”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 6 and schedule as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Acting Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill be now read a third time. I do so as the Acting Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the Hon David Carter, who is currently hard at work for New Zealand’s interests in the all-important opening market of China. I want to acknowledge his work on this bill as well as the very cooperative, constructive way in which all members of the Primary Production Committee have helped to move this bill through the House.

The bill was tabled in the House in October 2009, it had its first reading on 28 October, after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee. The select committee reported back the bill to the House on 22 February 2010.The bill has now had its second reading and passed through the Committee stage with only a very minor amendment in respect of the date of its coming into effect.

The dairy industry is an integral part of the New Zealand economy. The industry contributed $11.3 billion, or 27 percent of New Zealand’s total merchandise export value, in the year to March 2009, and the industry continues to grow. As a result of productivity improvements and the expansion of dairy farming over the past few seasons, New Zealand’s milk production is growing at around 3 percent per annum, and there is great potential for further growth over the next 10 to 15 years. On the back of that strong milk growth, we have seen increased investment in the industry through the entry and expansion of dairy processing companies and specialised food processors over the past few seasons. The increasing diversity of business models that have entered the dairy industry provides choice both to New Zealand farmers as well as to domestic and international customers and consumers wanting high-quality New Zealand dairy products.

The Dairy Industry Restructuring Act has provided the regulatory framework in which new companies are able to enter the dairy processing industry and test the efficiency and the profitability of the different business models. The purpose of the pro-competitive measures contained in the Act was to promote the efficient operation of New Zealand dairy markets, to ensure that New Zealand markets for dairy goods and services were contestable. The contestability of milk supply provided incentives for all dairy companies to seek innovative opportunities to drive cost efficiencies, thereby improving the value of New Zealand milk and the returns to New Zealand farmers and the wider New Zealand economy.

Upon the passing of this bill, some of the inefficiencies in the current pricing system can be removed so that the dairy processors will be provided with the right economic incentives to source milk directly from farmers, where practical, rather than under the regulations. By promoting contestability in the market for farmers’ milk, this bill builds on the purpose of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to promote the efficient operation of dairy markets in New Zealand. This bill allows for raw milk supplied to independent processors by Fonterra under the Raw Milk Regulations to be allocated through an auction system or through any other method. The bill improves upon the Act by providing for more flexibility in the pricing and allocation of regulated raw milk, both now and in the future. As the industry continues to evolve, the Government needs to have the tools to be able to modernise the regulatory framework in which the industry operates. This bill provides a more modern and flexible regulatory framework for pricing and allocating regulated raw milk.

I want to pass on the Government’s thanks to the officials and to the industry, which has constructively engaged in helping us get to the point of being ready to pass this bill. The bill builds on the objectives of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to promote a contestable market for farmers’ milk and ensure that the dairy markets in New Zealand operate efficiently. Yes, it is an important issue for dairy farmers, but, actually, the importance of the dairy industry makes this an important bill for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): This is a very good bill, if only for the reason that I am sure the Minister for the Environment is a lot wiser about the dairy industry now than he probably was earlier this evening. That is progress.

Hon Rodney Hide: What a nasty thing to say. He’s the nicest bloke.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There is someone who certainly needs some education in every area of his portfolio. Perhaps he can learn a bit about Auckland; I am sure he will shortly.

Labour supports the bill. The purpose of the bill, as was stated by the Minister, is to replace the current regulated pricing formula for a formula that is fairer to the parties—to Fonterra, to suppliers, to shareholders, and to independent processors. It sets up ultimately, we think, an auction system. There are possibilities of other systems, but the auction system is one that has been investigated. It has been identified as being the fairest to the parties. Minister Smith’s amendment identified, once again, the fact that this Government has let this bill languish. It has procrastinated, it has not realised the importance of the bill, and this bill is late going through the House. I suggest it is going through a year later than it should have been, but even now it is too late for the Governor-General to sign off, so we had an amendment at the last minute saying that the bill will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, instead of 1 April. This is just an example of the mismanagement that occurs from time to time. None the less, the Opposition is happy to facilitate the passage of this bill and to agree to it.

We did look at these issues very, very carefully. As Minister Smith said, we are dealing with the most important industry in the country. It is a primary industry that has thrived and grown, in spite of critics out there saying that it should do better, it could do better, and we have to restructure and change the whole thing. I say to the House, to members opposite, to Ministers—in particular, Mr Steven Joyce, who is an enthusiastic seller of State assets in New Zealand—and to anyone who wants to come along, that that is why the Minister assisted with the changing of the Overseas Investment Office rules. We will see whether he stays around long enough for the sale of many, many things, but hopefully not Fonterra.

Farmers should be concerned that although we are improving their returns and rebalancing the system of auction for 5 percent of their milk, the 95 percent that we are not addressing tonight in this House has to be carefully managed. The returns and the value from that milk have to come back to New Zealand farmers, because they are the people who produce 25 percent of the export revenue for this country.

Colin King: 27.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: It is 27 percent—there it is; it has gone up. It must have gone up in the last few days but, anyway, 27 percent is a huge chunk of wealth creation in this country. It is not the investors, it is the farmers who have made the investment in the land, in their stock, in their machines, in their knowledge, and in their commitment as individuals—it is a hard life often—whom we have to ensure we look after, because they have driven this economy right through the 1900s and will drive it in the 21st century as well, if we get it right.

The passage of this bill deals with 5 percent of the milk industry. It allows opportunities for independent processes for companies like Cadbury’s and for the cheese producers, but it also continues to supply opportunities for growing and larger companies like Synlait, like Open Country Cheese, and like Westland Cooperative Dairy. The bill provides opportunities for those companies to access milk, and that is a privilege in any commercial arrangement. In the interim, they pay 10c above market value for raw milk, but ultimately it will go to auction, we think, on the basis that it will offer a fairer deal for all players.

As I have said, we have to get this right. I have some concerns about what will happen next. We will pass this bill, and then there will be another one before the House. We will have people advocating for recapitalisation, the capital restructure of Fonterra, and questions must be asked whether that will assist with the progress that we have made here or whether, in fact, it will detract from the wealth that can be created and retained by New Zealanders. I say, as the Irish farmers say, and as Desiree Reid has discovered, that Fonterra is the jewel in our crown. It is owned by farmers, and the Irish dairy industry is desperately trying to recreate that position.

There will be people in this House and people who have gone and looked at Kerry Group plc, which was once a cooperative owned by farmers, and said what a wonderful measure of success it is for the dairy industry. Well, I have to say that the Irish dairy industry found very quickly that it has left farmers in a desperate situation. They are receiving the lowest payout of any dairy company, and the same could happen in this country. The dairy industry would be ruined if we allowed farmers to be just the takers of the raw milk price, rather than the owners, the shareholders, and, ultimately, the beneficiaries of a totally vertically integrated dairy system. That is the reason why we have a successful dairy industry that is able to produce 27 percent, we are told, of our export earnings. That is based on smart, carefully assessed legislation.

This has been the discipline that has driven success in the dairy industry. It has been good legislation. I trust we are passing good legislation now. We worked through it, under the wise guidance of the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, Shane Ardern, who should be the Minister. I have concerns about his ministerial colleagues and what they will bring to the select committee, if they are brave enough, of course. They might try to divert it to another select committee, but I know that Shane Ardern will fight tooth and nail to ensure that any dairy legislation, in particular any legislation relating to possible capital restructure, will come to the wise—

Hon Member: All-powerful.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —all-powerful, and astute Primary Production Committee. If it does not, there is a danger that people, for their own reasons, will want to see capital restructure.

The question I ask, as I did in my second reading speech, is whether John Key is one of those people. Is he still a shareholder and a major investor in the Dairy Investment Fund? This is a private equity investor focused on deregulating the dairy sector so it can invest in this profitable sector. The question I ask, which I know Mr Ardern will ask and will want the answer to, is whether John Key is still a major investor in that fund; if so, will he declare an interest with the passage of this dairy legislation and any other possible dairy legislation that will be considered by this House?

I know we have members, such as Shane Ardern, who are farmers. He has declared an interest up front as a shareholder. But it is the subtle investments through back-door deals, such as the Chinese wanting to come into our dairy industry with $1.5 billion. We have had Russian interests and we had Singaporean interests through Synlait. We have a number of overseas interests in the dairy industry and they are growing, in both their influence and their power. The question is: if Fonterra goes through a capital restructure and if, as many want to see, its shares are put on the stock market, will John Key still be an investor in the Dairy Investment Fund, which will be out there trying to lap up and buy up shares in Fonterra?

Ultimately, the loss of control by farmers will be the demise of the dairy industry. They will end up taking a price for raw milk that will see them just survive, and nothing else. That is the experience internationally, and that is the experience of the Irish. I suggest to anyone who thinks otherwise to read the wise words of Desiree Reid, who has been travelling over there.

Labour supports the passage of this legislation. It addresses issues around 5 percent of the milk supply in this country, and issues around the other 95 percent have to be carefully considered. I trust that we can end up with the same good outcomes.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): I rise once again in support of the third reading of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee very much for their fulsome support of myself. But I ask them to please lay off, because I do not think that it is in the best interests of my political career going forward to be so forcefully and roundly supported by the Labour Opposition. But I thank them none the less; they worked very hard in the select committee, where sometimes we had difficult characters before us. We managed to get the bill reported back to the House on time with some reasonable recommendations for the Minister, which have been accepted.

I will recap what the dairy industry in New Zealand in respect of this debate is about. As the Acting Minister of Agriculture said—and I was surprised to hear this myself when he commented; I hope it is correct—the dairy industry now provides 27 percent of our export earnings. It was 25 percent the last time I looked, but it is now 27 percent. I am sure that figure is correct, because the officials would have given it to the Minister.

Fonterra is made up of approximately 10,500 shareholder farmers. They are hard-working mum and dad New Zealanders. They are the hard-working individuals who own the industry through the shares that they hold and the land that they purchased. They risk their capital, and it can be a substantial risk. I know some cases of directors who were about to press the start button on the new factories they had built. Had those plants not operated up to the specification range that they were supposed to operate up to, they would have lost their farms. I am talking particularly about the Waharoa site, now the Fonterra site in Hāwera, South Taranaki. It is a 20-tonne-an-hour powder plant that is world leading—the first in the world. That was how it worked. That was the risk they took, that was the capital they invested, and those were the decisions they made. I have never seen another industry in New Zealand with that type of backbone in terms of that integrated structure—from the producer right through to the market—and investing that type of capital.

As I said earlier, and most people were surprised to hear this, Fonterra now represents 84 percent of all milk exported from New Zealand. Let us understand the difference between export and domestic. We seem to be able to understand that the All Blacks playing against the Springboks is different from when Taranaki plays Waikato. But when it comes to trading internationally, for some reason we cannot understand it. There is a mental block about the domestic market and the international market. Fonterra exports 84 percent of all the milk processed in New Zealand. Fonterra exports 84 percent, not 90 percent, not 100 percent, and not all these other figures that are put about. Fonterra, with 10,500 shareholders, exports 84 percent of all milk that is processed in New Zealand. Fonterra represents a substantial part of the economy in New Zealand. This bill allows up to 600 million litres of Fonterra’s milk to be made available domestically to competitors of that company—that is what it does. The purpose of the bill is to set a fair pricing mechanism. Some legitimate concerns were raised by speakers from the other side about how fair that pricing mechanism is. It is the Fonterra farm-gate price, plus 10c per kilogram of milksolids to recognise the seasonal production curve.

The Prime Minister has just recently opened in Edendale, Southland what is now the biggest powder plant in the world. I think it now processes 27 tonnes an hour. I understand that the specification range of that plant is somewhere between the commodity bottom-end powder, which is skim-milk powder, at about $1,500 to $2,000 a tonne, right up to the very high-end specification, which sometimes can be in excess of about $7,000 per tonne. I stand to be corrected on those figures, but that is what I understand to be the case. The plant will be efficient—and on paper it is the most efficient in the world—only if we can get milk into that plant for a long enough period. The legislation that we are passing tonight allows competitors of that plant, like Kraft General Foods, which is the total shareholder of the former Cadbury’s plant in Dunedin, to be able to collect milk directly from under that new powder plant in Edendale, deliver it to Dunedin, and get that milk at Fonterra farm-gate prices in a Fonterra tanker, plus 10c a kilogram.

The debate is whether that process is fair and equitable, and that debate will continue. There will be another round of discussions, and there is a consultation paper out there. The small processors at the other end of the scale argue that of course they should have access to milk, and if they are innovative and if they are developing markets in New Zealand or internationally that will bring a higher return to New Zealand from that process, then, yes, of course they should. That is the balance we have tried to strike. I acknowledge the members of the Primary Production Committee for the work they did, and I thank them for their support. I commend this bill to the House.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central): This bill, the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill, is a natural evolution. It follows on from the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act passed by the previous Labour Government. As the previous speaker, Shane Ardern, indicated in some detail, the bill addresses some of the problems in the domestic market supply, which came through in the industry review initiated by the Labour Government. The bill will, in essence, mean that Fonterra’s farmers will get a fair price for the raw milk that they deliver.

One of the points we want to make is that this bill should have been passed some time ago by this House, because it will help to improve the performance of an industry that is the most important industry to this country in many, many ways. The dairy industry provides 27 percent of export receipts, so for every dollar we spend as a nation, 27c comes from the dairy industry. Therefore, this bill should have had priority status attached to it. When we consider that this House has debated bills to cut the seats on polytechnic councils, for instance, instead of considering this dairy industry restructuring bill, we have to ask where the Government’s priorities were. This bill was on the back-burner, and other lesser bills were given front-status treatment.

This is a refinement bill: an ongoing refinement of the dairy industry regulations and legislation that Labour introduced and continues to support. It is only one of the larger issues that the Government will face, in terms of the dairy industry. At some point the Government will have to bite the bullet and make decisions about the capital restructuring of Fonterra. Last year we saw that the Prime Minister and his good mate, the chief executive officer of NZX, looked at proposals for quite considerable change in the dairy industry capital structure. They were defeated by the dairy industry stakeholders themselves, and that was a welcome move. But that issue will come back, and I think that sooner or later the Government has to give some signals as to what its position will be. It has to think very, very carefully about those issues.

Fonterra is our only multinational company. It is 100 percent owned by farmer shareholders, and is our biggest player in international markets. I think I have heard figures tonight about the amount of the international dairy industry trade. I think 40-plus percent was the figure, coming from this one company with its 10,500 shareholders across New Zealand. Fonterra does a fantastic job. It is indeed our prized jewel. We need to make sure we protect it, not expose it to the vagaries and fluctuations of international capital markets. Fonterra needs to remain in New Zealand hands, in New Zealand ownership, and deliver back to New Zealand every dollar that it gets.

Whatever benefits foreign investment brings, it brings other consequences. Every dollar that has to be repatriated to foreign shareholders is another dollar we have to find, as a nation, in terms of our balance of payments. Every dollar that we repatriate is another push on our New Zealand dollar, keeping it high. Every dollar that we repatriate to foreign shareholders represents another pressure on our interest rates. All of those things end up costing New Zealand—

Hon Rodney Hide: What rubbish!

BRENDON BURNS: The member says “What rubbish!”. This is absolutely fundamental. Every dollar that we send overseas we have to find somewhere else, and the member is telling me that that does not impact on our balance of payments. Is he telling me that that does not impact on the level of the New Zealand dollar? Is he telling me that it does not impact on New Zealand interest rates?

Hon Rodney Hide: Correct.

BRENDON BURNS: I find that extraordinary—no, I do not actually, coming from the leader of the ACT Party. He believes that the market delivers everything. He does not believe in Fonterra. He thinks the market does better.

Hon Member: That’s why he got 2 percent.

BRENDON BURNS: That is right. That is why he got 2 or 3 percent of the vote.

We need to make sure that Fonterra gets some measure of protection, and I think this bill does that.

Hon Rodney Hide: Why don’t you sit down until you’ve got something to say?

BRENDON BURNS: Why do you not stand and take a call, Mr Hide, rather than sitting in your chair like a chump?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will not bring the Chair into the debate.

BRENDON BURNS: The point about this bill is that it gives a measure of protection to the Fonterra shareholders. There are 10,500 hard-working New Zealanders who every day go out and deliver for New Zealand.

There are some people in this House who believe that the market can do better. They are the kinds of people who have taken the axe to the apple industry. We are seeing that industry doing so terribly well! They would now like to see that expand to the kiwifruit industry, because they can do so much better! That is despite the way that Fonterra has shown that the shareholding structure that it has, the cooperative nature that it has, actually delivers real returns for New Zealand. Twenty-seven percent of our export receipts are delivered by that one company. That is a pretty impressive figure. But it is “socialism at work”, and some people ideologically think that is anathema. They think the market can always do better, even if the evidence strongly shows that that is not the case. I think the debate will happen, and we will see people like Mr Hide take a role in it. He has had success today with the bill to gut Environment Canterbury. I hope he does not get his hands on Fonterra, because that would be to the detriment of every New Zealander, not just the 10,500 people in the industry. When we get 27 percent of our export receipts from one company, what a bunch of fools we would be to allow market ideology to take control of that.

Hon Damien O’Connor: National fools.

BRENDON BURNS: That would be one way of describing it.

What we would see from a public float of Fonterra’s shares is ownership going outside of New Zealand, outside of the hands of New Zealand farmers. That could lead to Fonterra falling into the hands of foreign investors. If it is going to be described as some kind of myth, I tell members to look at the developments of last week, when a Chinese company with a cheque book of around $1.5 billion indicated that it wanted to spend up large in the New Zealand dairy industry. It has seen the gains that this industry has delivered for New Zealand. It would like to take out a share of that. That is the way the world works, but most nations of the world would say that is a short-sighted approach, and that it will not protect New Zealand jobs, it will not protect New Zealand investments, and it will not protect our returns but will simply open the floodgates to a whole repatriation of money that should be staying in New Zealand.

The door has opened somewhat. The Minister of Finance, in one of his first acts last year as the new Minister, ordered a review of the overseas investment legislation. The Overseas Investment Office’s ability to operate in the interests of protecting New Zealand’s sensitive land and resources was streamlined for reasons of speed and efficiency. We are now more open to further buying up of New Zealand’s land, and the Overseas Investment Office, which is our only protection against that, does not have the tools necessary to make sure that it does a proper job to try to protect New Zealand interests.

We have seen some people take a very strong position on issues like the sale of Auckland International Airport. Some of us happen to believe that there are things that are worth holding in New Zealand hands—like strategic assets. I have to say I list the New Zealand dairy industry as one of those. It would be foolhardy to do otherwise. Already that sort of investment is strongly under way. We have a wholly owned Russian company in Waimate. We have a company with a 22.5 percent Japanese stake in Synlait in the Dunsandel area of Canterbury, and we will see more attempts, I am sure, to buy more of our dairy industry. I say let us keep Fonterra in New Zealand hands.

We want to get it right as a nation in terms of fundamental industries like Fonterra, and we have to get it right in terms of fundamental issues like water. Fonterra, I acknowledge, has been one of the architects of the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord. It is not delivering as it might and should, but I applaud what I hear from the Fonterra leadership. They want to work to get the balance right, and I have to say that Fonterra’s farmers are probably doing better than some.

We are already under some assault in terms of our “100% Pure New Zealand” image. The Economist was the most recent international critic of that branding. We have to get it right. When we see potential for big, new, rapid growth in my region of Canterbury, we have to say that that is short-sighted. If we do not get the balance right, we will be at risk, because the international market place is watching and judging us already. Although that might be unfair because other nations probably have worse water quality than us, other nations have not branded themselves as “100% Pure”, as this nation has. It is not a bad brand to have, but living up to it is now incumbent upon us as a nation.

Similarly, issues of animal welfare are important in the international market place, and our reputation will be judged on that issue as well. We have a bill on animal welfare issues before the select committee at the moment. It is mostly focused, I think, on domestic animals, but obviously it is also focused on many millions of stock animals. Animal welfare has to be delivered to stock animals as well as to pets.

This bill is a start. It is giving the right signals in terms of the new milk-pricing regime. I support it and commend it to the House.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): It is a privilege to rise and take a call on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill, and I do so at 6 minutes to midnight. I wonder how many people are listening to this debate, and how many New Zealanders are following a debate on the pricing of raw milk at 6 minutes to midnight. So it would be very easy to give up the opportunity to take this call and to shorten this debate.

The reason that I am taking this call is that, as we have heard this evening, the dairy industry is a very, very important part of New Zealand’s economy. We earn a huge amount of foreign currency from the dairy industry—some 27 percent. The Acting Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, led off this debate. He explained that the dairy industry accounts for some 27 percent of New Zealand’s exports and that this bill would allow some several hundred million litres of milk to be opened up to other processors to produce. He talked about opening up contestable markets and how that would allow other people to come into the industry to purchase milk. They would pay a 10c-per-litre premium to secure supply.

I then listened with interest as Mr Damien O’Connor talked about the great work that Shane Ardern had done. Mr O’Connor said he knew that Shane Ardern would fight tooth and nail to protect farmers’ interests. So although this is a third reading debate it has generated into a more general discussion on the dairy industry.

The previous speaker, Brendon Burns, took the opportunity to raise issues not just to do with the pricing of milk but to do with other concerns that confront the dairy industry. For example, Mr Burns talked about the capital restructure of the dairy industry, the potential restructure of Fonterra, and the need to raise new capital. He talked about the potential foreign investments in the dairy industry, and he referred to the recent Chinese proposal to invest in farms. He went on to talk about animal welfare.

I would like to talk about another aspect of the dairy industry, and that is the price of inputs. I would like to bring the debate back to the concept that people who want to purchase milk, other than Fonterra, will have the opportunity to do so at a premium charge of 10c a litre. That figure of 10c a litre is quite interesting, because from 1 July this year the emissions trading scheme comes into place and that is forecast to add 7c a litre to the cost of processing milk. Just as other companies that want to compete in this market will pay a premium, so too will dairy farmers in New Zealand pay a premium for their electricity.

I found it very interesting that the Prime Minister, John Key, would go along to a meeting of the Federated Farmers executive last November to try to assure farmers that they need not be concerned about the surcharges they will pay for their electricity under the emissions trading scheme tax. He told those farmers not to worry, as their dairy stock would not come into the emissions trading scheme until 2015. He said there would be a 5-year period before Mr Shane Ardern would have to fight tooth and nail to protect their interests.

What Mr Key did not tell the Federated Farmers executive was that the cost he was referring to, the cost of the animals, made up only one quarter of the total costs. So only one quarter of what dairy farmers will pay for the emissions trading scheme tax relates to animals. The other three-quarters that the dairy industry will face, the huge proportion of the input costs, will come from electricity, petrol, and the cost of the emissions of those Fonterra plants that we have heard about this evening.

I am told that Fonterra is forecasting that that $25 a tonne will cost it some additional $80 million to process milk. Fonterra is being offered an interim price, a half-price, of $12.50, and that will reduce its costs to $40 million. So starting on 1 July we have an input tax, an additional cost of processing milk for Fonterra alone—and we heard that that is only 84 percent of the market—of $40 million. That is $40 million to come off the price of milk.

Hon Member: The Opposition tried to help.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: I thought that might have been an interjection. I have before me figures from Meat and Wool New Zealand. It forecasts that the additional cost input that dairy farmers will face is some $10,000 for the average dairy herd. Of that $10,000, only $2,500, or a quarter, relates to animal emissions of methane. Of that figure, $7,000 is for electricity, petrol, and Fonterra’s emission costs. Half of that starts on 1 July. We will be the first country to tax our farmers, the first country to charge our farmers extra for their petrol. That does not happen in Europe.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

(continued on Thursday, 1 April 2010)

Bills

Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk PricingMethods) Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): When the House adjourned at midnight last night I was speaking on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. Prior to the House rising, the debate had broken into a general one on the dairy industry. Brendon Burns, for example, spoke about the so-called threat of Chinese investment in the industry, the need for Fonterra to get its capital structure correct, and animal welfare issues. So this was becoming very much a general debate on the dairy industry.

This bill is about milk: the processing of milk, and the making available of milk by Fonterra to alternative processors on a competitive basis. I will focus on just one aspect of the greater issues regarding the processing of milk. We have the emissions trading scheme starting on 1 July, which will make a significant difference to farmers. Meat and Wool New Zealand has estimated that the cost of the emissions trading scheme on the average dairy herd will be about $10,000.

Dairy farmers may be feeling a false sense of security, because no doubt they listened to the Prime Minister when he told them last November that agriculture would not come within the ambit of the emissions trading scheme until 2015. Well, I have a message for dairy farmers this morning, which is that of that cost of $10,000, only $2,500 relates to animals. The average dairy farmer with an average herd will face some $7,500 in costs due to increased energy and emissions costs. For Fonterra the cost of the emissions trading scheme on the processing of milk will be some $80 million at $25 a tonne, and $40 million at $12.50 a tonne. I wonder how many dairy farmers realise that in less than 3 months’ time this country will impose on them a $40 million tax on their emissions, to be followed up by a further $40 million in 2013. That is in addition, of course, to the increased cost of the electricity that they use in processing their milk in milking sheds and the petrol that is used in dairy tankers.

I have just come from a breakfast that was hosted for European parliamentarians, who painted a very dismal picture of the future. Mr Chauvel was there. One of the points made there was that Mr Obama has just passed the health care legislation in the United States and has burnt up a huge amount of political capital in doing so. This means that the prospect of President Obama being able to push through any law that would give effect to his plans for climate change is very, very bleak. When the National Government introduced its amendments to the emissions trading scheme, it expected to follow other nations. Last September in this House the Minister for Climate Change Issues stood up and said we would be a fast follower. He said we would be following Australia, and that the New Zealand Parliament and farmers should not worry because we would be following Australia and the United States.

There has been a dramatic change in the world landscape in the last 6 months, and I ask why this Government is to tax farmers. We have heard that Mr Ardern, the chair of the Primary Production Committee, is a great advocate for farmers. I ask him where he is today. Is he standing up for farmers? I do not hear him speaking out about the $40 million tax that farmers will have to pay for emissions arising from their processing activity. I do not hear him speaking out about the cost of electricity on the farm, or about the impacts on farmers of the emissions trading scheme and the massive windfall profits that some electricity generators will make. It is interesting to note that the powerhouses of the dairy industry are in Waikato, Canterbury, and Southland, all areas where electricity comes from hydro sources so there will be no tax to pay, but where there will be massive windfall profits for generators. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I will say three things before I start. First of all, I congratulate David Tua on winning his fight last night.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Yahoo!

HONE HARAWIRA: He is a close relation of my mate Sam over there, and he is a relation of mine as well, because he is from up north—a long way up north but still up north. Secondly, I record my deep and abiding criticism of my colleague the scoundrel Te Ururoa Flavell for abandoning the House last night, and abandoning his responsibilities to the Māori Party, so that he could go to watch the fight.

Finally, however, I thank him very much for leaving me this most exciting speech on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. This bill to allow milk to be allocated through an auction process sounds technical, but it also allows us to acknowledge the opportunity for Māori in the primary sector. Māori dairy farmers own an estimated 100 million shares in Fonterra, with some of the major players in the sector being large Māori incorporations directly accountable to their people, so Māori skill acquisition, research, and innovation within this sector will be essential to gaining added value for existing Māori assets, and for interests in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and aquaculture.

I understand that this bill is basically an exercise in restructuring contracts by having auctions, putting the onus on buyers to set the new price range for contracts, and helping all players to get a snapshot of potential new prices that are set by the market itself, which will help in how the market sees and values itself, and which will help determine consumer patterns. The stated intentions of the bill are to achieve a decent price for regulated raw milk as soon as possible, to ensure that excess demand for regulated raw milk is managed efficiently, and to remove uncertainty regarding the price of regulated raw milk.

But it seems that even with one clear purpose, there are still very strong and differing responses from across the sector. At one end we have Paraninihi ki Waitōtara, which supports the principle of the bill. Mind you, Paraninihi ki Waitōtara is a Fonterra supplier and has been subsidising Synlait and others, to date, for milk they take under the 2001 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. At the other end is Green Valley Dairies, which opposes the bill because it thinks the proposed auction system will simply create ambiguity in an already volatile raw milk market, and Tātua Cooperative Dairy, which said the bill should be abandoned, or at least delayed, until there is greater clarity about the likely outcomes. In the middle we have Open Country Dairy, which does not think the bill will deliver on the expectations of the 2001 Act, but which will comply with the new law because regulated milk is only a small part of its operation.

