Wednesday, 16 June 2010

Wednesday, 16 June 2010

Wednesday, 16 June 2010

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Kiwibank, Privatisation—Discussions with Minister of Finance

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: When did he first tell his Minister of Finance that he had ruled out ever initiating the privatisation of Kiwibank?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: At the same time as he told the rest of the country: before the last election.

Hon Phil Goff: When he said yesterday that he had ruled out the full or partial sale of the parent company of Kiwibank, did he mean that he had ruled out completely the sale of New Zealand Post?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: He said what he meant.

Hon Phil Goff: Well, that is the problem. If that was what he meant yesterday, why did he tell Newstalk ZB on 8 June that it was possible for New Zealand Post to be sold and that Kiwibank was the asset that was off the table?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course the Prime Minister was correct—it is quite possible. However, the Government has made a different decision.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised this with you yesterday: this is a serious forum, where Ministers can be expected to be held to account. That means that they must make real efforts to answer and address questions. I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister did that. He is talking in riddles.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: One cannot get a clearer answer than the answer that was given to that question: it is possible, but the Government has made a different decision. That is perfectly reasonable; it does not need any elucidation. It is not the answer that the Opposition wants, but it is perfectly reasonable and it is factual.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker, that cannot possibly be the answer, when the answer to the primary question was that this decision was made before the election.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty we are in now is that we are litigating the quality of the answer by way of a point of order. I think that on this occasion the Minister’s answer was a reasonable answer to the question. He said the Government had made a different decision on something. In fact, I was more concerned about the answer to the previous question, but the member seemed to be satisfied with that one.

Hon Phil Goff: If the sale of New Zealand Post is being completely dismissed now, how does the Prime Minister explain the fact that the Minister of Finance contradicted him completely in the Minister’s answers to questions before the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 10 June, which was last week, by saying he was going to “kick the tyres” on the sale of New Zealand Post and see whether it should be put up for sale? That is a total contradiction.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has said, consistently with National’s undertaking, that there will be no asset sales in this term of office. If that were to change, then the Government will go to the people with a different policy and campaign on it in 2011. That does involve kicking the tyres.

Hon Phil Goff: How can the New Zealand public believe anything that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say, when they said one thing in public last week, they contradicted it in Parliament this week, and they will contradict it again next week; why should this Government be given any credibility, at all, on this issue?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because the Government has stuck to its commitment to New Zealanders, which was that there would be no asset sales in this term of office, and that if the Government changes its position, then it will campaign on that at the 2011 election.

Hon Phil Goff: If Kiwibank and New Zealand Post are not to be privatised, why did the Prime Minister tell his post-Cabinet press conference on 31 May that it was possible there would be a partial float of Kiwibank shares to small investors; and when did he actually change his mind?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government will articulate a position on asset sales, consistent with its commitment, before the 2011 election. I suggest that the Labour Party get out and get on with trying to sort out some of its policy, because it actually does not have any for the 2011 election.

Hon Phil Goff: How is it that the Prime Minister promised the country, on no fewer than nine occasions before the election, that Kiwibank would never be privatised, when the week after the Budget he talked about floating shares in Kiwibank for small investors?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has stuck to his commitment: Kiwibank has not been privatised.

Hon Jim Anderton: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statement that the Government has done no work on privatisation with the Treasury statement that it is doing work on privatisation in order to find out why New Zealanders do not like it; and can he think of anything, at all, that might help Treasury to understand why New Zealanders do not like selling their publicly owned assets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury has spent most of its time working on improving the appalling levels of management we inherited of the $200 billion worth of assets that the taxpayer owns. Consistent with the Government’s position, in the Prime Minister’s words we will kick the tyres. Treasury will, from here, be doing some work on whether or not that is feasible.

Hon Jim Anderton: As the Minister has not answered as to the advice that Treasury might get in order to help it to understand the public’s opposition to the sale of publicly owned assets, does the Prime Minister need any help on that, because there is plenty coming from this side of the House?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, Treasury gets all the advice that it can get, from anywhere. That member could probably do with a bit of help from Treasury advice on his month-long world trip that included thousand-dollar dinners.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that an appropriate comment from a Minister who spent half a million—

Mr SPEAKER: That was a flagrant abuse of the point of order system, and the member knows that. I will not tolerate that again; let me be very clear about that. The member’s question was extraordinarily free, in terms of the kind of answer that could be given. If members ask questions like that, Ministers are free to say darned near anything. The remedy lies in the hands of the questioner to ask clearer, more precise questions.

Hon Jim Anderton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a wide-ranging question, although it dealt with a specific issue in terms of help for Treasury. But is it in order for the Minister to go even further and accuse a former Government Minister—as he has done, by implication—of expenditure excesses while on Government business overseas, when that was paid for by Ministerial Services—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I understand why the member is concerned about that. I just ask Ministers to be careful about that sort of thing. It will lead to disorder, and it is not helpful.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How can he, with any credibility, give the answer that he gave to the last supplementary question, when he has gained, as a family, over half a million dollars from pretending to live in Dipton?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is to the Prime Minister, and it needs to be addressed accordingly.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly good point of order, and if the member’s supplementary question is to be in order, he needs to reword it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How can his Minister of Finance have any credibility, when the Minister of Finance’s family has gained half a million dollars—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question went directly to the issue of the Opposition’s allegation that Kiwibank is being privatised. It did not stray from that, nor did any of the supplementary questions that have been asked around it. Indeed, the exchange with the Hon Jim Anderton was related to his desire to ask a question about the advice that Treasury has received on the privatisation issue. This supplementary question strays well off that particular focus on the primary question.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the question asked by the Hon Jim Anderton did not stray a long way from the primary question. The answer given by the Minister, though, introduced material that was somewhat different from the primary question. I thought about it as the member was asking his question—about whether it was in order. Given the answer of the Minister, though, he introduced a whole new dimension about members’ expenditure, and that has opened up this question somewhat further.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How can his Minister of Finance have any credibility in these matters, when he has gained half a million dollars from pretending to live in Dipton?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member’s allegations are ridiculous, despite the fact that he makes them every day. I suggest that he takes those matters up with the former Speakers of the House, whom he is now accusing of having not followed the procedures.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. I have warned the Hon Trevor Mallard today, very clearly, and he has just abused the procedures of the House once more. What does he expect me to do—just ignore that abuse of the House? I say to the honourable member that on this occasion I accept that tensions are fairly high on both sides of the House, but he is on very, very thin ice. The Hon Trevor Mallard will get to his feet, and he will withdraw and apologise sincerely to this House for that serious abuse of this House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a transcript of the Finance and Expenditure Committee meeting on 10 June at which the Minister of Finance said the Government is working on the privatisation of New Zealand Post.

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What is the status of that document? If it is a committee document that has not been released—

Mr SPEAKER: It is my fault that I did not clarify that for the benefit of the House. I ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition for the source of the document.

Hon Phil Goff: The source of the document is a transcript provided by Hansard, not yet available publicly, in which the Minister of Finance made the comments that I said in my question he had made. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A matter is being considered—

Hon Phil Goff: I should add that that was said in an open session. It was open to the public.

Mr SPEAKER: Given that I am advised that the material is not yet publicly available, yet it was a public session of the select committee, I will seek leave of the House for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

2. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his recent statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that a new 25-bed ward was opened at North Shore Hospital yesterday by Dr Jonathan Coleman, which means patients will not have to wait so long to be admitted. That ward is a response to the 6-hour emergency department target. I can also advise that up to 10 of the beds will be available for acute stroke patients, and that means that, for the first time at North Shore Hospital, acute stroke patients will be located in the same part of the hospital. It is easier to deliver specialist services in one place, so the quality of care will be improved.

Dr Jackie Blue: What other developments are happening at the Waitemata District Health Board that will improve patient services, particularly at Waitakere Hospital in west Auckland?

Hon TONY RYALL: In the last few weeks Waitakere Hospital has done hip replacement operations for the first time, and that will be followed later this year by other joint replacements, such as knees, being delivered locally. I am also advised that Waitakere Hospital is launching 24/7 emergency services for children under 15 next month. That will further develop Waitakere Hospital as the local hospital for children in that area. That will save up to 3,000 kids and their families having to make the journey to Starship hospital from west Auckland every year. That is very positive news for the people of west Auckland, and I thank the local member, Paula Bennett, for her part in advancing health services for the people of Waitakere.

Dr Jackie Blue: Does he stand by his recent statement that the new Government inherited a lot of problems in Dunedin, including important building needs that had been neglected for years?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, I do. That is why the Government has invested an extra $24.5 million in developments at the Southern District Health Board’s facilities in Dunedin. Included in those is a new neo-natal intensive care unit of 19 cots replacing a cramped unit that would meet the standard for three babies. That will improve the privacy of families and allow more parents to stay with their babies. We are also funding $15 million for new acute mental health facilities at Wakari Hospital. According to the Ministry of Health, Dunedin’s ward 1A—mental health—has the highest priority of any mental health unit in the country in terms of replacement, and it is good that the people of Dunedin finally have a Government that is prepared to invest in their hospital.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he tell the House yesterday that the MidCentral District Health Board budget is $505 million, when the Budget document confirms that it is $408 million?

Hon TONY RYALL: Because that member is not accounting for the additional electives money, the additional medicines money, and the additional services that will flow to district health boards. That member does not want to accept the fact that more and more people in the Mid-Central District Health Board’s area are getting better front-line services from this Government.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he told the House that health cuts were actually health changes, what comfort will that be to a terminally ill person in Palmerston North who has been unable to find any alternative to the night-shift district nursing service—an alternative service that the Minister assured the House was available?

Hon TONY RYALL: If the facts of that case are correct and the member makes it available to me, I will look into it. The hospice in Palmerston North is paid to provide those sorts of services.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What will he say no to when the district health boards cannot continue delivering their existing level of services because of a budget shortfall? Will he say no to further cuts in services, deterioration in the quality of services, increased user charges, or increased district health board deficits?

Hon TONY RYALL: What I will say no to with regard to those district health boards is the culling of 30,000 patients who were promised surgery by the previous Government, and who were summarily data-cleansed from waiting lists.

Interest Rates—Effect of Increase on Cost of Living

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How do rising interest rates affect New Zealanders’ cost of living?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Interest rates are currently at 40-year lows. Last week, as a result of the recovering economy, the Governor of the Reserve Bank lifted the official cash rate for the first time since the middle of 2008. This lift will affect people in different ways. It increases returns on savings, which will assist groups like superannuitants, who generally hold lower levels of debt and higher levels of savings. On the other hand, rising interest rates increase debt-servicing costs for mortgage holders and businesses. The member will be aware of that, as he was part of a Government that saw the floating mortgage rates reach 10.9 percent, and saw an official cash rate of 8.25 percent as recently as 2008.

Hon David Cunliffe: When putting together his recent Budget 2010 tax package, what consideration, if any, did he give to the extra pressure that $1.l billion of extra borrowing would put on Governor Bollard to raise the official cash rate?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax package is, in fact, broadly fiscally neutral, with some timing differences that lead to about a $400 million shortfall in the first year. I think the member needs to keep in mind that when interest rates are at a 40-year low, one thing is certain: they will eventually return to normal levels. Those normal levels for the official cash rate are quite a bit higher than the current rate.

Craig Foss: Why are interest rates beginning to return to normal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement points out that a range of measures were used to combat the global crisis. These included fiscal stimulus, a very sharp reduction in interest rates, and offering deposit guarantees. To date these measures have been largely successful: the financial system is sound, and the economy is growing again. To the extent that these measures are no longer needed, and the economy is growing again out of recession, interest rates will begin to return to normal.

Hon David Cunliffe: How does he expect New Zealanders to meet the extra mortgage payments that he says are now normal under National, when their tax cut will be eliminated by inflation rising to 6 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is wrong about the tax cut and inflation, as we discussed at select committee. But I think New Zealanders are well aware that an increase in interest rates means that it would be good for those who have too much debt to try to reduce that debt. It also means that savers who saw their incomes cut dramatically through 2007 and 2008 will be looking forward to some increase in income from their savings.

Craig Foss: How will the Government’s management of the economy help keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise have been under previous Government policies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The point here is not so much whether there will be increases in interest rates—that is inevitable, not just in New Zealand, but around the whole of the developed world—but the extent to which we can ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, which were to foster a speculative boom in property and fast-rising Government expenditure. Those were the policies of the previous Government that caused so much damage to this economy.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can he confirm that higher interest rates will make life tougher for Kiwi businesses, which face higher loan costs and, if they export, potentially higher exchange rates as a result?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no doubt that for people who hold debt, an increase in their interest rates means more outgoings to service that debt. But I think we all ought to be quite realistic here. When interest rates are at a 40-year low, and interest rates are starting to rise from levels of 1 and 2 percent around the world, we are bound to have an increase in interest rates, which will put pressure on people who are holding debt. Our task is to ensure that that cycle is not as vicious as the last one, which that member’s Government oversaw.

Hon David Cunliffe: On top of increased mortgage payments, increased childcare costs, and recent increases in power, what other price movements can he expect hard-working New Zealanders will face as a result of his Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They will face two other movements. One is an increase in their after-tax income because of across-the-board tax cuts, and the other is increases in their gross income as this economy grows. Those are both built into the Budget forecasts and into public expectations.

Children, Health—The Best Start in Life Recommendations

4. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Health: Are there any recommendations from the Public Health Advisory Committee’s report on child health, The Best Start in Life, that he will not be implementing; if so, for what reason?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I have received that report. I advise the member that the report and its recommendations are being considered by the Ministry of Health in the development of its child health work planning. It is simply too early to say which recommendations may or may not be implemented.

Kevin Hague: Does he agree with the report’s conclusion that New Zealand’s child health outcomes compare poorly internationally, and that these outcomes are low, in part “because gaps have widened between the health status of different groups in our communities over the past three decades”; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL: I certainly agree that we can do a lot more to improve the health status of New Zealand children. Information will be coming out in the next couple of weeks that will indicate that some of that variation and that difference between different deprivation groups have been improving in recent times.

Kevin Hague: Did the Minister raise with his colleague the Minister of Finance the OECD report that ranked New Zealand 29th out of 30 countries last year for child health and safety; if so, why did the Budget not do anything to close the gaps between the haves and have-nots?

Hon TONY RYALL: I know that the Minister of Finance is aware of that report, and, in fact, the Budget has done quite a lot to improve health services for New Zealand, particularly in child health. The Government remains strongly committed to achieving its vaccination target, as well as other important health goals.

Kevin Hague: Given the findings of the Public Health Advisory Committee’s report, why has his Government chosen to prioritise elective surgery for adults over child health services in the community?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government has been investing in both. We certainly are putting money into child health services around the community. One of the Government’s six health targets is lifting the rate of immunisation for young New Zealanders, and for the first time ever we have got to 85 percent. Information will be coming out in the next few weeks that will show that people in the lowest deprivation areas have had a significant uplift in that area. The Government is also investing strongly in elective surgery. We think it was unacceptable that in the last 9 years the Budget doubled and fewer people got service.

Kevin Hague: Why has the Minister chosen to ignore the rheumatic fever epidemic in New Zealand children referred to in the advisory committee’s report, which sees infection rates 14 times worse than the OECD average and which disproportionately affects poor, Māori, and Pasifika children?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government does not ignore that information. We have inherited a lot of problems in the health service, and although they might have been ignored under the previous Government, under this one they are not.