On another level, I think it is also worthy to note that one of the interesting features of the 2009 economic situation was that Māori dairy farmers thought they would be less likely to be affected by the forecast drop in milk payouts than non-Māori farmers. I recall Rino Tirikātene of Ngāti Hine, the chief executive officer of the Federation of Māori Authorities, saying that it was because Māori farmers, when gearing in debt ratios, were more conservative than non-Māori, with debt representing 10 to 15 percent of the value of the asset for Māori, as opposed to 60 to 70 percent for non-Māori. That is something my colleague the scoundrel Te Ururoa Flavell spoke about last week during the debate on securities trustees. So instead of struggling to service debt, Māori farmers are able to focus on feed strategies in order to stay afloat during tough times. Clearly, being able to be self-sufficient and relatively undamaged by debt burden means that Māori farmers are less likely to be forced into mortgagee sales. That is a very strong feature of the Māori dairying sector that the whole New Zealand dairy sector would do well to emulate.

Finally, I would like to step outside the milking shed for a minute to look at the broader issue of the affordability of food and dairy products for ordinary Kiwis. Although the CPI suggests that essential food prices will fluctuate from time to time, the trend is for ever-increasing prices, regardless of options that may affect dairy farmers and their incomes. Statistics New Zealand states that food prices went up 2.1 percent in January alone, with higher prices for groceries, food, fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, and fish. This is an ideal opportunity, therefore, to promote the bill of my colleague Rahui Katene that calls for healthy food to be exempt from GST. In fact, it seems as if it is poor people who are in danger of being priced out of the market. The research confirms the high rates of child poverty, poor living conditions, and poor health status of children in low-income families. We note that during the last 3 years food prices have gone up more than 20 percent; indeed, increases in the cost of staples for a nutritious diet, such as fruit, vegetables, and milk, have been particularly high, while real incomes have risen only very slightly. It is because of these massive changes that the Māori Party is supporting Rahui Katene’s call for GST to be removed from healthy foods to make them more affordable.

Although we will support this bill, we leave a challenge for this House: it can auction milk prices if it must, but it should not auction the well-being of New Zealanders by failing to recognise the very real impact of our economic decisions on those who are most vulnerable in our society. Tēnā koe.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): I will continue the discussion we had last night on the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk Pricing Methods) Bill. First, I thank Minister Nick Smith who, in the nick of time, made a change to a recommendation in the bill on behalf of the Minister. The bill was to come into force by 1 April, which is today, but at the last moment last night, at a few minutes before 12, the Minister put forward an amendment to amend that, and we are now able to pass the bill today.

Secondly, I am delighted that he answered some of the concerns raised during the select committee process by submitters who thought that the auction system might not be fair to processors, particularly to the smaller players like Green Valley Dairies and Cadbury’s. They were concerned that the auction system might not be fair and equitable for them. I am glad that the Minister explained that last night, and in particular the fact that over 300 auctions per week are likely to take place. That is a lot of auctions, and there is always concern that the system may not be suitable for the small players who are processors.

This morning I want to discuss one point that I think has not been raised in the discussions so far. My colleague mentioned how overseas buyers are interested in our dairy farms and our dairy industry. Chinese, Russians, Singaporeans, and other interests want to buy into our dairy industry. I, particularly with my science background, can understand what is going on here. Milk is a highly sought-after bio-material. It is a very active bio-material. Those of us who know what is going on at the Fonterra Research Centre—the old Dairy Research Institute—in Palmerston North, and across at Massey University, know that a lot of research is going on into product development for pharmaceuticals. Let us imagine that upcoming countries like China, India, and other countries, which need this biomaterial for pharmaceuticals, will make pills using milk as the base, with big industries developing around that. Over time those countries will add value to that product, which we have as a commodity at the moment, so they are looking ahead in strategic terms so that they can invest in our dairy farms and processing plants to ensure the future supply of their products, particularly for pharmaceuticals and other bio-materials.

I think that we have to be very careful when overseas interests want to buy into our dairy farms and our processing plants. In my view, the dairy industry is a strategic asset in this country, and we have to make sure that all of Fonterra’s production in particular is kept in our hands, so that we can add value, in the long term, to pharmaceuticals and other products, including a lot of drinks. I have had the opportunity to visit the research centre in recent times, and I saw that a huge amount of material is being processed from milk into different products. In going forward we should not forget the value of milk; in this country we are lucky that we have the amount of milk we have, which can be used as a bio-material for those products. That is an important point to remember.

We have also heard a number of times that 27 percent of the export market is made up of milk and milk products. I had understood that it was about 25 percent, so obviously the percentage has gone up over recent times. Clearly, the dairy industry in New Zealand is important for our future and the future of our dairy farmers. We have 10,500 dairy farmers, and not only their livelihoods but also the livelihoods and incomes of our people in the future will be dependent on the dairy industry, as more and more farms are converted to dairying. The demand, particularly from Asia, is going up, so we have to make sure that we are prepared with new technology and a new way of doing things, such as the ability to have online auctions for the export of milk overseas.

Similarly with this bill, we are hoping to introduce an auction system—and maybe, over time, an online auction system—for the excess milk we have. That is 600 million litres at the moment, which is 5 percent of the milk Fonterra has for on-sale to small operators. I think it is important that those small processors are happy with the system we put in place. A lot of work has to be gone through in setting up the auction system, and I hope there will be good consultation with processors so that they are happy with the milk they buy. Fonterra wants 10c per kilogram of milksolids as a fair seasonal value of milk. Of course, some of the operators who are potential processors are not happy with that, but clearly there has to be some margin. With those words, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Regulatory Improvement Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister for Regulatory Reform: I move, That the Regulatory Improvement Bill be now read a second time. In so doing I thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of the bill, and I also acknowledge those who made oral and written submissions. The committee’s report includes some useful recommendations that I believe will improve processes and, importantly, reduce compliance costs. The bill provides an opportunity to improve the quality of regulation in New Zealand by recommending small but none the less very important amendments to nine Acts. As was indicated in the Minister’s first reading speech, the provisions in the bill came out of the Quality Regulation Review undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007. I thank the member for Christchurch East for initiating and championing the work that has resulted in this bill.

The changes proposed cover a diverse range of policy areas and legislation. They are all designed to improve the regulatory framework and to reduce the compliance burden on business. They are a move towards creating a regulatory environment that positively impacts on how businesses operate. Overall, the changes address regulatory duplications, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. Fixing them is a positive move towards a more prosperous and successful nation that is driven by the initiative and hard work of individuals. The Government is committed to a regulatory reform programme that ensures that new and existing regulations do not impose unnecessary costs on businesses, and do all that they can to address the barriers, be they big or small, that can hold back New Zealand business from reaching its fullest potential and greatest growth.

With the current economic challenges our businesses are facing, our goal to minimise compliance costs is more important than ever. As an omnibus bill it provides an effective and efficient legislative vehicle to fast-track small changes to legislation to fix problems. A single Regulatory Improvement Bill is an administratively efficient way of progressing uncontroversial but none the less important amendments that will have a positive impact for business. Similar bills aimed at improving the regulatory environment for business are intended to be a regular fixture on the legislative calendar.

The bill proposes amendments to the Companies Act 1993, the Conservation Act 1987, the Designs Act 1953, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Gas Act 1992, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995, the Weights and Measures Act 1987, and the Reserves Act 1977. I can tell from the Assistant Speaker Eric Roy’s interest that that is a piece of legislation dear to his heart, as a huntin’, fishin’ Southlander.

Most submitters were supportive of the bill, and the committee has not recommended any substantive changes to the proposals. I will outline the most significant changes that were recommended by the committee and the reasons for them. First, I will refer to the Designs Act 1953. The submitters who commented on the proposed amendments supported the proposals for amendment. The main change suggested by submitters was that the Act provide for the restoration of lapsed design applications. The submission was accepted by the committee, and the bill, as reported back now, provides for the restoration of those types of applications. The new amendments will bring the Designs Act into line with the Patents Act 1953 and with the Patents Bill, which is currently before Parliament, both of which include provisions for the restoration of lapsed applications.

The committee has also recommended the amendment of the commencement clause to make it more certain when the amendment to the Designs Act 1953 would come into force, the insertion of a clause that will explicitly authorise publication of bibliographical details of design applications so that the public is kept informed of applications being made, and the inclusion of clauses to allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered design.

The second Act that is worthy of some comment is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. The committee has recommended an amendment of clause 46 of the bill along with the insertion of a new clause. This clause amends the section in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that relates to incorporation by reference of material into regulations and other instruments. The clause was drafted in 2007 and differs from the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s proposed new standard clauses for incorporation by reference. The standard clause as prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel Office give effect to principles established by the Regulations Review Committee in its inquiry in 2004 into material that is incorporated by reference. In its 2008 report on the matter, the Regulations Review Committee recommended that such clauses be included in the Legislation Advisory Committee’s guidelines and enacted in a statute of general application so that they need not be re-enacted each time they are required.

The committee has recommended that apart from two exceptions, the bill be amended to conform to the proposed standard clauses. Those two exceptions are, first, that the mechanism in the bill for amendment to incorporated material by notification in the Gazette should be retained. In doing so, it has specifically safeguarded this mechanism with an express requirement that the material be brought to the attention of the Regulations Review Committee. The second exception is that the requirements for consulting on, and access to, amendments to material incorporated in the instruments involved should match the requirements that already apply in the Act for the instruments themselves.

The main concern for submitters on Part 6 of the bill was the change to the notification for applications to release hazardous substances from being mandatory to being at the discretion of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The issue is really the balance between the benefits of public participation and the associated costs and delays. Reducing unnecessary costs and delays also contributes to innovation through the timely introduction of newer, typically less hazardous, chemicals. The change reflects the experience of the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

The reality is that of several hundred applications on hazardous substances that have been publicly notified since 2001, only 19 percent have attracted any submissions at all, and the majority of those submissions have come from both local and central government agencies. Only 4 percent of applications have attracted submissions from the public, with most of these being for veterinary medicines. The general concerns raised by submitters as to potentially harmful effects to certified organic producers and to trade are matters the authority would take into account in deciding whether there is likely to be significant public interest in a particular application.

There were a number of other submissions. Particularly, I should refer to two submissions, which sought amendments to those parts of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act that address genetically modified organisms. However, nothing in this bill addresses or affects the regulation of genetically modified organisms.

This bill has been introduced under Standing Order 264(a), now 259(a). The Standing Order provides that a law reform or other omnibus bill to amend more than one Act may be introduced if the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a broad policy. It is intended that the bill will be divided into separate bills at the Committee of the whole House stage. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to speak in the second reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill, and it certainly gives me a great sense of satisfaction to do so. As the Attorney-General on behalf of the Minister for Regulatory Reform pointed out, I was the instigator of this approach to regulatory improvement in New Zealand through the Quality Regulation Review. The review looked at how New Zealand regulates, how Parliament regulates, and, essentially, what improvements could be made in the way we regulate to ensure that business was not facing unnecessary compliance costs. It was also to ensure that our frameworks were kept up to date, modern, and relevant and that they were risk-related.

I experienced the frustration of the hundreds of businesspeople whom I spoke to from one end of the country to the other. They expressed to me the sense of an overwhelming burden of regulation that was not matched by any comparable benefit that they could see. Business was saying to me that if there are going to be rules that govern our obligations—and business accepts that regulation is an important part of the business environment for confidence and all sorts of other reasons such as health and safety, to name two—they have to be risk-related. We have to look at what the risk is of this thing going wrong and what the benefits are that apply to the particular regulatory framework that is adopted. That very quickly said to me that we could have two sets of rules without offending the principle that one law should fit all. One size does not fit all when we put on our clothes, so I do not see why one-size-fits-all should apply to regulatory frameworks. In some instances, the risks are so minimal that to make the requirements of a larger entity apply to a smaller entity simply would not be acceptable. To take another line, if one is fundraising from the general public, obviously the regulatory obligations—the rules—will be much tighter than if one is just operating or borrowing from the bank, where the reporting requirements will be negotiated between oneself and the bank.

There are reasons why regulatory frameworks should be fit for purpose at all stages of the regime, and that fitness for purpose may require different rules to be applied at different times. I think this Parliament has got a little bit gun-shy of the phrase “regulation”. Regulation is just rules. Driving down the left-hand side of the road is a regulation. It is a rule of the road. It is part of the road code. If we did not have that rule, I would like to think that everyone would drive down the left-hand side of the road but it could be pretty Wild West out there if we did not have that rule in place. Certainly, I learnt that businesses accept the need for rules, but they ask the Government that the rules are kept relevant and are proportionate to the risk that their business poses in the particular situation. I agree with them.

The other problem I found when I went out and talked to hundreds of small businesses was that we ended up with a situation where the regulator will not tell people how to comply with the rule. That was the second-biggest complaint I had. An individual employer would ring up the Occupational Safety and Health Service and ask whether something was within the rules of health and safety, and the employer would be told: “I am sorry, but we cannot tell you whether that is within the rules, but if you breach the rules, we will be down there to serve you with a notice to tell you that you have breached the rules.” Well, I do not think that is good enough. I never thought it was good enough when I was a Minister. I think it is really important that we have the mechanism available to us as a Parliament to fix these things as they come up.

The third thing I found out was that small businesses, in particular, have had an absolute gutsful of talking to the Government over and over again. Because we are all politicians, we think of the Department of Labour, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Courts, the Inland Revenue Department, the Occupational Safety and Health Service, and the Accident Compensation Corporation. All that the business people see is the Government. They ask why the Government is continually asking them for the same information over and over again. During the course of this review, I came up with one of those 10-second sound bite phrases that politicians love to create, but I thought that it absolutely encapsulated what businesses were telling me. It was: why cannot the many arms of Government extend a single hand to business? That is a really important question for this Parliament.

I hope that members on both sides of the House, Government and Opposition, would agree entirely that that should be our focus in terms of bringing down the weight of regulatory reform. I think that the only way that we can do that is through e-commerce—the ability for businesses to speak to the Government once and then for the Government to spread that information across its many arms. That is so easy to do now that we have the business reporting language. I note that in the next few weeks a guest speaker is coming here from the Netherlands, which has the world leaders on business reporting language. I will attend that event and I am sure that others in this House will as well. That, to me, is the solution for so many small businesses’ complaints about the nature of reporting to the Government.

The final thing that I was told did not come from businesses, but from the departments. What came back from the departments when we raised issues with them was that none of the issues raised were big enough to warrant their going to their Minister and asking for a bill on the Order Paper. They could not get up a bill to deal with this issue because it was not small enough for a Statutes Amendment Bill and it did not quite fit a Business Law Reform Bill. There was no mechanism for dealing with these little issues from different departments. The departments asked whether there was a way of getting these things dealt with in parliamentary time in a reasonable way without having to deal with them bill by bill.

Members can imagine in this case what this Regulatory Improvement Bill contains, and this is the first of the regulatory improvement bills. It has amendments to the Companies Act, the Conservation Act, the Designs Act, the Fisheries Act, the Gas Act, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act, the Reserves Act, and the Weights and Measures Act. As a Parliament, if we had to take up a first reading, a second reading, the Committee stage, and a third reading of a bill for every single one of those amendments, then we would be spending a lot of time making relatively small fixes.

My desire was to see the development of a Regulatory Improvement Bill where the theme of the omnibus bill—which the Minister just spoke of—would be an amendment to deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy. It was finally accepted by the then Clerk of the House that that was a single thread that could be accepted as that interrelated topic, and that was the improvement to regulatory frameworks. I had been to the Standing Orders Committee and had made the case to have the list of types of omnibus bills that can be introduced amended so that it included the Regulatory Improvement Bill, along with the Business Committee’s agreement to the Business Law Reform Bill’s introduction as an omnibus bill. I wanted to have this written into the list as one of the bills that could be proceeded with as an omnibus bill as of right, and I would still like to see that happen.

I am pleased that it has been accepted in this case, but it has to be agreed to by the Business Committee in order to be introduced as an omnibus bill. I think that we could do better than that. We could write it into the Standing Orders directly, and say that the theme of regulatory improvement is something that the entire Parliament—members on both sides of the House—is committed to. We could agree to do this every year. This would be so much easier. We could send out messages to departments every year to say that this is their chance to make it better for businesses through better regulation. I have heard the Government of the day say: “Better regulation, fewer regulations”. This is the best way of achieving that, where we do not have the departmental commitment on the small stuff. They are now sweating the big stuff, which is where their focus has to be. I commend this bill to the House, and I also commend making a subsequent change to the Standing Orders.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you for the opportunity to make my first speech on the Regulatory Improvement Bill, at its second reading. I commend the Minister Chris Finlayson. He has shown a deft hand in regulatory reform as well as in Treaty negotiations and in the other portfolios that he holds. I also commend the Hon Rodney Hide, who first introduced this bill.

This bill is about cutting red tape. It is about reducing the bureaucracy involved in transacting business. It is a bill to be commended, because the single most important issue facing this country is an economic issue: an issue of productivity and of economic growth in order to provide for the opportunities and jobs that so many New Zealanders deserve. This bill will not solve all the problems relating to regulation; I think that we all acknowledge that. But it carries on the valuable work that the previous speaker, the former Minister the Hon Lianne Dalziel, took in pushing for regulatory reform. It shows that this Government is committed to helping businesses to get through these tough times.

When I go to visit the businesses in Maungakiekie in Auckland, two things stand out in terms of their issues with the Government. Firstly, those businesses that export their products have issues with the exchange rate. But the second major issue that faces small to medium sized businesses in this country relates to the regulations and compliance costs that they must face.

Our productivity growth was shown by the GDP figures released last week. We have had our third quarter of growth in this country in terms of our output, which is a positive thing. One of the stunning statistics shown in recent articles in the media is that our level of exports decreased for four consecutive years under the previous Government. We need to address that. I am glad that we had reference to dairy farming in the bill that we have just debated, because that industry is one of the most important sectors to drive growth for this country.

As the Minister has already said, the 22 amendments in this legislation have the broad objective of improving the regulatory framework. I will not go through each of those individual amendments, but in my third reading speech I will refer to some critical recommendations from our Commerce Committee. Overall, this is a bill that needs to be passed. It will provide for less regulation, or for better regulation—call it what we will—and it is a bill that the Government supports. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to it.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): The bill before us implements a number of minor tweaks to nine pieces of legislation. In doing so, it makes our regulatory environment one that imposes fewer compliance burdens on New Zealand business. Labour supports the bill, because we believe that strong business is in the interests of New Zealand, and that is the belief that drove Labour to introduce the original legislation in 2008 when we were in Government.

The bill, as we have heard from the previous Minister of Commerce, Lianne Dalziel, is a response to the opinions of businesses on things that would make the regulatory environment easier for them to operate in. These views were communicated through a very wide-ranging consultation process, conducted by the previous Minister and her officials, which was known as the Quality Regulation Review. Over 200 businesses were consulted, and the changes to the nine Acts that this bill will affect are the result of that consultation process.

A wide range of Acts is affected: the Companies Act 1993, the Conservation Act 1987, the Designs Act 1953, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Gas Act 1992, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995, the Reserves Act 1997, and the Weights and Measures Act 1987. That is a good reminder of just how widely the statute book ranges over the interests of business, and of how it can impose compliance costs on them. The changes that are proposed to each of those Acts are small and relatively uncontroversial, I think, but, as expressed to Lianne Dalziel and her officials during the Quality Regulation Review consultation process, they are important because they are what businesses want. The changes are small but important changes, in order to allow the largely small and medium sized enterprises that were consulted to enjoy a more efficient regulatory environment that is fair to them, and easier for them to do business in.

I will give just a couple of examples of the sorts of minor changes in the bill that will have this effect. There is currently an inconsistency between the Companies Act 1993 and the Financial Reporting Act of the same year, and this inconsistency imposes a cost on business that is completely unnecessary. Under the Financial Reporting Act a company with overseas ownership may not be required to file audited financial statements, but under the Companies Act there is still an obligation in that situation for the company to appoint an auditor. That is obviously a discrepancy, and one that Parliament should reflect on, given that it results from two Acts that this House passed in exactly the same year. It is a systems issue that such an inconsistency could arise in our procedures, and could result in the sorts of unnecessary additional costs that are imposed upon business. Obviously, those costs are then passed on to the consumer and create inefficiencies and productivity glitches. So the minor changes to the Companies Act proposed in the bill, and confirmed by the committee, will fix this situation. They will basically put affected companies in the same position as the majority of other companies, which essentially can choose whether to appoint an auditor.

There are a couple of other examples of sensible changes in the bill. They can be found in the amendments to the Designs Act, the Gas Act, and the Weights and Measures Act. As far as the Designs Act—legislation dating from 1953—is concerned, there is provision for the restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design, in cases where there has simply been a failure to pay the renewal fee or fill in the correct forms, thus causing the lapse in the right to use the design. Clearly, it is disproportionate for a company or an organisation to lose valuable intellectual property in a design simply because of a technical failure to pay a fee or register a form. This legislation will correct that area of the law; again, this is a small change but one that will be valuable to business.

The Gas Act 1992 will be amended to clarify that any regulations recommended by the Gas Industry Co. Ltd under Part 4A of the Act will cover gas to be used as a feedstock. That will clear up a previous area of unnecessary uncertainty.

The Weights and Measures Act 1987 will be amended to provide that the control of LPG gas should occur only under the Gas Act 1992 and not also under the Weights and Measures Act. Again, that is an example of how, in legislating less than precisely and carefully, this House can impose burdens under more than one piece of legislation, which business then needs to comply with. We are now correcting that, but there must be thousands of other examples of this sort of problem in the statute book where we impose a burden on those who are trying to make a living and contribute to our prosperity, and we should take seriously the fixing of such problems. In that regard I recall the comments made by Lianne Dalziel in her speech. There is a real case for this exercise to be an annual one, in order to deal with the sorts of reforms that fall midway between Statutes Amendment bills, which come up regularly on a omnibus basis, and the full, substantive measures that clearly would not be justified in terms of the House’s time to deal with these sorts of glitches.

The changes that I have briefly referred to by way of example are minor but provide much-needed certainty. They are just a few examples of the sorts of practical, effective changes that Lianne Dalziel made sure were included in the bill, after many months of talking to businesses about the need for amending legislation and minor reform. The New Zealand business community and the New Zealand public deserve an honest representation of what this reform is about, and it is cheering to have heard Mr Finlayson, in his introductory words, give due credit to Lianne Dalziel for bringing this legislation before Parliament. It is appropriate legislation.

I will deal, though, with one comment made by the previous speaker, Sam Lotu-Iiga, when he referred to a decline in exports. In an earlier contribution, on the dairy industry restructuring legislation, John Boscawen referred to a breakfast that he and I were at earlier with European members of Parliament, in relation to climate change. One of the potential problems identified in that discussion was the potential for export barriers to be raised by certain trading blocs, as a result of the possibility of a perception arising in those different markets that others were not taking the issue of climate change seriously. Again, this provides an important reminder that all policy issues are interlinked, and we cannot simply assume that an action taken in one area will have positive action in another. We have to make sure that there is joined-up policy. This bill is just a small example of that.

As I have said, this is timely legislation; it is useful legislation. Although there is absolutely no justification for progressing the bill under urgency through its final stages, Labour will support its passage, because we originated the measure and because it is good law.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I will begin by picking up exactly where Charles Chauvel left off, with the principle in relation to urgency. The Regulatory Improvement Bill has been on the Order Paper for some years. It originated with the Quality Regulation Review in 2007, and it seems extraordinary to me that Parliament is now in urgency to consider its remaining stages. There seems to me to be nothing about the bill that would justify urgency. There is nothing urgent about the implementation of any of the detail of the bill, so it fails to meet the test of urgency for this Parliament. On that basis I register the Green Party’s objection to the use of urgency to progress the bill.

The previous speakers from both the National and Labour sides of the House have spoken about the background to not only this bill but this type of bill, and about the principle of examining existing legislation and regulation with a view to streamlining them both, so that the interests of civil society and of business are advanced without cost to the public. I guess the Green Party would lend its support to the principle that in situations where we can streamline legislation and regulation without cost to the public we ought to do so, and to the principle that an omnibus bill is an appropriate way to advance the necessary changes to regulation that are identified in that way. We support that principle.

In the first reading debate on this bill there was considerable discussion about the principle that such a bill should be uncontroversial, and I have heard the Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson repeat that principle in the House today—that this bill should be about uncontroversial measures. This is where the Green Party parts company with National and Labour on this bill. That raises an important constitutional point. Our Parliament has moved from the elected dictatorship of first past the post to an MMP environment, so the fact that National and Labour agree on the provisions of the bill does not make the bill uncontroversial. In the first reading debate I outlined the Green Party’s strenuous objections to several of the provisions in the bill. I raised some concerns about the changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and in particular I spoke about the proposed changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, which seem to me to be entirely objectionable and not to fit the tests for inclusion in the bill—and I will speak some more about those matters. For that reason, the Green Party will continue to oppose this bill.

I want to talk some more about the principle on which this bill is based, because, again, I have heard the Minister the Hon Chris Finlayson repeat in the House today the statutory basis, or the Standing Orders basis, for this kind of bill. He has again cited Standing Order 264(a), which has now become Standing Order 259(a). That states that an omnibus bill to amend more than one Act can be introduced if “the amendments deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy”. The Government, in the explanatory note of the bill, claims that that single broad policy is to improve the regulatory framework and reduce the compliance burden on business. Then it goes on to further elaborate on that broad objective.

For example, it states that the initiatives in the bill address “regulatory duplication, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business.” The Government states: “In keeping with the scope of the Review they”—the measures—“target poor implementation and administration of various regulatory frameworks.” The explanatory note of the bill then goes on to talk about how “these many small gains can make a larger overall impact in removing barriers to economic growth.”—I will not debate the desirability of economic growth, although that is a live debate in this House—and again uses rhetoric about transformation.

The Government claims that this bill contains a broad suite of measures to address all those goals, that they are uncontroversial, and that for that reason they meet the test set out in Standing Order 259(a). The Green Party is strongly opposed to the changes in the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, and that means the bill is not uncontroversial. I note the Government’s intent to split the bill in the Committee of the whole House into separate bills, but at this stage, during the second reading debate, the bill stills fits under the umbrella of Standing Order 259(a). I will submit to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, at the conclusion of this speech, that in fact the bill does not fit the test required by that Standing Order and should not proceed.

The concerns that I talk about in this debate are ones that I raised during the first reading, and it is disappointing to me that the Commerce Committee did not consider the issues that I raised at that point, because the problem that I am raising today could have been dealt with at that time by the select committee. In my first reading speech I offered the Green Party’s cooperation to all sides of House to deal with those problems, and it is a disappointment to me that the offer was not taken up.

I will talk in particular about the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, because they do two things: firstly, they raise the maximum period of a concession from the current maximum of 5 years to a maximum of 10 years, and, secondly, they also provide for there to be discretion not to publicly notify such concessions. I say neither of those measures in fact meets any of the objectives set out in the explanatory note of the bill or required by Standing Order 259(a). Most of the provisions in the bill do meet the test of being regarded as implementing a single broad policy—in this case, the broad policy of improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business—but neither the changes to the Conservation Act nor the changes to the Reserves Act meets the test. Neither of those is about that, at all. In fact, those changes are about other measures that the Government has chosen to put into this omnibus bill. Therefore they fail to meet the test, and the bill should be ruled out of order on that basis.

The increase in concessions—for example, moving the maximum period for a concession from 5 years to 10 years—does not improve the regulatory framework at all. Sure, it probably reduces the compliance costs for the particular business that has that concession, but it actually increases costs and creates barriers to good business practice for every other business. Also, it creates problems for the New Zealand public, because the New Zealand public have an interest in the conservation estate, and that interest is not well served by that increase in the concession period. I will talk about that during the Committee stage. I will wind up my speech at this point, but I will immediately take a point of order.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Regulatory Improvement Bill does not meet the test set out in Standing Order 259(a), which requires that the amendments in such an omnibus bill “deal with an interrelated topic that can be regarded as implementing a single broad policy”. The specific changes that are proposed to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act do not fit within the broad policy objectives set out in the explanatory note of the bill of “improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business.” That is not what the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act are proposed to be about. Therefore, the bill—because all of the changes in the bill are currently still under the umbrella of that Standing Order—does not meet the test and should be ruled out.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Which Standing Order is the member quoting from? Is it 264(a)?

KEVIN HAGUE: Standing Order 264(a) has now become Standing Order 259(a), if I am correct in hearing the Attorney-General’s first speech in the second reading.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Very briefly, there are two issues. The first is the question of timing. It is too late to take that point. It should have been raised, if it was to be raised at all, when the Business Committee was dealing with the bill. Secondly, if members look at the report of the Standing Orders Committee, they will see Speaker’s ruling 98/3, which states: “The current [omnibus bill] rules allow for an approach that facilitates … the inclusion in a single bill of a number of interrelated amendments that improve the coherence of provisions ….”—so far, so good—“Proposed amendments must have a common purpose”—in my second reading speech I went through a number of those purposes—“or be linked to some broad policy objective.”

KEVIN HAGUE: In responding to the points raised by the Attorney-General in that contribution, I say his speech in the second reading did not refer to the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, which are the specific ones that I say do not fit the broad policy objectives required by that Standing Order. Regarding the first point raised by the Attorney-General, it is my understanding that the Standing Orders are still live at any point while a bill is being debated. This bill is still being considered by the House under the rubric of that Standing Order, and therefore the fact that this issue was not raised in the Business Committee does not mean that a point of order cannot be taken at this point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): There is a very clear chronology in terms of how these matters are actually dealt with. The question of an omnibus bill meeting the requirements of the Standing Orders is addressed at the introduction of the bill. The House has now accepted that the provisions in this omnibus bill meet those requirements. In that respect, the member’s point of order is not upheld.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call this morning on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I will address some issues that the previous speaker, Kevin Hague, talked about. The first is about urgency. This Government is about action, and urgency is part of that action. It has been said before that this bill has been sitting on the Order Paper for a significant period of time, so if we are serious about getting legislation through, sometimes we need to go into urgency to do it. A bill like this does not have a high priority on the Order Paper, and it can sit there for a very long period of time. For those businesses that rely on changes in regulations to update their regulations and keep them relevant to the environment they are in currently, because we are in a business environment that changes very, very quickly, it is important that we keep legislation current with the environment those businesses are in. This legislation is part of that plan, and this Government is committed to making change and to making a difference.

The Hon Lianne Dalziel got up earlier and talked about how she had gone up and down the country talking to hundreds of businesses around New Zealand. They all said the same thing: as much as regulation is important—and it is important for investors to have confidence in the environment, and for them to have confidence in their investing they do need regulation—they do not need a lot of regulation all the time. We do not need to put layers and layers of regulation upon businesses. Governments are very good at regulating, but they are not very good at looking at regulations already in place, to ensure that the regulations are still current and that they are still getting benefits from those regulations. So that is why this bill is very important.

This bill is an omnibus bill; a vehicle to improve frameworks and reduce compliance burdens on businesses in a timely fashion. I know that the previous Green speaker questioned whether this bill should be standing as it is, but I believe that it should. I believe there is a common thread that runs through this bill in all areas. I know that it will be broken up into different bills later on after a later stage, but at this stage it is a good vehicle for getting small changes through. Otherwise, the Order Paper would be clogged up, and we would never get these small, not-quite-so-important bills through because bigger bills will always take preference.

The current bill addresses certain low-hanging fruit reforms. The visions in the bill came out of the Quality Regulation Review undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007. I thank the Hon Lianne Dalziel for the hard work she put into this omnibus regulations bill, in making sure that the whole House bought into this bill she put forward and worked with. The Quality Regulation Review worked with many, many stakeholders, over a period of about 18 months, I believe, to put something together that would work. Hopefully, we will have a bill like this going through the House every year, to change some of those regulations that are not as relevant as they were when they first came in.

I am taking just a very short call. I will be speaking at the Committee stage and on the third reading this morning, as well. I look forward to speaking at those stages.

STUART NASH (Labour): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. Why? Because it is very much a common-sense bill. I will tell the House why I like the bill, and then I will tell the House how it came about.

The reason this bill is so good is that it provides a framework for the process of continuous legislative improvement. It makes it easier to get things done, to do business, to make regulatory change, and to make legislative change in areas that affect the everyday lives of hard-working New Zealanders. The bill is an example of one of the many pieces of legislative innovation that Labour championed and brought to the House. As we all know, this bill was introduced to the House by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It is amazing that we are considering it under urgency, about 2 years after it was first brought to the House, but that is OK; at least it is coming into the House. Let us give credit where credit is due. I certainly know there will be many businesses out there that understand what this legislation represents.

As the former Minister of Commerce and instigator of the process, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, said in one of her speeches in the House on this legislation: “It is really important that we have regular opportunity, as a Parliament, to tidy up those issues that are not perhaps insignificant enough to make it into a Statutes Amendment Bill, but not significant enough to warrant a bill in their own right. Although it is fair to say that the amendments contained in the Regulatory Improvement Bill are not particularly dramatic, the bill itself is another deliverable of the Quality Regulation Review.” That statement was from Lianne Dalziel, and she did a fantastic job in bringing this legislation to the House and also chairing the Commerce Committee. I give my congratulations to her. The reason why I like this bill is that it makes progress. It is positive, and represents the outcome of a plan that resulted from consultation. It is good legislation.

Let me tell the House how this bill came about. It is a very good example of how to do things properly and make a difference in a way that is truly measurable, informed, and representative of the wishes of the core constituency, our employers—the people of New Zealand. Let us start at the beginning. As I have already mentioned, hats off to the Hon Lianne Dalziel because the Quality Regulation Review, undertaken by former Minister Dalziel, addressed regulatory barriers to business growth. We all know that the Labour Party is the party of business. This legislation is just another example of how Labour members go out there, talk to businesses, and implement the legislation that businesses want. We are for the many, not the few; for the many businesses, not the few—we all know that.

The Quality Regulation Review was a broad review that looked at anomalies, inconsistencies, and duplications across the Government’s regulatory framework. As well as correcting errors, the review aimed to develop ways of ensuring new rules were efficient from a business perspective. The review established that when businesses deal with the Government, they do not see discreet agencies like the Inland Revenue Department, the Accident Compensation Corporation, and the Occupational Safety and Health Service of the Department of Labour. Rather they see a single entity: the Government. Accordingly, businesses were frustrated by having to provide the same information over and over again to different agencies. The Quality Regulation Review confirmed that New Zealand’s regulatory environment is generally in good shape. Of course it would be in good shape; there were about 8 years of a Labour Government, before this bill came into place, to get the stuff sorted out that had been put into such disrepair by the Bolger Government. After 8 years the regulatory environment was in pretty good shape. New Zealand consistently ranked highly in the World Bank’s Doing Business database. In fact, the 2010 global survey found that New Zealand is the second-easiest country in which to do business, and I think we can thank the previous Labour Government for that. Adding to the positive reputation as a business partner that New Zealand enjoys, we consistently rank highly under Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. We were first in 2009 and first equal many times before then.

Business was closely involved in the review process. Business networks, for example the chambers of commerce, Business New Zealand, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, and industry associations have acted as a conduit for business input into the review. In fact, 130 individual businesses in the four sectors were interviewed about what they see as priorities and issues. The former Minister Lianne Dalziel heard from focus groups. Imagine setting up a focus group and actually talking to people! That is a novel approach for members on the Government side of the House, but Labour did it the whole time during its 9 years in Government.

The Minister set up these focus groups nationwide and we received submissions from individual businesses through the Business Consultation Website. It was a very involved and a very consultative process. It was not done under urgency; it was done in good time, under proper procedure. Labour and Lianne Dalziel looked at the regulatory framework, and at how new regulations were made from a business perspective. As well as introducing this bill, the previous Government strengthened the regulatory impact analysis regime to ensure that future regulation properly identified the problem and looked at all options for resolving it. Once again, Lianne Dalziel and the Labour Government went out and talked to people. They talked to the people who were affected by this sort of legislation. This is why this is such good legislation.

Here is an example of a hard-working Minister who went out and listened to the people. She heard from people and then acted upon their recommendations. As we know, this bill has gone through all the proper processes. The fact that the bill is going through under urgency is probably unfair because it was a long and involved process; in fact, it should have been passed a year ago. But anyway, here we are. That is what Labour does, and Lianne Dalziel epitomises this work ethic.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: That’s seven mentions.

STUART NASH: There was no sitting behind her desk, I say to Sam. She was travelling the country, talking to people and businesses, and only then coming up with legislation that really makes a difference. The changes proposed in this bill cover a wide range of policy areas and legislation, but they are all aimed at improving regulatory frameworks and reducing the compliance burden on business. I say thank you to Lianne Dalziel. To tell the truth—and I do not mean to be disrespectful here, at all—I just cannot see Rodney Hide or Simon Power doing this. This bill would not be before the House if Messrs Hide and Power were in charge, because I simply could not see them getting in their cars and travelling from Cape Reinga to Bluff, consulting and talking.

Charles Chauvel: Well, if they had another car following.

STUART NASH: The member is dead right—if there were two or three cars; a cavalcade. But they would not be talking to people because they would need all the cameras for the smile and wave photo opportunities. This was serious business of the Government; I could not see Mr Hide doing that. That is why this is a Labour bill. That is how we operate. We travel the country, listening to the people. We sometimes get criticised for getting out there and talking to Kiwis up and down this wonderful country.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my friend Mr Nash but I wonder whether you could remind Mr Lotu-Iiga of Speaker’s ruling 8/4, which requires members not to refer to what is happening in the gallery. It is out of order, and the member has done it at least twice.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that the ruling talks about speakers. The member was interjecting, so he is not necessarily a speaker. Can I say—[Interruption] Excuse me, I am ruling here. Can we have some quiet please.

The second point is that I have been a little bit concerned about the nature of the debate. The interjections have been responded to and we are getting a cross flow. Also, members are referring to each other by their first name. I could have taken a point of order and straightened that up, but I was hoping to let the speech flow so that we could get on with the business of the House. But having had the interruption I say that we will not refer to people in the gallery, we will not refer to members by their first names, and we will speak to this very interesting legislation, which we are all seized with—the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I invite Stuart Nash to continue.

STUART NASH: As I was saying, we are public servants and we are employed to represent the will of the people, so why would we not get out there? At the moment, I am talking about the process of this bill, how it came about, and why it is such good legislation. I was saying that the reason why it is such good legislation is that we went out and talked to people. We talked to businesses up and down the country—well, Lianne Dalziel did that. She sought feedback from wherever she was and, as a consequence, has come up with very, very good legislation. I suppose that is evidenced by the fact that everyone in this House is supporting it.

I come back to this bill. This is an omnibus bill that makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation, with the object of improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business. As I was saying, everyone knows that the Labour Party is the true party of business. It is the only party that has brought a bill to the House that actually reduces the compliance burden on business, and they will be very thankful for that.

The bill amends the Companies Act, the Conservation Act, the Designs Act, the Fisheries Act, the Gas Act, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act, the Reserves Act, and the Weights and Measures Act. There is a lot of good stuff in here. The reason why this legislation is here is that we went out and we talked to people. We asked them what they would like in this sort of bill. People said: “This is what we would like to see.” And this legislation is the result of that.

As the Hon Lianne Dalziel said, the intention is to have an annual Regulatory Improvement Bill. I hope the National Government sticks with that, because every time there is one it makes life easier for companies to undertake their business. We should pay homage to the Hon Lianne Dalziel who, as we all know, chairs the Commerce Committee that came up with this wonderful legislation. In fact, she is the only Labour chair of a select committee, and I believe that is why this legislation is so good. As I said, it is what she does differently. Many of the ongoing work programmes established as a result of the Quality Regulation Review address these interface issues. The reason I have outlined why I am supporting the Regulatory Improvement Bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I regret to advise the member that his time has expired.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): My understanding is that this is the second reading debate on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I was not intending to take a call on this bill, but I have been listening to Mr Stuart Nash this morning and I have heard very little about the bill and the things that are in it. In fact, Mr Nash used his opportunity to promote Lianne Dalziel. I was not counting, but I understand that Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga was, and I think her name was mentioned nine times.

I need to respond to some of the comments that Mr Nash made about Lianne Dalziel. I agree that Lianne Dalziel is a good listener, and she is a very good chair of the Commerce Committee. I had the pleasure of attending a function in Hawke’s Bay with her just on 2 weeks ago, when she launched her member’s bill. In fact, Mr Nash knows that well, because he was there on the day, initially, as well.

We also heard from Mr Nash that the Labour Party is the true party of business, and he talked about a consultation process. He said that Lianne Dalziel had travelled around the country from North Cape to the Bluff, consulting and listening. But then, sadly, Mr Nash could not pass up the opportunity to try to screw the knife in. He said that he could not see Rodney Hide and Simon Power travelling around and consulting the country. As an ACT member, I cannot allow those comments to go unchallenged.

Hone Harawira: Hear, hear!

JOHN BOSCAWEN: I thank Mr Hone Harawira for that. Those comments cannot go unchallenged, because Mr Rodney Hide, the other three ACT MPs, and I are the only MPs who are listening to the people of New Zealand on the emissions trading scheme. We are the only people listening.

I find it interesting that Mr Nash talks about the Labour Party being the party of business. If Labour had had its way and won the last election, we would have already had a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity. From 1 January this year, we would have had a 10 percent increase in the price of electricity. We would have had massive windfall profits going to those power generators that produce electricity from hydro sources—renewable sources—and then do not have to pay the emissions trading scheme tax because they are not burning up coal or gas.

Mr Hide is a listener. He fought virtually single-handedly against the emissions trading scheme in the last Parliament. He absolutely, totally opposed it. I attended a breakfast this morning with European parliamentarians, where the comment was made that there is a general consensus between Labour and National on the emissions trading scheme, and that it would have been a very tough job for Mr Hide to represent the views of the people and to stand up and speak out against it.

Mr Hide listens; I cannot speak for Mr Power. I hope that Mr Power—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Nine times.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: Oh, nine comments, was it, for Lianne Dalziel? I have mentioned her name a couple of times myself. I hope that Mr Power is listening to the voices of business. I hope that he is listening to consumers, I hope that he is listening to families, and I hope that he is listening to farmers. We are introducing a tax on our farmers that will result in windfall profits, and I cannot let those comments go unchallenged. Thank you.

STUART NASH (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who has just resumed his seat criticised me for not mentioning much of what is in this bill, but I do not even think I heard the name of the bill in that speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The point of order is redundant; the member has finished his speech.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to speak in the second reading of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I want to make a couple of points. I agree with what the previous speaker, John Boscawen, said in terms of Mr Nash’s speech. It was almost as if it were Groundhog Day. The speech was repeated over and over and I think it was the same one that Lianne Dalziel delivered only a couple of minutes ago, or was it an hour ago? It has been a long sitting session. It is like déjà vu.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: All over again.

MELISSA LEE: It has been a bit like déjà vu; it is all over again. It was very interesting to listen to Mr Nash mention Lianne Dalziel. As much as I adore Lianne Dalziel—she is a lovely woman and she is the chairperson of the Commerce Committee—to suggest that she has done all this work and this bill would not be here without her is ridiculous. She drives really well in Christchurch; she drove me back to my hotel.

Personal things aside, if it was up to the Labour Party then this bill would be languishing on the Order Paper. It is the National-led Government that is committed to growing this economy. We are bringing this bill forward and making sure that it is getting a hearing. It is about cutting red tape and I think it is a great bill. I am glad we have a lot of support for it. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I rise with great pleasure to support the Regulatory Improvement Bill. As a number of my colleagues have said before me, it is a common-sense bill that will make it easier to do business. Labour is supporting this bill. As has been mentioned, it is an omnibus bill that makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation in order to improve the regulatory framework and reduce the compliance cost on businesses. It is an important bill.

It is important that I correct the previous speaker, Melissa Lee, who said that the bill would not have come before the House if this Government had not brought it. The bill was actually submitted to the House before the last election. It is very unclear—given the importance of the bill, the sensible nature of it, and all the previous work that has gone into it—why it is being rushed through the House under urgency. I think it is important that we note there is no reason for it to be considered under urgency.

An enormous amount of work has gone into this legislation, and that is largely due to the important work done by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. She has had a number of mentions in the House today. I think that she deserves a lot of credit for this bill.

Labour supports this bill, not because it has been rushed through the House under urgency by the Government but because it is the result of the very careful 15-month Quality Regulation Review. There has been a lot of consultation with Government agencies and 200 businesses. The previous Labour Government knew a lot about consultation and how to do it properly. This Government does not appear to know a lot about consultation. It seems to think that rushing bills through the House under urgency reflects consultation with New Zealand people. This bill is more important than its content. The previous Labour Government listened very carefully to businesses and set about implementing their recommendations, whereas the style of the Minister in charge of this bill, the Minister for Regulatory Reform, Rodney Hide, is to ignore recommendations and come up with his own plan. That does not bode well for New Zealand businesses, because they will get what Mr Rodney Hide says they need.

The important point to make about this bill is that the Hon Lianne Dalziel, when she was Minister of Commerce—how many times have I mentioned her?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: You’re only up to three.

CLARE CURRAN: She consulted widely on the Quality Regulation Review, which led to this bill. It appears that Mr Rodney Hide, the so-called Minister for Regulatory Reform, does not and will not place as much emphasis on consultation. Of course, the key example of that is the Auckland super-city, where a reasonably sham process disguised as consultation has been undergone in terms of consulting Aucklanders. The way that this bill has been introduced to the House does not reflect the work that has gone into it—another important point to make. But it certainly reflects the approach of the National-ACT Government to lawmaking, and that is to have no consultation.

The bill makes some small, uncontroversial, but very important changes to the regulatory environment. The Quality Regulation Review, which was led by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, led to a greatly enhanced regulatory impact statement regime, which is another thing that the previous Labour Government should be very proud of. That regime is largely due to the work of the Hon Lianne Dalziel, my colleague who is the chair of the Commerce Committee.

The Commerce Committee is generally a very effective committee. We all work together very cooperatively and harmoniously in the main, largely due to the extremely experienced chairing skills of the Hon Lianne Dalziel. All of my colleagues across the House who sit on the Commerce Committee, even the ones who have subbed on the committee, comment on how well it is chaired by the Hon Lianne Dalziel and what a pleasure it is to sit on it.

As I said, Labour introduced this bill, but the credit is being taken by Minister Rodney Hide. It is important to make the point that annual Regulatory Improvement bills are a sensible way of ensuring that quality regulation takes place, unlike the ACT Party’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill, which is still languishing on the Order Paper.

I will make a couple of comments about the process that led up to this bill. It was introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel in response to the Quality Regulation Review. The review found that when businesses deal with the Government, they do not see discrete agencies. That is a really important point. Citizens view the Government and the services that it provides for both citizens and businesses as a single entity. They do not want to see a whole lot of individual organisations separately. They would like to—and do—see a single entity, the Government. Because of the requirement to deal with all the single entities, businesses in particular become frustrated at having to provide the same information over and over again to different agencies.

Labour looked at the regulatory framework under the leadership of the Hon Lianne Dalziel, and new regulations were made from a business perspective. As well as introducing this bill, Labour strengthened the regulatory impact analysis regime to ensure that future regulation properly identified the problems to be solved. Labour looked at all of the potential options for resolving it.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: They’ve taken the regulatory impact statements out of the bills.

CLARE CURRAN: The Government has taken them out. It was quite difficult to access the regulatory impact statement for this bill. My office had to go through quite a rigmarole this morning. The Hon Lianne Dalziel has spoken to the House about this issue on a number of occasions. Public access to the regulatory impact statement is extremely important.

Another thing that the previous Labour Government launched as part of the Quality Regulation Review, which was led by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel, was a 2-year trial of a business cost calculator that quantifies the compliance costs of regulation. The business compliance cost calculator is a software tool that allows Government officials to calculate the true cost for businesses of any regulations that they are recommending to the Government. The tool is designed to assist policy makers to create higher-quality regulation in a uniform and efficient manner. A similar type of tool is being used successfully in Australia and in some European countries. The Australian model is currently being adapted for use in the New Zealand environment. It is envisaged that in the long term the use of this tool will support greater productivity and competitiveness by allowing more resources to be applied to core business activities. The business cost calculator is just one of the measures introduced through the Quality Regulation Review led by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. She had an absolute commitment to making it easier for businesses to do business in New Zealand and to putting sensible measures in place. This bill is the result of that work.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): It is my pleasure to stand and speak on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I must admit that the Commerce Committee is a very enjoyable select committee to work on, no doubt due to the fantastic contribution of the deputy chair, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. It is second only to the enjoyment of working on the Law and Order Committee, as you, Mr Assistant Speaker, would agree. That committee is fantastically led, as well.

There is a very famous statement by the Rt Hon Winston Churchill, who said: “If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.” The provisions of this bill remove the unnecessary encumberments and redundant issues of regulation that have a negative effect, with no just purpose any longer. It is a good process to go through. It is a process we are committed to because it assists businesses in many different ways to not be encumbered by unnecessary regulations. It takes time and expense to fulfil requirements that do not have the purpose of making business any better; nor do they necessarily make government any better. There comes a time when we need to identify regulations through review and determine whether they have any current or future purpose in order to remain there.

I am advised that the Quality Regulation Review took 15 months to complete. It involved a wide range of Government agencies, as well as more than 130 businesses consulted, which I think the member opposite referred to, from North Cape to Bluff. Apparently there was a bit of a road trip by the previous Minister in order to do that. I am sure that that would have been an enjoyable trip. I am not quite sure who in Bluff she would have consulted with—perhaps those who farm and harvest oysters. I am not quite sure what businesses operate up in Cape Reinga. I have been there myself. I have enjoyed visiting the far reaches of our country, where I am sure there would be at least two businesses and 128 businesses in between, that that member would have consulted. I think consultation is very important. Engagement with business is the only way to understand the real impacts of the decisions we make as parliamentarians.

This bill contains 22 amendments to legislation. The broad objectives include improving the regulatory framework and reducing compliance burden on business. In times like these, we need to be enabling businesses to lift their heads up rather than having them all the way down doing the paperwork. They need to see what opportunities are coming before them. We know that regulation is important. Regulation gives confidence to people, it enables businesses to effectively work within confines and constraints that are reasonable, and it gives everybody the opportunity to live under one law. Thank you very much.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): As part of my contribution, I would like to pay tribute, first, to the Hansard Office and, second, to the wonderful, hard-working, good lawyer turned good member of Parliament, the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Because of the Hansard Office, we have the speech notes readily available for us to reflect on, and to bear witness to, how history repeats itself.

The honourable member who spoke before me, Jonathan Young, quoted Winston Churchill. Interestingly, in the Regulatory Improvement Bill’s first reading in May 2009, if my memory serves me well, the Hon Tariana Turia also quoted Winston Churchill. I would like to quote her: “Winston Churchill and Rodney Hide have something in common, apart from looks, though Rodney is definitely in better shape. It was Churchill who famously said that if there are 10,000 regulations, all respect for the law is destroyed.”

Almost 80 years later Mr Hide has introduced a bill to do something to address, once and for all, the duplications, gaffes, errors, and inconsistencies that make a mockery of our law. I was very lucky in May 2009 to have the opportunity to rise and take a call on the bill’s first reading. I responded to the Hon Tariana Turia that Winston Churchill would have been very pleased to hear what I was about to say in the next 10 minutes or so. Then I said that Mr Churchill was a great statesman and a great historian. Given his great historic status, let us look briefly at the historical side of the Regulatory Improvement Bill.

I join my colleagues in congratulating the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who introduced this bill in September 2008. The Hon Lianne Dalziel made history in September 2008. She introduced a brand-new bill that aimed to improve some existing laws and reduce compliance costs for businesses. More important, I would like to remind members that the bill was introduced as a result of the careful 15-month Quality Regulation Review, and reflected consultation between Government agencies and 200 businesses. Therefore, I rise to support this bill, both for its content and for the way in which it was introduced. In that regard, to some extent the bill itself may be more important than its content.

The Hon Lianne Dalziel and the Labour-led Government listened to business people and set about implementing their recommendations. As I pointed out nearly 12 months ago, at the bill’s first reading, consultation is particularly relevant. We have witnessed—this week and many times in the past month in this honourable House—recommendations being systematically ignored and legislation being rammed through. To borrow the Hon Tariana Turia’s words, what makes a mockery of our law and the way we as lawmakers make our law is that such important legislation can be rammed through in such a manner.

I want to reiterate what my colleagues Stuart Nash and Clare Curran said previously. Labour supports this bill—it is Labour’s bill, anyway—because it is the result of the careful 15-month Quality Regulation Review and reflects consultation between Government agencies and 200 businesses. As Stuart Nash has just said, the Labour Party is a true party for business people and of business. The bill is more important than its content.

For the benefit of Mr John Boscawen I reiterate that Labour listened to business people and set about implementing their recommendations, whereas the style of his ACT Party is to ignore recommendations and come up with its own plan. This is a typical example of the National-ACT approach to lawmaking—that is, there is no consultation.

I return to the bill. The bill makes small and controversial, but important, changes to the regulatory environment. The Quality Regulation Review also led to a greatly enhanced regulatory impact statement regime. This is yet another bill that was introduced by Labour, and the Hon Rodney Hide is taking credit for it. Regulatory improvement bills are a sensible way of ensuring quality regulation, unlike the ACT Party’s Regulatory Responsibility Bill, which languishes on the Order Paper.

Thank you for the opportunity to take a call. I look forward to the debate in the Committee stage. Thank you very much.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Regulatory Improvement Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 9; Māori Party 5.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts): I seek leave for all the provisions of the Regulatory Improvement Bill to be taken as one question, and for the debate to be of no more than 3 hours’ duration.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to.

Parts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Committee stage of this bill. This will be the first of a number of calls I will be taking in this area, because obviously this bill had its genesis in decisions that were taken through a Labour Cabinet. In fact, the bill was introduced in my name prior to the last general election. Since that time it has been picked up by the now Minister for Regulatory Reform, and I place on record my congratulations to the Government on having a Minister for Regulatory Reform. It is an excellent concept. It is the same as the Labour Government having a Minister for Small Business. It is worthwhile having somebody whose single focus, pretty much, in that portfolio space is on small business. In the current Government, this concept of regulatory reform as being a significant driver for the Government is one that we support on this side of the Chamber. I was kind of a de facto Minister of Regulatory Reform because of the work that I did on the Quality Regulation Review.

A number of people who have spoken on this bill have talked about it being the outcome of the Quality Regulation Review. It is not the only one. It is only one small part of the Quality Regulation Review, which had a whole lot of different streams of work. One of those streams of work, even though it did seem to cause one Jonathan Young some angst, was the idea that I had spent my time travelling around different parts of New Zealand getting feedback from business. I found that to be the most enjoyable part of the review because it was something I was directly involved in. Some of the changes were made directly as a result of that one-on-one engagement. I found that there were really small things that were utter irritants to business, and removing some of the clutter assisted business to get on with their primary job. Not all of the provisions in this legislation fit within this category. I know that the Green Party members will be talking about the changes to the Conservation Act, so I thought I would comment on that one initially, but certainly I do want to come back in on some of the other issues as well.

We received very few submissions on the bill. I cannot remember the exact number, but there were very, very few indeed. [Interruption] There were 12 or so—a very small number. The issue that came up on the question of the changes to the Conservation Act was focused on a misreading of the bill and what it proposed to do. The argument that was brought to the Commerce Committee was that this would apply to leases. Of course, leases are not covered by the proposal; it is simply licences that are. Let me put on record what the response was from the Department of Conservation. It was the Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand that registered its opposition. It said that it opposed extending the term of permits to 10 years, with permits at present granted for a maximum of 5 years.

The submission questions the justification for the changes, particularly in terms of freeing time spent on processing permits, so more time can be spent on planning and environmental monitoring. The Federated Mountain Clubs considered that this was more about Department of Conservation prioritising than about business compliance costs, and it notes that most businesses obtaining permits are small, flexible businesses that do not require upfront investment to operate. It says that although they would benefit from greater business certainty by obtaining a longer-term permit, this does not outweigh the rights of New Zealanders to comment on the land’s management.

The response from the Department of Conservation was: “Over 300 new permits are applied for each year, with at least the same again being reissued each year. In obtaining a permit, significant staff and applicant effort occurs. Reducing the regularity for seeking a permit will reduce effort and cost and enable effort to be better placed in improved planning and management of concessions. Permits are granted for many activities, including some which require significant financial investment—e.g. aircraft landings, boating, guiding, grazing. A longer-term permit will provide greater certainty for investment in these opportunities. The Department of Conservation’s planning processes enable opportunity for public engagement on how public conservation lands and waters are managed over a 10-year period.”

Certainly, when we considered this matter at the select committee, it was felt that this was an issue that fitted within the purview of the legislation, but, more important, that the question of environmental protection and public engagement with the Department of Conservation over the estate was reasonably left to the broader planning role of the department, rather than requiring people to apply every 5 years.