Kevin Hague: Could the Minister explain some of the Government’s initiatives to tackle rheumatic fever?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is working assiduously in a number of areas. The changes we are making in primary care, for example, will help in the prevention. Also we have made significant investments in a number of areas such as our home insulation programme, and the investment we are making in vaccination.

Kevin Hague: Has the Minister received any advice that the Public Health Advisory Committee’s recommended way forward to improve child health and safety is not the best way of doing so; if so, what was that advice?

Hon TONY RYALL: As the member knows, there are 21 recommendations in that report. As I indicated earlier, it is too early to say which of those may or may not be accepted.

Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the report from the Public Health Advisory Committee, The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective action on child health and well-being.

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.

Kevin Hague: The second document I seek leave to table is a report from 2006 from the OECD, Economic Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Children.

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.

Police, Minister—Statements

5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all of her statements?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): If I am truthfully and accurately quoted in full context, yes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she stand by her statement to the Law and Order Committee this morning that “The Government has delivered on its promise of putting more blue suits on the street.”; if so, why is the Auckland district, which saw an 8.1 percent in violent crime last year, budgeted to have 32 fewer police by the end of next year than it had a year ago?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Just suits—no bodies in them.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Talking of suits, yes, the Government has delivered more police, and we look at the police in terms of the national area, rather than simply one district over another. The Commissioner of Police fully explained the matter of blue suits to that member this morning.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Considering that total crime in the Waikato district has increased by 9.1 percent and violent crime has increased by 11.8 percent under her Government, how safe should the people there feel, knowing that she intends stripping 18 police officers from that district by the end of 2011?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course, I have no intention of stripping any police officers from any area, but I can say to the member that, despite all his best efforts, public confidence in the police has risen to the highest levels yet: 79 percent of people say that they are satisfied or very satisfied with the overall performance of the police, in 80 percent of cases the service met or exceeded expectations, and 88 percent of people say that they were treated fairly in their dealings with the police. Despite what that member says, people can feel safe under a National Government.

Dr Cam Calder: Does she stand by her statement that this Government is serious about taking away the profits of crime and putting gangs out of business?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. I am very pleased to advise the House that the police have restrained $50 million of assets since the Government passed legislation last year to make it easier for the police to crack down on illegal gang profits. Since December 2009, 94 cases have been referred to the new asset recovery unit, with most relating to either cannabis or methamphetamine offending. From those cases, 61 specific assets have been identified for potential confiscation, with the biggest category being cash and bank accounts worth $12 million, followed by $10 million of residential property. The first actual forfeiture order under the new legislation was for $55,000 worth of motorcycles owned by the Killer Beez gang.

I seek leave to table a graph produced by the police that shows the rise in the value of assets seized since 2005.

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 Clayton Cosgrove: How satisfied should Wellington people feel that Counties-Manukau is receiving 257 new police officers in the same period of time that Wellington will lose 46 police officers, even though violent crime is increasing here in Wellington and the Minister claims that it is rapidly decreasing in Counties-Manukau?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, the people of Wellington should feel very satisfied that, under this Government, we will not be taking officers out of Wellington to go and help out Counties-Manukau every time there is a murder, which is what had to happen under Operation Cavalry, when the previous Government was in power.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Mr Speaker, this document has been tabled before a select committee—just so you know. I seek leave to table questions 1 and 2 from the Vote Police report Police Response to 2010/11 Estimates: Examination of Vote Police: Supplementary Written Questions, where it details the cuts—

Mr SPEAKER: This is information to be—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is not readily available. It was tabled just this morning.

Mr SPEAKER: But it will be readily available. There is a movement to table documentation that is made available to select committees. It will be readily available to members of the House. I think that we should not be wasting time seeking leave to table that sort of documentation, because it will be readily available to all members. It does not need to be tabled.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply make the point that you have deemed that when a document is not readily available at the time of tabling—and I think you allowed one of our colleagues to table a media statement that had been released but was not readily available as it had not been circulated—it is fine to seek to do so. All I ask is that you be consistent, please.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I do not think we should mix up what are effectively reports to select committees, or papers that belong to a select committee, with the example given, which was a newspaper article from a foreign print publication. In this case I think we have let one go through before, and should not have. If a committee has not released all of the matters that pertain to a particular report of that committee, it is a circumvention of the Standing Orders and of the conventions of Parliament to come in here and seek leave to table it through different means. I can indicate that we will object to this leave, should it be sought.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I sought advice from the clerk of the Law and Order Committee before I came into the House as to whether this document had been tabled and was available for public release. It is as I have said. Secondly, I make the point again that it is not readily available to members at this point because it has not been circulated. I simply ask for a consistent ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: If members seek through this device to short-circuit the proper procedures of select committees, I have some concerns about that. There is a proper process for information provided to select committees to be released; otherwise, we will end up with endless time being wasted in this House on members wanting to table stuff that will be released by select committees, which is the proper process for it to be released. The information is publicly available, and the member is perfectly free to wave it under the noses of any journalist he likes, but we are not going to waste the time of the House tabling stuff that is available to the House through the proper channels.

Budget 2010—Money Committed Under Community Response Model

6. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What money was committed under the Community Response Model in Budget 2010?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): New money of $90.5 million is going to communities via the Community Response Model. It is based on the same model as the Community Response Fund and is about letting communities decide for themselves what does and does not work.

Chester Borrows: How will the Community Response Model get better outcomes for families?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: For too long the Government, based in Wellington, has imposed its solutions on communities. National believes in local solutions to local problems, hence the Community Response Model will also include making decisions about the current spend of the $110 million family and community services group funding.

Chester Borrows: How will the Community Response Model forums ensure communities have their say?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We said it and we meant it. What works in Tokoroa is quite different from what might work in Timaru or Wanganui, as the member knows. No longer will we dictate from above. We trust communities. The Community Response Model will have local people and local officials on it.

Hon Annette King: When she said the Community Response Fund was for high priority services, did she include the Barnardos family centre in Māngere, which this week was advised that six of its workers are to be made redundant and that this vital service to families in South Auckland is to be closed; and if this service is not a high priority, what are the requirements to meet her criteria?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member was not clear why the Barnardos family centre is being closed, or whether it is because of the Community Response Fund. I am not aware of why Barnardos in Māngere might be closing. The reality is that Barnardos has all sorts of different ideas and different ways that it runs its organisation, and we certainly trust it to do that.

Education, Associate Minister—Statement on Gifted and Talented Students

7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Education: Does she stand by the statement in her blog about Gifted Awareness Week that gifted and talented students are “often overlooked as the attention of parents, politicians and teaching professionals is often drawn to students who are getting into trouble or underachieving”; if so, what is she doing about it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Associate Minister of Education: Yes. The Ministry of Education is currently working with three providers to ensure continued improvement for gifted and talented students. The ministry is developing a range of online tools to support teachers so they can plan effective learning programmes for those students, and they can be easily integrated into the classroom. The Associate Minister of Education, the Hon Heather Roy, has also established an independent advisory group to provide her with independent advice about how to incorporate international best evidence into provision for gifted and talented students in New Zealand.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she agree with the Education Review Office’s assertion in its 2008 report on gifted education that schools providing well for their gifted learners have had ongoing, in-depth professional development support; if so, why has the advisory and professional learning support for teachers in gifted and talented education been cut?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The steps I outlined in answer to the substantive question are the steps that the Associate Minister and the ministry have taken in response to the Education Review Office report, which said that about 50 percent of schools were found to be either somewhat or not appropriate or responsive in their provision for gifted and talented students.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of her concern about gifted and talented students being overlooked, why do the national standards not acknowledge students who are well above the standard as they acknowledge those who are well below it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is one of the reasons why the Associate Minister has moved to make some changes in the support of gifted and talented students. It is important that those changes are integrated with national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question. The question part of it asked why the national standards do not acknowledge students who are well above standard, when they acknowledge those well below standard.

Mr SPEAKER: I must say I thought the Acting Minister of Education, in answering on behalf of the Associate Minister, said that changes were being made to the national standards policy to meet the needs of gifted students. I thought that was exactly what the Minister said in his answer.

Border Control—Launch of SmartGate System at Wellington Airport

8. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Customs: What progress has the Government made on streamlining trans-Tasman travel?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs): We have made absolutely excellent progress. Yesterday at Wellington International Airport I officially launched the SmartGate automated border clearance processing system for holders of New Zealand and Australian passports. This is the second New Zealand—

Hon Annette King: Where was my invitation?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Annette King keeps calling out and asking where her invitation was. I can tell the member that I checked and she got one, yet not one Labour member came, and for that I am sorry.

Hon Annette King: No.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: That member got an invitation; I checked. This is the second New Zealand international airport to install the SmartGate system, after it was launched for passengers arriving at Auckland. The system has made arrival processing much quicker and easier. A survey found that 94 percent of all people surveyed rated SmartGate as either nine out of 10, or 10 out of 10.

David Bennett: What reports has he received on the performance of the SmartGate system at Auckland Airport?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The good news keeps coming. The SmartGate system at Auckland Airport has absolutely outperformed everyone’s expectation. It has enjoyed a rapid uptake by travellers, with around 50 percent of eligible New Zealand passport holders now using it. More than 190,000 people have been processed through it. The average time for processing a passenger through the electronic SmartGate is 22 seconds—22 seconds. It is fantastic. Auckland Airport has achieved this level of uptake in just its first 4 months of operation; it took Australian airports more than 4 years to get to the same level.

Pacific Economic Development Agency—Minister’s Meetings with Representatives

9. SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: Which individuals representing the Pacific Economic Development Agency, in addition to J R Pereira, has she met with since becoming Minister?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs): I am pleased and proud to say that in the course of my ministerial duties I have met with many representatives of Pacific communities, in fact hundreds, around the country. To the best of my knowledge the only representative of the Pacific Economic Development Agency I have met is Mr J R Pereira. Other representatives of that organisation may or may not have been present at one or some of the many functions that I have attended.

Su’a William Sio: Did she discuss with Mr J R Pereira, Mr Ulu Aiono, Mr Ulafala Aiavao, or Mr Mose Saitala a Budget appropriation for the Pacific community; if so, when?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: To the best of my knowledge, leaving aside the three other people the member has mentioned, I have not discussed any Budget proposal with any of those individuals.

Su’a William Sio: Which individual members of the Pacific community in Auckland did she meet to discuss an appropriation from Budget 2010 for the Pacific Economic Development Agency?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: None.

Su’a William Sio: Was she present when Mr Bill English met with Mr J R Pereira and representatives of the Pacific Economic Development Agency prior to, and immediately after, the 2008 general election; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No, I was not present. If not, it was probably because I was doing something else—possibly attending another Pacific function, which is what happens.

Housing Innovation Fund—New Projects

10. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government’s Housing Innovation Fund?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): Recently I announced another six projects that will receive just under $8 million from the fund. These projects will help provide 20 new properties in Queenstown and eight new properties in Nelson. Another four projects will benefit Māori directly with 44 new properties to be built in Northland, Tauranga, and Whakatāne through the Māori Demonstration Partnerships.

Todd McClay: What is the aim of the Housing Innovation Fund?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The idea of the fund is to encourage partnerships with community housing organisations where the taxpayer fronts up with some cash and so do the community housing organisations. To date this programme has helped fund 169 new houses, with the Government giving $20 million and the community $40 million. So for every dollar the taxpayers put in, the communities put in $2 and we have 169 new houses. It is a brilliant fund.

Question No. 11 to Minister

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): My question is to the Minister of Consumer Affairs and asks: “What evidence from the experience of the many other countries who use interest rate caps does she have to support her conclusion that interest rate caps are ‘not a viable solution’ to the problem of fringe lending?”.

Mr SPEAKER: Does some Minister intend to answer the question? [Interruption] I call the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): On behalf of the Minister, she has not considered that in detail.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question has been on notice and I directly quoted from the Minister, so I am sure she has considered it.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Acting Minister of Consumer Affairs): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the House. This question was set down for me as Acting Minister, and I was slightly distracted. I apologise and I am happy to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: This is a—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet at the moment. I must say that this is the first time I have seen this occur in my 26 years in Parliament. If the member was going to seek leave for something helpful to happen, that would be—but by the look on the member’s face, I am not sure—

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I seek leave for this question to start again.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Interest Rate Caps—Overseas Experience

11. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: What evidence from the experience of the many other countries who use interest rate caps does she have to support her conclusion that interest rate caps are “not a viable solution” to the problem of fringe lending?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Acting Minister of Consumer Affairs): The Minister has said that she has reservations that interest rate caps are a viable solution to the problem of fringe lending, as interest rate caps are a relatively blunt tool to deal with a complex problem. Based on advice from the Productivity Commission, the Australian Commonwealth Government likewise has reservations, particularly about the impact on access to credit. As a consequence it is not prepared to include interest rate caps in its credit reforms without further review of the costs and the benefits. It would be prudent for New Zealand to wait to consider evidence from the Australian evaluation, which is under way.

Carol Beaumont: Why is she focusing only on interest rate caps in Australia, when they have been implemented right across the OECD, including in the USA, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Canada, and Japan; and when will she join with many other countries and put a cap on interest rates as one means of taking action against loan sharks?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I appreciate that the member said that it is only one measure, because the Government has several initiatives that address issues around fringe lending. They include the review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, the implementation of consumer dispute resolution schemes through the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act, and the review of consumer law.

Carol Beaumont: Does she agree with consumer law expert Bill Bevan that the responsible lending provisions of my bill, the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill, are “a clear improvement to the current law”?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No.

Carol Beaumont: When she said in answer to my written question that access to low-cost credit was an issue, does she agree that interest rates of 55 percent or even 80 percent are not low cost, and that a measure such as an interest rate cap would lower these rates?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Of course 80 percent is high, but I note that the member’s bill would set the rate at 48 percent. I think the member is aware, from the ministry’s surveys, that the interest is about 38 percent. I make the point again that it is a blunt instrument to deal with what is a complex problem. The Government has a number of initiatives under way.

Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My bill does not mention 48 percent—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot litigate the answer by way of a point of order. She could ask another supplementary question if she wishes, but she cannot do it that way.

Carol Beaumont: I seek leave to table an email from Darryl Evans, from the Mangere Budgeting Services Trust, outlining three case studies that involved the interest rates referred to in my supplementary question.

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.

Carol Beaumont: I seek leave to table an email from Bill Bevan, from the Whitireia Community Law Centre, in regard to the responsible lending provisions of my bill.

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.

Carol Beaumont: I seek leave to table answers to written questions from the Minister where she refers to low interest—

Mr SPEAKER: We are not going to do that.

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Extent of Customary Title

12. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Attorney-General: Will customary title give its iwi holders an effective veto over coastal activities such as aquaculture, building or extending a building over foreshore or seabed, and undertaking any excavation of the foreshore and seabed, given that customary title grants title-holders “the right to permit activities that need a coastal permit or resource consent”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Iwi with a customary title will have the ability to permit specified activities in their area of title, subject to guarantees protecting public access and existing use rights. This is a basic property right; this Government believes in property rights.

David Garrett: How many years does he estimate that it will take the Crown, the courts, and iwi to determine the number and extent of customary titles in the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand: 10 years, 20 years, or perhaps 100 years?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As long as it takes to get a just result. The quality of justice is not determined by the speed with which things are done.

David Garrett: Is he able to assure the people of New Zealand that customary title will not be granted to iwi by the Crown or the courts over any part of the following: Ninety Mile Beach, Raglan Beach, Wainui Beach, Ōhope Beach, or Pīhā Beach?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not think that it would be helpful to get down to that level of detail in answer to a parliamentary question. These are fact-specific matters, and I will deal with the matter in that way.