Interestingly, I actually thought we had some information in here that we do not have, I say to the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Courts. I have not been able to find it in my notes since I realised that this would be a debatable issue in the context of this Committee stage. One of the pieces of information I think would be useful for the Committee, if the Minister could supply it, is how many of those 300 applications per annum are renewals and how many of them are challenged. If the reality is, as I recall the advice we got at the select committee, that almost none of them are challenged because they are ongoing concessions, then it would seem to me that we might be trying to make, dare I say it, a mountain out of a molehill—which is probably not fair to say, given that it was the Federated Mountain Clubs that raised the issue. Incredibly useful advice for the debate would be to know how many of them are normally opposed. My recollection would be that very, very few, if any, that are longstanding concessions in our Department of Conservation estate are in any way challenged by anyone, and have been a great opportunity for people to get engaged with our conservation estate, especially in terms of our tourism industry. It might be slightly different now with mining on national park land, but there we go; that is probably a debate for a different occasion.

The other issue I thought I would touch on was that there were a number of submissions in relation to the hazardous substances legislation, as well. One of the problems with the way the submitters came forward was that it appeared that they had not quite realised that the bill was not changing any of the GMO provisions in the legislation. So we ended up hearing a couple of submissions where people were genuinely concerned about something that genuinely was not happening. The commentary states: As nothing in this bill addresses or affects the regulation of genetically-modified organisms, as any changes to the regulation of such organisms is likely to be contentious, and as the purpose of this regulatory improvement omnibus bill is to address minor regulatory problems,”.

So, again, I say to the Minister that it would be useful if the Minister puts it on the record that this is not an intention of this legislation and it never was an intention of this legislation. I understand that the submitters were utterly genuine in the submissions they were making, and possibly it was useful that they brought the matter to our attention just to show that this was an issue that will continue to be of importance across New Zealand. But in this particular case it was not an issue that required the attention of our committee, because the bill itself did not cross the line into the area of genetic modification.

Having made those opening comments, I think it would be useful to have some clarity from the Minister, and if we can get those additional points of information to assist the Committee in the debate, I think that would be very useful.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East): The Regulatory Improvement Bill is about reducing the compliance cost of doing business. At this stage I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel for the work that she did as the previous Minister of Commerce in reducing the compliance costs on businesses. She introduced this bill on 9 September 2008. People say imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Lianne Dalziel can be well pleased that Rodney Hide has taken up this bill and is progressing it through the House, albeit without any consultation at all. This bill is the result of 15 months of careful consultation between Government agencies and over 200 businesses. That speaks volumes about the consultation process that the previous Minister undertook to ensure that the whole issue of compliance costs was addressed.

I remember, some years back, introducing a private member’s bill to this Parliament. It was called the Paperwork Reduction Bill. The whole idea of that bill was to reduce the cost of compliance for small businesses. At the time the media made hay of the fact that members had to produce 21 copies of their submissions in order for that bill to go forward. The whole thing was concerned with the efficiency and productivity of an organisation. That is where Lianne Dalziel needs to be recognised for the work that she did. There was also the Productivity Council Bill (No 3), which was introduced in 1989, and I see that 21 years later the National Government has decided to do something about that matter.

This legislation, after 15 months of consultation between the Government and other agencies, is finally starting to happen. That is due in no small part to the work that our Minister of Commerce did when she was in office. The bill takes a broad view that looks at anomalies, inconsistencies, and duplication across the Government’s regulatory framework. As well as correcting errors, the Quality Regulation Review aimed to develop ways of ensuring new rules were efficient from a business perspective.

I can remember visiting a small business in the South Island some years ago, and talking about the issue of compliance. I said we were going to look at the issue, and the guy who was doing paperwork in his office in, I think it was Winton, threw it all in the air and said “Thank goodness for that!”. The issue of compliance is a longstanding grievance for small business. I put it to members that it will continue to be a longstanding grievance for small business, because of the amount of time and effort required in order to adhere to Government regulations. Again, Lianne Dalziel needs to be recognised and complimented for addressing that issue.

I quote Lianne Dalziel, who said: “The bill is an important part of the Government’s overall effort to ensure that all our regulation is necessary. Our regulatory frameworks as a whole must be of the highest quality if our businesses are to compete internationally and be as innovative and productive as possible.” That is certainly the whole aim of this bill, and it is one of the reasons why the Opposition will be supporting this legislation. Businesses are frustrated by having to provide the same information over and over again, in different categories. Today, that is still one of the problems that we face. One hopes that this legislation will go some way towards rectifying that problem.

When Labour was in office we also launched a 2-year trial of a business cost calculator in order to quantify the compliance costs of regulation. When you were the Opposition spokesperson on small business, Mr Chairperson Tisch, I guarantee that one of the things you heard from small-business owners was that they were concerned about the issue of compliance. It is an age-old issue. This bill attempts to do something about it, and I again acknowledge the work that my colleague did in bringing this legislation to Parliament. She is to be commended and congratulated for doing so, and I know that also goes some way towards the work that you did, Mr Chairperson Tisch, when you were the Opposition spokesperson on small business.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I take a call to deal with some of the issues that the Regulations Review Committee drew to the attention of the Commerce Committee during its consideration of the legislation. But before I do, I advise the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp, that my colleague Lianne Dalziel raised two issues with the Minister who was in the chair before him, the Hon Georgina te Heuheu. I know that the officials will have made a note of those issues, but it would be good if he was cognisant of them. The first was whether, when he takes a call, the Minister could confirm the number of times that applications have been made under the Conservation Act in respect of the matters that are being dealt with by the legislation. The second is that I think it would be useful—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: And the number of objections.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: And the number of objections that have been received. It would also be good if we could have in the record of the proceedings of the Committee a confirmation that there is certainly no intended substantive change to the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No changes relating to GMOs.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Yes, a confirmation that there are no changes relating to genetically modified organisms. That would go a long way towards allaying some of the fears that the mention of that legislation clearly raised in the minds of some submitters.

I particularly draw the attention of the Committee to the three issues that the Regulations Review Committee drew to the attention of the Commerce Committee. I do so because it is not entirely clear from the record what the committee made of one of those matters in particular.

The first issue that was drawn to the attention of the committee related to the manner in which the original legislation was intended to be commenced. The provision originally in the legislation stated that the bill would come into force on a day to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. Members will be aware that over a number of years the Regulations Review Committee has expressed concern about this form of clause. Essentially, this provision is used very regularly overseas, particularly in Canada and the United Kingdom. It allows the executive the power to proclaim legislation, as opposed to Parliament itself fixing a date for legislation to come into force.

Various justifications are used for this sort of clause. The usual justification advanced is that officials need time to implement the technical matters that are referred to in the legislation, and that until that implementation work has been carried out, it is not possible to set a firm commencement date. The problem with that sort of argument is that we have seen in the last couple of years some extraordinary examples of delay in the coming into force of legislation. One example involved legislation that was delayed for 8 years between its passing and its coming into force.

I am pleased to see in the report of the Commerce Committee on this legislation that clause 2 is recommended to be amended so that the commencement date is to be the earlier of either a date to be appointed by the Governor-General or a day that is 12 months after the date on which the Act receives the Royal assent. It seems to me that the amendment is an appropriate response to the concerns that were expressed by the Regulations Review Committee. I thank the Commerce Committee for reaching a sensible accommodation on that first point of concern.

The second concern is where I would particularly like the Minister to take advice from the officials, if he would, and take a call. The second issue relates to the making of regulations without express controls, which is another major area of concern for our scrutiny committee. On this occasion the concern relates to clause 28, which inserts a new section 42C in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. New section 42C(3) would provide a power to “make regulations specifying the circumstances in which there is a low risk of adverse effects from— … (b) developing … a new organism … in containment.” This relates to organisms that are not genetically modified—I stress that point. But it will allow applications to develop organisms in containment to be rapidly assessed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

A similar regulation-making power exists in section 41 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, relating to so-called low-risk genetically modified organisms. It allows the Governor-General “from time to time, by Order in Council,” to “make regulations—(a) Specifying the procedures … (b) Specifying the probability that adverse effects will occur … (c) Specifying the circumstances in which genetic modification of an organism is a low risk genetic modification.”

New section 42C(3), relating to organisms that are not genetically modified, contains wording that is similar to that currently found in the existing section 41(c). Existing subsections 41(a) and (b), which relate to creating regulations specifying a standard process for making any assessment of risk of adverse effects from genetically modified organisms, have not been carried through into the bill in relation to non - genetically modified organisms.

Under section 41 of the Act, the standard process for assessing risk relating to genetically modified organisms must be promulgated by way of regulations. This ensures appropriate transparency and future technical scrutiny by Parliament. But under the bill, that safeguard is not carried through in respect of the assessment of risk for the development of organisms that are not genetically modified. There is no explanation in the explanatory note or in the report of the committee for the difference in approach between the existing section and the proposed new section.

The difference is contrary to the statement in the original explanatory note to the bill, which stated that it is intended that there be “consistency” in how both such applications are dealt with, meaning consistency between those relating to non - genetically modified organisms and those relating to genetically modified organisms. That is on page 26 of the original explanatory note of the bill. So I do think it is important, in respect of the assurance that I was asking for before and which Lianne Dalziel referred to, that we do not see any substantive change here in respect of GMOs, and that the decision not to have a consistent procedure as between GMOs and non-GMOs be a considered one. I think that is an important point.

The issue here is that the regulation-making power under proposed section 42C(3) does not have any expressed controls placed on it by the bill. This is not consistent with the Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines. They state that although empowering statutes should not generally prescribe the procedure for making delegated legislation: “Consideration should be given in each case as to whether a procedure, or any aspect of the procedure, should be specified.” This might include requirements for notice, consultation, or confirmation by Parliament of any regulations that result.

It is just not clear why the standard process that will be used to assess low-risk non-GMOs is not to be promulgated by way of regulations to provide transparency and future scrutiny consistent with section 41 of the Act. There may well be good reasons for the inconsistent approach, but they are not apparent. I think it would be helpful if we could get an explanation from the officials, via the Minister, of that point.

I have another issue to raise. It is the third matter dealt with by the Regulations Review Committee. It relates to Part 6, but I apprehend that I might be running out of time on this call, so I will reserve that matter for a future call. Thank you.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I take this opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. This bill was dealt with at the Commerce Committee, which I am a member of. I thank the members of the select committee for the time that they devoted to this bill, and I thank the people who made on submissions on the bill for their time. In total 10 submissions were received, three of which were heard by the Commerce Committee. We received advice from the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

The Commerce Committee made two main changes to the bill. The first change related to the Designs Act 1953. The Designs Act provides for the restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design in circumstances where the lapse was as a result of neglect to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. The Commerce Committee recommended that in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright and registered designs, the bill should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications. The committee also recommended that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographical details of design applications.

The change to the Designs Act in the bill relates to its coming into effect on the earlier of the following: 12 months after the bill receives Royal assent, or a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. However, clause 14, which enables regulations to be made, should come into effect on the day after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent, along with the rest of the bill. It also recommends that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographical details of design applications, and that the bill, in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs, should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications.

The second main change was around the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, which enables the delegation of technical decision-making power by the Environmental Risk Management Authority to the chief executive and other staff of the authority, or other persons, and it enables applications to import, develop, or field test non - genetically modified organisms, or non-GMOs as they are called, in containment to be treated consistently with each other and with applications to import or develop low-risk genetically modified organisms in containment. It also enables applications for conditional release of low-risk non-GMOs to be treated consistently with applications for full release of low-risk non-GMOs.

There is a whole list of other things that this Act does. The changes proposed by the Commerce Committee include a recommendation that the provision in the bill amending section 141A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, which relates to incorporation by reference of material into regulations and other instruments, be amended to conform with new standard clauses prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to give effect to the principles established by the Regulations Review Committee and its inquiry into material incorporated by reference in 2004. Those are the two main changes to the bill.

As I said earlier, this omnibus bill makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation, with the objective of improving the whole of the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business. The Acts that are to be amended are the Companies Act 1993, the Conservation Act 1987, the Designs Act 1953, the Fisheries Act 1996, the Gas Act 1992, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996—

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): In relation to the specific questions asked by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, the officials have provided me with specific answers. Three hundred permits were applied for; they were new applications. In addition, there were 350 renewals as well. It should be noted that very few of the 300 new applications were notified, with the reason being that they were low-impact activities. However, I can inform the Committee that over a 2-year period 157 particular concessions were notified, but only 22 of those actually received submissions from, I guess, members of the public. The concessions were in relation to licences and leases.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, no, not leases.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is what I am advised. I am advised that the concessions that were notified related mostly to licences and leases.

In relation to the very interesting points raised by Mr Chauvel, I note that as he went through clause 28, which inserts section 42C, I think he kind of answered his own question. The regime set out there, which as he specifically noted relates to organisms other than genetically modified organisms, is in respect of low-risk situations. That is why there is that particular procedure. As for the issues around the commencement dates, they have all been set out in Supplementary Order Paper 117. I think, from going through that Supplementary Order Paper, that the concerns raised by Mr Chauvel have been very carefully considered.

STUART NASH (Labour): I will talk a little bit about some of the provisions of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. It is good that the bill is being dealt with as one question, as each part relates to a different Act, so that decision makes a lot of sense and is expedient. I will give a little bit of background. As members have talked about, this bill came out of extensive reviews and consultation with industry representatives up and down the country by Lianne Dalziel and the rest of the Labour team. It is a very good bill that makes a lot of sense. It is common-sense legislation, which is what we are here to pass.

As mentioned, this omnibus bill amends nine Acts. Let us have a look at them; the first is the Companies Act 1993. The main provision under this bill is that under the Financial Reporting Act certain companies with overseas ownership will no longer be required to file audited financial statements with the Registrar of Companies. Those companies at present must appoint an auditor, under the Companies Act 1993. The provision makes sense. Most other companies may, by the unanimous resolution of shareholders, elect not to appoint an auditor, so the bill puts such companies with overseas ownership in the same position as other companies. Members of the Committee will remember that a number of bills have gone through the Finance and Expenditure Committee to tidy up a lot of this sort of legislation, as well. This bill will reduce the unnecessary compliance costs for those companies due to the inconsistency between the two pieces of legislation. If there is one thing that Labour has worked very hard for—and did work very hard for in its 9 years in Government—it is to reduce unnecessary compliance costs, and I think it has been very successful in that role. This bill continues with that, because as we know this was a bill introduced by Labour and the Hon Lianne Dalziel.

Let us now look at the provisions for the Designs Act 1953. As my colleague Charles Chauvel has mentioned, that Act is an old piece of legislation; it is about time it was amended. The bill provides restoration of lapsed copyright in a registered design, in circumstances where the lapse is a result of neglecting to pay a renewal fee or failing to make the necessary application. The Commerce Committee recommended that in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs, the bill should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications, and that is becoming more and more applicable in this day and age of globalisation. A country like New Zealand needs to protect its intellectual property—of that there is no doubt. I know that my colleague Clare Curran is very hot on this topic, and no doubt she will speak extensively on this bill that is about to come before the House for its third reading.

The committee also recommended that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographical details of design applications. Again, that is another common-sense amendment. When I heard there were 14 votes against this bill being read a second time, I was not too sure why that was, because it is common-sense legislation. The bill makes it easier to do business; it simplifies and streamlines processes. As mentioned, this legislation has resulted from extensive consultation up and down the country.

I move on to the provisions about the Fisheries Act 1996. The bill provides for the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to consider requests from commercial fishers to be granted catch balancing relief, provided that set criteria are met. That has the effect of allowing inadvertently incurred deemed value debts to be reviewed. Commercial fishers will benefit from a more timely and efficient consideration of their requests for the relief of debts that are inadvertently incurred through the end-of-year balancing process under the quota management system. The bill provides for delegation of the power to consider these requests to the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, instead of the current requirements for ministerial approval. That is again another piece of common-sense legislation. It streamlines the process and makes it easier for businesses involved in fishing.

There is a provision pertaining to the Gas Act 1992. The bill clarifies that any regulations and rules that the Gas Industry Co. Ltd can recommend under Part 4A of the Gas Act 1992 will cover gas used as a feedstock.

There are many provisions for the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. This bill enables the delegation of technical design-making power by the Environmental Risk Management Authority to the chief executive and other staff or to other persons. It enables applications to import, develop, or test non-genetically modified organisms, known as non-GMOs, in containment to be treated consistently with each other, and with applications to import or develop low-risk genetically modified organisms in containment, in terms of rapid assessment of low-risk organisms and the discretionary notification of other applications. As the Committee will be aware, all that this does is streamline a process. It brings up to date the practice by which we need to continue our competitive advantage in this area. The bill enables applications for the conditional release of low-risk non-genetically modified organisms to be treated consistently with applications for full-risk or non-risk genetically-modified organisms. It allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority to publicly notify hazardous substance release applications that do not otherwise qualify for rapid assessment under section 28A of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and gives the ability to delegate non-notified applications to its chief executive. It enables test certifiers to issue a conditional test certificate for hazardous substance locations, where on reasonable grounds they consider the non-compliance to be minor and technical. The bill extends the purposes for which the approved persons, now including the chief executive of the New Zealand Fire Service, may search the register of test certificates to include emergency response planning purposes for hazardous substances.

Again, that is all common-sense stuff that has needed to be done. It is good that it will be done. As Lianne Dalziel mentioned, I think that it is agreed upon—by the two major parties, certainly—that this is the sort of bill that we will see in the House every year going forward.

The bill empowers Biosecurity New Zealand to recover the costs of conditional release compliance enforcement under the Biosecurity Act 1993. It removes duplication of reporting requirements in the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s statement of intent. An annual monitoring report extends the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s power to revoke test certificates on the grounds for revocation. The bill more closely aligns times to lay information for new organism and Biosecurity Act offences, Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act offences, and Health and Safety in Employment Act offences, respectively. It allows changes to material incorporated by reference to have legal effect and notification in the Gazette. It recasts the scope of standards that can be incorporated by reference. It aligns the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act enforcement responsibilities for aerodromes, and extends the alignment for health and safety and Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act powers of entry and inspection to all agencies with enforcement responsibility under both Acts for places of work. Finally, it allows the incorporation of material via reference to standards, requirements, and recommended practices of national as well as international organisations.

There is also work on the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. This bill removes the penalty regimes applicable under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act for non-payment of cost-recovery levies. Commercial fishers will now have greater certainty—which is what we are after in business; of that there is no doubt—and reduction of compliance costs around the penalty regime for debt repayment. The bill will remove the requirements under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act for the Ministry of Fisheries to charge all clients a 10 percent penalty fee when they fail to pay their statutory incurred debt within a prescribed time frame. The provision overlaps with the sanctions already provided by the Fisheries Act 1996. This duplication is both inappropriate and unnecessary. I think we will find that a common theme through this bill—and a common theme through the consultation process—is the inappropriateness of duplication. It is just red tape in the way of businesses driving forward. As I mentioned, it is good to see that Labour is the party that has put this bill forward.

Let us look at the provisions for the Reserves Act 1977. The bill provides for 10-year—currently 5-year terms only—licences over vested reserves. Licences under the Reserves Act enable licensees to occupy reserve land or to carry out an activity on reserve land.

There are provisions for the Weights and Measures Act 1987. The bill provides for the control of LPG in gaseous form to be under the Gas Act 1992 only, and not under the Weights and Measures Act.

As I have mentioned, there is a lot of good stuff in this bill. Let us hope that the Government takes the bill forward and that another bill is introduced this year. Next year in 2011 I have no doubt that a Labour Government will be producing a similar one as we continue the process of streamlining regulations and legislation to make it a lot easier for businesses and companies to do business in New Zealand and around the world. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): The member who has just resumed his seat, Stuart Nash, expressed puzzlement at the fact that votes are being cast against this bill, the Regulatory Improvement Bill. So I will start this first contribution on this stage of consideration of the bill by recapping that.

The purpose of this bill is that it is supposed to be a set of uncontroversial measures that are intended to address regulatory duplication, gaps, administrative errors, and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation. That is what the bill is supposed to be about. I have spoken, both in the first reading debate and in the second reading debate, about the set of changes proposed for the Conservation Act and for the Reserves Act. The changes there change two things: they change the maximum period for which concessions can be granted from 5 years to 10 years, and they change the provisions relating to public notification of the intention to grant such concessions. Neither of those is about any of those objectives for the bill. So, one of the reasons for the Green Party’s objection to this bill is that it contains provisions that are inconsistent with its objectives.

The second reason is that the proposed changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act are bad changes, and I will talk a little more about that in this Committee stage. The land administered by the Department of Conservation is land that is administered on behalf of all of us—on behalf of all New Zealanders. It is not the “DOC estate”, as it is sometimes referred to; it is actually the public conservation estate. It is administered by the Department of Conservation, but it is administered with the objective of protecting the conservation values that are in that land. I readily admit that there is land of varying qualities within that estate, but the department is protecting, and preferably enhancing, the conservation values in that set of land for all New Zealanders.

The principal Act sets out, in effect, a hierarchy of values. This is important to understand for the context in which the proposed changes to the Act will take place. The paramount set of values in the hierarchy of values in the Act is about the protection of the conservation values—that is, the natural biodiversity and indigenous biodiversity of those places, including all of the indigenous animals and plants, and the ecosystems within which those animals and plants live. The Act is protecting and preferably enhancing those. That is the paramount objective of the Act. The second level down is about recreational access. The Act sets out to encourage New Zealanders to have recreational access to the places that are being protected on our behalf, but the recreational access ought not to occur at the expense of the conservation values. Then the third tier down is about allowing for tourism and other commercial activity. That commercial activity ought not to occur at the expense of either the conservation values of these places or New Zealanders’ recreational access to them.

One of the ongoing critiques of the performance of the Department of Conservation, and of the performance of successive Governments in conservation, relates to the blurring of recreational access and commercial activity—that the hierarchy intended by the Act is not always respected by the process. What we are now faced with is a set of pressures that are on the department, and, indeed, on Governments of any hue that should hold that conservation responsibility, related to the increasing threats to biodiversity and to the conservation values that we are trying to protect and enhance. In the face of this, the Government has made a number of decisions that have compounded that problem and have, in fact, made it worse.

In the Prime Minister’s statement to the House at the beginning of this year, the section that dealt with the environment and conservation was entitled “Unlocking resources”. That is directly germane to this bill, because this bill is about commercial activity that occurs in the public conservation estate. The Prime Minister’s statement was code for a new approach to the conservation estate that says it is not a set of land, biodiversity, and conservation values that is protected on behalf of all New Zealanders; it is a set of resources that could be exploited for commercial gain. What he is doing with that statement is reversing, or undermining—“undermining” is probably a good word for it—the hierarchy of values set out in the Act.

Just over the last couple of days we have seen the attacks on water conservation orders and the proposals for mining in schedule 4 lands, which are the practical application of the Prime Minister’s intent. That represents an expropriation of land and resources that are held and are owned by the public, in common—an expropriation for private gain. That is directly relevant to this issue of concessions, because the Government has created a set of drivers that will require the department to be looking for more and more revenue. It has cut the budget for the Department of Conservation by $52 million over 4 years, at a time when the pressures on the conservation estate are increasing. That has led to a Department of Conservation that is now looking for more and more opportunities for creating revenue, so we are starting to see pressure placed on the department to make inappropriate decisions about concessions. They are inappropriate decisions: decisions that actually put the revenue stream ahead of the conservation values that are to be protected.

Under the existing law, a 5-year maximum term for concessions at least provides the public with some protection, but proposing to increase that term for concessions creates the risk that bad decisions—decisions made by the department for the purpose of revenue rather than for conservation values—will be locked in not for 5 years but for 10 years. The bill goes further in potentially compounding that by stating that in those cases where the concessions extend for a 10-year period, the public will not even necessarily get to have a say about that.

I am grateful to Lianne Dalziel for addressing these conservation issues in her first intervention in this Committee stage. I think that it is probably the first time in our discussion of this bill that anyone besides me has done so. I am grateful to her for doing that and for posing that question. I am also grateful to Minister Mapp for answering that question. Unfortunately, that information provides us with a retrospective look at what has been occurring in regard to concessions, and I am saying in this intervention that it is essential that this Committee takes a prospective look—again, “prospective” may be a particularly appropriate word to use in the context of this debate—at what this Government is doing with the conservation estate. I would encourage the Committee—

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence): I will take only a very brief call. I was listening to the previous speaker, Mr Hague, and I would like to correct one statement that he made. New section 17T(4), which is to be substituted in the Conservation Act by clause 7, clearly states: “Before granting a lease, or a licence with a term (including all renewals) exceeding 10 years, … the Minister must give public notice of the intention to do so.” As I heard Mr Hague, it was suggested that that would not be required. It is actually a legal requirement that public notice would have to be given for all leases and licences exceeding 10 years.

Kevin Hague: Exceeding 10?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes. For those that are less than 10 years, in new section 17T(5), “the Minister may give public notice … having regard to the effects of the licence, permit, or easement,”. I took this call just to rectify what I think was perhaps an unintentional mistake.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): The House has agreed to take all of the parts of this bill together as one debate; therefore I seek leave for members to have an unlimited number of calls on all parts, without there being any change to the agreed time limit for the debate.

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): I ask that the member repeat that. I was on the telephone and I did not hear the start of the request.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I ask Chris Hipkins to seek leave.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): No problem. This is probably a discussion that occurred just before the member arrived in the Chamber. I seek leave for members to have an unlimited number of calls, without there being any alteration to the overall time limit for the debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): We are debating the Regulatory Improvement Bill, which makes a number of amendments to a number of Acts. Stuart Nash outlined the Acts earlier this morning, and they include the Companies Act, the Conservation Act, the Fisheries Act, the Gas Act, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I will focus my comments on two particular Acts: the Designs Act 1953 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995.

In relation to the Designs Act, we note in the commentary on this bill that its provisions have been drafted to come into effect on the day after the bill is given the Royal assent, with the exception of most of the provisions that are changes to the Designs Act. When the bill first came into the House, there was a provision for the changes to the Designs Act to become effective on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council or the date when the Governor-General gave the Royal assent, but there was no fixed time for that. That time provision could have dragged on for a number of years. In fact, we heard a member of the Labour Opposition mention this morning a particular instance whereby it took some 8 years for some regulations to come into force.

The Commerce Committee, of which I am a member—I have to say that I did not play a large part in this bill’s deliberation; nevertheless, I am a member of that committee—was concerned to ensure that there was some certainty. An amendment was put forward and Labour members have spoken at length on that this morning. There was a provision that notwithstanding the balance of the bill, for which all of the other changes were to come in immediately, the changes to the Designs Act were to come into effect on the earlier of two dates: the Governor-General giving an Order in Council, or the date of a year after the bill receives Royal assent. The reason for making that change was to provide certainty. In the commentary, the select committee said that members of the public need to have certainty, and there should be only very rare and exceptional circumstances when we do not provide that certainty or when it is justifiable not to have some certainty and not to set a date for provisions to come into effect.

That set my mind thinking as to when else we would have those rare and exceptional circumstances. I went back to the passing of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill last November. We were told in this House that that bill would be based on the Australian scheme, that the officials could make all the regulations they wanted, and that they would have more than sufficient time because all they had to do was copy the Australian regulations. Well, I realise I should keep the debate to the particular issue of the Designs Act, but the point I am making is that that Act deals with copyright and designs. Therefore, it was considered that a year should be more than sufficient time to make those regulations. It is not surprising that a year was thought sufficient because the regulations that were to flow from the emissions trading scheme legislation all had to be made in 6 months. That should not have been a problem, because we were copying the Australian legislation. The only problem was that there was no Australian legislation—no Australian legislation, at all—so now we are going where no country has gone before.

That leads me to my next point concerning the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995. This Regulatory Improvement Bill makes some amendments to that Act. The primary purpose of those amendments is to remove the penalty regimes applicable under the Act for non-payment of cost recovery levies as they are already provided for in the Fisheries Act 1996. We are making amendments here to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995 to ensure there is not a duplication of penalties.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform): I first acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel, whose work the Regulatory Improvement Bill is; and I am carrying it on. One of the things that I have noticed as a Minister is how much work that has been set up carries over from one Government to the next. I have been the fortunate beneficiary of Lianne Dalziel’s efforts, so I thank the member for that.

H V Ross Robertson: You can’t rest on your laurels, though, Rodney.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No. I admit to the honourable Ross Robertson that Lianne Dalziel set a very high bar, and that I am working hard to match her efforts in this area.

The Regulatory Improvement Bill proposes to give effect to the Government’s objective of improving the regulatory framework by reducing the compliance burden on business. As members will appreciate, the bill is an omnibus bill introduced under Standing Order 264(a), which has now become Standing Order 259(a). The bill contains a number of small but important amendments to legislation. These amendments were identified as being part of the 2006-07 Quality Regulation Review. This bill is the first of this nature, and it is aimed at making it easier to do business in New Zealand by removing red tape and unnecessary bureaucracy—something that all of us in the House agree with. The bill covers a diverse range of policy areas and legislation, with the whole aim of improving regulatory frameworks and reducing the compliance burden on business. Overall, these changes address regulatory duplications, gaps, and administrative errors and inconsistencies between different pieces of legislation that collectively create unnecessary compliance costs and uncertainty for business. The bill provides a vehicle to progress these issues in an efficient and effective manner.

The first change, in Part 1 of the bill, is to the Companies Act 1993. The purpose of the changes to that Act is to reduce compliance costs and align the obligation of companies to appoint an auditor with changes that were made recently to the Financial Reporting Act 1993. The bill provides that these companies can opt out of the requirement to appoint an auditor through the unanimous resolution of shareholders, in the same way that other companies do that are not required to file audited financial statements with the registrar.

We have also made changes to the Conservation Act 1987 in Part 2 of the bill. The purpose of the changes to the concessions provisions of that Act is to reduce costs and the administrative burden, and to ensure that efficient, contestable processes can take place. The changes will ensure that the process of obtaining concessions over public conservation land is more efficient. The three changes are: firstly, to enable licences to be granted for up to 10 years without mandatory public notification; secondly, to increase the maximum term for permits from 5 to 10 years; and, thirdly, to prevent persons from making applications for concessions when the Minister has already initiated a tender process for the particular activity. These changes will assist a wide range of businesses that operate on public conservation land. But the changes—and this is an important point—are not part of the proposal to allow mining on public conservation land. Mining on public conservation land requires an access arrangement to be approved under the Crown Minerals Act. Concessions are not required for activities covered by the mining permit; a concession is needed only in some cases, where there are ancillary activities that are not covered by a mining permit.

The next legislation to be changed is the Designs Act 1953, in Part 3 of the bill. The purpose of the changes to the Designs Act is to ensure the policy intent of the Act can be more efficiently and effectively achieved, with the minimum necessary compliance costs. The bill allows for the restoration of lapsed design registrations and abandoned design applications, and Supplementary Order Paper 118 in my name relates to this part.

Then there are changes to the Fisheries Act 1996 in Part 4 of the bill. The purpose of the amendments here is to create a statutory process whereby commercial fishers who have inadvertently incurred deemed-value debts can have the debt reviewed. The bill provides for the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries to consider requests from commercial fishers for catch balancing relief, provided that set criteria are met.

We come to the Gas Act 1992 in Part 5 of the bill. I see that the Hon Lianne Dalziel remembers this well. The purpose of the changes to the Gas Act is to create certainty that any regulations and rules that the Gas Industry Co. Ltd can recommend under Part 4A of the Gas Act—and I notice that Lianne Dalziel is nodding her head—will cover gas used as a feedstock. The changes will reduce the uncertainty for the gas industry and ensure that all participants will be treated fairly.

We then have changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 in Part 6 of the bill. The purpose of the changes is to ensure that the policy intent of the Act can be more efficiently and effectively achieved, with the minimum necessary compliance costs. An important point—and I am looking at the Greens, in the hope that they will appreciate this—is that the amendments do not affect the regulation of genetically modified organisms. This was an intentional decision, as any changes to the regulation of genetically modified organisms are likely to be contentious and would not fit within a bill such as this one. The purpose of a regulatory improvement omnibus bill is to address relatively minor regulatory problems, and this bill is not an appropriate means to address such an issue.

The amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act cover a range of different matters. The first area of change is intended to improve the functioning of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and the Government is doing four things in that respect. Firstly, instead of requiring all applications for the use of hazardous substances to be publicly notified, we are giving the authority the discretion to publicly notify only those that it considers are likely to be of significant public interest and to not notify those that are routine. Secondly, we are allowing the authority to delegate the relatively minor technical or administrative decisions to its chief executive or other persons. Thirdly, we are allowing the authority to deal with changes to individual substance and group standard generic approvals at the same time, and to make minor or technical corrections to those group standard approvals on its own motion. Fourthly, we are removing the duplication of reporting requirements in the authority’s statement of intent, annual report, and annual monitoring report.

The second area of change is intended to reduce the barriers to innovation by getting the balance right between the benefits of public participation and the associated costs and delays. There are two things here. Firstly, we are allowing the discretionary public notification of applications for the general use of hazardous substances, and, secondly, we are introducing the rapid assessment of certain classes of applications for low-risk, non - genetically modified organisms, in line with the Primary Production Committee’s report on its investigation into plant imports, while on the other hand allowing the authority to publicly notify applications for non-GMOs that it considers may be of higher risk.

The third area of change is to improve the operation of test certification for high-risk hazardous substances. There are three things here: firstly, removing the all-or-nothing nature of current certification requirements by giving test certifiers the flexibility to issue conditional test certificates for locations where they consider non-compliance to be “minor and technical” while that non-compliance is being remedied; secondly, extending the authority’s power to revoke test certificates and the grounds for such revocation to circumstances when the certificate holder no longer meets the criteria for which the certificate was issued; and, thirdly, allowing the register of test certificates to be searched for emergency response planning purposes by, for example, the New Zealand Fire Service.

The fourth area of improvement is to bring increased clarity to compliance with, and enforcement of, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act by improving its alignment with other legislation. Here there are three things. The first is to empower MAF Biosecurity New Zealand to recover the costs of new organism conditional release approval compliance and enforcement under the Biosecurity Act. These costs are currently met from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s baseline funding. The amendment provides the ministry with the incentive to fully identify the costs and develop an efficient monitoring system and cost structure, as it does already for new organism containment approval, compliance, and monitoring. The second measure is to align the times in which to lay information, which will make the new organism provisions consistent with those in the Biosecurity Act and make the hazardous substances provisions consistent with those in the Health and Safety in Employment Act. The third measure is to further align the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act enforcement responsibilities in order to minimise duplicate inspections.

The fifth area of change is intended to keep the hazardous substance and new organism regulations and other instruments up to date by allowing amendments and updates to material incorporated by reference to take effect by notification by the Minister or the authority in the Gazette. The regulations refer to a large number of standards in similar technical documents. However, the material that is incorporated is fixed in the form that it was in at the time of incorporation. This creates unnecessary complexity and confusion for users when such material becomes outdated.

I turn to the changes to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995, in Part 7 of the bill. The primary purpose of these amendments is to remove the penalty regimes applicable under the Act for the non-payment of cost recovery levies, as the Fisheries Act 1996 contains an adequate penalty regime. At present clients are faced with what amounts to a double penalty.

In terms of Part 8 of the bill, the purpose of the changes to the Reserves Act 1977 is to reduce the cost and administrative burden attached to certain licenses issued under the Act. Part 8 provides that licenses will be granted for 10 years, rather than for 5 years, for specified purposes over reserves that are vested in local administering bodies.

I know that the previous Minister of Commerce is interested in the changes to the Weights and Measures Act 1997, which is amended in Part 9 of the bill. The purpose of the changes here is to resolve the confusion and reduce the compliance costs caused by having two pieces of legislation—and I think the previous Minister of Commerce raised this issue with me—namely, the Weights and Measures Act 1987 and the Gas Act 1992, controlling the supply of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in gaseous form through pipes for industry consumers and regulators.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: 7 kilograms and falling.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: The bill proposes that LPG in gaseous form is regulated only under the Gas Act. The previous Minister is telling me that her new regime has seen her lose 7 kilograms, and we can all be proud of that.

There was a question from Kevin Hague about why new section 42C(3) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, which is inserted by clause 28 of the bill, is different from the current section 41, in respect of the amendments. Let me explain that as best I can, and see whether I can address the member’s concerns. Section 41 is the regulation-making power for low-risk GMOs, and it includes provisions regarding the procedures as well as the circumstances when a GMO is low risk. New section 42C relates to low-risk non-GMO organisms. The procedural aspects are not included, as these replicate what is covered by specifying the circumstances. Further, there is less uncertainty associated with non-GMOs than with GMOs, and that justifies a slightly different approach. It should be noted that there is no substantive difference. That is because there are currently no regulations relating to procedures for GMOs, as these were not necessary in order to make the low-risk GMO regulations. I hope that answers the member’s question.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to take a call in the Committee stage, just a 5-minute call. A number of speakers have already referred to the part of Lianne Dalziel, or should I say, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, in this bill. I think in one 10-minute speech there were 13 references to Lianne Dalziel, which is a fair few. The reason for that is the Hon Lianne Dalziel has had a lot to do with this legislation. Given the importance of her role, I should make it clear that it is Lianne Dalziel, with “Lianne” spelt with two “n”s—it can be spelt with one—and not the other version, which is “Leanne” Dalziel.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: With an “i”.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is with an “i”, not an “e”. In this debate we have heard various mispronunciations of Lianne Dalziel’s surname. Some people say “Dalzel”, and other people say “Dalzeal”. The Hon Lianne “Dalzeal” says that it should be pronounced “Dalzel”, but in the context of this debate and the zeal that Lianne “Dalzeal” has shown for this bill, I think that the pronunciation should be Lianne “Dalzeal” rather than Lianne “Dalzel”.

My questions would, of course, be going to Lianne “Dalzel”, or Lianne “Dalzeal”, as the Minister in the chair had she still been the Minister of Commerce, but because of the change of Government after this bill was introduced, Lianne “Dalzeal” is no longer the Minister. So my questions have to be addressed in substitution to the Hon Rodney Hide, who has already acknowledged the important contribution that Lianne “Dalzeal” has added to this legislation.

I will deal with a couple of matters that Lianne “Dalzeal” has already touched upon. The first relates to the changes to the Conservation Act. I think that the Hon Rodney Hide made some important points in response to my colleague from the Greens in respect of the changes there. He made it clear that the changes to the Conservation Act do not impact upon mining in national parks or in other schedule 4 areas. Indeed, if these changes were to make it easier for those mining operations, I am sure that the Hon Lianne Dalziel would not have included them in the bill and the Labour Party would not be supporting them. That is not the effect of these changes, and they do not have the import that Kevin Hague has suggested to the Committee. I think Rodney Hide has dealt with that matter appropriately.

The other change that the Hon Lianne Dalziel made reference to earlier was in respect of the Designs Act 1953. This is an example of how some regulation can be a little silly and is now being fixed. At the moment, the Commissioner of Designs cannot extend the period of copyright for a registered design because of the failure of someone to pay a prescribed fee by a certain time, and this legislation makes it clear that the commissioner can.

Various other improvements are brought about by this legislation. I thank the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Regulatory Reform, for the clarification that the changes to the rules relating to hazardous substances and new organisms do not impact upon the controversial area of genetically modified organisms. That line was drawn carefully by the previous Minister of Commerce, the Hon Lianne Dalziel.

Other changes include changes to the Companies Act to align obligations to appoint auditors under the Companies Act with the recent changes to the Financial Reporting Act. This measure impacts particularly upon overseas owners. A silly requirement has been fixed by the Regulatory Improvement Bill, which provides that those companies may, by a unanimous resolution of shareholders, elect not to appoint an auditor, which is also the norm in respect of companies that are not overseas-owned.

I think that must be my 5 minutes, and more than 13 references. Thank you.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East): All I can say about regulatory reform and the Regulatory Improvement Bill is hurrah! At last something is being done. It was initiated by the previous Labour Government and the Hon Lianne Dalziel. It is good to see—

John Hayes: You had 9 years to fix it and didn’t.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: I say to Mr Hayes that it is good to see that this legislation has been carried forward by this Government. I speak on this side of the House for small business. When last in Opposition, I was also the spokesperson for small business and I learnt a number of things. I learnt how passionate small-business owners are about their business. I learnt how much effort, commitment, and dedication they put in to make sure their business is successful. To me, small businesses are the locomotive of growth, the driver of GDP, and the bastion of employment. We cannot do enough for them. One of the things that I learnt then, and it has been reinforced now, is the fact of compliance costs for small business.

When members look at regulatory improvement, members will see that it is all about productivity. That is what it is about. It is about the better utilisation of resources—all resources: land, labour, capital, and machinery. It is about doing everything that we can do, and doing it better. In the Regulatory Improvement Bill we have the previous Minister of Commerce, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, wanting to do what she can to improve the overall performance of small businesses, because of the impact they have on the New Zealand economy, and she is to be commended for that. It is about effectiveness, efficiency, and best practice.

I found it interesting that out of 10 submissions to the Commerce Committee, only three were heard. I found that slightly unusual, because I thought there would be more input into such an important bill. Obviously the submissions were of a high quality, because that is why this legislation is here.

It is important to recognise the results of the Quality Regulation Review carried out over 15 months. There was lots of consultation right around the country with stakeholders and a number of small businesses involved. I acknowledge the part played by the Commerce Committee—the members of the committee and the officials. The committee was chaired by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Its members were John Boscawen, Clare Curran, Te Ururoa Flavell, Raymond Huo, Melissa Lee, Sam Lotu-Iiga, Katrina Shanks, and Jonathan Young. I am sure that, going by the work that came back from the committee, they obviously put a great deal of effort into it, and they should be acknowledged for their contribution, along with the officials, who did a tremendous amount of work in ensuring that this legislation came back to the House in the manner in which it has done.

I think it is really important that the results of the Quality Regulation Review be read in the debate, and I will share them with the House. Just before I do, though, I want to put a question to the Minister in the chair, the Minister for Regulatory Reform. Does he seek any further improvements in regulatory reform; if so, what are they? I want to know whether he will continue the reforms that the Hon Lianne Dalziel implemented when she introduced this bill back in September 2008. Let me record in Hansard what this bill will do. The Accident Compensation Corporation and the Inland Revenue Department have agreed to improve the coordination of data collection and to share information on businesses. That is fantastic, because they are working together in the true sense of the word “community”, which means that together we serve, together we prosper. Here the Inland Revenue Department, the Accident Compensation Corporation, and small businesses are all working together to improve things.

Next, the adjustment date for excise and the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand levy paid by the wine industry are now aligned. That is also a plus for small business.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform): I will take a brief call to answer the Hon Ross Robertson’s questions. Yes, it certainly is the Government’s intention to carry on the work of the previous Labour Government in this area. I will be introducing a further bill in the coming months. I suggest to that member that if he has particular areas that would suit being reformed that constituents have brought to him, or that have come to his attention, he should write to me and we can look into it and include it in that legislation. The only thing I would note is that they will not be called regulatory improvement bills; they will be called regulatory reform bills. I do not know why, but that is one of the things that happens. So we are continuing this process.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I too rise to speak in support of the Regulatory Improvement Bill and acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. Like others, I will probably mention her several times in this 5 minute contribution; I am sure I will not be able to reach the heights of David Parker, but that should not be taken as an indication of any less esteem in which I hold my colleague. This is an omnibus bill that makes amendments to nine pieces of legislation, with the objective of improving the regulatory framework and reducing the compliance burden on business. It was introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel.

I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide; that is something I do not often do, but do I want to acknowledge that he has recognised the work undertaken by the previous Government and by the previous Minister of Commerce, Lianne Dalziel. I think it is important to acknowledge that, because often it is said that Labour does not support business in this country. The fact that this bill is here is a very clear example of the contrary: that, in fact, Labour does support business in New Zealand, and that we have worked very hard to improve the regulatory environment that business operates in. I know for a fact that the Hon Lianne Dalziel, in her previous capacity as Minister, was absolutely passionate about improving the environment for business. I came across her in that capacity in a number of ways myself prior to being in Parliament, both as a member of the Small Business Advisory Group and as the secretary of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. Just as people do not necessarily believe that Labour is business-friendly—incorrectly, as it transpires—likewise, people often do not recognise that the trade union movement has a very real interest in ensuring that our businesses are successful and that they do not face unnecessary regulatory impediments. It is about having successful, good-quality businesses that people can work in.

I shall talk about one of the submissions to this bill. The bill was a result of a quite extensive process—a process of 15 months of talking with people, identifying barriers, and recognising that when businesses deal with various Acts of Parliament and various agencies of Government they do not necessarily see them as separate agencies; they often see them as a single entity: the Government. “I’m from the Government. I’m here to help you.” was one of the catchcries.

One of the submissions made to the Commerce Committee, chaired of course by the Hon Lianne Dalziel, was made by the Motor Trade Association on one of the provisions. The submission was particularly about the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, and significant changes have been made to that legislation as a result of this work. In fact, in Part 6 of the bill, members will see a significant raft of changes to that Act. The submission of the Motor Trade Association talked about the fact that collision repairers and service station operators frequently come up against hazardous substances and, where appropriate, businesses obtain the necessary site and approved handlers’ certificates as required by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. However, the association advises its member organisations to keep their stock of hazardous substances below the trigger points for licensing. That is a sensible, common-sense arrangement, and enables them to work out the appropriate risk-management practices in their workplace.

I am now coming to a point the association raised, which, I think, is an important one for the Minister to note. It raised the concern that two territorial authorities had decided to require businesses to provide them with inventories of substances below the trigger points listed in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. When questioned about that, businesses were told that the authorities were requiring businesses to provide such a list in terms of the Health and Safety in Employment Act. The select committee process followed through with that particular concern of the submitter, and members were told by officials that the points raised by the submitter were valid. However, they relate to operational matters and they have been referred to the appropriate agencies, where they are being addressed at an administrative level. The reason I am raising this is that I would like to know from the Minister whether that has been done, because one of the issues around regulation is not just the law but the operation of the law. So, Mr Chair, can I just—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member’s time has expired. Stop!

CAROL BEAUMONT: I did call again.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, you did not.

CAROL BEAUMONT: I did. I said “Mr Chair”. If you take the Hansard record you will find that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): You should do that immediately the bell rings, and then I am not confused as to whether you are referring to me as a matter of emphasis, as some people do. The member just continued to talk after the bell, so I want to clear up how we do this. Is the member seeking a call?

CAROL BEAUMONT: I certainly am.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Carol Beaumont.

CAROL BEAUMONT: Thank you, Mr Chair, and I will make sure I am much clearer on the matter next time. As I was saying, I have a question for the Minister. It is an important one because this is an area where we get the overlap between what the law and regulation says and what the operational practice is on the ground. The Motor Trade Association raised a very valid point; officials recognised that valid point, and said they were going to ensure that the relevant organisations were looking at the various administrative arrangements in regard to this sort of matter. I say to the Minister that members on this side of the House would be grateful to know how that work is going, because on a common-sense level that will be the sort of thing that makes a difference on the ground. Thank you.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I rise to support the Regulatory Improvement Bill and I endorse the comments made by my learned colleagues who spoke earlier.

When we look at the bill and its contents in this Committee stage, I would like to acknowledge the current Minister for Regulatory Reform, the Hon Rodney Hide, who is responsible for this bill, and I thank him for carrying on with the good work initiated by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I acknowledge the two Supplementary Order Papers dividing the bill into the nine separate bills.

I had the pleasure of sitting on the Commerce Committee, with its wonderful chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, deliberating on some of the main provisions. I take this opportunity to thank all the submitters, the businesses, and the membership organisations that contributed their time, energy, and ideas to this bill.

The New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys made a very good submission—a very helpful submission, should I say—particularly in relation to the Designs Act 1953. The bill provides for the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs in circumstances where the lapse was the result of neglect to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. The Commerce Committee, under its wonderful chair, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, recommended that in addition to allowing the restoration of lapsed copyright in registered designs, the bill should allow the restoration of lapsed copyright in design applications. The committee also recommended that the bill should give specific authorisation for the commissioner to publish bibliographic details of design applications.

In its submission, the New Zealand Institute of Patent Attorneys said that it agreed with the intent of the bill to provide restoration of lapsed design registrations and that it also believed that the bill should be amended to provide for restoration of pending design applications that had lapsed. Looking at the bill itself, I say, as I said earlier, that to some extent the bill is more important than the content.

The bill was introduced initially by the Hon Lianne Dalziel in response to the Quality Regulation Review. The final report was released on 5 September 2008 after a 15-month review. The Quality Regulation Review addressed regulatory barriers to business growth. It was a broad review that looked at anomalies, inconsistency, and duplication across the Government’s regulatory framework. As well as correcting errors, the review aimed to develop ways of ensuring that new rules were efficient from a business perspective. The review established that when businesses deal with the Government they do not see discrete agencies such as the Inland Revenue Department, the Accident Compensation Corporation, or the Department of Labour’s Occupational Safety and Health Service, they see a single entity—namely, the Government. Accordingly, businesses were frustrated by having to provide the same information over and over and over again to different agencies.

Labour looked at the regulatory framework, and at how new regulations are made, from a business perspective. As well as this bill being introduced, the regulatory impact analysis regime was strengthened to ensure that future regulation properly identified the problem and looked at potential options for resolving it. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to pick up, not exactly where I left off, but where the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rodney Hide, left off in his discussion of the proposed changes to the Conservation Act. He referred not so much to the specific objectives of the Regulatory Improvement Bill in terms of removing gaps, duplications, errors, and inconsistencies, but, rather, to the broader purpose for which those were to be removed—in other words, to improve the environment for business. He used two words in respect of the proposed increase in the maximum length of concessions from 5 to 10 years. He said it would make the process more efficient and more contestable.

Well, it has been a while since I studied economics, but it seems to the Green Party that the effect of increasing the term of concessions is not so much to improve contestability, for example, but to reduce contestability. The effect of a concessionaire having his or her concession extended for a further 5 years—again, I emphasis for the House that there is not necessarily any public input at all—is to make it very much more difficult for competitors and those who might wish to test the concession to have a viable go the next time. I am mindful of the work of the Commerce Commission in respect of laboratory services for the Otago and Southland district health boards. The Commerce Commission had the very strong view that, in that case, the sole contract that was proposed for an extended period would have a chilling effect on competition and on contestability by shutting out competitors; that when it came to the end of that contract it would be difficult for other potential competitors to be in a position to make viable bids.

So what this bill proposes is anti-competitive. It seems unusual for the Green Party to be making that point in a House where normally either National or Labour is making that point, but it seems that we need to, because no one else is doing it. I think we would call the bill monopolistic.

I want to talk in the time I have remaining about several of the other downsides. Sure, there is an upside; there is a small increase in efficiency for the business that happens to be successful in getting the concession. It is a small upside. On the other side, for the department there is a reduced cost in administering it. On the downside, we have the monopolistic effect of a chilling of competition. We have the fact that there will be increased pressure from other businesses that have been shut out of that process wanting to apply for concessions in other parts of the conservation estate. In terms of determining appropriate conditions, we have the difficulty of predicting at the beginning of a 10-year period what all of the effects may be over that 10-year period. There is a mid-term review, but my submission is that it is inadequate.

I am particularly concerned about the fact that the public are shut out of the process. In response to the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp’s contribution earlier on, can I say I am very much aware that the bill provides for concessions in excess of—exceeding—10 years on which, yes, the public will have the right to have a say, but anything up to 10 years is solely at the discretion of the Minister. I believe that that is inappropriate and inadequate.

I say that in the broader context of the pressures on the department around concessions that I referred to earlier. We are already seeing decisions being made by the department for commercial reasons. It is a small point, but the Cathedral Cove concession stand earlier this year was a concession that served no conservation purpose at all. It was a concession that was given purely for revenue. If we are starting to see conservation values such as the untouched nature of that place being comprised for revenue in a small case like that, what will we see in more important places with more important conservation values? We have seen the department allow commercial eeling of threatened long-finned tuna in national parks. What was the reason for that? Again, it was revenue.

We are in an environment where the Government has starved the Department of Conservation of cash—a $52 million reduction in funding over a 4-year period—at a time when the threats to our biodiversity, the threats to our natural values, and the threats to our public conservation estate are greater and greater. That leaves the department in a totally invidious position, because it has increasing demands on its budget on the one hand and decreased revenue on the other. That means that in its new business development strategy it is looking for ways of developing new revenue streams. This bill, which extends the time of concessions to 10 years, without necessarily any public say at all, provides an avenue for the department to pursue. The temptation will be great to grant concessions under this new provision, in order to obtain revenue. Longer periods will be more lucrative; there is more in it for businesses from longer periods. The risk is that the objective of the Conservation Act of preserving those fantastic, treasured places for all New Zealanders living now, and for all of those to come, for their inherent biodiversity and conservation values but also for their recreational access, will be compromised by that process.

In summary, this bill in respect of the changes to the Conservation Act and to the reserves legislation is bad law. They do not fit the objectives of this kind of bill, but also they set a set of objectives for the department that are at odds with the purpose of the Act and with the purpose of that public conservation estate, and they should not proceed.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I will take a short call on the Regulatory Improvement Bill to finish the matters that I started dealing with earlier. I will do this for the benefit of the Minister in the chair, Rodney Hide, who had Mr Mapp substituting for him at that point. There was the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms issue and the issue of the commencement of the legislation, which was by Order in Council originally. Then there was the matter of incorporation by reference, in respect of Part 6. The Minister has not been able to be here for the entire debate, so I will tell him that in respect of the commencement issue, there has been a satisfactory resolution. There was a provision that stated that the legislation would come into force on the earlier of either 12 months after its receipt of the Royal assent or on the proclamation of the legislation by Order in Council. That concern of the Regulations Review Committee has been resolved satisfactory.

In relation to the issue of section 42C(3), to be inserted by clause 28, the Minister has said that one procedure deals with genetically modified organisms, and the other deals with non-genetically modified organisms; therefore, that is the reason for the difference. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has given that explanation, but I think it would have been helpful if the legislation, on its face, had reflected that more explicitly. However, I will not take the issue further.

The final point I will raise is the issue raised by Part 6, which comprises the amendments to the hazardous substances legislation in respect of incorporation by reference. This is the last of the three matters that the Regulations Review Committee raised with the Commerce Committee, in a very eloquent letter from Mr Macindoe dated 1 September. He will appreciate that I am taking up the cudgels on behalf of the committee, in this regard. The issue is very simple: with these hazardous substances and new organisms standards, the legislation allows for international sets of documents, agreed to by supranational organisations like the European Union, to be incorporated, basically wholesale, into New Zealand law. An obvious issue arises; how do ordinary New Zealanders know what the law is on any particular occasion if a regulation says, for example, that standard 6.8 of the Council of Europe on x, y, or z is now the law of the land in New Zealand? On that issue, the committee clearly made some extensive amendments to the legislation, which may well be satisfactory in terms of requiring that the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment make available any gazetted material that is incorporated by reference, by way of a hazardous substances and new organisms standard. It seems that, on advice, the committee has gone through and taken pains to deal with that issue in new sections 141B to 141I, to be inserted by clause 46A.

My question for the Minister in the chair is whether he thinks that the provisions are adequate, given the high standards he thinks that the legislation should comply with. The specific provisions I am referring to, for the Minister’s benefit, are, firstly, new section 141D(3): “Material that ceases to have effect does not cease to have legal effect as part of a notice of transfer in which the material is incorporated by reference.” I have to say that that is a very odd provision. New section 141F(5) states: “A failure to comply with this section does not invalidate regulations that incorporate material by reference or a group standard or code of practice that incorporates material by reference.” There are similar provisions in new sections 141G(6), 141H(4), and 141I(2). In essence, these provisions say that it does not matter if all those notices and information requirements are not complied with; the legislation or the incorporation by reference remains valid. I want to hear from the Minister, if he is willing to take a call on the issue, whether that is good enough.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide to clause 13 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, be agreed to.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 9; Māori Party 5.

Parts 1 to 9 and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bills

Supplementary .

The Committee divided the bill into the Companies Amendment Bill, the Conservation Amendment Bill, the Designs Amendment Bill, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Gas Amendment Bill, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Amendment Bill, the Reserves Amendment Bill, and the Weights and Measures Amendment Bill, pursuant to Order Paper117

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Readings

Third Readings

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform): I move, That the Companies Amendment Bill, the Conservation Amendment Bill, the Designs Amendment Bill, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, the Gas Amendment Bill, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Amendment Bill, the Reserves Amendment Bill, and the Weights and Measures Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Once again I thank the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who I feel I have not acknowledged enough and has not been sufficiently acknowledged through this process.

Until the Committee of the whole House stage, these amendments were progressed through the Regulatory Improvement Bill, an omnibus bill. The amendments to the following Acts were identified during the Quality Regulation Review, which was undertaken by the previous Government in 2006 and 2007. Taken together, these nine bills will improve the regulatory framework and reduce the compliance burden on business. I consider bills such as this a good use of the House’s time, as considering small regulatory amendments through an omnibus bill is an efficient approach to removing minor legislative niggles. Again, we have the Hon Lianne Dalziel to thank for that.

These nine bills will result in the following changes. The changes to the Companies Act will reduce compliance costs and align the obligations for companies to appoint an auditor with the recent changes to the Financial Reporting Act. The amendments to the Conservation Act will reduce the costs and administrative burden on all parties involved in concessions and provisions, ensuring an efficient and contestable process occurs, as well as assisting a wide range of businesses operating on public conservation land.