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very deliberately precise, and it asked the Attorney-General whether he could give an assurance regarding customary title over certain very discrete, identified pieces of New Zealand coastland. But what we got was a waffly answer.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I believe that the answer from the Minister was that he would not give that assurance.

Hon David Parker: How much more of the foreshore and seabed does the Attorney-General expect will be subject to customary titles as a consequence of the change to the threshold test that applies to territorial customary rights—that change being to no longer require continuous ownership of contiguous land—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member who is asking his question, and I will invite him to start again. It is a serious question, and I could not hear it with the unnecessary interjection across the House.

Hon David Parker: How much more of the foreshore and seabed does the Attorney-General expect will be subject to customary titles as a consequence of the change to the threshold test that currently applies to territorial customary rights—that change being to no longer require continuous ownership of contiguous land, while still requiring continuous exclusive control of the foreshore and seabed concerned?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: With respect, that is a very good question, and it is an important question. I believe, in answer to the member, that we are not talking about very much, at all. The overarching requirement is the exclusive possession test. This becomes a factor, not a requirement. At the end of the day I do not believe that it will result in very much more foreshore and seabed becoming the subject of customary title. But that is a good question.

Rahui Katene: How will the tests for customary title accommodate the special circumstances of iwi and hapū who have been affected by raupatu, fraudulent land transactions, or other breaches of the Treaty?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The tests for customary title do not prevent iwi that have suffered raupatu or other forms of land loss from seeking customary title. They can do that either by negotiation or by application to the court. They may not be able to satisfy the test, but this is a jurisdictional question; we are not in the business of preventing them from at least being able to make the claim.

Rahui Katene: How will customary title translate into development, occupation, and usage rights for hapū and iwi, “as though they were the owners of the land”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Within areas that have a customary title, iwi will have the same permission right as other property owners. They will also have development rights and will own the minerals that were confiscated by the 2004 Act, and by that, obviously, I exclude gold, uranium, silver, and petroleum, as I indicated in an answer yesterday.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Seventy-three percent of people in my electorate earn $40,000 or less. The tax cuts announced in National’s Budget 2010 will mean very little—in fact, nothing at all—to the great majority of workers in my electorate and many other Māori electorates throughout the country. Not one constituent has expressed optimism about the impacts of tax cuts in places like Te Kūiti, Tuakau, Pukekohe, Tokoroa, Tairua, or Thames—not one. They know that Budget 2010 will not deliver to them. They know that the sharp edges of the recession may have been softened for the small percentage of Kiwis, but not for the large majority. Those same tax cuts are exacerbated by rising inflation, making the cost of living pressures a real issue for far too many families in my electorate.

National has promoted this Budget as positive for growth and jobs. Meanwhile, 60,000 young people are unemployed. Job Ops has been promoted as an ambitious solution to solve that problem, but it is a short-term fix to a long-term challenge. There is nothing in the Budget to increase the uptake of Modern Apprenticeships placements. I was in Raglan last week and heard a story of a young man who was keen to take up an apprenticeship. He did OK at school, but his own teachers, by their own admission, would say that he was better learning with his hands. He wanted to do an apprenticeship and take up a trade. He was no slouch, but he was not able to take up a Modern Apprenticeship placement. There is nothing in this Budget to encourage many more young people like him throughout the country who want to earn while they learn. There was no opportunity for him to take up a Modern Apprenticeships placement. The Government has not recognised that there are heaps and heaps of young people throughout the country who want to work, but 60,000 of them are currently out of work. There is nothing in the Budget to address that particular challenge. National is throwing a lifeline of a 6-month training opportunity to them.

Hon Darren Hughes: What’s that going to do?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Very little. Young people do not want a training opportunity; they want to work. They want a job, and to earn while they learn. There is no vision and no ambition for young people in National’s Budget 2010.

Families are bracing themselves for the impact of GST increases. It will hurt. There will be increased costs to the weekly kai bill. Take, for example, a weekly kai bill of $261. Add to that 15 percent, which means an extra $39.15 per week on that whānau’s kai bill. It will hurt. There will be increased costs for mortgage or rental payments, increased costs for school uniforms for the kids, increased costs for household items, and for rates. Let us look at rates. Take an annual bill of $2006.23, and add to that 15 percent. That will cost $300.93 extra a year.

David Garrett: It must be a nice house.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I heard a comment over there that it must be a nice house. In fact, rates in Kāwhia are more than that, and those are humble baches, so let us be very clear that the member for ACT has no idea what everyday families are paying in rates. He should be ashamed. Far too many—[Interruption]. What did he say?

David Garrett: I know Kāwhia very well.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: He knows Kāwhia very well. He obviously does not know its rates bills very well at all. He should be ashamed that he is supporting a 15 percent increase to rates bills, which will add around about $300 a year to them. Pensioners in Kāwhia will not be getting any more out of the Rates Rebate Scheme, because that has gone under National’s Budget 2010. GST hikes will hurt, no matter how National slices and dices its message. They will hurt many households, many Māori households, and many whānau, and I know that Hone Harawira does not like that particular decision.

These are the types of changes that Māori families and individuals will feel, because they will hurt them in the pocket. Five members of the Māori Party voted for these changes on the basis that they have made far too many gains to turn back now. Well, let us look at the checklist. First there was flying a flag on one day of the year. Yes, they delivered that—woo hoo! That is done, but it means very little. The repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is done, but the solution is not what was promoted out in the communities.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): A few days ago the Prime Minister announced an agreement on the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. National and the Māori Party have worked very hard on this matter since 2008 to try to heal the wounds inflicted on New Zealand by that odious legislation. One of the real pleasures for me since 2008 has been working on that issue with Tariana Turia and the Māori Party. Mrs Turia’s name will always be remembered in New Zealand for her principled and courageous stand on the foreshore and seabed. Being able to work with her to find a solution to this legislation has been the highlight of my time in this place. The Foreshore and Seabed Act is Helen Clark’s legacy to New Zealand; its repeal is Tariana Turia’s, and I have to say that Mrs Turia is by far the greater politician.

As my colleagues have pointed out in speech after speech on the Budget, this Government has had to spend a huge amount of time and effort cleaning up the mess left by Ms Clark’s administration. In my arts portfolio I am dealing with an arts infrastructure that was neglected during Helen Clark’s term of office.

Grant Robertson: That’s absolute rubbish. You know that’s not true.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Her negligence is simply a disgrace. The Historic Places Trust had to defer significant maintenance and critical repairs on some of our most important and precious heritage sites because of underfunding over the last decade. This year, Old St Paul’s alone faced deferred maintenance costs of $1 million, I say to Mr Robertson from Wellington Central. The Film Archive was also neglected by Helen Clark. The National Government is addressing those issues. Budget 2010 allocated $3 million to the Historic Places Trust for urgent deferred maintenance. The Film Archive also received a grant of $2 million to help preserve our cultural heritage in film. We know from headlines over the last few days just how important the work of the Film Archive is. Unlike Helen Clark, I am not interested in using the arts to make myself look good. I am happy for my results to speak for themselves. In fact, I have even heard it said—the luvvies are saying—I am a more competent Minister than Helen.

Working on all those initiatives has been a most satisfying experience, yet there are some in this place who are interested only in muckraking. Of course, I refer to Mr Hodgson. That amateur sleuth, that putative star of “CSI Dunedin North”, is finally reaching the end of his long, winding paper trail to nowhere. He exemplifies the previous Government’s inability to learn from its own mistakes. The so-called master strategist’s strategies backfire time and time again. He has been hot on the trail of the Prime Minister and the H-Fee conspiracy since 2008, searching high and low for clues to follow, only to arrive at the end of his mediocre career at the next election still clueless. At the 2008 election he tried to make up some sort of investment scam involving the Prime Minister. He and Helen Clark ordered Mike Williams off to Australia to dig dirt. I cannot remember many of the details, because it did not turn out very well—so much for the master strategy! I notice he has gone very quiet after his most recent flop. I have heard his latest efforts backfired so badly that Phil Goff has told him it is time to go, so Labour can give some union functionary like Carol Beaumont or Darien Fenton a safe seat in Dunedin.

So Mr Hodgson is going, and Labour is losing the man I once heard described as Labour’s assassin. In Opposition he has applied himself to picking over the details of the Government’s arrangements with what he probably fancies is a surgical-like precision, but it only reminds the rest of us that he is a vet. The final paper trail led to a Labour strategy for his colleagues. Attack campaigns are most effective when leavened by humour. That is certainly not advice Labour members have ever followed, unless the constant string of smears was always intended as comic relief. But the joke has been on them time and time again. Mr Hodgson’s career sums up, for me, the difference between Labour and National. We are interested in politics, ideas, and making this country great; Labour is only interested in smear.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): The headline that greeted us yesterday, “Peace deal on beaches”, was worlds apart from a tumultuous period of our history. It is only right that as MP for Te Tai Tonga I mihi to the eight iwi of Te Tau Ihu who first sought declaration from the Maori Land Court that the foreshore and seabed within the Marlborough Sounds are Māori customary land. They had the precedent of the mid-1860s, when the Native Land Court accepted applications to determine title of customary land—land held by Māori in terms of tikanga Māori. In 1997 Judge Hingston ruled that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to consider whether foreshore and seabed are Māori customary land. His finding was appealed to the Māori Appellate Court, to the High Court, and then to the Court of Appeal. Exactly 7 years ago, on 19 June 2003, the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the Maori Land Court could determine the status of the foreshore and seabed under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The reaction of the then Prime Minister and the then Attorney-General was rapid beyond belief. The day after the Court of Appeal decision, Helen Clark informed the country that steps would “be taken to confirm absolute Crown title over the foreshore …”. She was instantly backed up by Margaret Wilson, who claimed that “Ownership of the foreshore and seabed had long been considered to lie with the Crown”, conveniently neglecting to say who, exactly, thought that way, other than themselves. From then on, peace would not prevail for 7 long years.

Within days of the Labour Government’s knee-jerk response, the movement was ready to act. Lawyer Moana Jackson spoke for us all when he said that the Government had denied Māori the right to a fair trial, and that it would create a festering sore. John Key reflected that concept just this week in addressing what he described as the weeping sore of the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act.

The Treaty Tribes Coalition—representing most of the North Island iwi, the Taranaki Māori Trust Board, and Ngāi Tahu—laid a complaint with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, stating that the act of confiscating the foreshore extinguished Māori rights. The committee upheld the complaint, confirming that the legislation and the extinguishment were indeed racially discriminatory.

So many acts of brave opposition and courageous protest have led to this day. No one can erase the memory of 40,000 New Zealanders marching on this Parliament calling all of us to account. But there are other unique events. Hauraki kaumātua Toko Rēnata Te Taniwha returned his Queen’s Service Medal as a protest against the Government’s handling of the issue. The Rātana movement made its first ever submission to Parliament, arguing that the foreshore and seabed legislation contributed to the legislative erosion of the Treaty. Some 3,946 submissions were presented to the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee; 94 percent of them opposed the legislation.

Will peace be retained? The Māori Party campaigned to repeal the 2004 Act, and to restore due access to justice. On both counts, we have done well. But that does not mean the fight is over. Māori have the right to seek customary foreshore and seabed title, which would bring benefits similar to freehold title rights, including commercial development rights, and veto over other developments. Iwi and hapū are now able to claim customary title through the High Court or negotiations with the Crown. There is now an opportunity for universal recognition, mana tuku iho. That is significant. The Crown acknowledges the mana of iwi and hapū as enduring and inalienable. A line in the sand has been drawn. The 2004 Act will go down as appalling law.

Our rights to justice have been restored, but there is still much to watch over in the drafting of the legislation to ensure it expresses the Treaty relationship. We must see hapū rights protected alongside those of iwi. The legislation must set out the nature of the development, occupation, and usage rights that Māori will enjoy—the actual rights. We will be actively putting up the case for those whose relationships with the foreshore were affected by raupatu, fraudulent land transactions, or other breaches of the Treaty by the Crown to be recognised. Māori did not march just to repeal this discriminatory legislation; Māori marched for justice. We as the Māori Party will continue to do all that we can to ensure that justice is done.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): This is my first opportunity to speak in the House since I was given the role of Labour’s spokesperson on the environment. I would like to begin my contribution by thanking and acknowledging all those members from across the House, and of course in my own party, who have been good enough to congratulate me on that new responsibility. I am looking forward to working in the portfolio.

When I spoke on the Budget in the last week Parliament sat before the adjournment, I said that it failed to mention the environment once, and that is a major omission. I also said that the Budget was a dangerous gamble, because it contains revenue assumptions that will not survive any further worsening of international economic conditions. But there is another major problem with the Budget, and with the economic policies that accompany it. Those policies mean that for fixed, low, and middle-income earners, everyday Kiwis, day-to-day living costs will rise steeply.

The National Government knows this, because it has tried to hide it by saying that no New Zealanders will be left worse off than they were before the Budget. But on this side of the House we can see through that, because once we do the maths, taking into account price rises, interest rate rises like the official cash rate rise yesterday, accident compensation levy rises, the emissions trading scheme’s effect on power and petrol price rises, and the GST increase, all at a time of nil wage growth, it is obvious that the very people who need and deserve help will not get it from this Government.

The Budget is not fair. Despite all the rhetoric, it is a Budget that simply caters to the few. It harms our many hard-working families. Let us look at where most of the money is going. Fully a third of the value of the tax cuts will go to the top 5 percent of the population in New Zealand, and fully 15 percent of the value of those tax cuts will go to the top 1 percent of income earners. How will the National Government fund that? It is doing two things, and they are both unfair and unwise.

First, it is borrowing to fund these tax cuts. There will be an extra $50 million of debt for all New Zealanders, just to give a big boost to the very best-off. That is just not sensible, and it is not fair to saddle ordinary, hard-working people with millions of dollars of debt to reward just an elite few. Borrowing to fund tax cuts is at best stupid, but when they are as inequitable as these tax cuts, it is also immoral. The Government knows this, because in the Minister’s Executive Summary in the Budget documents is found the following quote: “it would be irresponsible to saddle the next generation with further debt to pay for tax cuts now.”—even though that is exactly what the resulting legislation does.

The Budget is also unfair because the Government claims on the one hand not to leave anyone worse off, whereas in reality it has just hidden the many extra costs with which it will burden the majority of New Zealanders. The Budget will disadvantage those already struggling, and reward those who need the least help. Let us take the example of an average male worker who earns $50,000 a year. The Budget claims at face value that this worker will receive an extra $29 a week, leaving him $16 better off each week when the extra $13 a week in GST is taken into account. But in claiming that, the Government has ignored some very obvious factors—pointed out by Treasury—in order to create an illusion. The Government knows that this worker will not be better off. It knows that it is making him, and the many other workers like him, worse off.

There has been no taking into account the estimated 6 percent inflation that the country will face in the coming year—and that is not something that slips the mind too easily. If it has been omitted, it is safe to say that that omission is intentional. The reason the National Government has failed to take inflation into account in the information given to ordinary Kiwis, is that this would expose how an average worker would end up losing $19 a week, thanks to higher inflationary prices. That is just not fair. If we take into account increased accident compensation levies, costs to the worker if he has a student loan outstanding, early childhood education cost increases, higher power prices, and higher taxes on things like rent and tobacco, our average worker could, in reality, end up $30 a week worse off than he was before the Budget. And the worker will be getting worse off still, because as we saw last year we are in times of relatively low or nil real wage growth. I cannot for the life of me see what is fair or good about that.