The changes to the Designs Act will also ensure greater efficiency, as well as effectiveness, by allowing for the restoration of lapsed design registrations and abandoned design applications in circumstances where the lapse occurred as a result of an unintended failure to pay the renewal fee or to make the necessary application. The amendment to the Fisheries Act provides a common-sense solution to deal with situations whereby commercial fishers have inadvertently incurred deemed-value debts. The chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries can now consider requests from commercial fishers for catch balancing relief, provided that set criteria are met. The amendment to the Gas Act clarifies the regulations and rules recommended under the Act, including gas used as feedstock. This means all industry participants will be treated fairly.

The amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act ensure that the policy intent of the Act can be more efficiently and effectively achieved with the minimum necessary compliance costs. The amendments to this Act cover a range of different issues. They are to improve the functioning of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, for example by enhancing the ability to delegate routine decision-making; to reduce barriers to innovation by getting the balance right between the benefits of public participation and the associated costs and benefits; to improve the operation of test certification for high-risk, hazardous substances, for example so that businesses can continue to operate with conditional test certificates while completing the full regulatory requirements; to bring increased clarity to hazardous substances and new organisms compliance and enforcement by improving alignment with other legislation; and to keep the hazardous substances and new organisms regulations and other instruments up to date by allowing amendments and updates to material incorporated by reference, to take effect by notification to the Gazette by the Minister or the authority.

The amendment to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act removes unnecessary duplication in the penalty regime applicable under the Act for non-payment of cost recovery levies. The provisions of the Fisheries Act 1996 alone are sufficient to ensure that statutory debts are paid. By amending the Reserves Act to enable 10-year licences to be granted for specified purposes over reserves that are vested in local administering bodies we are removing administrative complexity and additional costs surrounding the issuing of licences under the Act.

Finally, the Weights and Measures Act amendment removes regulatory confusion surrounding the supply of liquefied petroleum gas in gaseous form through pipes for industry consumers and regulators by removing it from the ambit of this Act. This means that in the future it will be regulated only under the Gas Act. The Government has asked all public sector agencies to take a systematic and ongoing approach to ensuring that the existing stock of regulation is free of regulatory duplications, of gaps, of administrative errors, and of inconsistencies between pieces of legislation. Therefore, as part of the Government’s commitment to an ongoing regulatory reform agenda, I intend to regularly bring omnibus bills before the House to remove small regulatory issues that are burdening New Zealand businesses.

Before finishing, I would like to thank the House and the select committee for their work. Once again, if I have not sufficiently acknowledged the Hon Lianne Dalziel, I would like to do that again. She and I have worked together on improving Parliament’s approach to regulation, and I have always had a good working relationship with her. I greatly admired the work she did in this area as Minister. I would also like to thank the officials across a wide number of departments who have worked on this project, and for the advice they have given Parliament here today on these issues. I commend the bills to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Regulatory Reform, the Hon Rodney Hide—New Zealand’s first Minister for Regulatory Reform—and to thank him for—

Hon Rodney Hide: Best one so far.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, definitely the best one so far, and I know I can say that without anyone being able to challenge it at all. I thank him for the generosity of his comments with respect to the work that I did in this area. He will find out, I am sure, what a thankless task it is sometimes, with one’s colleagues, to be pushing the mantra on regulatory reform and regulatory improvement. I will come to the language of his new legislation in a minute.

First of all, I thought I would acknowledge what happened in the Committee stage of the debate on the Regulatory Improvement Bill. I felt that there was good humour, particularly in the competition for references to my name. I thought that the overall winner was absolutely David Parker. He bolted in with over 20 references to my name in a 5-minute speech, whereas Ms Clare Curran managed only 13 references in a 10-minute speech. Definitely David Parker was the overall winner of the competition. But what I particularly liked about David Parker’s contribution was that he deliberately mispronounced my name as “Dal-zeal”, in order to emphasise the zeal I brought to the role of Minister of Commerce with responsibility for regulatory issues. What I wanted to say, though, is that the good humour reflected the response of the Committee of the whole House, and I thought that boded very well for business.

On both sides of the House we are prepared to talk about quality regulation and what that might mean for business, for sustainable business practices, and also for productivity, as others have mentioned. Although I respect the Greens’ position on the issue that they raised, it was not the principle of the legislation that the Greens were raising. It was the issue of whether one of the aspects of the bill should have been included in legislation of this nature, and I respect that. We have a different view on the actual facts of the matter, but with regard to the reason for raising it, it was not the overall principle of regulatory improvement legislation.

Again, because of the good humour around the issue, I do not want anyone to think for a minute that this legislation was the only outcome of the Quality Regulation Review. It was only one tiny little outcome of the Quality Regulation Review, which had a lot of other outcomes, but I will not go into them because it might be considered to be outside the scope of this particular debate. However, it was an important part of the Quality Regulation Review. That review was a multifaceted review that asked officials and business to engage with each other in a very direct way. I was part of that, as well. As I have said to the House, I travelled around the country and engaged with business in a wide range of areas. I put on record my thanks to the chambers of commerce and to the economic development agencies around the country that actually facilitated those meetings. They brought to meet me business people with specific issues on their minds. So it was not just a complaint-fest about what was wrong with regulation and how much red tape they were exposed to. I think it was really a problem-solving exercise on a greater scale than most we have done in this country. But it was a small thing—the small businesses telling us how those small things irritated the hell out them, and how just a little bit of effort around those small things would be a big relief to business, so they could get on with the job.

I will not repeat all the things I said in the second reading, but I say that this legislation really does not realise my wildest dreams. I do not want anyone to think for a minute that I think that this legislation is good enough. It is the first set of legislation, but it should have been a blockbuster. It should not have amended only nine Acts; it should have amended 29, 39, 69, 89, or 99 Acts. That really hammered home to me how hard it is for any Government to change things that are relatively small, when one looks at the big picture, when it is trying to deal with the parliamentary processes that are in place. They are there for good reason, but they act as a barrier to progress when there are small technical amendments to be made. This Parliament has been good enough over the years to develop the concept of the Statutes Amendment Bill, but as everyone knows, if one party disagrees with any one of those amendments, then that one has to go. It is a very good way of getting rid of the technical changes that need to be made, but anyone can disagree. Nothing can be controversial, there can really be no debate about it; it is just a straightforward change to a whole lot of different statutes. And that is good—that is a great process.

The Business Law Reform Bill is approved by the Business Committee on an annual basis, or when it is required to be introduced, but as people will have seen through this debate, not all of those elements could be identified as business law reform. I still would like this legislation to be written as one of the types of bills that are accepted by this House as an omnibus bill. Departments should be not just invited but required to send through these small items to another department to take over the work and fix the problem.

I tell members that I became the Associate Minister of Justice so that I could get a change made for the wine industry with respect to the Sale of Liquor Act. I could not, as Minister of Commerce running the Quality Regulation Review, make the tiny change needed to fix a mistake that had been made when the Winemakers Act was repealed in the 1989 changes to the Sale of Liquor Act. I think Rodney Hide will find out as he delves into regulation that the biggest barrier to getting that kind of change through Parliament is the reaction of departments. The second biggest barrier is the time that the Minister has to put into it. Giving it up to another department that has responsibility for tidying up some of these smaller regulatory matters, I think, would be a good thing.

I put on the record my thanks to all of the departmental officials who came to the Commerce Committee, but when I saw that cast of thousands I just about felt like banging my head against a brick wall! That was the whole reason that these sorts of changes get held up. I do not know how many there were in the room at one time, but at some point they certainly outnumbered the members of the committee and all of our officials.

It really emphasised the problem for me, which is that we have to get into a position where we can trust our own departments to work a lot more collaboratively and take up some of the responsibility for these things.

The final point I make is on the question of regulatory improvement versus regulatory reform. The health reforms of the 1990s ruined that word “reform” for me. I thought that the word “reform” meant to make something better, or to look at something in a new way that would lead to an advancement of the situation. The health reforms of the 1990s absolutely ruined that word for me, and that is why I do not use the word “reform”. I use the word “improvement”, because members would be surprised at the number of people who will argue reform when in fact what they are proposing is not an improvement to the situation from a business perspective. Even I was surprised at the push-back on some of the very sensible suggestions that I took up on behalf of business. I will not list those suggestions here, because they will be in Labour Party policy next time, and the push-back will not be tolerated when we are next in Government.

It is not always about the regulation, as it appears in the legislation; it is often about how it is implemented on the ground by the regulators—and that is another story. This is an ongoing story, and I will be happy to support future regulatory improvement bills, even if they are called regulatory reform bills, because that process is good for Parliament and for business.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I rise to take a short call on the various legislation from the Regulatory Improvement Bill, as the Minister has outlined. I will not get into the regular accolades that have been thrown around in the House, except to say that I have enjoyed working with the chair of the Commerce Committee and I acknowledge the work she did during the period when she was the Minister of Commerce.

I quickly acknowledge the officials. The previous speaker mentioned the number of officials who were at our select committee. The advice those officials provided was by and large sound advice, and they worked together across departments, which is something we would like to see more of not just in the formulation of laws but also in the formulation of policies and regulations.

Much has been said already, and I echo the comments of others. It is good that we can get cross-party support. I acknowledge and respect the divergent views of the Green Party, whose members argued against part of the bill, but I am certain they support the general thrust of what has been debated today. This bill is only a small step, as the Hon Lianne Dalziel has already mentioned. Certainly I would like to see more of this type of legislation in this House; more bills that look at regulation. Regulation is a good thing, as has been stated, but we need to look at the costs of compliance and red tape that businesses have to endure in order to get on with their lot. I support this bill. It has been a joy to work with our fellow committee members. Thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I also rise to make a short contribution in this third reading debate. Let me start by saying that it is pleasing to see the Regulatory Improvement Bill finally pass into law. It has had a rather more than necessary protracted gestation period.

I will make a couple of process points, though, notwithstanding the substantive support for the legislation that members on this side of the House are expressing. First of all, there cannot be justification for dealing with these sorts of matters in urgency. They are minor, and they have been languishing on the Order Paper for a long time. They simply ought to have been dealt with in ordinary parliamentary time, and if this House continues to rush these sorts of measures through under urgency we will continue, I am afraid, to undermine public confidence in our legislative process. That is something that I think all members should reflect on.

The second issue I wanted to deal with by way of a bit of criticism was the way in which the matter was dealt with in the Committee stage. I took the time in the Committee stage to rehearse the three concerns that have been pointed out to the Commerce Committee by the Regulations Review Committee, which I have the privilege to chair. First, there was a commencement issue. Secondly, there was an issue around whether a section to be inserted in the hazardous substances legislation was satisfactory given that it differed from the existing provision but did something relatively similar, and there was no explanation about that. Thirdly, there was an issue around incorporation by reference—an important issue about the public being able to know what the law is.

On the first two issues I think there was a satisfactory resolution. On the commencement issue the Commerce Committee clearly listened to the concerns and dealt with them. On the second issue—the discrepancy in procedures issue—although there was not an express explanation by the Commerce Committee, one of the Ministers who took the chair in the Committee stage, Mr Mapp, sought to explain the matter. Mr Hide did, on the advice of officials, seek to explain that further. But there was really no attempt by the Minister in the chair to address the third issue—the issue of whether the extensive changes to the incorporation by reference procedures were satisfactory. Given the Minister’s expressed passion for good law and appropriate regulation, I would have hoped he would respect the parliamentary process a little more than simply declining to take a call on that issue and make an explanation as to whether he thought the changes were adequate.

This is legislation that is supported by the Labour Party. It is legislation that owes a lot to the efforts of my friend, colleague, and bench mate Lianne Dalziel, and I will join the chorus of praise and support for her as that has obviously become traditional in this debate.

Hon Ruth Dyson: You could go a bit further.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: I could go further, as Ruth Dyson suggests, but canonisation is not within the power of the House, according to the Standing Orders, so we had better just leave it where things sit.

Although I express support for the legislation and a degree of pleasure that this appears to be likely to become an annual exercise, because it is a good thing to do from the point of view of efficiency and good law, it is disappointing to have to express the sadness I have that we are dealing with the matter under urgency on a completely unmerited basis and we did not really get the sort of respectful and careful consideration of the issues that the rhetoric of the Minister would lead us to believe we should have had in the Committee stage.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I begin by sharing the concerns about urgency that Charles Chauvel raised. In particular, I note that Katrina Shanks was the only person from the Government side who attempted to justify urgency, and her explanation for it was entirely woeful.

The Green Party will vote against the changes to the Conservation Act, the Reserves Act, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, but will vote for all the other changes. We support the principle behind the Regulatory Improvement Bill. When this kind of legislation comes before the House in the future, let us ensure that the measures proposed are genuinely uncontroversial. In relation to the changes to the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, they do not meet the test of addressing duplication, gaps, errors, and consistency between legislation. Therefore, they ought not to have been included in this legislation. In particular, these changes will reduce rather than enhance contestability, will introduce a substantial barrier to entry into a market, and will lead to locking in bad decisions where quality is hard to measure in concessions. The Government’s intent to see the natural world as a set of resources to exploit rather than treasure, and to starve the Department of Conservation of cash, will lead to long-term concession decisions made for revenue and not for conservation values. That is regrettable.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Leader of Opposition’s Statement

1. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Attorney-General: Does he agree with the reported statement of the Hon Phil Goff that “any outcome needs to maintain public access to beaches and protect the customary title or rights of iwi to the seabed and foreshore” and that “this is already the situation”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I certainly agree that any outcome needs to protect the customary title or rights of iwi. However, rather than protecting customary title, the current Act extinguished it, but, I guess, only the Labour Party would equate extinguishing basic property rights with protecting them. Perhaps this helps to explain why Labour members thought that the way to protect free speech in New Zealand was to restrict the rights of New Zealanders for fully one-third of their adult life under the Electoral Finance Act.

Rahui Katene: Does the Government’s consultation document on the foreshore and seabed address the concerns raised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that the 2004 Act contained discriminatory aspects against Māori; in particular, its failure to provide a guaranteed right of redress?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: In addition to the criticisms of the United Nations the review panel did, indeed, find that the current Act disproportionately discriminated against Māori—[Interruption]; well, I am simply referring to what the report said—because it extinguished Māori property rights in the form of customary title, while leaving non-Māori property rights unaffected, and it removed the fundamental right of folk to go to court. The Government’s preferred approach set out in the consultation document will restore that fundamental right of New Zealanders to have access to the courts.

Rahui Katene: Why is public domain takiwā iwi whānui the Government’s preferred option, and is it responsive to tikanga Māori such as kaitiakitanga?

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It appeared that the microphone did not kick in for the first 10 or 11 words—I certainly did not hear them—and I wonder whether we could have the question again. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: If members are quite finished, there was a point of order. It was a totally fair point of order. I could not hear, either. If the honourable member Rahui Katene would not mind repeating her question, please.

Rahui Katene: Why is public domain takiwā iwi whānui the Government’s preferred option, and is it responsive to tikanga Māori such as kaitiakitanga?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I believe it is. The concept of ownership has proved to be a polarising issue, and I believe that the public domain concept provides a very good basis on the way forward and it certainly provides a good framework within which iwi and hapū can access the courts to seek to prove customary title.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree with Hone Harawira that the existing Foreshore and Seabed Act essentially stole freehold title to the whole of the foreshore and seabed around New Zealand from Māoridom?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I think that as we move forward it is important to avoid explosive terms like “steal” or “appropriate”. I am keen to seek to achieve a reconciliation of interests—[Interruption]—and, in answer to the member for Rongotai, we could all look back to the past and throw sticks at one another, but I am seeking to rise above this and do the right thing for the country.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order about the nature of the answer from two perspectives. First, the quote from my colleague is a quote, I understand, from just yesterday, so it is not looking back but is a recent matter of public importance for us to consider.

Hon Member: Yesterday is the past.

Hon Darren Hughes: Well, he said the ancient past.

Mr SPEAKER: There should not be interjection while a point of order is being taken.

Hon Darren Hughes: The second point is that the substance of the Minister’s answer was that he did not want to go down the path of criticism and arrow slinging, and so on and so forth, but in his own prepared answers to the Māori Party’s supposed supplementary questions he accused the Labour Party of shutting down freedom of speech and all sorts of things. I do not feel that my colleague’s question was answered.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member, and I agree with him absolutely that the disorder that has arisen during this question stems from the Minister’s first answer, which was not particularly helpful. Having said that, I think the member the Hon David Parker asked whether the Minister agreed with a statement. We all know that when we seek opinions we cannot expect to receive absolutely precise answers around them. From the Minister’s answer it would appear that he does not totally agree, because he suggested that that sort of language was not helpful. So I think the member did get his question answered.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree with comments made by John Armstrong in the New Zealand Herald this morning that “Right now, the Maori Party carries the responsibility of making optimum use of a benign political climate to strike a deal both for its own sake and the country’s.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: With apologies to the New Zealand Herald, I have to confess that I have not read the article. I am the first to admit that it is a different political environment from what it was 7 years ago. I think there is a very good opportunity to work through this issue. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister—

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Listen to Mr Robertson behaving like an oaf.

Mr SPEAKER: I was just about to assist the Minister, and he has just cut the ground from under my feet. On this occasion the Minister was trying to give a helpful answer, there was a lot of interjection, and it was very unhelpful. But with that last comment the Minister has left me no option but to proceed to the next question, if there are no more supplementary questions.

Budget 2010—Responsible Spending of Taxpayers’ Money

2. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2010 ensure taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Budget 2010 will continue the process of cleaning up the mess left by the previous Government and improving the quality of Government spending. It is important that this Government focus on better front-line services and on not wasting money on bureaucracy, strategies, plans, and workshops, as the previous Government did. This Government intends to honour the confidence that taxpayers have shown in the Government’s ability to use their PAYE dollar wisely.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How will the Government improve the quality of spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will not actually be very difficult to do so, because in the past 5 years under the previous Government one-third of all Budget vote areas received funding increases of over 50 percent, and two-thirds received increases of over 30 percent. These very large increases made very little increase in the effectiveness of public services. In Budget 2009 we directed about $2 billion of lower-value spending to the front line of public services, and we intend to redirect a significant amount in this next Budget.

Stuart Nash: What is his response to the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who earlier this week talked about the consequences of not doing enough to protect jobs in a recession, saying: “Look at the unemployment rate in New Zealand, just across the Tasman … If that unemployment rate was replicated here in Australia, hundreds of thousands of people would not be with jobs today,”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That question is a bit rich coming from a party that opposes mining, which has been the largest source of new jobs in Australia.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative approaches to fiscal management?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. I have seen reports of the long list of unfunded commitments Labour left behind when it left Government. When we add them all up, we see that the previous Labour Government had made $6 billion of commitments for which there was no funding at all. I am pleased to say that in last year’s Budget we got rid of most of those commitments, and in this year’s Budget we will continue to eliminate the waste that Labour built into the system.

Stuart Nash: When he said yesterday that jobs lost in the recession were “not real jobs”, which aspect of the jobs was not real—the steady wage, or people’s ability to pay the bills and support their families? Does he simply believe that those 168,000 people are not really unemployed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I said yesterday was that instead of crying crocodile tears, Labour should take responsibility for the problems it has created in the economy. It promoted a housing bubble, it fed consumption in the economy with excessive Government spending, and people who thought they had long-term, sustainable jobs did not actually have long-term, sustainable jobs. We are trying to clean up that mess.

Crime, Violent—Prime Minister’s Statements

3. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “I know that one of the key reasons Kiwis elected National is because they trusted us to take the tough steps needed to tackle violent crime and make families safer in their home and communities”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and the Government has followed through on that by passing 11 new pieces of legislation, with three more having been introduced, that toughen up on sentences, parole, and bail for violent offenders, improve police powers, crack down on gangs and P, and support crime victims.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How much safer are New Zealand families, when the crime statistics released today show that the increase in crime under National is bigger than it was in any calendar year under the previous Labour Government and that violent crime has risen by 9.2 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has taken seriously the need to get on top of the rising momentum of violent crime over the last decade. We are backing the police with a wide range of tools, which they appreciate and which the public believe will be effective in dealing with that rising momentum of violent crime.

David Garrett: Does the Prime Minister expect the “three strikes” legislation that has now been reported back to the House will make a difference to violent crime in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes; that is why the Government supports that legislation. The “three strikes” legislation will send a very clear message to serious, recidivist offenders that they will be dealt with severely. The legislation will also make it less likely that serious, recidivist offenders will be able to continue to commit crime, because they will be locked up.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which communities are feeling safer now than they were before the election, considering that 10 out of the 12 police districts in New Zealand experienced an increase in crime in 2009, six of those on the back of a decrease in crime under the previous Labour Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those communities, and all communities, are looking forward to the benefits of an increase in police numbers, tougher sentences, tighter parole management, tighter rules for bail on violent offenders, improved police powers, and a crackdown on gangs and P. I must say that all the reports coming out of, for instance, South Auckland are that the higher police numbers and smarter policing are making that community feel safer.

David Garrett: Has the Prime Minister seen evidence that defining a “strike” as a conviction plus a qualifying offence would greatly reduce the effect of the “three strikes” policy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a lot of discussion about the definition of a “strike” and the definition of an offence. The Government has supported the general principle that dealing more harshly with serious, recidivist offenders will make the community safer, because those criminals will be locked up.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: If, as Simon Power said, 54 murders in a year was an example of violence running wild, what would he call a massive 25 percent increase in murders in 2009 under his watch, leading to the highest murder rate in 10 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure that Mr Power would regard any increase in the murder rate as being completely unacceptable, and that is why he has been the prime driver in this Government in passing a series of law changes that will give the police more tools—and the criminals more consequences—to deal with violent crime.

Su’a William Sio: Why did he tell Counties-Manukau police in March: “Provisional statistics suggest crime in the region is dropping”, and: “Already, people in Counties-Manukau are noticing a change for the better”, when the crime statistics released today show that Counties-Manukau had an increase in every category of crime in 2009 and, in many cases, on the back of decreases in the year before that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That member would know as well as anyone that both the previous Government and the current Government have put considerable effort and resources into reducing crime in South Auckland. Our discussions with the police have been to the effect that they believe the increase in police numbers and the changes in their methods of policing, alongside the work done under the previous Government in respect of youth gangs, will have a significant impact on crime in South Auckland.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can the Prime Minister now tell us exactly when he will deliver on his promised priority to make our streets safer for Kiwis, rather than using every excuse he can find, which is what he and his police Minister have done today, as an excuse for inaction and not delivering?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has delivered on his promises. The Government has passed 11 new laws, with three more to come, that toughen up on sentences, parole, and bail, increase police numbers, improve police powers, and crack down on gangs and on P. The people who have been making excuses are in the Labour Party, which has not supported all the measures that are needed to get on top of the rising momentum of violent crime.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why does he not honour his promise and be accountable for the explosion in violent crime in New Zealand under his watch, rather than making excuses, bearing in mind that he said before the election: “Clark may offer excuses but I say this: not on my watch. National will do better at preventing crime and we will do better at cracking down on criminals.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: And that is exactly what he has done.

Crime Statistics—Factors Influencing 2009 Statistics

4. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received on the key factors that influenced the 2009 crime statistics?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): The crime statistics today show that New Zealand has a serious violent element that has no respect for people, the community, or the law.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Surprise, surprise!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It might well be a surprise to Clayton Cosgrove, but it is not a surprise to members on this side of the House. Two big factors in our crime statistics are reported family violence and an increase in alcohol and drug arrests due to an increased focus on these crimes by police. Despite this—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister while she is on her feet, but I am sitting very close to her and I cannot hear a word. A constant barrage is coming from the Opposition benches. The Opposition might not like to hear the answer, but I certainly would, and I am sure that other members would, too.

Hon Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need further assistance on this one. I ask members to be a little more reasonable, but I do not blame this situation totally on the Opposition, at all, because the Minister in answering the question included a provocative comment directed across the House, which obviously brought more interjection back. The remedy is partly in the Minister’s hands: to not be unnecessarily or gratuitously provocative.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I will continue. Despite this, and despite the—

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You had barely called the Minister to answer the question when the barrage of noise began again. I am sitting marginally closer to her than Mr Hide was, but I could not hear a word of what was being said.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member. On this occasion, the Minister had barely opened her mouth, so the Opposition front-benchers did not have the excuse that she had been provocative, yet there was an immediate barrage. I now ask seriously for members to show a little more respect for the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Despite this, the police have achieved an outstanding result in solving 47.8 percent of all reported crime—the highest level since electronic records began in 1978. In fact, just today the police completed a major organised crime operation in the Bay of Plenty, with 115 arrests, the destruction of thousands of cannabis plants, and the seizing of methamphetamine, cash, and stolen property—yet another great result from the police.

Sandra Goudie: What other steps has this Government taken to address the issues raised by the crime statistics?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We have taken action to toughen sentences, parole, and bail for violent offenders; we have improved police powers and cracked down on gangs and P; and, most important, we have supported the victims of crime. We have given the police new tools to go after criminals, including 720 new Tasers and a new power to take DNA samples from offenders arrested for imprisonable offences. We are putting 300 extra police on the front line, and 200 police officers are already deployed in South Auckland. This means that the police will catch more criminals, which will be reflected in the statistics. The more police we have, the more rocks they can look under, and that is exactly what is happening.

Sandra Goudie: What steps has the Government taken to help the police cope with family violence?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, the police have an incredibly difficult job. They are called in to clean up after the most horrendous cases of violence and domestic violence, putting their own safety on the line in most of these cases. In addition to the raft of laws effective from 1 December 2009, from July this year the police will be able to issue on-the-spot protections orders. That means they will be able to remove immediately any alleged violent person from a home for a period of up to 5 days, without having to wait, in some cases, for quite a long time for a court date. It is very important that this Government is backing the police, giving them 600 extra staff and 720 Tasers, and is backing the police when they have to take tough decisions about their safety and the safety of others.

Hon Annette King: What evidence does she have—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Any member of this House is entitled to ask a question.

Hon Annette King: What evidence does she have to back up her claim that welfare dependants—in other words, beneficiaries—are responsible for the explosion of violent crime in New Zealand, which is at the highest rate we have seen in a decade in terms of murders; and is not that claim just a continuation of the despicable attack on beneficiaries aimed at driving a wedge between those the Government believes are battlers and those it writes off as bludgers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If that member is going to start to quote me, she should quote the entire piece. I said that intergenerational welfare dependency is actually a driver of crime. If members want to consider that, they should just think about the Harris Brothers gang, about whom the Minister for Social Development and Employment alerted the public just a few days ago—gang members on benefits and too sick to work, according to that member.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: To the Minister—

Hon Members: Oh, oh!

Mr SPEAKER: As I said a moment ago, any member of this House has a right to ask a supplementary question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: So is the Minister saying that when statistics show more crime under Labour, that means there was more crime, but when the statistics show there is more crime under National, this means the Minister is doing a good job?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I say to that member that not once as the Minister of Police will I ever blame the sun and the moon for a rise in crime, as Annette King did—not once.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to that comment. A retraction of those comments was put in the New Zealand Herald—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to resume her seat for a moment. I say to the Government benches, on this occasion, that a point is being heard and it will be heard in silence, although I point out to the honourable member that if she wishes to make a personal explanation she should seek leave to do that.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon Annette King: It was reported in 2007 that I had said that the moon and the weather were responsible for a rise in crime. In fact, what I said was misreported. I was reporting something that was said to me; it was not something that I said. I have corrected that in the House before, and I expect my word to be taken.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member, and that will be the case.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I contest the answer given by the Minister. It did not address the question, at all. It talked about an extraneous quote, which we now know is not true; it did not address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that if the member reflects he will see that when asking the type of question he asked, he will get an answer that he hardly expects. I think that is what he got, and we have had a personal explanation to deal with that answer. I cannot expect a more precise answer to that kind of question.

Social Development and Employment, Associate Minister—Statements

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with all recent comments by her Associate Minister, the Hon Tariana Turia?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I do 99.9 percent of the time.

Hon Annette King: When her Associate Minister, Tariana Turia, claimed on Radio New Zealand on Tuesday that: “At the last minute we were given a copy of the reforms. That makes it really difficult to have an input into them.”, was she given a copy of the proposed benefit reforms called Future Focus, announced last week, or a copy of the social services 2008 National Party manifesto?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As has been quite clearly identified over the last few days, it is a policy we have been working on for a long time. It was in our manifesto, which we obviously went into the election with. There have been many different versions of it as it went through the normal process. So she has seen the manifesto, she has seen the proposal at the end—the last one—and she saw many copies of it in between, as well.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I made that question very precise. In light of Tariana Turia saying she was given a copy of the policy at the last minute, I asked the Minister whether it was a copy of the proposal announced last week or whether it was a copy of the National Party manifesto.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I pointed out, there have been many different versions that the Minister has seen. I cannot possibly make a comment on which one she was talking about at that time.