The Budget and the propaganda surrounding it have been deceptive. I say this because the Government knows that what it is doing is wrong, and because it knows that taking from the many to give to the few cannot be morally justified. It is a Budget of broken promises, and it is one on which the Government will be judged.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs): What a terrible time it is at the moment for the Labour Party. Its caucus is divided and bleeding; we are seeing that in the public arena at the moment. Just this week Labour reshuffled a few familiar faces, and no doubt there will be more of those members standing in the House this afternoon to speak in the general debate. Labour still cannot reconnect with New Zealanders, and we are seeing that in Labour leader Phil Goff’s poor poll rating, which is static at around 6 percent. Mr Goff started last year with an apology to the Labour caucus for the way Labour lost touch when in Government. Then the “Axe the Tax” bus arrived. It came through my electorate. It stopped in Levin, and about six people met the bus there. Now we do not know where Labour stands on the GST increase because Phil Goff is saying that Labour is not sure whether it will repeal GST. But one thing is for sure: we know that tax will be going up if Labour ever gets on to the Treasury benches again.

We had the race speech from Phil Goff, and he still could not reconnect. It divided Labour’s caucus even more, and now we hear that Labour is against economic growth and our discussion document to do with mining. Labour is conflicted on this because it does not want to see New Zealanders be more prosperous and wealthier. Labour is conflicted because its members know that the Labour Party was founded on the West Coast, and West Coasters are very pro mining. No one is listening to Labour, because in essence it has no policy.

This great Budget was read by the Minister of Finance about 27 days ago, and it was particularly well received up and down the country. There is a real focus on infrastructure. We can think about what this Government will do with infrastructure. There will be seven roads of national significance up and down the country and around our major cities, where there are points of congestion. In my particular area, there is a proposal to have an expressway from Wellington Airport through to Levin, costing about $2.2 billion. There is an $11 billion programme for these seven roads of national significance up and down the country. It will lift productivity, boost growth, and reduce congestion. It will make those roads a lot safer. Lo and behold, Labour members are now out distancing themselves from the expressway through my electorate. They are saying that if they are ever lucky enough to get on to these Treasury benches, they will try to stop the expressway. I cannot believe that they will try to stop Transmission Gully, which is part of the expressway. Labour will be on the hustings in my electorate saying that it is against Transmission Gully. We know that in the 9 years Labour was in Government, it did very little. It wanted to leave it up to the regional leaders and the mayors to try to fund the deficit on Transmission Gully. Finally a Government has had the guts to come and say that we are going to build Transmission Gully. We will improve the productivity into our capital city.

That is not all we are doing. We are reforming the Resource Management Act. We are setting up an Environmental Protection Authority that will speed up consents. People will still be able to have their say, but we are trying to reduce red tape. We are investing significantly in rail, as well—$1.6 billion—to modernise and extend the network into Auckland with new stations and electrification. We will put $250 million into Wellington passenger rail for new Matangi trains, electrification, and double tracking right up into Waikanae, which is fantastic. There will be an investment of $250 million for the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan to make sure that KiwiRail is sustainable going forward. When one thinks about what the previous Labour Government did with its transport focus, which was purely political, one sees that it invested close to $1 billion in KiwiRail. Just before the election, lo and behold, an evaluation came out stating that KiwiRail was worth $400 million. That is a deficit of $600 million under the previous Labour Government for rail.

This Government is focusing on unclogging the arteries and getting our productive sector moving. The other important thing we are doing with infrastructure is the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband, at $1.5 billion. This fantastic 2010 Budget was well received by New Zealanders with the utmost pride.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I do not know about unclogging arteries, but I am sure we all had to unclog our ears after Mr Guy’s contribution. He talked about the importance of connecting with New Zealanders, and certainly on this side of the House we are connecting with New Zealanders every day who are concerned about the increase in the cost of living. We are connecting with New Zealanders every day who are seeing their power prices rise, and their rents and their rates going up. We are connecting with New Zealanders who are struggling with increased accident compensation charges. We are connecting with New Zealanders who know that this Budget will not deliver to them a better life. This Budget will not deliver to them a fairer New Zealand.

This Budget is a tax swindle. This Budget is taking away from the many to give to the few. It is quite clear that the National Government is prepared to borrow for tax cuts; well, that is fine. But if we are going to borrow money, should we not be borrowing it to invest in our future? What could be more important to our future than early childhood education?

Paul Quinn: You made this speech yesterday!

GRANT ROBERTSON: I will make this point everywhere in New Zealand if the costs of early childhood education are going up. Mr Quinn does not think that is important. I challenge Mr Quinn to go to any early childhood education centre in New Zealand and face up to the fact that the priority for his Government is tax cuts for the wealthy, instead of quality early childhood education. That is the choice this National Government has made. It has prioritised tax cuts for the wealthy over quality accessible early childhood education. Every member on that side of the House needs to go to early childhood education centres around the country and face up to the parents and to the families who will now be paying $50 a week more in bills, and that is on top of GST. If a person in Wellington who is on a low income tries to take a bus into town, he or she will find that there is a 50c increase in the cost. There is GST on everything, such as power bills. I received my power bill in my letterbox the other day, along with a letter from my power company, which said that my power bill will be going up. Well, I have been lucky enough to get a tax cut. What about the people who have not been so lucky? That letter tells everyone in Wellington the reason for the increase; it is the Government. The letter actually said that it is the Government that is the cause of the increase. The Government is the cause of the increase in the cost of living because it has produced an unfair Budget.

I cannot finish my contribution today without referring to Mr Finlayson’s words earlier on about the arts community. Mr Finlayson has clearly been looking in the mirror rather a lot for his feedback, when it comes to the arts community. Every person I meet in the arts community knows that in the 1990s it was the National Government that undid all of the work in the arts and we needed a cultural recovery package. Every single person in the arts community knows what Helen Clark did for arts in New Zealand. If I can paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen from a vice-presidential debate, I say to Mr Finlayson that I know Helen Clark and he is no Helen Clark.

The Labour Party believes in a balanced economy. We believe in the importance of investing in jobs, investing in sustainable jobs, and investing in high-tech jobs. We believe in making sure that there is a future for all New Zealanders. We know that we will succeed in keeping New Zealanders in this country only if we invest in jobs. This is not about tax cuts. If we want people to stay in New Zealand and not go to Australia, it is about improving wages. It is about making sure that we invest in skills and in training, and in developing our economy so that it is sustainable for the future. That is how we will be able to deliver good, proper, social programmes. It will not come from a short-term approach that is driven by tax cuts for the few and price rises for the many. That is what we are seeing in this country. We are seeing time and time again from National an erosion of democracy, a taking away of people’s rights in Auckland and in Canterbury at the same time as the Government is not focused on the issues that matter for New Zealand.

Members on that side of the House are focused on making personal attacks, such as the personal attacks from Mr Finlayson. I say to Mr Finlayson that that is not how to connect with New Zealanders. Connecting with New Zealanders is having the realisation that that member’s Government is putting up the cost of living for every single hard-working family in New Zealand. Mr Finlayson might not care about power prices going up by a few dollars and he might not care about early childhood education cuts, but he needs to know that real New Zealanders care. Real New Zealanders know that his Government is making sure that their lives are getting harder, and we will challenge this Government every day in this House on that.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I will start by commenting on what the previous speaker, Grant Robertson, said. Mr Robertson said that Labour is connecting with New Zealanders. I ask Mr Robertson why, if Labour is connecting with New Zealanders, Phil Goff is on 6 percent in the polls and John Key is on 70 percent. If Labour is connecting with New Zealanders, I ask why Mr Chris Carter is being chased by the media down the stairs of Parliament House. If Labour is connecting with New Zealanders, I ask why the Labour Party is engaging in a rebranding competition to call itself funky, retro, and sober. The truth is that the Labour Party is not connecting with New Zealanders; it is National that is focused on policy and on delivering for areas like Auckland.

I will touch on some of the key policies that we are delivering, particularly in the area of Auckland. If we fast forward 20 to 40 years, we will see that the role of the Government is not only to deliver to the people now but also to deliver to the New Zealanders who will come after us. We must ensure that Auckland has a quality of life that makes it not only the fifth-best city in the world but also, one day, the best city in the world. That is why I am very proud to stand here and be confident that we have delivered a system of local government in Auckland that will enable us to finally deliver the infrastructure it needs. We recently passed legislation that delivers a system of local governance that will enable us to compete successfully with Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane for both people and investment. There is a very good Queen song that reminds me of our reform in local government—and I know that Mr Speaker likes to sing:

One dream, one soul, one prize, one goal

One golden glance of what should be

It’s a kind of magic

The waiting seems eternity

The day will dawn of sanity

It’s a kind of magic.

One place, one council, one mayor, one plan—finally, for Auckland, it’s a kind of magic. Opposition members were all over the place in terms of their position, but history will show that one regional entity will finally deliver positive change in Auckland.

With over 2 million people expected to be living in Auckland by 2050, we need to make sure that we have the housing to support them. I will touch on the rotting homes situation that we have in Auckland. The previous Labour Government failed to deliver for many New Zealanders who have suffered through having rotting homes. I am very proud that I can tell members that in the Auckland City area over 2,000 people will possibly be eligible to have their houses finally fixed. We are very proud of that as a Government. We are also delivering in transport for Auckland, with over $2.8 billion going into Auckland transport. I know that Mr Twyford is smiling there on the back row because he knows how much money we are spending in Auckland in terms of transport. That transport is reflected in local projects like the Victoria Park tunnel in central Auckland. It is reflected in the huge amount of money that we are spending on rail, including over $500 million for rail electrification and $500 million for electric trains.

We are also investing in people, which is reflected in tax cuts. Members opposite have said today that we are not investing in some of our most disadvantaged people. Labour members say that our policies are for the rich. Well, I can tell members that, within my electorate, I am confident that nearly 19,000 people who are on incomes between $14,000 and $48,000 are getting a tax cut under our Government, from 21 percent to 17.5 percent. That is not about delivering for the rich; those people need that cash to get through in these times. Under National, we are connecting with New Zealanders. We are delivering on policies for areas like Auckland, and those policies are transformational in terms of Auckland’s local governance. They are fixing historical problems like the leaky homes issue. People’s houses have been rotting for a very long time, but that issue was ignored under the previous Labour Government. We are delivering in terms of infrastructure spending on transport, and we are delivering to ensure that New Zealanders have a fairer tax system. I am very proud that we are delivering for areas like Auckland to ensure that people there have a better quality of life. This Government is connecting with New Zealanders, and that is why we are doing so well. I am proud to be part of a National Government.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I rise to draw the attention of the House to the quite extraordinary breakthrough that came out of the review conference at the International Criminal Court in Kampala last Saturday. At that conference the States parties agreed, against all expectations, to adopt aggression as a justiciable crime in international law. There are many caveats entered into the agreement and there is a considerable time delay before it becomes justiciable, but the fact that agreement has been reached on this most critical of all issues of international law is nothing short of remarkable. I believe that it will come to be seen as the most important advance in international peace and security since 1945, when the United Nations Charter was adopted.

The meeting agreed that aggression would become a crime under the Rome Statute once a decision has been made by a two-thirds majority of the 111 States parties. This decision will be made only after January 2017, but if 7 years ahead seems far away, we would do well to recall that work towards making aggression a crime has been ongoing since 1920—exactly 90 years ago. In that historical light, 7 years is a fleeting period. The definition of the crime and its associated elements have been agreed on, and the most intractable issue of all, the relationship between the court and the UN Security Council, has been sorted. In short, the council may determine an act of aggression, as it is empowered to do under the Charter, and refer such a case to the court for investigation and possible prosecution. This will apply to any country, whether or not it is a member of the court. Even in the event that the Security Council does not make such a determination, the International Criminal Court prosecutor may investigate a case of aggression, provided a pre-trial chamber gives the green light. In such a case, however, he may proceed only against those countries that are members of the court and that have accepted the jurisdiction of the court over the crime. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the fact that agreement was reached on aggression is little short of astounding. We can now foresee the day when aggression will become a crime in international law.

This House will recall the member’s bill that I submitted last year: the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill. My bill was debated in August and September and it was voted down on its first reading, although not by a large majority—only 64 to 58. It could have become law. The aim of that bill as described at the time was to put into domestic law a provision that would have had the same effect in New Zealand as the emerging international law now in the International Criminal Court will have. It would have criminalised in New Zealand law aggression by a New Zealand leader if he or she illegally committed our armed forces overseas.

The Government’s opposition to that bill rested on the complaint that it would have rendered this country’s foreign policy subject to a Security Council veto, preventing New Zealand forces from collaborating with others in a humanitarian intervention of the Kosovo type. That reasoning was simply wrong. The responsibility to protect doctrine, as was made clear by the UN Secretary-General in his seminal report of 2004, is always subject to a Security Council veto. As we predicted last September, the day has come when the New Zealand Government will be obliged to fall into line and agree with the notion of aggression becoming a crime. The fact that it is adopted by the International Criminal Court does not absolve New Zealand of responsibility to make aggression a crime in domestic law. Indeed, it will not only be obliged to implement aggression as a crime in our domestic law; it will acknowledge that our domestic courts are expected to prosecute in the first instance before such a matter is referred to the international court in the Hague. So when the time comes for the Government to implement the international agreement making aggression a crime, it will effectively be doing what it was invited to do last year and found disingenuous reasons for not proceeding. I wish the Government well in assisting the court to hasten the day when this occurs.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I will begin by wishing my daughter Isabel a happy 10th birthday. I also congratulate the All Whites. I do not think that this has been mentioned in the House today, but I offer my congratulations to the All Whites for the magnificent result in Rustenburg early this morning. Like a huge number of other New Zealanders, I watched the game with a sense of pride at their gutsy performance. Late in the game, at 1 nil down, I was thinking that it was a pretty good effort against one of the comparative giants of world football, and then I was dancing around the room, like probably half of New Zealand in bars and lounges all around the country, when young Winston Reid hit the equaliser. So, I say well done to the All Whites and good luck for their future pool games.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Give them a knighthood!

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Now there is an idea. Maybe a gong is in the offing. If they lift the trophy it will definitely come.

I think the performance of the All Whites is something of a metaphor for my Government’s aspirations for this country. It is a team that is not flush with resources or talent compared with the sometimes massive wealth that some of the countries it is playing against have. The combined salaries of the Italian team probably match the gross national product of a small Pacific nation. But are the All Whites envious? Do they accept defeat before they even go out on to the field? They are not and they do not. They do not even consider that they are punching above their weight. They firmly believe that they have earned their right to be on that stage, and good on them. They are an inspiration to us all. I think that the economic well-being of New Zealand is pretty similar. We are not flush with wealth or resources, but the Government is not prepared to accept that this is as good as it gets. It has asked New Zealanders to tighten their belts, and they are not on their own in that respect.

The Government also has to control costs while improving services. I do not think there is a better example of that than in the health sector to show what is possible when we clearly set out expectations and empower clinical staff to make the changes needed and to deliver those improvements. The results have been amazing: 12,000 more elective surgeries, shorter waits in emergency departments, and faster access to cancer services. The Minister of Health and I were at Dunedin Hospital last week and we heard from the clinical services leader of radiology, Dr Ben Wilson. He described how his department was able to reduce waiting times for non-urgent CT scans from 57 weeks to just 9 weeks. There had been no huge investment in resources and no great wailing and gnashing of teeth, just a careful look at the process and how productivity could be improved—and one that involved the staff in the process. We were at Dunedin Hospital so that the Minister could give neonatologists, paediatricians, nurses, and mental health staff the news that they have waited years and years to get—that is, that this Government understood the need to upgrade and expand the neonatal intensive care unit and upgrade the children’s ward and the in-patient mental health ward.

I have been working hard on that issue on behalf of the people of Otago since coming into Parliament. It was out of personal experience from having my daughter in the neonatal intensive care unit for a few days after she was born. Thankfully she is well now and thriving, but those few days there gave me an insight into the fantastic work those staff do, and the incredibly cramped and difficult conditions they have had to put up with. The need was identified a long, long time ago. I had surgery as a child and stayed in the ward that is now the acute psych ward, and that was over 30 years ago. It appears that not a single thing has been done to that building in all that time. So I am delighted that the merits of that project have finally been understood by my Government and that it was prepared to invest in Dunedin’s future.

There is a quid pro quo to that, and those financial challenges at the Southern District Health Board are certainly very real. But if Dr Wilson and the radiology department are anything to go by, it is possible to do a lot more with a little more. I think that is the challenge that should be laid down for all of the public sector. Despite Ms Dyson’s rantings about cuts, what she says simply is not true. Vote Health has gone up in a recession. New Zealand’s total Government spending has gone up, which is in marked contrast to what is happening in the public sector around the world. In Ireland there have been 15 percent pay cuts. In Spain there has been a 5 percent pay cut. Billions need to be cut from the National Health Service budget. I cannot say it any better than that great doyenne of democracy, Margaret Thatcher, when she said that the trouble with socialism is that sooner or later one runs out of other people’s money. Frankly, I cannot say it any better than that.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): We know that National is in trouble when it starts quoting Margaret Thatcher in defence of democracy. The Budget was a swindle. It showed that New Zealanders were conned at the last election into voting for a Government that had no intention at all of delivering on the promises it had made to people. John Key, Bill English, and all the National Party people went up and down the country and said to people: “You can have these big fat tax cuts. We will not cut any public spending, we will not increase borrowing, and everything will stay the same. We will not sell any State assets.”, and they did not intend to keep any of those promises. National has delivered tax cuts that it has then taken away again through increases in GST and in the cost of living. New Zealanders are worse off.

National has increased borrowing and it is cutting public services, and, of course, it is lining up State assets and the family silverware for a fire sale. We know that that is coming next. National members just cannot get the terminology right. Bill English is just itching to hock off Kiwibank and New Zealand Post, but John Key knows that that does not poll well. He is saying: “Bill, you are spoiling my photo opportunities. Don’t keep talking about the plan to sell everything. You are spoiling it all for me. Just wait until after the next election.” John Key does not want to be Prime Minister for all that long anyway; he will then hand it over to Bill English and he can hock everything off. But they will not get as far as that, because New Zealanders are wising up to the fact that this Government does not mean what it says. It is all about smiling and waving for the cameras without putting any thought into what it is actually doing, which is massively increasing the cost of living for all New Zealanders.

New Zealanders are financially worse off under this National Government. What are the people in my electorate facing? The old people in Rimutaka face increases in costs for home help. Home-help hours have been slashed under this National Government.

I will talk about health care in particular and the impacts of National’s health cuts. I know that Tony Ryall calls them changes, but let us be clear about what Tony Ryall means by changes—he means cuts. National’s cuts to health care in my electorate in particular will impact on a health care provider called Piki Te Ora. It is a low-cost health provider in Pōmare, one of the lower socio-economic areas in my electorate. It has had $300,000 cut from its budget for the next year—$300,000 has been cut from its budget.

That primary health organisation is in the poorest community in the Hutt Valley, and, what is more, it spends all its money on front-line health services. Tony Ryall’s administration has cut $300,000 from a front-line health service in the poorest part of my electorate. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. I guess that is what Tony Ryall meant by saying that he was focusing on the front line. He was going to focus on the front line with his razor and they were the people he was going to cut. He knows that they do not vote for National anyway, so he does not care about them.

Tony Ryall is quite willing to put the boot into the people who rely on that health service, but we will all pay. We will all pay for those cuts to health services because when those people cannot afford to go to the doctor, they will get sick and will have more serious, long-term illnesses, and we will all pay. We will pay because there will be more queues at accident and emergency clinics because people could not afford to go to the doctor. We will all pay when they end up in a hospital ward with more serious health conditions because they could not afford to go to the doctor. Tony Ryall, the man who promised to focus on front-line health services, has taken $300,000 out of the health service in my electorate.

What else is National doing to the people in my electorate? There will be no night classes in the entire Hutt Valley this year. They are well and truly gone. They are gone altogether. There is no after-hours health service left anywhere in the Hutt Valley under this National Government, which promised to focus on the front line. People in the Hutt Valley had better hope that they get sick only during working hours, because there is now no after-hours health clinic anywhere in the Hutt Valley.

People in my electorate work in the Public Service. Thousands of jobs have been cut from the Public Service. Despite the fact that the National Government said that it would not make any cuts to the Public Service, thousands of jobs have gone, and the people in my electorate suffer as a result of that.

Elderly people are suffering, the working people are suffering, and the children are suffering. Thousands and thousands of young children in my electorate are suffering because of the cuts that the National Government has made to early childhood education. It is a disgrace.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am proud to be part of a Government that, despite members on the other side of the House being so aggravated about this, is delivering on its promises. I will talk specifically about delivering on our promises in relation to infrastructure. I will not talk about Budget 2010 providing $177 million for new school property, and I will not talk about the $69.3 million that has gone into providing more prison beds. Instead, I will talk about the infrastructure spending that is creating jobs in my electorate—yes, it is creating jobs in the Taupō electorate—through energy generation, transmission lines, and roads.

I will start by talking about the geothermal power stations in Taupō. They are absolutely taking off. The recent one that was launched by the Prime Minister was the Nga Awa Purua geothermal power station, which is a great project. It is a joint iwi project with a $430 million budget. It is a joint-venture partnership with the Tauhara North No. 2 Trust. For the benefit of the technical people out there, it has the largest single-shaft geothermal turbine in the world. More important, it will provide electricity for 140,000 homes. When I talk to people in Taupō about what that means for their community, they tell me it is about the number of people who have been gainfully employed in the construction of infrastructure. But that is not all. Mighty River Power has started work on its Nga Tamariki geothermal project, and on 1 July Contact Energy is opening the Te Mihi geothermal power station.

Of course, once we have generated electricity, we need to get it to the homes that need it. That is why there has been a significant investment in transmission lines. If we look at two of the projects in my electorate alone—part of $3.3 billion worth of spending on the grid upgrade—we see that the Wairakei Ring will be completed by 2013 at a cost of $98 million, and the North Island grid upgrade, involving 186 kilometres of lines, will be completed by 2012 at a cost of $824 million.

Infrastructure is very important in keeping jobs in my electorate. Let me look at roads. The National Government has identified roads of national significance, because we recognise that it is important to get this country moving. We believe in building for the recovery. I want to use the example of the Waikato Expressway and, in my electorate, the Cambridge Bypass. That road has been talked about since the 1960s, but finally, under this Government, we have a commitment to build it, construct it, and finish it within 10 years. We will give it money, unlike others in the House, and it will occur. It is 11 kilometres long. The East Taupo Arterial highway is estimated to have had direct employees, in the construction phase, of over 200. That has cushioned the effects of the recession. It is creating jobs, which are vital in our economy. I am very, very confident that the infrastructure projects up and down New Zealand will provide us with a brighter future. Let us look again at the East Taupo Arterial highway. It is 16 kilometres long, including a very complex engineering feat over the Waikato River and over a Contact Energy power station. If members are ever in the district, they must look at this project.

These infrastructure projects are really important. Whether they are in electricity generation and transmission, roads, rail, prisons, hospitals, or schools, we are building them. Those members opposite sit there and they are all very quiet now, because they realise that we are actually delivering on our promises. We are building infrastructure, we are creating jobs, and, more important, this John Key-led Government is building the economic recovery.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I would like to wish happy birthday to Isabella Woodhouse as well; my two turn 10 next week.

We have a responsibility as members of Parliament to talk about the things that make an impact on people’s lives, and to try to make a difference to them for the better. I genuinely believe that most members here have a set of beliefs and standards that have brought them here, and that they are here to make a difference. It is how to make the difference that sets us apart, not the motivations nor the characters of members of Parliament. Right now, despite what people might read or see in the media, the important things are the cost of living and people making ends meet; whether families have jobs they can depend on that will be here in the short term; and whether the income people have, from jobs or from superannuation, will be enough to pay their everyday bills, let alone the unexpected ones. If they are unemployed, it is that they can also make ends meet and have the opportunity to get a job. It is getting through the winter and being able to pay their electricity bills and having a decent house to live in that keeps them warm and dry.

I have been having a lot of conversations recently with people in my electorate about the recent Budget and what impact it will have on their lives. I have been scratching my head at the so-called polls that support it, because I have not found anyone who thinks he or she will be better off. For instance, I had a discussion a couple a weeks ago with a woman in her 30s in my electorate in Dunedin who runs her own beautician business. Her husband is a self-employed builder and they have two little kids in early childhood education 3 days a week. They have calculated that their tax cut will be easily absorbed by rising prices through GST. GST price hikes will hurt them, not only personally but also in their businesses. They are both worried about having to increase the GST on prices in their businesses, and they know that it will not be popular with clients.

But one of their biggest worries is what will happen to the cost of childcare for their children. The woman I spoke to said she has only recently returned to work, and that that was necessary because of the need for two incomes to pay the mortgage. She is very happy with the early childhood education her kids are receiving and she knows that if childcare prices go up or if the centre cannot afford to offer 20 hours’ free early childhood education, then she will have to give up her job. She feels she is between a rock and a hard place, and she does not know what the Government is trying to achieve. She asked me: “Do they want me to stay at home and not work? Do they not agree with early childhood education or are they trying to keep families like us from getting ahead? Do they want us to end up having to sell our home because we can’t afford to pay it off? Why are they giving us a tax cut when we are being slugged in so many other ways by rising costs? Will my mortgage interest rate go up next year, as well as inflation rates rise?”. Those are all really good questions. She knows that inflation of nearly 6 percent will destroy most of the tax cuts. People will not be compensated for the GST rise.

Where are all these people who are going to be better off? In the last few days in Dunedin we heard that Contact Energy will raise its electricity prices by almost 10 percent next month. I do not know how many members on the other side of the House have heard the term “fuel poverty”, but it is a recognised term for people whose fuel bills—

Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s very cold in Dunedin.

CLARE CURRAN: —that is right; it is very cold in Dunedin at the moment. It is a recognised term for people whose fuel bills are more than 10 percent of their income. In New Zealand, a conservative estimate is that 14 percent of households, and possibly more people, are living in fuel poverty because they cannot afford to heat their houses. During winter in Dunedin South, my electorate, electricity bills are commonly $200 a month for the poorest people and up to $400 a month for many families, which is unsustainable. A 10 percent increase is ridiculous in the current environment.

Let me tell members what Gerry Brownlee’s response was to Contact Energy’s announcement. He said: “Shop around. Change power companies.” What a great response by the Government! It is even more interesting given that just a couple of weeks ago John Key actually admitted that National’s version of the emissions trading scheme would add 5 percent to household power bills. I got a letter from Contact Energy a few days ago, telling me about pending price rises that might impact some of my constituents.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill

First Reading

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I move, That the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill be now read a first time. We intend to send this bill to the great Local Government and Environment Committee to deliberate on and to hear any submissions that there may be from the public. This bill is brought to the House on behalf of the Hamilton City Council, which approached me as the local member for Hamilton. The bill is in relation to an area of land known as Parana Park. If people have been to Hamilton they will know where Parana Park is. The park is aptly named because it is right on the edge of the Waikato River and is beside Memorial Park, which is where we have our great memorials for fallen soldiers and those who have served this country. It is the centre place for our Anzac Day celebrations and commemorations. It is also a public area and space used along the riverside and is very much part of the community of Hamilton and Hamilton East, so we have great pleasure in presenting this bill to this House today in regard to Parana Park.

I will give members of this House and the public some understanding of the history around Parana Park. Parana Park was gifted to the city by George Parr, who died on 26 February 1929. By his last will he gifted the house situated at 3 River Road to Hamilton City to be used for a children’s convalescent home for patients from the Waikato Hospital. The land surrounding the house was to be used as a children’s playground. In the 1950s it became apparent that the house was most unsuited for such a use and the 1958 Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act was established to give the Hamilton City Council more effective administration and management of the Parana Park area.

It is interesting to look the obituary of Mr George Parr on 26 February 1929 from the Waikato Times. It describes him as an old and highly respected resident of Hamilton, at the age of 60 years—nowadays 60 years would not be old. He was the son of the late Mr John Parr, a former Mayor of Hamilton, and the Parr family had a grocery business on Hood Street in Hamilton. If members have been to Hamilton they will realise that Hood Street is now the nightlife capital of Hamilton, and I imagine the building with Parr Bros on is still there.

George Parr was an active person and took an active interest in public life. He was president of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. He actually advocated for a few issues that are not dissimilar to many issues that are being advocated in Hamilton at the moment: the connection of the Waikato River with Waiuku by means of a canal, and a train service from Kāwhia and Raglan to Hamilton. Those issues are interesting when we look at what is being advocated in the city at the moment. He was a member of the Hamilton licensing branch, and the most telling thing was that he was a very strong Liberal supporter and had a great active interest in politics. He was somebody who was known to be very successful and community-orientated and not to have any enemies in the city.

Unfortunately, Mr Parr never married and had no family that would have taken over the property in normal circumstances, so he gifted it to the city council. When it was vested in the city council in 1958, as I said before, the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act gave Hamilton City Council the ability to effectively administer the park. I will read from a speech on that legislation by the Hon Dame Hilda Ross, who was a member for Hamilton, and a member of the National Party as well—a very fine member. She told us some history of the property. She said: “In 1929 on the death of the late George Parr, his property and his house were left to the Hamilton City Council. In his will he expressed his wish that the property be held as a children’s playground and the house as a convalescent home for children from the hospital. The house has been found most unsuitable for that purpose—”

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is fascinating but I wonder whether there are any limits on the extent to which members are allowed just to read out Hansard. It is unusual to give leave for it to be tabled, but it is in the record and those of us who are well prepared for this bill of course are well up on this.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): In answer to your question, the Hon Mr Mallard, there are no limits. Do I have an opinion as to whether there should be? Yes, I long for the days when members were not able to use prepared notes in the House. However, that is not the case and the member is in order.

DAVID BENNETT: It is a very short extract from Hansard from those times, as members can see. I was going to read only a small part of it to the member but I am sure he will be most diligent, and look for it and read it later when he goes back to his office. Essentially, Dame Hilda Ross echoed the thoughts we spoke of earlier about the hospital not finding the land able to be used for the intended purpose, so the council used it as a park. The council found that it could use the property only for rental and it was not used for the specific purpose for which it was intended in the original vesting with the Hamilton City Council.

She noted: “There is a paddling pool and a barbecue, which the Girl Guides use a great deal. An outdoor stage has been built so that people can sit and watch. Trees are planted so that people can look at this attractive part of the city and take advantage of it.” I was reading that out for a purpose in the sense that Hamiltonians use that part of the city for its aesthetic qualities often and many a time. It is appropriate that Hamilton City Council now be able to deliver to the residents the ability to use that land in such a way that they have better control over the property so that it can deliver exactly what the residents want and have wanted for many years in the way they use that property.