Mr SPEAKER: That seems a reasonable answer to that question. Although the member said it was a precise question, if one takes the question in its totality, there is no specific answer to it, given the various versions of the policy that exist, as the Minister has explained. It is a difficult question to answer any more precisely.

Hon Annette King: When she stated in Parliament on Tuesday that the policy had been through the normal process many times, including consultation with the Māori Party on 16 February, well after her Associate Minister returned to work, was she consulting on proposals agreed in principle by Cabinet on 14 December?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: And other developments since then. The member can cut and slice this however she likes. There is no great conspiracy theory. The reality is that there is an immense amount of respect and admiration from me for Minister Turia, and I think she has it in return. I think the work we are doing for children and whānau in this country will be better than we have seen in many, many years.

Hon Annette King: What was her response to the statement of the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Tariana Turia, on 15 January, issued considerably earlier than she said she would return to work, stating that she intended to challenge the Minister and seek a meeting with her in January to go over the proposed benefit changes because the changes had not been discussed with her? Did this meeting take place?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Minister Turia mentioned yesterday that she had been away for some time, so, no, there had not been a meeting with her prior to that conversation. The member is obviously quoting from 15 January. It is a relationship that is healthy and that is dynamic; we have conversation. We challenge different areas of the portfolio—

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure it is of great interest what the relationship is, but that is not what the member asked. The member asked specifically what the Minister’s response was to an alleged document of 15 January, if I remember the question correctly, from the Associate Minister Tariana Turia. Given the primary question, the member may not have that information available today, but I think some attempt to answer that would be helpful to the House, rather than an explanation of the wider relationship.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I heard a quote that she gave from the radio interview, I presume, not a particular paper at that time. I was merely getting to the crux of the relationship, which is what I think this whole conversation is about. I do not think the papers will be running a special edition on the conspiracies of the Labour Party on the relationships that we have with the Māori Party.

Hon Annette King: In light of the obvious confusion about the meaning of consultation with her Associate Minister, can she guarantee that the recent consultation has sorted out that there will be no preferential treatment in Whānau Ora as promised by the Prime Minister, there will be around $1 billion available for the policy as indicated by Tariana Turia, and that Te Puni Kōkiri will be running Whānau Ora as implied by the Minister of Māori Affairs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The only people who I am hearing who are confused about consultation are members on the other side of this House.

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Consultation Document

6. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Attorney-General: What are the key aspects of the Government’s preferred approach in the foreshore and seabed consultation document released yesterday?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): The key aspects are: first, to repeal the 2004 Act and replace it with new legislation; second, to remove Crown ownership of the public foreshore and seabed; third, to create a public domain that recognises and balances the interests of all New Zealanders; fourth, to restore any uninvestigated customary title that was extinguished by the 2004 Act; fifth, to restore the fundamental human right to seek access to justice through the courts; and, sixth, to provide for public access and the continued operation of existing use rights.

Paul Quinn: What are the key differences between the current Act and the Government’s preferred approach?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are a number. First, it provides for the recognition of customary title, which the current Act extinguished; second, it removes Crown ownership of the public foreshore and seabed, and places it in a public domain; and, third, it restores the fundamental right of New Zealanders to seek access to the courts in this regard.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister agree that designating the foreshore and seabed as public domain, which United Future has advocated since 2004, is the best way to ensure that the traditional rights and interests of all New Zealanders can be protected? Is this the reason why he is now promoting the creation of a public domain as the Government’s preferred option?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I do. I acknowledge that United Future has been advocating this position since 2004, and, with respect, I think it is right. I commend the member and his party for the contribution that they have made to this debate.

Paul Quinn: Under the Government’s preferred approach, what rights and practices would be protected?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are a number. First, public access to the foreshore and seabed would be provided for; second, any part of the foreshore and seabed that is privately owned would be unaffected, and there are about 12,500 titles around the coastline that fall into that category; third, existing fishing and navigation rights would remain unchanged; and, fourth, all existing use rights, such as costal permits, would remain unchanged until the end of their term. I will add, in this respect, that most New Zealanders will not notice any dramatic change, but that those people who had their rights taken away will.

Hon David Parker: Are the rights that Māori hapū or iwi may obtain under customary title claims under the Government’s preferred approach similar to those achieved by Ngāti Porou in their agreement with the previous Labour Government?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: They could be. I have studied very closely the Ngāti Porou agreement, which some on the member’s side of the House have characterised as being an agreement under the Foreshore and Seabed Act. In fact, those rights are not the same; they go beyond those provided for in the Act. In analysing the awards and the tests I have endeavoured to look at what is currently there under the 2004 Act and under the Ngāti Porou agreement, then to take that to customary title. In this respect it is different: customary title will be a species of property right. It will not be able to be sold, public access will be retained, and there will also be a right to develop.

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Prime Minister’s Statements

7. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his recent comments about proposed changes to the Foreshore and Seabed Act that “I don’t think people will notice a lot of change.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because for most New Zealanders public access to the seabed and foreshore will be protected. But for those who gain the right to access the courts again, it will be a significant change.

Hon Parekura Horomia: How can the Prime Minister reconcile that comment with the comment made by the Hon Pita Sharples on Checkpoint yesterday that this is very different to the current law?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This whole issue has arisen because of different points of view about what it means for the Crown to have designated ownership of the seabed and foreshore, or for it to be available for claims in customary rights. For those—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, we cannot hear what the Minister is saying. Nothing provocative is being said—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard and there will not be interjection. I have heard the member’s point of order and it is a perfectly fair point of order. There was absolutely unnecessary noise—from the Opposition benches on this occasion. The Minister was not being provocative. He was asked a serious question and was answering it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to listen to the tape of what Rodney Hide said. First of all, he said that he could not hear the Minister, and then he said that nothing provocative was being said. Both cannot be true.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no need to take this matter any further. I am not going to take the matter any further. The member had asked a question, and the Hon Bill English was answering. The question asked how the Minister reconciles some things and the Minister was explaining how he reconciles those things.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those statements illustrate the challenge of finding a lasting solution to this issue. The fact is that it will look different depending on one’s point of view. Under the proposals in the discussion document, for most New Zealanders there will be little change because their interest in the seabed and foreshore consists of access to it, and that will not change. But many Māori want the opportunity to test their customary rights, and I think Labour members just have to accept that the bill they passed did not amount to a lasting solution. I hope they can apply themselves to finding a lasting solution this time, because last time they failed.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not quite hear. Did he just say that there would be little change?

Mr SPEAKER: The member must not seek to litigate an answer by way of point of order.

Hon Parekura Horomia: No, I am asking.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member—[Interruption] A point of order is being heard. If the member could not hear, he has only his colleagues to blame. I invite the Hon David Parker to ask a supplementary question, and I ask members to have a little more reasonableness with interjections.

Hon David Parker: Does the Prime Minister stand by his position, reported on page 1 of the Dominion Post this morning, that the Government would stick with the status quo if agreement could not be reached?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Taxis—Improving Driver Safety

8. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Transport: What steps is the Government considering to improve taxi driver safety?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): Yesterday I met with representatives from the taxi industry to discuss options for improving the safety of taxi drivers. After considering all the options, the industry representatives and officials believe that mandating for cameras to be installed in taxis in the main centres would bring the greatest benefits. That is widely supported by the industry. It is unfortunate that we have to consider this step, but two drivers have been murdered recently, and the number of serious assaults has been increasing over the last decade. It is my intention to take recommendations to Cabinet shortly.

Dr Jackie Blue: What benefits would installing cameras in taxis have?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In Australia cameras have proven to be effective in reducing violence against drivers by around 70 percent, and they have reduced fare evasion by a similar amount. In addition, the cameras provide enhanced safety for passengers and can be used by the police when investigating other crimes where the offender has used a taxi. I stress that any introduction of cameras into taxis would be accompanied by rules governing the use of images, to protect the privacy of passengers.

Accident Compensation—New Sexual Abuse Clinical Guidelines

9. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Is he satisfied that the new sexual abuse clinical guidelines used in ACC’s Sensitive Claims Unit are offering “the best treatment possible”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): The new guidelines are a consequence of work initiated under the previous Labour Government. The launch of the Sexual Abuse and Mental Injury: Practice Guidelines for Aotearoa New Zealand was done by Steve Maharey in 2008. I have consistently refused to interfere in clinical decisions in this sensitive area, other than to emphasise the importance of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) complying with the Act and ensuring these vulnerable claimants receive the best possible clinical treatment. To ensure I am satisfied, this month I am initiating a clinical review.

Lynne Pillay: When will the Minister admit that the new imposed ACC guidelines were not designed by Massey University, which has publicly dissociated itself from those guidelines; and that those new guidelines do not give the best treatment possible; rather, they re-victimise victims of crime?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is quite the contrary. I assure the member that ACC’s clinical guidelines were based on the research report launched by Steve Maharey and done at Massey University.

Michael Woodhouse: Who has he offered to consult on the membership and terms of reference for the independent clinical review of ACC’s sensitive claims?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the House and in writing I have offered to consult with the Labour Opposition on both the personnel and the terms of reference for the clinical review. I am disappointed that Labour has refused input, and this shows that Labour is more interested in politics than the genuine clinical care of sexual abuse victims.

Lynne Pillay: Does the Minister not understand that Labour will not participate in this sham review of the ACC pathway, because it would be a complete waste of time and taxpayers’ money, given that ACC’s figures show that 18 months ago some 300 people were approved for counselling each month and now fewer than 12 people are approved in a month?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think what might differ between members of the Government and the Opposition is our view that clinical decisions should be made by clinicians. I am disappointed that when the Opposition was offered a role in the appointment of the independent clinical review, it refused. When I offered to consult with the Opposition about the terms of reference of the review, it refused. It is a bit rich for those members to say the review is a sham when it has not even started.

Lynne Pillay: Is the Minister aware that the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists passed a unanimous resolution at its annual conference calling for the imposed ACC sensitive claims pathway to cease and to return to a system that ensures that survivors of sexual abuse receive the support they need and deserve?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I get different views from different clinical professionals. The view I have taken is that my expertise is not in this sensitive area. That is why I have said that the best way forward is an independent clinical review of those guidelines that were launched as a consequence of work, including that by Steve Maharey, done when Labour was in Government.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Lianne Dalziel.

Lynne Pillay: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise. The member was calling a point of order, but it is withdrawn.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister saying—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that Lynne Pillay had the call prior to Lianne Dalziel.

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is the sole judge of who will be called. I apologise for that interruption.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister saying that in fact there has been no change to the operation of the guidelines since the National Government has been in place, and has he received any representations from the Minister of Justice about the impact the changes in implementation have had on the work he has been doing in respect of victims of sexual violence?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I make is that the Government, as in Ministers, has had absolutely no influence on the work of the clinical guidelines, because I have taken the quite appropriate view as a Minister that it is not for me to be involved in setting—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very straight question: “Is the Minister saying that the guidelines are being implemented exactly as they were prior to the change in Government?”. The Minister is attempting to talk about whether he has had any interference. There was nothing in my question that asked whether there was ministerial interference. I would have to assume that that would be—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. The member’s point of order is perfectly fair up until that point—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: —I am on my feet—questioning whether the Minister was answering her question. The question asked whether the implementation of the guidelines changed, as I understand it, from those being administered by the previous Government. The member wanted to raise a point of order in response, and I will hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The difficulty with the member’s question is that she asserted that the Government had changed the process of the guidelines, implying that Ministers had. I wanted to make it plain to the House that that assertion—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is entering into debate. I suggest that the easiest way to resolve this is to ask the member to repeat her question without penalty and for her to keep it brief. If she adds further phrases to it, the Minister is at liberty to pick on whatever part he chooses.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister saying that the guidelines are being implemented exactly as they were being implemented prior to the change of Government, and has he received any representations from the Minister of Justice about the impact that the change in implementation has had on the work that is being done with victims of sexual violence?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have had a number of discussions with the Minister of Justice about this sensitive area. In respect of the guidelines, the new ACC guidelines were based on the guidelines developed by Massey University, which were launched by Steve Maharey in March 2008.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The Minister has done exactly the same thing again. I asked whether—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. I listened very carefully to the member’s question. I have warned the member about adding two parts to a question. The Minister picked up on the second part of the question and answered it perfectly fairly and properly, and that is as far as I can assist the member. The remedy is in members’ hands when asking questions.

Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table a copy of a resolution that was passed unanimously by psychotherapists calling for a halt to the imposed ACC pathway, and a return to—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table my correspondence to the Hon Nick Smith stating that Labour would not participate confidentially in an ACC review process—

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

Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table correspondence from Massey University stating the rules for sexual abuse claims were not developed by Massey University, but by ACC itself.

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

Canterbury—Hurunui River Water Conservation Order Application

10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: When did he first learn that the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon David Carter, had spoken to applicants for a water conservation order on the Hurunui River suggesting they freeze that application, and what action, if any, did he subsequently take?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yesterday. The Prime Minister’s office then talked to the Minister’s office to establish the facts of the situation.

Dr Russel Norman: Can he guarantee that prior to yesterday he had not received any reports or correspondence alerting him to the fact that David Carter had asked the applicants for the water conservation order to freeze it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The facts of the matter, as I understand them, are that in conjunction with the Hurunui Mayor, Garry Jackson, and Bede O’Malley, chair of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy steering group, the Minister of Agriculture discussed with all parties involved in the water conservation order process, including the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the possibility of an integrated approach to try to avoid the issue’s escalating to the Environment Court. This collaborative approach was undertaken in an attempt to avoid the combative and expensive court route, and reflects the approach recommended by the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. All parties were initially positive about this approach, but subsequently some withdrew their support and decided to proceed with the Environment Court action.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of that answer, which confirms the fact that the Minister of Agriculture approached the parties before they went to the Environment Court, does he stand by the statement he made in the House yesterday that it was a “wild and unproven” allegation for me to bring this matter to his attention?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the unproven element of the allegation was that somehow the Minister was acting out of personal interest. Of course, he was not; he was acting as the Minister of Agriculture, trying to bring together a collaborative strategy to get a better result for the management of water in Canterbury. That is what we would expect the Minister of Agriculture to be doing.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he concerned by the contradiction between David Carter’s answer to written question No. 14809 from October last year, when he said that he had not discussed the water conservation order process with any of the parties associated with the Hurunui River, and his press release of yesterday, which said that he had?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Agriculture has been quite open, publicly and with the Prime Minister, about the facts of the matter. The member should take up the issue of the parliamentary question with the Minister.

Dr Russel Norman: Is it an acceptable standard of behaviour for a Minister to answer a written question “No.” when asked whether he had discussed with any of the parties plans for an appeal against the application for a water conservation order on the Hurunui River, and then in his press release yesterday to say that he had discussed it with the parties?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We would not want to jump to conclusions on the basis of that member’s description, but all Ministers should strive for accuracy in answering parliamentary questions. I think the important point here is that the Minister was attempting to adopt the collaborative approach that has been behind the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. In the end, that did not work, and the parties ended up choosing the expensive court process.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you do not agree with the tabling of questions generally, but the Deputy Prime Minister has just said in his answer that he does not take my word for what the question said. So I seek leave to table the answer to the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister did not actually say that he did not take the member’s word, at all. I did not take that implication from what he said. The problem I have is that the written answer is available to all members. I hesitate to seek leave to table such a document when it is readily available to all members. The member has more supplementary questions.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider something. We are seeing examples at question time where a questioner says: “the Minister said this” or “the Prime Minister said that”, when what is being said is clearly not correct. We saw it just then, and you picked up on it in the point of order, where, in actual fact, the statement made by point of order was not strictly correct. It gets read into the Hansard and interpreted by the media as something entirely different. I accept that it is harder in question time, but I think to introduce incorrect statements on points of order is a mistake.

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

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need to hear further on this. I do not think we need to take further time of the House. I respect the member’s point of order, because it was to do with the order of the House. But I believe that the member is reading more into this situation than deserves to be read into it. I think that what the Deputy Prime Minister said was available for interpretation and that a member could have felt that it was questioning the member’s word. Therefore, I do not consider that Dr Russel Norman was misrepresenting the situation when he then sought my view as to whether he could table the answer to a written question. It is a very marginal case, but I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister impugned the member’s integrity; neither do I believe that the member was totally wrong in feeling that the Deputy Prime Minister might have done. I think that on this occasion it is not worth taking more time of the House. The member’s questions have been dealt with, with what I think was a lot of sincerity by the Deputy Prime Minister in trying to answer the member’s questions. The member has further supplementary questions should he wish to—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A similar problem happened yesterday, I think, as well. I think that this problem could be resolved if members, when quoting from answers to written questions, gave the number of the question. That means that members can go back and trace it. It is quite hard to find it otherwise.

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness to Dr Russel Norman, I say that, if I remember correctly, he gave the number of the question. I think on this matter we are all being just a little bit sensitive. The member is pursuing a matter of interest to him with his supplementary questions in a fairly effective way. I ask him to continue.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware that under the resource consent on the Hon David Carter’s farm on the Hurunui River, the irrigation is required to stop when the water in the river goes below a minimum flow, and that if the Hurunui irrigation scheme goes ahead, the water in that river will be maintained above that flow and the irrigation on Mr Carter’s farm will be enhanced as a result?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not aware of the details of the consent on the Minister’s farm. I am aware that he has been involved with discussions around irrigation in Canterbury for a number of years. The circumstances of his farm ownership are well known.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of Agriculture has had any involvement in any discussions in Cabinet or Cabinet committees regarding the changes to Environment Canterbury?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister for Agriculture has an interest both in his capacity as Minister and in his capacity as a Canterbury member of Parliament. He has participated, as most Ministers in Cabinet have, in work on general policy matters relating to Environment Canterbury.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked whether he could guarantee whether the Minister of Agriculture had been involved in any of those discussions in Cabinet and Cabinet committees.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened to the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer quite carefully, and I believe he just told the House that the Minister had been.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a letter from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society to the Prime Minister, dated December last year, regarding the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture in the water conservation order.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a file note from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society’s South Island manager regarding the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture in the water conservation order process.

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

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a map that illustrates the relationship of the Hon David Carter’s farm to the Hurunui irrigation project area.

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

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): I seek leave to table my letter to the Opposition on 24 March last year, offering to consult with Opposition members on the clinical review of the sensitive claims mentioned.

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

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): Just while we are in tabling mode, and bearing in mind your rulings, I seek leave to table a document from the Hon John Banks, Mayor of Auckland, in which he states: “The latest crime statistics shame this country and create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation”—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just seek guidance: is this is a press release, or is it a—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yes, and if I could just tell you why—

Hon Members: Oh!

Mr SPEAKER: This is a point of order, and it will be heard in silence.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Bearing in mind, as I said at the start, your rulings about matters not being freely available to this House, the reason I seek an exception in this case is that this release was released only a matter of an hour or two ago, and will not be available to this House.

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

Building—Licence System

11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress has he made in terms of introducing a building licence system that will give New Zealanders confidence in the skills of the builders they employ?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I have good news. From today the number of licence classes for builders and designers will reduce from six to two, making the licensing process much simpler. That means competent professionals will now find it easier to find the licence that is right for them. From today there will be just one licence for design and another for site practitioners. Reducing the number of licences cuts costs and makes licensing a whole lot easier. We listened to the industry, and we took its feedback on board. The message was clear: the system was too complex and cumbersome. Today we have fixed it.

Melissa Lee: What other streamlining changes has the Minister made recently?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: In February I launched a product called the Better Building Blueprint, which has a range of measures. We made it quicker and cheaper to get consents for designs being built across the country through what we call the National Multiple-use Approval Service.

Hon Simon Power: Excellent.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I know my colleague wants the House to carry on, so I will try to be brief. We introduced a streamlined approvals process for qualified tradespeople to become licensed builders. We launched a consultation paper on improving the Building Act by cutting red tape and bureaucracy without compromising quality. The list could go on for the rest of the afternoon. It is all good news.

Phil Twyford: What reports has he seen on the last time a National Government changed the building regulations and shut down apprenticeship, in the 1990s, and what impact did that have on the confidence of New Zealanders in the skills of the builders they employ?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I am reminded by a colleague alongside me that the Hon George Hawkins has said that Labour’s work achieved all that had been done. But this Government is focused on the future and on getting some damn good product out there for the people without compromising quality. We are not looking backwards.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister what reports he had seen on the last time a National Government changed the building regulations.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I listened carefully to the member’s question. He made all sorts of claims of supposed fact in the question, and the Minister responded in any way he chose. With that kind of question, he really was at liberty to do so.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Coromandel

12. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: Will she be visiting the Coromandel during Easter to gauge for herself the depth of resentment against proposals to allow mining of sensitive schedule 4 land?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation): I have prior engagements this Easter, but I am wondering about what other invitations the member has in mind.

Hon David Parker: When did the Minister last visit the Coromandel?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have visited the Coromandel in my capacity as either the Minister of Conservation or the Associate Minister of Conservation. If the member wants to know the specific date, I can certainly provide that at a later stage.

Hon David Parker: Why does the Minister not acknowledge that because Auckland has no mainland national parks, the protection of conservation lands in the Coromandel is all the more important?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am mindful of the protection of conservation lands, and that is one of the reasons why we have a discussion paper out there for submission. It is actually a discussion paper, not a decisions paper.

Hon David Parker: Is the Government’s decision to undermine water conservation orders in Canterbury, which occurred under urgency this week, yet another example of how her Cabinet colleagues are ignoring her efforts to advocate for the environment; or did she support the undermining of the water conservation orders on the Rākaia and Rangitata Rivers and of the application relating to the Hurunui River?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable Minister, I must say that that is a fairly long stretch from the primary question about visiting the Coromandel during Easter to gauge feeling about—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I am still considering this point of order. But I will hear the Hon Dr Nick Smith, as long as it is a genuine point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The legislation is very clear that responsibility for water conservation orders rests with the Minister for the Environment, not the Minister of Conservation.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for that clarification. Because this is the last question in this sitting of Parliament, I will invite the Hon David Parker to ask a further supplementary question that is a little closer to his primary question.

Hon David Parker: Was the Government’s decision to proceed with the consideration of mining in Coromandel, but to exclude consideration of mining in Kahurangi National Park because although it was worried that it would lose Nick Smith’s seat, it was not too worried about Sandra Goudie’s?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: We have made no such decision to proceed. We made a decision to release a discussion paper. I would ask why it is OK for a Labour Government to approve and allow mining in, or on, national parks, but it is not OK for the National Government even to discuss it and talk about it.

Third Readings

Third Readings

Debate resumed.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): Whenever the House has to consider an omnibus bill, such as the Regulatory Improvement Bill, which these bills came out of, we must be careful to ensure that vital issues are not overlooked. In relation to this legislation, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill is one particular bill that has been overlooked.

The Māori Party supported this bill at its first reading because it satisfied the party’s desire to see more community and less bureaucracy. As a principle, we support initiatives that help reduce unnecessary cost and uncertainty caused by an overlap or inconsistency between different pieces of legislation. But, after hearing from submitters on the Regulatory Improvement Bill, we have changed our view—particularly in respect of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill.

The Soil and Health Association was particularly concerned that applications to introduce new hazardous substances will shift from public notification to being publicly notified only at the discretion of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The association’s concern was echoed by Organics Aotearoa, which said that leaving the decision to the authority undermined the principle of transparent and open governance—the very issue that led to the Māori Party opposing the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill last night.

Our nervousness about dropping public notification is important, because, in respect of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, dropping public notification eliminates an important check on an agency’s decision-making process, increasing the risk that the Environmental Risk Management Authority will make bad decisions about whether hazardous substances should be released into the environment, and increasing the risk that such substances will be introduced to Aotearoa. Wyeth New Zealand said that public notification was vital to meaningful public debate on hazardous substances. GE-Free New Zealand noted that genetic engineering still posed unknown economic and environmental dangers, and that silencing the public voice simply to save money actually worked against the intentions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

The Māori Party supports the reduction of barriers to economic growth but not at the cost of the environment. Because public involvement is being set aside in respect of new applications under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act through the proposals being considered here today, the Māori Party cannot support the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would like to acknowledge the work of the Minister for Regulatory Reform, the Hon Rodney Hide, who has graciously acknowledged several times during the passage of this bill the work of my colleague the former Minister—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): There is a lot of noise in the House and it is very distracting. I know that we are getting close to the end of a long week but I just ask for a little less noise. I invite the member to continue.

CLARE CURRAN: I will acknowledge the Minister for Regulatory Reform, the Hon Rodney Hide, again. He graciously acknowledged several times during the passage of this legislation today the work of my colleague, the former Minister Lianne Dalziel. I also acknowledge the Hon Lianne Dalziel not only for her extensive work in bringing this legislation to the House but also for her work that underpinned it and her work as the chair of the Commerce Committee. The Hon Lianne Dalziel has been rightly acknowledged in this House many times today and I am not proposing to beat the record set by my colleague the Hon David Parker.

This legislation is important if we are to have an efficient regulatory environment that is fair to businesses. I remind the House that there is no reason to push this legislation through under urgency. This haste is beginning to define the National-ACT Government’s approach to lawmaking, which is to have no consultation. It is also important to remember that it was a Labour Government that came up with these changes, not a National Government, although National is doing the right thing by continuing with this legislation. It makes small, uncontroversial but important changes to the regulatory environment. It is built on the foundation of the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s extensive consultation with business. Labour is thankful that this consultation was undertaken while it was in Government as it is obvious that this is not how a National-ACT Government intends to operate.

This legislation is a response to the opinions of businesses heard by Labour on what would make the regulatory environment easier for them to operate in, and it came from the wide consultation process that the Labour Government underwent via the Quality Regulation Review, which involved 200 businesses and was led by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel. The review also greatly enhanced the regulatory impact statement regime, of which Labour is very proud. It was also led by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel.

The Quality Regulation Review was announced by the Labour Government in May 2006 to ensure that New Zealand’s regulatory environment was supportive of the Government’s economic transformation agenda, which was to address regulatory barriers to business growth. That review investigated ways of eliminating duplication, inconsistencies, and uncertainties where multiple regulatory frameworks intersect, and looked at improving the Government’s own processes for assessing and monitoring the impact of regulations. We often look at how one regulation works across the economy, but we seldom look at the cumulative impact of all regulations on one sector or industry. The fact that Labour looked at both angles has developed a richer perspective on the impacts on business, and a better understanding of how we can best resolve any concerns. Many of the ongoing work programmes that have been established as a result of the review are addressing these interface issues. Because the Labour Government spoke directly to businesses, it was able to get very specific feedback about how regulations look from their viewpoint, and has been able to build their needs into the strengthened regulatory impact analysis regime.

This legislation confirms that New Zealand’s regulatory environment is in good shape, which fits with the World Bank’s assessment of New Zealand as second in the world for ease of doing business. But there is room to improve the ways that rules are communicated to business, implemented, and enforced. Getting regulations right is a matter of continuous improvement. I think the Minister acknowledged that earlier today, and Labour supports the intention to have annual regulatory improvement bills.

Labour supports business, but it is more than that; Labour listens to business. Unlike the National Government, Labour did not rush its end of the legislation, namely the groundwork, the consultation, and the creation of the foundation on which this legislation now stands. The National Party is not the only party that stands for and supports Kiwi businesses. After 9 years of Labour Government, New Zealand was one of the easiest places in the world in which to do business. This legislation demonstrates the enormous benefit that real listening can provide, by asking businesses what they really thought. It is the cumulative effect of making small changes on a number of what seem to be small issues that can add up to significant change. So this afternoon, as we commend this legislation and its amendments to the nine Acts it affects, we should remember that it was Labour that listened to businesses, and it was Labour that came up with legislation to support them and foster their growth.

There can be no justification for bringing this legislation through all its final stages under urgency, but because we originated the measure, and because it is good legislation, we will not oppose its passage.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I have been advised by the Labour whips that they intend to split the call. The second part of the call goes to Raymond Huo.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I am delighted to rise to take a very short, 1½ minute call in support of the nine bills that arise from the Regulatory Improvement Bill.

There are two important aspects I wish to focus on. Firstly, as my learned colleague Charles Chauvel noted in the bill’s first reading, the content of the bill is only half the matter; the other half is the process that led to it. Secondly, in relation to the Regulatory Improvement Bill, we have to engage in two-way communication; we have to ask the businesses, or stakeholders, what the issues are, go through a meaningful consultation process, and then make sure we respond in a judicious and proportional way.

It is particularly important, in light of the impression I got from the Minister for Regulatory Reform, that such a bill will become part of the normal proceedings of Parliament. It is very good that we have a regular opportunity to tidy up some issues that may not be insignificant enough to make it into a Statutes Amendment Bill, but are not significant enough to warrant a bill in their own right. The Hon. Lianne Dalziel made history in September 2008, and set a good precedent for us to follow.