So the purpose of this bill is to assist the Hamilton City Council to provide the amenities that Hamiltonians want. Hamiltonians use that land now for those purposes, and through this bill we give the city council the full extent of the powers that they desire so that they can implement and deliver those services to the community. As Dame Hilda Ross said, it is a very pleasant site but brings in no revenue. The city council wants to run the ground and use whatever proceeds there may be as a means of maintaining it. So things have not changed terribly in the last 50 years.

In the end, we are providing this bill to the House on behalf of the city council. The land was gifted by an individual for a children’s convalescent home for patients of the hospital. The land has been used as a playground in the past. In the 1950s it became apparent it was unsuitable, so was vested in the city council through the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act. Parana Park is currently used for recreational purposes, and the Hamilton City Council considers it is appropriate to update and modernise the legislation by which it holds Parana Park, to enable it to more effectively manage and administer the park. The repeal of the 1958 Act will allow Hamilton City Council to do just that and will enable it to carry out any plans for development of that area.

In essence what we are doing here is making the vesting of this land into the Hamilton City Council a reality so that it can use it for the most appropriate community purposes, as it is currently used by the community now, and we recommend this legislation to this House. National supports Hamilton City Council in its desire to maintain this land and Parana Park in a way they can serve the community interests. Thank you.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is just a slight technical matter. The member referred on occasions to “we” with regard to the intention. I think the Standing Orders indicate that someone has to indicate his or her intention, not his or her party’s intention. I seek leave for the references to “we” in the intention to move the bill to the select committee to be read as “I” in the member’s speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Leave has been sought. Is there anyone opposed to it?

CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National): Mr Assistant Speaker, I seek your guidance on this before we vote on it. Is the motion that the Hon Trevor Mallard moved necessary? Does it make a difference to the process that David Bennett has put here? If it is irrelevant, then I do not think we need to vote on it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I have not done any homework on this particular issue, it being one that has not been raised with me before. My perception is that it will not impact the overall final outcome. It is a technical matter. [Interruption] Yes, well, if the member can direct me to an appropriate Standing Order or Speaker’s ruling. The member has the right to put the leave. I will put the leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Yes, there is objection.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When I moved this bill, I did read “I move that the Hamilton City Council” in that first line. I may have used “we” later in the speech, but the first line, which is the appropriate one, I did say “I”.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Just to correct the member, I agree absolutely at the beginning that he said “I move”. But later on I think instead of saying “It is my intention” or “I intend to move”, the member said “we”. I think it is a requirement of the Standing Orders to give the member introducing the bill’s view or intention clearly, rather than other members’ intentions.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): At the outset the member did say “I intend that this bill goes to”, so he fulfilled that requirement.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, he didn’t, Mr Assistant Speaker. He said “we”—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): At the very initial stage he said “I”. I am informed that that was what he said, and I am prepared to accept that. In any case, the motion that would do that has not yet been passed. If the bill goes through the first reading, then the actual adequacy of the wording would be measured on the motion.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I very respectfully want to disagree with you. It may be that that was what was provided to the member to say. He certainly said “I” at the beginning—I am not disputing that at all. I am disputing that he said “It is my intention” or “I intend to move this bill to a particular select committee.” He did not say that. I specifically listened for it to make sure that it was accurate. He may have been ad libbing and he may have got it slightly wrong. I think the Standing Orders are pretty clear that the member introducing the bill has to give his intention. I am still digging into him as to which one it is. I was trying to be helpful to the member and to get it right, because as a former member for the electorate across the river, and knowing the area relatively well, I would hate to have this upset later on for lack of form. That is why I am trying to get it tidy now.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Originally I did say “I” for that first sentence. In that sentence I said that the bill was going to the Local Government and Environment Committee—that we would be moving it to that committee. I can check that in the Hansard to make sure that it is correct. That may be a solution that we can do.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we just do something for the avoidance of all doubt? I seek leave that if there was an error in the member’s words, that will not affect the motion at the end.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Righto. So if there has been a breach it will not affect the outcome. Leave is sought. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is my pleasure to rise to support the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010 at its first reading. I want to say at the outset that Labour will be supporting this bill through to select committee because Labour members will be very interested to hear whether there are any issues with this bill. Currently, it is Labour’s perspective that this bill is not controversial. However, we do not know if there are any descendants—it appears that there may not be. I think the previous speaker, David Bennett, who is sponsoring this bill, let us know that the original owner of the land was not married. However, that is not to say we do not know that there are descendants lurking about somewhere in Hamilton who may want to have something to say about this.

I thank the member David Bennett for bringing forward this bill on behalf of the Hamilton City Council. My only wish is that the member would also agree with the Hamilton City Council over pursuing a train service between Hamilton and Auckland. It would be great to see him support that initiative from the Hamilton City Council, as well as this one. Although this is a useful bill, I do not think it is quite as important to the local population of Hamilton today as the initiative to establish a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland. I take this opportunity to ask him to consider that initiative from the Hamilton City Council.

The member is quite right about the history of Parana Park, but I would have liked to hear a bit more passion about the beauty of Parana Park. It is a stunning part of our city. It is on the east side of the river, right up against the river. I think the important thing about the history of this piece of land is that it is now back in public ownership. Now, everyone in Hamilton and visitors to Hamilton can make use of that very beautiful piece of land. That was not always the case, as it was in private hands during the course of its history. It is really wonderful to see that the Hamilton City Council has the ownership of that land and that it makes the land available to the good people of Hamilton because it is such a special part of our city. It is alongside and adjoins Memorial Park, where so many special occasions such as the Anzac dawn parade and a civic ceremony on Anzac Day occur every year in our city. It hosts two major Anzac ceremonies on Anzac Day every year. It is also a place where many other activities take place. A lot of weddings take place there, many picnics take place there, and I have attended even union protests at Parana Park. So it is a very, very important part of our city. It is open to the public for a whole range of activities, which very important.

The bill that we are addressing ensures that the Hamilton City Council can use the park for all of the many diverse ways in which it is currently used. The original intention of George Parr in his will, when he gifted the park to Hamilton in 1929, was for it to be used as a playground for children, and it is, but with the plan that the house on that land was to be used as a children’s convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital. Clearly, George Parr was a man who loved children, because this was at the forefront of his mind when he gifted this land; he was gifting it to the children of Hamilton. I think that is such a fantastic thing to do. I wonder what he would think if he were alive today about the way the current Government is taking away rights from children, cutting the funding to early childhood education, and doing those sorts of things. I know that this playground is a place where many local early childhood education services take children along to for a bit of a day trip. Those are the very sorts of things that will be under threat because of the cuts to funding that this Government has put in place. It is the field trips and the excursions that many of those centres are looking at cutting out. I think that that would be a great shame, because the playground at Parana Park is a wonderful site for people and young children to visit.

Earlier this year there was a very significant event that took place on that very bank of the Waikato River. Local members of Parliament, local city councillors, and people involved with restoring and keeping Hamilton’s history came together to celebrate the restoration of a gunboat that is pretty important to Hamilton’s history: the PS Rangiriri. It was a very interesting event because we gathered on the opposite bank of the Waikato River to get on board what I would describe as a barge—that is probably even overstating what we were getting on to. It was like a floating platform. We got on, on one side of the river, and motored across the other side of the river to land right by Parana Park. The fascinating thing that happened was we were having rotten peaches thrown at us while we were doing that. Members may ask why that was—and this is a very important part, a very interesting part, of New Zealand history. It was apparently what happened when the PS Rangiriri first trawled up the mighty Waikato River. Local Māori were so concerned—members must remember that this was the period just following the Land Wars—and worried about the presence of that boat on their river that they threw rotten peaches at it, because it was the time of the year when peaches were abundant.

So there we were, earlier this year in 2010, recreating that moment, but without as much grandeur. We were celebrating the restoration of the PS Rangiriri, which now resides, in its restored state, under cover, and not at risk of having the flood plains of the Waikato River causing any more damage to it. Much money from the New Zealand Government and from the Hamilton City Council has been put towards the restoration, but the PS Rangiriri also has all the stories associated with it around it. I think that another important part of Parana Park, and its associated Memorial Park, is that it contains the stories of Hamilton. There are now stories there, which have been written for everyone to go and see, about the people who were involved with the PS Rangiriri and its arrival. I was particularly fascinated by a story of a woman who arrived on the PS Rangiriri, when it first came up the Waikato River. She was a particularly gutsy woman for those days, and she decided she was not going to wait for the captain of the boat to have the opportunity to make land first. She wanted to be the first one, so she threw off her shoes—and goodness’ knows what else—to leap into the waters of the mighty Waikato, run up on to the bank, and be the first person from that boat to land. She would have stepped on to land not too far away from Parana Park.

Dr Cam Calder: Was David Bennett there?

SUE MORONEY: No, I do not believe that David Bennett was there at the time; this was many, many years ago. That woman claimed her place in history, and I think that is a jolly fine story to read when visiting Parana Park.

I will not talk too much more about the importance of this piece of land to our city and my support for this bill, but before I came down to speak on the bill I had a quick google of Parana Park. I found a really interesting site with a lovely photo, a beautiful photo, of Parana Park. Unfortunately, the person who had put that up on the Internet had misspelt it as “Pirana” Park, so many of the contributions and comments about that beautiful photo are telling the person to get the spelling right—Parana Park. However, there are many interesting stories that people have added, with their very fond memories of Parana Park. I have to say that supporting this bill has been so popular among Labour members that I had to fight off some of my colleagues to take a call on this bill. So many Labour MPs have very fond memories of this particular piece of land and they will enjoy putting those forward in this debate, as well. I look forward to the select committee process on this bill and to see whether any descendents of George Parr might want to come forward. I wish the select committee all the best in its deliberations.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It gives me great pleasure to take a call on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is a wonderful thought that Labour members are lining up to support this Government-sponsored bill, under the excellent name, or certainly with the assistance, of the member for Hamilton East—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this is slightly unusual, but unless something happened when I popped out of the House for 5 minutes, I thought we were on local bills rather than Government bills. I just want to check that we have not somehow slipped down to another piece of legislation.

Todd McClay: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will deal with one point of order—

Todd McClay: Point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): No. I do not think I need the member’s assistance, thank you. Generally, there is a little bit of flexibility about subject material in first readings, and it is up to the member to make any comparisons, or to draw into the first reading speech the relevance of what he is saying. We will give him the opportunity to do that.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Indeed, the correct thing is that the excellent member for Hamilton East is the sponsor of this bill. It is a local bill—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The Hamilton City Council is the sponsor.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Quite right. But I was so pleased about the fact that Labour members were so keen to line up and support my colleague Mr David Bennett—

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, we’re supporting the Hamilton City Council.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: —ha, ha!—who is sponsoring this bill.

Let us look at some of the history behind it. We have heard the description of Mr Parr, who died at about the age of 60. In fact, in the explanatory note of the bill I was interested to see that the date of his death was “on or about the 26th day of February 1929 …”, and I understand that David Bennett made note of Mr Parr’s obituary in the paper of the time. What a fine man Mr Parr was, and what a great legacy this is! I also note that he gifted the park to the “Mayor, Councillors, and Burgesses of the Borough of Hamilton …”. Maybe Trevor Mallard could assist us with the “Burgesses”, but I did look up the Oxford Dictionary. A burgess is an inhabitant of a town or borough who has full rights of citizenship. How we all celebrate the fact that we do indeed, in this modern democracy of New Zealand, have full rights of citizenship.

It was excellent that Sue Moroney googled Parana Park. I did too, and I note there were over 10 entries. Certainly, she was quite right about the picture she mentioned. It is an absolutely stunning park, on the banks of the Waikato River, and is an area that has been enjoyed by many people and many children for years. Hopefully, that will be the case for years to come.

The Hamilton City Council certainly supports this bill fully. The bill will update the legislation to allow the council to more effectively manage and administer the park, and enable any plans for development. That is the nub of the issue today. The council is now able to do what it thinks is right and proper for the good people of Hamilton; this is what the bill does. Undoubtedly the legacy behind it is very altruistic, and we certainly hope that the future of this park will be enjoyed by all for many, many centuries to come. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I speak in favour of sending the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill to a select committee, to ensure that in the fullness of time those more expert in the history of this property can bring that history out, because I know that that could be a local concern.

I will offer some of my own childhood recollections. We used to live on Boundary Road when I was a child, and often would walk our dog down to Parana Park. It has been rightly said that this is a children’s playground. There were really two places my family went in Hamilton either as children or to take our children. One was Hamilton Lake, which had a walkway around it, and the other was Parana Park. We went to Parana Park mainly, I suspect—for my mother and father in summer—because we were able to swim in the little paddling pool there without too much problem. I have been there recently—just last summer, in fact—with my grandson. We took him there and he enjoyed the area. Sue was right to say that a lot of early childhood centres go there because it is a small and confined space. Children who go to that particular park are probably no older than 8 because of the nature of the small playground. It is a very confined space, and there is a small paddling pool for children to use. I am sure that the benefits of the park as a children’s playground will not be lost. This bill is just about the transfer of the management and future management of the playground.

I will comment on some of the remarks made by members in respect of the history of Parana Park. It is true that there is a post-raupatu history of Parana Park. Indeed, the land would not have been owned by George Parr were it not for the confiscations within Waikato. But Hamilton City is very rich in history and if anyone wants to find out all the different pā sites in the area, there is a well-indexed history at Waikato Museum, to which Ngāti Wairere and Wīremu Puke, in particular, contributed. It was really a means of trying within the city to ensure that those special places in the pre-raupatu history of Hamilton City would be retained. In the fullness of time through the select committee process a case may well be put by Māori community members to have both those historical accounts coexisting within the Parana Park story.

The gift by George Parr later on to ensure that the land would be retained for the city and the benefit of all citizens within Hamilton was a great gift to all members of the community, and it should stay as such. The little house there is a really nice little house, and in summer we see the full beauty of Parana Park. I am concerned, because there is an encroachment to the north of Parana Park. We are seeing more developments along Opōia Road and more apartments being put up. There is council housing in that area. I would hate to see in time Hamilton City Council choose to redesignate special characteristics of that whole area as a result of the changing residential profile of Opōia Road, which is just abutting Parana Park.

The select committee process will be important. It is an opportunity for those who have concerns about the future management and classification of this particular reserve to put their concerns to the select committee so that they can be heard by committee members. Not all Hamilton members will be on that particular select committee, but I am sure anyone who has an interest in Hamilton will know that any reserve around our city would be protected by the citizens there. That is really important. The other important thing about the select committee process is that the Hamilton City Council itself may, in its submission—and I hope that it will—set out its future management for that particular reserve.

I support the bill being referred to a select committee and then coming back to the House. I am not sure whether there will be a number of amendments, but it is an opportunity, perhaps, for the Hamilton City Council to consider its future management. It could have a member on the management committee of reserves in Hamilton. If that is a strong enough wish, it should be put to the select committee.

Lastly, the fondest memory I have of Parana Park was of the first slide that I slid down as a child. Kia ora koutou.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party joins with all other parties in this House in supporting the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill, and in thanking George Parr, 80 years on, for his extraordinary generosity and far-sightedness in gifting this land to, essentially, the people of Hamilton. People have been sharing their memories of this area, and although I am a Wellingtonian I have strong connections with Hamilton. I went to the Hamilton West School for a period of my life, I have many relatives in Hamilton, and I have spent most of my holidays in Hamilton. It is interesting that Hamilton, when I spent my childhood holidays there, had far more open space than it does now. Others have talked about the open space around Hamilton Lake, for example. My relatives happened to live near there, and we spent a lot of our childhood playing in the open space next to Hamilton Lake. Sadly, that is no longer open space; it is now quite densely built suburban housing. As in so many cities, much of the open space that I remember in my childhood in Hamilton is now quite densely built-in with suburban housing. That is why we should be so deeply grateful to visionaries like George Parr, who ensured that there is some land that is not developed, built on, or subject to suburban sprawl; that there is some land in places like Hamilton where people can play.

I was in Christchurch very recently, and what would Christchurch be without Hagley Park—

Grant Robertson: A total wasteland.

SUE KEDGLEY: Well, indeed, it would be, without the visionaries who gave Hagley Park to Christchurch. It is a shame that Parana Park is not quite as extensive as Hagley Park; however, as others have said, it is incredibly beautiful. In the case of parks like Parana Park and Hagley Park, it is not just that they are wonderful places for recreation; they are also the lungs of the city. In a highly built-up and congested city like Hamilton, it is truly important that we have areas of green space, which are the lungs of the city as well as places for people to recreate.

I was just a little concerned when David Bennett was talking about the Hamilton City Council’s plans to develop this park. It has not been spelt out exactly what is intended in that development, but we will be interested to learn about it in the select committee. However, we are very reassured that it is remaining a recreational reserve and that it will come under the Reserves Act. Therefore we are happy to support it—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I don’t think there’s going to be a parking building there.

SUE KEDGLEY: —because we are reassured by the Opposition spokesperson on education that parking buildings are not planned for this park. We certainly hope not. In fact, we think that the park is so beautiful that it really does not need development, and that probably the best thing that could happen would be absolutely no development at all. So we are very pleased to support the bill.

There is something interesting about the gentleman George Parr, whom we are all remembering today—and I think it is appropriate that we do that, 80 years on. I hope he was given an honour for doing this, and maybe if he was not, we could give him a retrospective honour, because his gift was very substantial. The interesting thing is that he was a visionary, not only in vesting a park to the people of Hamilton, but also in understanding the need for public transport. He was an advocate for a train from Hamilton right up to Kāwhia. What a visionary, and what a shame that that particular vision of his did not come into place. That reminds me of Sir Dove-Myer Robinson, the great visionary of Auckland, who had the vision of light rail or public transport for Auckland. What a shame that that vision was not implemented but instead was opposed by the developers of the time, as with the plans for a railway from Hamilton to Kāwhia. He also had visions for a canal. Hamilton would have been all the richer if we had implemented those visions as well.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): Just over 6 weeks ago a historic bill, the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill, was passed. It was the framework for a new era in the relationship between the Crown and Waikato-Tainui. That bill focused on restoring and protecting the health and well-being of the Waikato River for future generations. It is timely now to recall the words of the late Sir Robert Māhuta. He said: “The river belongs to us just as we belong to the river. The Waikato tribe and the river are inseparable. It is a gift left to us by our ancestors and we believe we have a duty to protect that gift for future generations.”

I make reference to that important precedent established by Waikato-Tainui as I believe it is directly relevant to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. To the people of Waikato-Tainui, the river is indeed a taonga tuku iho, the treasured legacy that their tūpuna have entrusted in their care. It is of the utmost relevance to this bill, yet today the local member for Hamilton East, in introducing this bill, spent a long time talking about Mr Parr and his relationship with the land and the park itself. Unfortunately, in bringing this bill into the House, he and the bill failed to even mention Māori, let alone the profound importance that Waikato-Tainui accord to the need to protect, enhance, and restore all waterways. So it was really good to be able to listen to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta talk a little bit about the history of Māori and this area.

Just to be clear: Parana Park is immediately adjacent to the Waikato River in Hamilton. If members have any doubt about the connection, they might talk to Environment Waikato scientist Bill Vant, who has confirmed that as recently as 50 years ago septic tanks at Parana Park were discharged directly into the river. Think about it: that is the place to which Waikato-Tainui would go to swim, to wash, to pray, to be cleansed, and to be healed. Pollution was being directly dumped into that pristine pool. It does not make sense.

We understand that the purpose of this legislation, in vesting Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council, falls within a chain of legislation that should be updated and modernised. This bill is no longer subject to the trusts of the last will and testament of George Parr, a farmer who died back in 1929. It also supersedes the 1958 legislation, which was introduced to ensure the land was protected from inappropriate use, bearing in mind that, up until that time, it had been used for a children’s convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital. That history is important, but equally important is the history and authority of mana whenua, who take seriously their obligations as tangata tiaki to care for their environment.

The recent history is especially important in terms of the role of the Waikato River Authority. The co-governance approach associated with that authority shapes a new era of resource management in which accredited commissioners appointed by Waikato-Tainui, Raukawa, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Maniapoto, and Te Arawa river iwi will be appointed to Waikato Regional Council hearing committees and boards of inquiry for applications for resource consents. It is a very positive approach, the authority comprising equal numbers of Crown and iwi-appointed members sitting together at the table overseeing the management of the health and well-being of the river. In doing so, the authority gives life to concepts of te mana o te awa, the respect for the tūpuna awa, and mana whakahaere—the exercise of control over access to, and management of, the river and its resources in accordance with tikanga.

In undertaking my research into this bill, I came across a study in which 150 marked farm-reared juveniles of the threatened giant kōkopu were released into streams in the urban Kirikiriroa, Parana Park, and Mangakōtukutuku catchments in Hamilton. Survival of the kōkopu species is of vital interest as an aspect of our environmental protection and management, and reminds us again of the need to care for the health and well-being of the Waikato River, the river that runs directly adjacent to Parana Park.

Other aspects of the history of the land may come up in the select committee’s deliberations, particularly the historic association that Ngāti Wairere have with this area, which is known as Pūtikitiki. There may well be many, many more stories that need to be heard. It is therefore in the interests of the iwi and mana whenua that we support this bill to bring their stories to the fore.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am pleased to stand in the House, along with other Waikato-based MPs, to speak to the first reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It reminds me of another bill recently before the House, which was also unanimously supported in its first reading. That was the Carter Observatory Act Repeal Bill. It was similar legislation, where, with regard to an asset, further assistance was provided to the local city council so it could better manage the facility.

I first of all acknowledge the very hard-working, local National member for Hamilton East, David Bennett, for bringing this bill before us in the House today. [Interruption] Yes, I could add a number of other descriptions, but I only have 10 minutes, and I do not want to take all of that time in adulation of one of my colleagues.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In view of the fact that there is widespread support for this bill, and it is bipartisan, and as the member did indicate that she would like 10 minutes, I seek leave for her speech to be extended to 10 minutes if she so wishes, without that time being taken from any other member.

LOUISE UPSTON: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will hear the member. Well, actually, the seeking of leave is not a point of order upon which there are additional contributions. I will put the leave. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? Yes, there is.

LOUISE UPSTON: I will just say that this is obviously a bill that enables the local council to better manage one of its facilities. In this instance, it is Parana Park, and, as many of the speakers before me have mentioned, that park is a wonderful facility located in the middle of Hamilton City, on the edge of the Waikato River. Like many of the members who have spoken before me, I have had many occasions to share that wonderful playground and paddling pool with my children.

I guess that one of the things I will say in response to one of the comments made by a previous speaker is that that park is no longer a dog-walking or exercising facility. That, of course, makes sense. If someone gifts land for the purpose of children’s enjoyment, it does not make sense to use it as a dog-walking area. So that use no longer occurs, because of the work the city council is doing.

It is really important that we enable councils to do their jobs better on behalf of their constituents. In this case, we are enabling the council to manage that particular park better, and allowing the park to be vested in the city council as a recreational reserve. I hope that for many years many generations of Hamilton children, and children across the Waikato, will get to enjoy that park. Thank you.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a great pleasure to rise and join colleagues in speaking in support of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. Members might be wondering why I, as an Auckland-based MP, am speaking on this bill. I am very happy to answer that question. Why am I? Interestingly enough, Parana Park is somewhere that I have very fond memories of myself—and not for the sorts of reasons that Mr Mallard was referring to earlier, I have to say. I am actually a Waikato girl. I grew up in a place called Ōhaupō, which some members may know. I went to school there and went to secondary school at Melville High School in Hamilton, and, indeed, on to university at the University of Waikato. Of course, that is where I got to spend time at Parana Park, because in fact I lived very close to the park. It is a beautiful park, on the banks of the Waikato, and Hamilton is, of course, blessed to have the river running through the city. It is an important feature of that city. The fact that it is not on the coast is quite unusual for a large city, but it is made up for, of course, by the beauty of the river.

In speaking to this bill, I realised that this is the first time I have spoken on a local bill. As a relatively new member of Parliament, I asked myself, as one does, what local bills were about. I thought I had better make sure I knew what I was talking about, so I went to a very important source, David McGee’s Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, to check what local bills are about. I understand that local bills came about after the abolition of provincial government in 1876, that they are bills promoted by a local authority—in this case, the Hamilton City Council—and they must be confined in their effects to a particular locality. In this case, that is Parana Park. It was quite interesting to read that, and of course the local authority promotes the bill but has a member of Parliament to present it. In this case it was David Bennett, the National member of Parliament for Hamilton East, with whom I have worked quite closely on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

It was very interesting to hear some of the history that people have spoken about, and I absolutely concur with the point Rahui Katene made: that it is important to recognise all of the history when we are talking about a particular locality. One of the sad things, probably for every member in this House, is that our own schooling—maybe this has changed; I hope so—focused very much on post-colonial history. We learnt a great deal about events that happened in our recent history, and less so about the events before that time. Sometimes these very local histories can be hugely important to people in their understanding of the places where they live and the interaction between, for example, the original residents of the area, the tangata whenua, and more recent arrivals. It has been very interesting to hear some of that history, in the course of this debate.

I turn to my own dealings with Parana Park. I lived near there when I was a student at Waikato University, and Parana Park is a very beautiful place. Quite often, in fact, I would spend time there, enjoying the nice environment there. As Ms Moroney said, we used to have various demonstrations or events there to cover particular political issues. I have spent time at the park in that capacity. While I am talking about my colleague Sue Moroney, I note that she has recently been selected as our candidate for Hamilton West, and I would like to congratulate her on that selection. She is a very powerful advocate for Hamilton. She has lived in the area for a very long time, is closely connected to the city, and does a great deal of good work in Hamilton.

I come back to the purpose of the bill. This bill vests the Parana Park land in the Hamilton City Council as a recreation reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. This therefore requires the repeal of the existing legislation covering Parana Park, the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. As others have said, Labour supports this bill. It is uncontroversial. It is important that Parliament reflects the interests of our local authorities in this way, and deals with issues like this. Finally, I just want to take the point that Sue Kedgley made.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member does not have a “finally”. Her time has expired.

CAROL BEAUMONT: That is a shame. Thank you.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): It is a pleasure to rise and speak today on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I thank the previous speaker, not only for her kind words about the member of Parliament who has helped to bring the bill before the House but also for reminiscing about her days at Waikato University, many years ago. I was fearful for a moment that she was going to ask the House to be allowed to make a personal explanation, and I am glad that she did not, because we all know what can happen in the heat of the moment when someone is studying very hard at Waikato University.

The local member of Parliament for Hamilton East, David Bennett, is an excellent local MP. He is revered by the local people. I am told that in Hamilton they believe that he is not only intelligent but extremely hard-working, and a real man of the people. It is important that we recognise the generosity of farmers in the Waikato, particularly of dairy farmers.

I was pleased to hear recognition from other speakers of the great generosity of the late George Parr, who gifted this land to the people—indeed, to the children—of Hamilton. David Bennett, the local member of Parliament for Hamilton East, in bringing this bill before the House today, continues the spirit of generosity that the late George Parr set in place. It means that if this bill passes through the House and into law, that piece of wonderful land beside the river in Hamilton will be there for the enjoyment of many, many people—students and otherwise—for many years to come.

I have had only one opportunity to visit this park, and I found it to be quite a beautiful place. I say to Mr Bennett—and I know he has visited my electorate on many occasions—that it is probably not quite as beautiful as most places in the Rotorua electorate, but it is stunning, none the less. It is a pleasure to stand up and support a very hard-working member of Parliament, who has brought a bill before us on behalf of all of the people who support it so very strongly in Hamilton.

My last point is that I notice that the previous speaker said Lynne Moroney was just selected—

Carol Beaumont: Sue.

TODD McCLAY: Sue, is it? Sorry, I was not listening; I should pay much more attention. It was actually someone from the Hamilton electorate who told me her name was “Lynne”, so they are confused there, as well. I wish Ms Moroney the very best of luck. She will need a hell of a lot of luck to beat our great, hard-working MP for that area. I support the bill.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Give us his name.

TODD McCLAY: He is the man who is there, working very hard at the moment. He is a very hard-working member of Parliament.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can’t remember his name. Doesn’t know who it is.

TODD McCLAY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Everybody in this House and in the whole of the Waikato knows Tim Macindoe’s name. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): All of my colleagues are very eager to speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill because of all the important issues that are raised within it. I am not sure whether some of those issues have been touched on, and it will be my pleasure to raise them in this debate. First of all, I am sure that Government members would be very pleased that Labour members are so eager to stand in support of this uncontroversial bill. But I contest that some elements of controversy in this bill might not have been touched on yet, and I wish to traverse them very briefly in my contribution.

Members have already outlined that the purpose of the bill is to vest Parana Park land in the Hamilton City Council as a recreational reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, which of course requires the repeal of the existing legislation governing Parana Park, the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. The intent of the bill is to give the Hamilton City Council more flexibility in the way that it deals with Parana Park. But I will set out two areas where I have concerns over the use of the word “flexibility”, given the way that the Government has chosen to treat some of our park areas in recent times. I think members will note that that is a very natural segue into the wider debate we have had on the use of some of our parklands under the new regime of the John Key - led National Government. Nothing appears to be sacred when it comes to parklands.

I would like to set out for the Hamilton City Council that Parana Park—[Interruption] National members may laugh that this would seem absolutely ludicrous, but so did the Auckland City Council when it heard that Great Barrier Island might be mined. That seems like an absolutely ludicrous suggestion on the face of it, yet, still, that is what the National Government has put forward as a serious proposal in quite an extensive document. This suggestion applies not only to Great Barrier Island but also to the Coromandel. We can break that down into an analysis of the areas. Again, National members may laugh that that seems like a hysterical suggestion. Camping grounds in the Coromandel and around the Tairua area are proposed as areas that the National Government considers ripe for mining. It is not such a ludicrous suggestion that Parana Park may be captured by that, once it comes under the new cover of the Reserves Act 1977—not a ludicrous suggestion at all.

I think we should be raising in every debate the fact that nothing is sacred any more, even if it is a protected land area, and even if it is on schedule 4. Even the main protectant that we had for our national parks, for our precious, sacred conservation areas, was up for grabs. In fact, I sometimes question why we even have schedule 4 at all, given that it now seems to be meaningless. That is one point that I wanted to raise.

I find the background to Parana Park in and of itself fascinating. I enjoyed reading some of the history of Parana Park, about the fact that it was donated and that some community groups, such as the Hamilton Beautifying Society, were involved in the development of this space and created paddling pools, open-air theatres, picnic areas, and public conveniences, and the fact that Rotary was involved in developing those amenities, as well. That highlights for me that the Hamilton community takes their public spaces very seriously. My colleague Sue Moroney, who has been selected as the candidate for Hamilton West, knows that well and so do I. I think that Auckland would bode well by keeping in mind the importance of public spaces as the new super-city council comes in to develop some of its public areas.