I commend the bills to the House. Thank you.

Companies Amendment Bill read a third time.

Conservation Amendment Bill read a third time.

Designs Amendment Bill read a third time.

Fisheries Amendment Bill read a third time.

Gas Amendment Bill read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 14

Green Party 9; Māori Party 5.

Bill read a third time.

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Amendment Bill read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Reserves Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 113

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Bill read a third time.

Weights and Measures Amendment Bill read a third time.

Bills

Unit Titles Bill

Third Reading

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: I move, That the Unit Titles Bill be now read a third time. I am really pleased to be involved in the final stage of a bill that I think is bringing the whole issue of units and multiple unit blocks into the 21st century. I am delighted to know that this legislation has the support of the whole House. I am pleased that those living and working in unit title developments will finally have up-to-date, contemporary legislation that reflects the best practice in property management and maintenance.

Two or three of the key elements of this bill that I think will make a huge difference are certainly those to do with the voting rights issue. When the unit titles legislation was first put before this House many, many years ago, the average size of a block of units was three or four units. They were just a couple of flats here or a couple of flats there, and things like having to have 100 percent agreement whenever one wanted to make a change to the body corporate made sense. They really did.

But now huge blocks of apartments have been built—in Auckland we can see them on the skyline wherever we look. It can take just one particular tenant to hold up the process of getting a body corporate to make an agreement, because the unanimous agreement of all the tenants is needed. The tenant may not even be doing that deliberately, as he or she might be an absentee tenant living overseas. The requirement for unanimity has been changed in this legislation so that a 75 percent vote of all the tenants can make changes to the body corporate.

From my perspective in the building and construction portfolio, there is one more important part in this bill, and that is the requirement on the big blocks and apartments to have a schedule for long-term maintenance that will be required and a long-term maintenance fund to fund it. One of the things that we are finding in some of the big buildings in Auckland is that they have not had any maintenance done. So 15 or 20 years after they are built, they have serious problems with cracks, leaks, and so on. Those buildings would not be leaky buildings if, right from day one, they had had proper maintenance and had been looked after and cared for. This bill forces the big bodies corporate to publish their schedule, and to maintain those buildings, just as we would with our motorcar. The warranty for our motorcar would be void if we did not keep putting oil into it, looking after it, and so on. Well, it is the same thing now with buildings.

New Zealanders choose two very different lifestyles in this country. A lot of New Zealanders like the quarter-acre section. They like to live in their dream home by themselves. But an increasing number pursue what I think is the more urban lifestyle. They take advantage of the best that our inner-city communities have to offer. Both options are pretty good. I think it is fantastic that this bill makes urban and intensive living an attractive and viable option for those who want to live that lifestyle.

This bill does not just provide choices for people at the fast-paced, urban end of the spectrum. The best thing about this bill is its versatility. It provides a framework for creating new and innovative communities through the layered developments provision, it caters for small, suburban developments through exemptions from some financial management and governance provisions, and it ensures the regulatory framework is scalable to the size of the development. It enables commercial developments, such as office blocks or shopping malls, to make good property choices that lower the cost of doing business. It provides protection for all in unit title developments and, in particular, for those most vulnerable to being taken advantage of, such as people living in small-scale pensioner housing on unit title tenure.

The key benefits that this bill will have for those New Zealanders living and working in unit title developments are the provisions that relate to management, governance, and maintenance. The changes will mean that unit owners and bodies corporate will have the necessary tools to get things done quickly and efficiently. I think that that is the key thing about this bill. They will be tools for the modern era, which will allow things to be done quickly and efficiently for the benefit of the majority of the owners. I know of too many cases already where one owner has caused huge problems for the rest of the tenants just by not being prepared to agree to what I would have thought looked like a very sensible proposal for the body corporate.

These benefits are particularly relevant for those unit owners and bodies corporate in leaky buildings, because the changes clarify their rights and responsibilities. In addition, the passing of this bill means that they will be able to act more quickly and decisively when they need to make decisions about taking claims and getting repair work done.

I am pleased to stand here this afternoon and shepherd through the House this small but, I think, integral part of the solution that this Government is looking to try to get with regard to leaky homes, but it has a far wider range for all of those New Zealanders who live in apartments and unit titles. As the Hon John Key said in his statement to Parliament, this Government is committed to better regulation, and the Unit Titles Bill is certainly an excellent example of better regulation.

I thank all of those who were involved in this bill, from the long passage where it started back with the previous Labour Government—and I give absolute credit to Labour members for the genesis of where this legislation came from—to a whole lot of people who contributed through submissions to the Social Services Committee, to the various organisations like the New Zealand Law Society, the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, the Property Council, the Property Institute of New Zealand, the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, Crockers Strata Management, the Auckland Regional Council, and the Auckland City Council. The list goes on, and I do not want to spend the rest of the afternoon listing them because I know that members want to get away for Easter, but a lot of people contributed to this legislation. It is great legislation. I commend it to the House.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to finally be able to take a call in the third reading debate of the Unit Titles Bill. This legislation has been sitting on the Order Paper for a while, and I think we are all very, very pleased to finally see it passing into law. I will not say that we are pleased to finally see the back of it, because that would not be true. It was very interesting. Certainly, when members of the public come into our offices now with unit title questions, members of the Social Services Committee will be more than well equipped to deal with those issues. In fact, if anyone needs any help, I suggest they forward their queries to Katrina Shanks, chair of the Social Services Committee. She is available day and night to help members of the public with their queries on unit title legislation.

I thank the Acting Minister, Maurice Williamson, who has just taken his seat. I thank him for his wonderful 2 weeks as Acting Minister of Housing—

Hon Maurice Williamson: 5 weeks.

MOANA MACKEY: Is it 5 weeks? It went so fast. It went so fast, it went by in a blur. We had a wonderful time facing off against each other for that short period of time, and he will be sadly missed. But he does remain in the portfolio of building and housing, which of course has crossover to this legislation.

I thank the members of the Social Services Committee and the officials, and also all the submitters on this very technical but extremely important legislation. I think everyone in this House recognises that the Unit Titles Act 1972 is highly outdated. It is archaic, and it certainly is not flexible enough or modern enough to deal with the range of unit title developments that exist in New Zealand today.

I will touch on a couple of the important changes that this bill will make. The first is about ownership and utility interests. The ownership interest is the interest that is assigned by a registered valuer to the principal and the accessory units in a unit title development, and the utility interest is also assigned to the principal and accessory units. But in this particular area of interest, the body corporate is able to vote to change the calculation around who pays what, and in what proportions, so they can get a more fair and reasonable apportionment of costs. That is very important. I thank my colleague Chris Hipkins for raising this issue with me. A constituent came to see him about existing unit titles law. His constituent had strong concerns about the inability under existing law to make sure that those apportionments were fair and reasonable. So when we were working on that in the select committee, we went back and made sure that the concerns raised by Mr Chris Hipkins’ constituent were addressed. I am very, very pleased to say that they are addressed, under this legislation.

Under this legislation, bodies corporate will be able to apportion those costs far more flexibly and fairly. That is not to say that there was unanimous agreement amongst submitters. Under the legislation that is about to be passed into law, both those interests—the ownership interest and the utility interest—will be able to be reassessed at any time, as long as 3 years have passed since the last assessment. Some submitters thought that that was too long; some submitters thought that that was too short. I think that it provides a very good balance between not putting too much of a burden on the body corporate to be constantly reassessing those interests, but also making sure they are kept up to date. This comes down to issues as simple as the question of who should pay for a lift in a multi-storey development. Should the people on the ground floor, who get no benefit from a lift, have to pay the same amount for maintenance as the people who use it regularly? It sounds like a simple issue, but that is the kind of thing that can bog bodies corporate down, and it is important that the law is clear that it is up to the bodies corporate to be able to apportion those interests fairly.

One of the other things I will mention is what this bill does about the establishment and constitution of bodies corporate. Under this legislation, a body corporate is automatically created once a unit plan is deposited. From that point, the body corporate is responsible for the range of maintenance functions for the upkeep of the property and of the whole development. Some submitters came along and quite fairly said that they were in a really tiny development. They asked why they should go through all the rigmarole of one of the big body corporate developments when they were talking of only a few units. We as a select committee considered that, and decided that given that people know when they go into purchasing one of those units that it will be a unit title development under unit title law, and that it will require the formation of a body corporate, that that was probably fair enough. It is also important to say that at a later point, a body corporate can decide to cancel its unit plan, to subdivide its land or buildings, and to take up some other alternative structure, if that is the will of the body corporate. But it is important to point out that the most important thing about this law change is that it will reduce the costs on bodies corporate. So the concerns that small bodies corporate have about having to shoulder all those costs will be much reduced under this legislation. Not only that, the bill allows that developments of nine or fewer units will not be required to form a committee if they do not wish to do so, and they may opt out of auditing requirements. So we have recognised that the situation for smaller developments is different compared with bigger ones, and we have given some relief in that respect.

I will move on to an important part, which is about the rights and responsibilities of unit holders. This is an area where we have seen quite a lot of litigation over the years, particularly about leaky buildings. It was important that we got this absolutely right. We needed to be clear about exactly when a body corporate was responsible, and when an individual unit holder was responsible. This legislation says that, in general, where that property is common property, then it is the responsibility of the body corporate to recover the money expended for repairs, except in a situation where a unit holder has caused the damage to the property by his or her actions. In that case, the unit holder will be held responsible.

That is not clear in the existing law that is about to be replaced. I want to make it very clear, because it is an area where there has been significant litigation about leaky homes. This bill, under clause 122(2), will impose an obligation on bodies corporate to “maintain, repair, or renew all building elements and all infrastructure that relate to or serve more than 1 unit.” This is a common-sense resolution of the matter, which has been subject to considerable litigation, as members will be aware. When there is a leaky building issue with the exterior of an apartment complex, this may manifest in a manner that affects only one or two apartments, and it may be tempting to say that only those people are responsible for the repairs. However, we know that the reality is that unless this is remedied, it will invariably affect the entire complex and the entire unit title development. Much of the litigation that has occurred in this area has focused on whether the body corporate should be allowed to contribute to the costs of rectifying these issues. There is competing precedent in this area, because the High Court has taken two different views in the cases of Young and Sunset Terraces as to whether bodies corporate are able to do that.

I think it is important that this House makes it quite clear that in this legislation we have taken the approach of Young, in the Young High Court case, and this will shift the focus on to rectifying the problem as quickly as possible. I think it is very important to point out that where there is conflicting precedent, the High Court may look to this House to clarify whether the intention of Parliament was to follow the decision in the Young case in the High Court, and that was the way the select committee went.

The Minister has already mentioned long-term maintenance plans. This is a significant change in the law, and it is important. In the past there have been cases where there has been a significant need for capital development in a unit title development, but it has been blocked. Unit title holders can be hit with a very, very large one-off cost, and the fact that under the existing law any one person could object has resulted in work being blocked. Any one person could object when he or she found it difficult to pay that significant one-off cost, and could vote against it and block that work being carried out—not because the work did not need to be carried out, but because that person simply could not afford to pay the cost.

When this legislation was introduced it contained a requirement for a long-term maintenance plan to be developed, and a requirement for a fund to be put in place to pay for the long-term maintenance plan. Submitters to the select committee said that they did not feel it was necessary to legislate that in law. We looked at three options: one was the status quo in the Unit Titles Bill; the second was that a long-term maintenance plan had to be mandatory, but the fund could be opted out of by a special resolution of the body corporate; and the third was to say that both the plan and the fund were mandatory, but both could be opted out of by special resolution of the body corporate.

The select committee weighed up the options and felt we should go down the path of saying that the long-term maintenance plan is mandatory and cannot be opted out of, but the way in which it is paid for can be flexible. So under the legislation the fund is mandatory, but by special resolution of the body corporate it can be opted out of. I think that provides the flexibility that is needed under this bill.

There have been a number of changes regarding disputes resolution. The Tenancy Tribunal has been opened up to the unit title holders, and the District Court has been made the court of first appeal instead of the High Court. All these things will make it cheaper and simpler for unit title holders. I commend the bill to the House.

HEKIA PARATA (National): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. I rise to take a short call on the Unit Titles Bill. National went into the election on a platform of streamlining and simplifying regulations, and this bill offers another opportunity to achieve that goal. The bill addresses a range of problems that have been identified, such as issues with joint decision-making, building maintenance, financial management, governance, information disclosure, consumer protection, and dispute resolution.

The bill has attracted very positive feedback from the industry, and I have been delighted to participate in the development of this legislation. In particular, I commend Moana Mackey, who has just resumed her seat. She has been a very comprehensive and hard worker on the Social Services Committee, as the 10-minute speech she delivered before my speech demonstrated. I thank her, and applaud her interest and the detailed consideration she gave to the bill. I also acknowledge the chair of the select committee, Katrina Shanks, who is in the House at the moment. She and her family should be proud of the work she has done in bringing the bill to the House.

I commend the bill. Kia ora.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak in the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill. I will make a couple of points that have been made before but bear repeating. I appreciate the words of the previous speaker, Hekia Parata. I remember interviewing her at one point for the position of chief executive of Housing New Zealand Corporation. I regret that she was not appointed to that position at that time, because she would have been a very able chief executive of Housing New Zealand Corporation had she been appointed. However, the proximity of that appointment to her standing in the election made it a little bit difficult in terms of the kind of impartiality that was needed. But I recognise that member’s commitment to housing, and that is really the basis for what I want to say about the Unit Titles Bill.

This bill does some good things—there is no doubt that it does; we would not be supporting it otherwise. It came from the previous Labour Government. It was introduced by Labour on 29 May 2008. It was referred to the Social Services Committee after its first reading on 5 March 2009. The select committee report came to the House on 2 September 2009, and the second reading was held on 16 February 2010. The Committee stage took place at the end of March 2010, and here we are in urgency, with the calendar on the wall in the Chamber showing “March 30”, but we all know that outside it is April Fool’s Day.

The point of rehearsing that history is that this bill is one of the few things that this Government had done on housing since its tenure began at the end of 2008. Although we are supportive of this bill—as I said, why would we not be, as it originated with us—the fact that it has taken as long as this and we are sitting during this fabricated urgency in order to see off the third reading is an indictment on this Government, quite frankly. It is in fact the only thing that has been done on housing since this Government took over.

I applaud the fact that the bill gives greater flexibility to unit title holders and those who participate in bodies corporate. The bill was designed in its initial stages to address the 38-year difference between the original unit titles legislation and the kind of situation we have now, where blocks of flats and high-rise apartment buildings have been proliferating in recent times.

I applaud the inclusion of maintenance plans, and I applaud the fact that there will be some orderly progression of expenditure in maintaining and developing any buildings that are owned or managed by bodies corporate with unit titles. That will help individual unit title owners to manage the costs of maintenance and ongoing improvement.

But is that all there is from this Government on housing? Housing is one of the most pressing issues that we have in front of us at the moment. There has been no improvement in housing affordability under this Government. Although I am very pleased that the Unit Titles Bill will bring unit titles into the modern era, there has been no progress on housing affordability nor any imagination applied to creating affordable housing since this Government took office. Despite the Government’s slogans during the election campaign, that is one area where it has been palpably lacking in ambition. There is no such thing as being “ambitious for New Zealand” when it comes to this Government housing the poor or allowing people on modest incomes to get into the housing market for the first time.

Although the Unit Titles Bill may help people who have been able to buy a unit in a block of flats or an apartment in a high-rise building, and they will be grateful for the modernisation of the legislation, there has been no measure taken, no imagination applied, and no announcements made that would give anybody the impression that this Government cares a jot about whether people can afford to buy their own houses and to live with the security that owning one’s own house provides. We have seen no affordable housing being created by this Government. In fact, we have seen quite the opposite. We have seen the abolition of affordable housing by this Government. There were to be 3,000 houses built at Hobsonville—1,000 of them were to be affordable houses and 500 of them were to be State houses—but that project has been axed. At the very least the affordable housing and the State housing components of that project have been axed by this Government. So forgive me for showing a little irritation and impatience over this bill, but it is the only thing in the housing portfolio that the Government has to show for 15 months in office. There is one disgraced Minister and one bill that the Government did not even think of.

I am pleased to support the bill, but I do not want it to go by completely unnoticed that it is the only thing the Government has done in housing. Now the Government is rehabilitating the former Minister of Housing at breakneck speed, but for what purpose? Is it so that we can have another 15 months of inaction, of no announcements about the Government’s fabled Gateway Housing programme? There has been nothing about urban renewal to provide affordable housing. The only thing that relates to urban renewal is this little bill, which was not even the National Government’s in origin. That is a pathetic performance. For Government members to sit there and pretend that it needed to be passed under urgency when it should have been passed a year ago is shabby and inadequate, and speaks of gross incompetence.

Moana Mackey: Where is the residential tenancies bill?

Hon MARYAN STREET: Where, indeed, is the residential tenancies legislation?

We do not even have any advertising of the previous Labour Government’s shared equity scheme. It has not been shelved, to my knowledge, but it certainly has not been advertised. So in respect of the creative solutions that the Labour Government came up with, particularly towards the end of our tenure in office when the problem of housing affordability exploded on to the scene, the fact that this Government has not addressed those solutions, and all we have is the Unit Titles Bill’s third reading being debated under urgency when it could have been managed more competently in ordinary hours, is an indictment on this Government.

The Minister who is now responsible—Phil Heatley’s name was on this bill, but now I see that it has Maurice Williamson’s name—may go off into his Easter break feeling proud of himself. Well, I ask him to reflect on this issue. Firstly, it was not his idea; secondly, it has taken him ages; and, thirdly, he had a disgraced colleague who could not bring it to fruition himself. This bill is all the National Government has to show in respect of housing. It is not good enough.

Labour will vote for the bill; of course we will, because it had things in it that we designed in the first place. And it is good that it is finally here. But the process and the things that are missing from this Government in terms of housing are glaringly wrong.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): What a grubby, churlish, and confused contribution that was from the former Minister of Housing, the Hon Maryan Street. It is worth pointing out to the House and to anybody listening that that former Minister has not been a part of the Social Services Committee since the change of Government. She has not been working with our committee as we have done considerable work in a very constructive manner.

As my colleague Hekia Parata did, I thank a previous Labour speaker, Moana Mackey. I too acknowledge that she has a genuine and detailed knowledge of these issues and has made a very constructive contribution.

It is very disappointing that in the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill, we had to listen to an attack on members of this House and comments—

Hon Maryan Street: Well, someone has to call it the way they see it, Tim.

TIM MACINDOE: —she continues to interrupt now—that wander far away from the point of this bill. Sadly, I have to move on in a minute or so to a select committee and I cannot do justice to those comments.

The Social Services Committee heard considerable contributions from a large number of submitters. They were heard very, very comprehensively, and their points have been taken on board. There have been two Ministers of Housing during the passage of this legislation through the House, and both have given it considerable attention. I commend them for the work they have done. There is no doubt that this is very significant legislation. I acknowledge the work that was done by the previous Government, but I certainly dispute the suggestion that we have been sitting on our hands in terms of bringing it back to the House. This legislation required the work it has received.

New Zealanders have heard a lot of talk about simplifying regulations in recent times. This Government has brought this legislation to a conclusion. I am very proud to commend it to the House and I am delighted that it will soon become the law of New Zealand.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In the spirit of urgency I will take a short call on the Unit Titles Bill. It is certainly high time for this legislation, as the original Unit Titles Act, which came into force in 1972, is 38 years old. The Greens will be supporting the bill in the third reading.

The old and outdated legislation could not have anticipated new developments such as body corporate agreements and the new ways that people are living. Intensification of urban living is the trend of the last decade and good environmental and urban design practice. The New Zealand dream of the quarter-acre block, although still appealing to many, is not how the majority of Kiwis live any more. This is particularly true in Auckland. The Auckland Regional Council estimates that 700,000 dwellings will be required to house a population of 2 million people, so 300,000 extra homes will be needed in Auckland by 2041. We have a choice to grow upwards or to grow outwards.

Updating the law governing multi-unit building developments such as apartment blocks, townhouses, and office towers is necessary. This bill clarifies the duties and powers of unit owners, the body corporate, body corporate managers, and developers. Decision making is made easier and more transparent. That issue was picked up in the earlier stages of the debate, as well as the important issue of weathertightness.

I was not involved in the previous stages of this debate but I acknowledge Labour’s role in the original drafting and the many years of consultation by the various stakeholders that has fed into this bill today.

This bill will assist housing intensification. Our cities need to grow upwards, not outwards. Urban sprawl has contributed to high transport costs for motorists, taxpayers, and ratepayers. In Auckland, 16 percent of the city’s wealth is spent on transport costs. In comparison, in more urban-intensive Europe, which has better public transport and active transport modes, the amount spent on transport is only 6 percent. The Auckland Regional Council lists some of the reasons why intensification is good: cost savings in land, infrastructure, and energy; reduction in housing, lifestyle, and transport costs; and greater physical activity and consequent health benefits. To quote a famous ACT on Campus spokesperson: “I think my argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about it.” The Greens will be supporting this bill. Kia ora.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): The purpose of the Unit Titles Bill is principally to update the law in order to provide for the range, complexity, and size of today’s developments, including large-scale projects.

Unlike some of the other legislation that has come through under urgency today, this is a bill that had a long and thorough public consultation process, attracting over 100 submissions from the public and interested groups. During the process of consultation some very positive developments emerged, including the introduction of new clause 7A, which specifies that the bill does not restrict Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

However, I would not want to give the impression that there are no outstanding issues remaining with this bill. The bill updates the law regarding subdivision, development, and management through bodies corporate. We have some difficulties in that the bill provides for corporate housing development, but does not address the issue of facilitating Māori housing development. At present under the law there is no capacity to enable the owners of Māori customary or freehold land in a particular area or papakāinga to join with one another to collectively manage their lands and do things like restrict the sale of land in order to maintain the integrity of the papakāinga. The question we would like the Minister of Housing to consider further is whether a new bill can be developed to take into account special Māori needs to protect their papakāinga.

Another issue we have been considering is the relationship of Māori land to the joint ownership and management of land for the particular whānau, hapū, or iwi belonging to that land. There are currently serious problems with the subdivision of Māori land, particularly where the Māori Land Court will not agree to the partitioning of Māori land. Getting through an application for an individual partition of land is inevitably difficult, because of the thresholds of agreement needed. We need to find another way in which to protect lands from misuse and/or sale, while also allowing whānau and hapū to develop papakāinga housing projects if there is a reasonable level of consent. One way might be to identify land suitable for a Māori housing scheme and to lower the thresholds for partitioning those lands, while also placing restrictions on the sale of the partitioned lands.

I raise those issues in the context of this bill because I have confidence that the newly reinstated Minister of Housing has already established credibility in terms of his commitment to support papakāinga housing. The Māori Party has been really proud of the work we have done with him in the Kāinga Whenua project. In effect, Māori who want to build on their ancestral land will now be able to, through the unique partnership of Housing New Zealand Corporation and Kiwibank. Kāinga Whenua establishes an opportunity for Māori to build, purchase, or relocate a house on multiple-owned Māori land. The Crown supports the application, Kiwibank lends the finance, and the whānau, as long as they can demonstrate their whakapapa rights to occupy the land, can borrow up to $200,000 towards the house building costs or the purchase price of the house. This is such a fabulous initiative that we have every confidence that once this bill, which responds to the needs of bodies corporate, has been dispensed with today, the Minister can turn his attention to whānau, hapū, and iwi.

This bill is quite specific about its purpose to provide a new legal framework for understanding unit titles. That is when land is subdivided for development. As I said earlier, the main beneficiaries of this bill will be bodies corporate, and at this point I have very little information about how well Māori will be represented in this elite group. I suspect that for most Māori the large-scale projects being responded to in the context of this bill are relevant to them by virtue of their experience as tenants. While other New Zealanders have been hit hard by the challenge of property prices and rents that are seemingly out of reach, for Māori it has been compounded by issues such as low incomes, high debt levels, poor access to finance, an inability to raise house finance against multiple-owned land, and a lack of information about housing ownership options. So we know that Māori are disproportionately overrepresented as tenants. This is a movement that has increased dramatically over the last two decades. The proportion of Māori relying on rental tenure has increased from 38.6 percent in 1991 to 54.8 percent in 2006.

The Unit Titles Bill is a positive piece of legislation because it provides a socially and economically sustainable basis for the communities of individual owners. It is not, by any means, the panacea to all our problems, but we are supportive of this bill. We look forward to an ongoing and productive discussion with the Minister of Housing about Māori housing.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa): I want to take a brief call on the Unit Titles Bill. I acknowledge the work that Moana Mackey has done with such diligence in the Social Services Committee. The whole select committee worked well, and I believe it was well chaired by Katrina Shanks. I think the House ought to acknowledge that.

The Unit Titles Bill will not cover a lot of the problems in my electorate of South Auckland as far as housing goes. Housing New Zealand Corporation has admitted that people are doubling up in their houses—well, it is worse than that. Sometimes there are three families in a State house—unit titles by the people. I think that that is shocking. I want that put in the Hansard record, which is why I said it. People are now on the waiting list for garages. I do not think that is very satisfactory either. But this bill is a good bill, and it was originally started by Labour. I must acknowledge Maurice Williamson for being in the House this afternoon. He has got the bill through so quickly.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It gives me pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill, and we have done some very important work here today. The Social Services Committee worked diligently on this bill, and I want to thank staff members on the committee and the officials who came from the ministry to brief us. I also thank all members of the committee on both sides of the House who, I think for the first time in the short time I have been in Parliament, were able to reach agreement fairly quickly on some of the important areas where we needed to make changes. In other readings of this bill I have addressed those areas at some length, and I propose not to do so again today, but I want to congratulate the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Maurice Williamson—because he just asked me to.

One point that is very important to address here is that we were informed that over the next 50 years 500,000 people may live in a unit title development or unit in New Zealand. Therefore, should this Parliament not have moved this bill forward today with some urgency, we would have been doing a great injustice to them. I say to the Minister that it is important, as members opposite have recognised, that we pass this bill into law today, so soon before Easter.

One of the issues raised with us in the committee was that some unit title owners were concerned that some of their rights over common property areas, and some of the gardens and developments in their unit’s grounds, may be taken away from them. The children who live in these developments and apartments with their parents can sleep soundly this weekend before they search the common areas and the grounds for Easter eggs. The delivery of this bill means that those common areas, their trees, and so on, will be protected for them for many years to come. I commend this bill to the House, and I am happy to support it. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): It is with pleasure that I take a quick call on the Unit Titles Bill. As an Auckland MP, this bill has real relevance to me. There are likely to be 500,000 people living in the type of accommodation that this bill addresses. It will be extremely relevant in the years to come. I too commend those who have been working on it, such as my colleague Moana Mackey, the longstanding Minister of Housing, and those others who have worked so assiduously in the Social Services Committee.

As many others have spoken on this bill and have pointed out its good points, I will touch on just a couple. One, as we know, is that the body corporate is capable of owning common property. That will enable the body corporate to take a collective view on repairs to things like the roof or the lift of the building, which may otherwise have fallen to one unit holder.

Another good feature of this bill is that the decisions do not need to be unanimous, as was the case. Only 75 percent of people have to agree, which means that some of those who held out and who held up what otherwise would have been a good decision no longer have that ability. However, they do have the opportunity for redress in the Tenancy Tribunal, which is the place that has been set aside for any grievances, should anything like that happen.

I acknowledge that I am possibly the last speaker standing between us and the Easter weekend. Therefore, I will not speak any longer on this bill. I could be the most popular member of this House at this time! I would like to wish everybody a happy Easter. Thank you.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): I hate to disappoint members over there, but unfortunately there is still one more speaker. I will be very brief, because I am aware that Easter is literally minutes away for many of us in the House today.

I acknowledge all the hard work that the Social Services Committee put into the Unit Titles Bill. We spent many months on it. It was a long time coming. Labour started the review in 2004. As chair of the select committee, I am very proud to stand here in the third reading of the bill and see it passed into law.

I thank the officials, who did a lot of additional work. It took a while for us to get up to speed on the bill as there were some quite complex issues in it. I thank the officials for their patience. I would also like to thank the submitters who came forward with their suggestions, many of which we took on board. The bill was changed because of their submissions. This is a very brief call.

Hon Maurice Williamson: And acknowledge the excellent Minister!

KATRINA SHANKS: I would also like to acknowledge the Ministers who were involved in this bill, especially the Hon Maurice Williamson. He added significant value to this bill in its third reading stage. I thank members for letting me take this call this afternoon.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 4.08 p.m. (Thursday)