I will touch on the one final issue that I had when I was reading about Parana Park and its great expanse, and the flexibility issue that the council now has. I would issue a word of caution to Hamilton City Council that the Government is now on the prowl for public spaces to send its Limited Service Volunteers to. Such a mass of young people is now being sent to Limited Service Volunteers that they are being denied access to support if they are unable to find work until they go on compulsory mini - boot camps, courtesy of Mr Key, and those are now being held in park spaces all over the country. Parana Park could be the venue for the next Limited Service Volunteers course, which is no longer a voluntary course.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It has been a pleasure to raise the first reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill in the House today, and it has been a pleasure to hear the many tributes from members about the park, and their memories of it, even though many of the members who have spoken do not live in the city of Hamilton or in its immediate areas. I think that shows just what a small community New Zealand is, but it also shows the importance of such pieces of land to the community and the role they play, and how much people enjoy them. Their benefit is remembered by generations over many years. The late George Parr, the original benefactor, who vested the land in the city council through legislation, would be very proud to know that he has had that influence on many people over many years.

The speeches made by members today raised some important points about the select committee process, and about the questions that would need to be asked during that process. We look forward to hearing them, as the Local Government and Environment Committee no doubt will address those questions when it hears submissions on the bill. The Māori Party raised some interesting issues as well around the wider context of the land and its role within iwi in the area. I am sure that the Hamilton City Council, with its strong relationship with iwi, has considered this already and has spoken with iwi. But I am sure that the select committee process will provide another avenue for that dialogue to occur as well. I do not presume that we will have any difficulty in this area, because the park has been in use for a long time in this manner. I do not expect there to be any issues, but the select committee is the appropriate process to check that off, in order that we can make sure that it is completed to everyone’s satisfaction. We look forward to that part of the select committee process being effective.

Essentially this bill will give the Hamilton City Council the ability to more effectively manage and administer the park. The park has a history with the people of Hamilton, and a history with the people of New Zealand, as an area of enjoyment and of recreation, and as a space where people can be with their families in an environment beside the beautiful Waikato River. People can take advantage of that stunning environment. They can see the river and the city, and see the growth of the city and its downtown environment. There is also a place of remembrance, Memorial Park, which has a very strong history, and an involvement in the culture of Hamilton and the Waikato for past and present servicemen and women.

We look forward to having the support of other members of this House for this legislation. I have great pleasure in promoting this bill, which will enable the Hamilton City Council to more effectively manage and administer the land and area, and enable it to provide those facilities for people in the future.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill

First Reading

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): I move, That the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I shall move that this bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee.

It is something of a rare pleasure for me to be able to speak in the House today on this bill. Firstly, I do not have many opportunities to actually participate—

Grant Robertson: Very sad!

ERIC ROY: —yes, it is indeed sad, I tell Mr Robertson—so this is something that I am quite looking forward to, for many reasons. I would like to refer particularly to Stewart Island not just as a jewel in the crown of my electorate but as a jewel in the crown of New Zealand. It is a special and unique place. Stewart Island has a lot of unique and very energetic people, who have a vision and energy about the place. It is a unique place for its people as well as for its environment.

It is also a place where I have spent quite a considerable amount of my time, on and off. If I can reflect for a moment, I can tell the House that my earliest associations with Stewart Island were shooting deer and harvesting pāua—so this bill really indicates the old phrase “a poacher turned gamekeeper”—although I assure the House that all of the pāua I harvested were oversize and within limits. But one other illustration I would like to give is that in the winter of 1968, when I was a mere slip of a lad, at a place called Moonlight Point on the Freshwater River I heard an odd thumping sound during the night. I took what some people would call a spotlight, and what I would call a strong torch, to investigate where the sound was coming from. I discovered a most unusual parrot-like bird puffing himself up and booming. Outside of Department of Conservation staff there would be very, very few people who could claim they have seen a kākāpō booming. That was in the winter of 1968.

I raise that point because it is my expectation that another project that I am involved in, which is removing all predators from Stewart Island, will be an opportunity for many people to enjoy—not just New Zealanders but international visitors, as well. So the very reason for us to consider this bill before the House is to enable the Stewart Island community to be able to provide infrastructure for the island, which is under stress because of the number of visitors it receives—and that stress will greatly increase—and to relieve that stress and that pressure. The vision I have for Stewart Island’s tourism includes a predator-free island.

However, let us go to the bill and ask what it does. The bill sets a platform and process whereby levies can be charged to visitors in order that infrastructural needs can be met. How would that happen? It is envisaged that transport operators travelling to and from Stewart Island would charge a levy of, at this stage, not more than $5 per person—probably a little bit less—in order to provide those needs that the community is now struggling to provide. The needs I am talking about are facilities like toilets and tracks—the sorts of infrastructural needs that tourism brings.

Why is that necessary on Stewart Island? The population of Stewart Island is just a little under 400—there are 451 ratepayers, including people with cribs or baches, plus some businesses as well—so it is totally impractical to expect the ratepayer base to provide those facilities. The island, as I say, has a population of fewer than 400 people. Visitor numbers are about 36,000, without children, but that was before the cruise ships discovered Stewart Island. Last year, I understand, five cruise ships arrived.

The question could be asked as to why these good people do not just get on and do something. Well, I have to say that I first suggested this process some 15 years ago, and at that stage three providers were supplying transport to and from the island and we were never able to get the three of them in one paddock. Currently, there are two providers, but if we do not legislate for this levy it makes it possible for a new transport provider to say that its point of difference will be having no levy for those who travel with it. That is one reason why we need to do it. The other reason is that there needs to be some consideration of the pressures placed on the island by cruise ships, so I deem it necessary to have something robust placed on the statute book.

The bill will also provide some transparency, in that a process will be laid down. The Southland District Council will administer this legislation, so there will be transparency about how much money is collected and how it is spent. There is a process by which priorities for spending can be determined, and all of those sorts of things will be visible. We are not putting in place just an ad hoc arrangement but something that will have durability, robustness, and transparency, which will make it all work.

I agonised for some time, when I was talking with the Southland District Council, about how this levy might be future-proofed, because I did not want to have to come back to the House in 10 years’ time to amend the legislation if costs increased or if the levy needed to be adjusted. After thinking about “Henry VIII” clauses and seeing them get the thumbs down, I can report that there is now a provision in the bill that allows the district council to strike what the levy will be. I understand that for some members this might be a somewhat new provision. Rather than vote against the bill on a technicality like that, I certainly want those members to participate in the select committee process in order that we might work through any issues of concern. I ask members, then, to consider firstly the principle, and I would like their support for the bill on that basis.

There is nothing unique about charging a visitor fee for entry to a unique place. It happens now at a variety of places in New Zealand, although very few of those fees are enshrined in legislation. Charging a fee also has quite significant international standards, and there is quite a list of places around the world where that particular facility is enshrined in law, and is a part of the way of having those necessary infrastructural needs provided.

People who live on Stewart Island have a range of pressures placed on them. They are isolated: they are in an isolated community, so all of the costs of living—the necessities—are much more expensive. There is no easy way to generate electricity, so there is a diesel generator on the island. The cost of electricity is 53.5c a unit, so if members want to consider another reason why it would be extremely difficult to have ratepayers fund these particular costs, then they need to consider only the cost of living on Stewart Island. The island has a population that is in decline. Essentially, the community provided and processed job opportunities through fishing, but now there is only one fish processing place left on the island. There are some aquaculture farms, but their produce is now processed on the mainland.

The people of Stewart Island have asked how they can have a future for their community, and they are looking very much at tourism. I am holding up a copy of the Stewart Island Tourism Strategy, which is currently being considered and discussed. If in fact Stewart Island wants to increase its viability it will need to increase its visitor numbers, and that will exacerbate the problem it is currently having difficulty funding. That is why we need to have a robust process that will provide the means for these infrastructural situations.

I commend this bill to the House for consideration. As I have said, a great deal of thought has been put into it. A poll held on Stewart Island has supported it. The bill has the support of the community, it has the support of the current tourism operators, and it also has the support of the Southland District Council. The legislation has been in gestation for some years—more than a decade. We are at the point now when everybody has agreed that it is something we want to have, so I invite members to support the bill and be involved in the select committee process.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank Eric Roy for those comments. I say for a start that the Labour Party will be supporting the referral of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill to a select committee, but we do so with some reservations because there are some hooks in the principles that underlie this bill that we want to work through. It may well be that it is right, but there are some things that we need to check.

I say to the people of Stewart Island that those who have long enough memories will know me as the “tar baby”, because in 1980 I was down there improving their infrastructure by sealing roads when I had a terrible accident. I was covered in—luckily—cold mix tar, otherwise I would not be here talking to members today. I had some other injuries, too, that are memorable for me and perhaps also for some of the other people down there who helped me after that accident.

The issues relating to infrastructure costs being disproportionate to ratepayer base are not issues solely for Stewart Island. I readily acknowledge what Eric Roy has said. He said that there are only around 400 residents and 451 ratepayers—many of whom will not be residents but will be holidaymakers who have holiday homes down there—and 36,000 visitors per annum is the number that Eric Roy has given to the House. I can see that the ratepayer base of Stewart Island alone for funding toilets, sewerage infrastructure, fresh water, and roading improvements is very small. I think that we have to consider these things a little more widely than we have already, though. It is notable—and this is no criticism of Eric Roy or the local proponents of the bill—that because it is a local bill, we do not have a regulatory impact statement. We have not yet had fulsome consideration as to what the macro effects, or the wider effects, of introducing local levies in respect of infrastructure are.

Before Jacqui Dean was the member of Parliament for Otago and then Waitaki, I was the member of Parliament for Otago, and I know from my time in Parliament that similar issues have been periodically raised by Queenstown. Queenstown has a small ratepayer base relative to the huge numbers of tourists who go there. We might think that it is a bit different in Queenstown compared with Stewart Island, and no doubt it is, but in some ways there are also similarities. Queenstown also has enormous infrastructure costs because it has huge numbers of visitors, and that impacts upon the infrastructure that it has to maintain for its peak periods. When the number of tourists in town hits a peak, it has to have the infrastructure that is necessary for that peak number of tourists but not necessary for most of the rest of the time. Queenstown has on occasions said that it needs some special rules to collect a visitor levy, to have a share of GST, or, it has been proposed, to impose a special levy at the airport. All of those things have been suggested to try to raise money in order to build the infrastructure that Queenstown says is beyond the cost of the local ratepayer to fund.

That may or may not be true, and I am not sure that we are ready yet to conclude that that is correct. I think that we need to hear from the Ministry of Economic Development, perhaps from Treasury, and certainly from the Ministry of Tourism as to what they think of these issues. It is true that Stewart Island ratepayers have great difficulty in meeting these costs. Stewart Island does not have a district council. It is the Southland District Council that would administer this levy, and I think there is a proper question to be asked as to whether the benefits of tourism without these sorts of levies are greater than they are with these sorts of levies. I do not know the answer to that question, but if the answer is that tourism would be inhibited for the Southland region, then maybe there is a case for the Southland district to be funding these things from all of its ratepayers across the Southland district, to a certain extent, for the benefit of making these infrastructural improvements on Stewart Island, not just to the benefit of Stewart Island but to the benefit of the whole of the economy of the Southland district.

So these issues are not quite as simple as they may appear at first blush. Having said that, I must say that I have great sympathy for the position of the Stewart Island ratepayers, because their position does appear to be untenable as it currently is. I am just not sure that this is the best solution. I am not saying that it is not, and that is why the Labour Party is supporting this bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee. It may well be the best solution, but I think it is very important to consider these issues because there is an important point of principle here that is of widespread application across the rest of New Zealand, not just Stewart Island. I have mentioned the example of Queenstown. I have also seen many other smaller localities that have similar problems and if this becomes allowed on Stewart Island we will have people saying “me too”, and saying that those same rules should be applied there. I think we have to look very, very carefully at whether the underlying principle of this is right. Let us not forget that tourism is the second-largest generator of foreign exchange in New Zealand after the pastoral sector and we must take care that we do not kill the goose that lays the golden egg through an inappropriate rule that we might inflict upon ourselves from here.

Members opposite might say that these are not real issues, but I know from when I looked at these issues in respect of Queenstown—and I advocated on its behalf when I was the MP for Queenstown—I came upon considerable resistance from various Government ministries, which pointed out some strong countervailing arguments against this. I was not in a position to have enough information to conclude whether the councils were right or whether the countervailing points of view were right, but I was convinced that there were some complex issues that needed to be unpicked. So when this bill goes to the select committee I encourage the Government to make available the relevant ministries that have this expertise, because without that expertise the select committee could make a decision that could adversely affect a very important national interest, which is the viability of our tourism industry.

With those comments I reinforce the point that we do not have the normal protections that we have when the Government introduces legislation that would have already been through all of those ministries before it made it to the floor of Parliament. It would have had a regulatory impact statement as to the effect of those changes, and that would be produced after departmental analysis by the Ministry of Economic Development, the Ministry of Tourism, and no doubt other ministries such as the Ministry for the Environment, which might say that we need this bill for the environmental protection of the marine environment because otherwise there could be raw sewage pouring into the sea, and that would be relevant. All of those things would have been consulted on by the Government department that was proposing the legislation before it came to this House, and all of those things would have informed the regulatory impact statement prepared by Treasury I think it is now—it used to be the Ministry of Economic Development, but it is now Treasury—and the regulatory impact statement would be available to members to consider these issues even before the bill’s first reading.

I encourage members opposite to consider these issues. Jacqui Dean is the member for Waitaki and these issues will have import for Queenstown as well as for Stewart Island. For communities like Te Ānau and Milford Sound—

Eric Roy: It already happens in Milford Sound.

Hon DAVID PARKER: In a different sort of way, yes. Mr Roy says that it already happens there, but it is not quite in the way that is proposed here via a council-imposed levy.

The absence of a regulatory impact statement and those processes before we get to this point makes me nervous that we could make a mistake. That nervousness could well be allayed at the select committee by appropriate advice from Government departments. Accordingly, the Labour Party supports the first reading of this bill and its referral to select committee. We thank the member for Invercargill for bringing this bill to the House on behalf of the Southland District Council.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill and I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker, the Hon David Parker. I also acknowledge with thanks that the Labour Party will agree to this bill being referred to a select committee, because I believe that it is a good bill. I think that the striking of a visitor levy is a method that could provide a very good solution to the infrastructure problems that the ratepayers who reside on Stewart Island face in terms of paying for the visitor industry. I also acknowledge the argument put forward by the Hon David Parker. He is right that a number of small communities all around New Zealand rely on incoming visitors for their economic well-being but their ratepayers bear the cost of providing that infrastructure. But I think there are several differences between them and Stewart Island and I want to point to those.

One of those differences is that Stewart Island is a huge attraction to many New Zealanders and to people from across the world. There are only two ways to get there. One is by air and one is by sea. We can control the borders for those going on to Stewart Island, so it seems to me that the striking of a levy would be equal across all visitors going to Stewart Island. As to whether the passing of this local bill would provide a precedent to other local authorities in New Zealand, maybe it could. The question that I am certain the select committee will grapple with is whether this is necessarily a bad thing. So I raise those two points. I also know that the Chatham Islands are in a unique position in terms of funding for their infrastructure. Members who know more about this can correct me, but I understand that there is empowering legislation that relates to the Chatham Islands for largely the same sort of sustainability reason.

With those few comments I want to again thank the Labour Party for supporting this bill through to a select committee. I believe that it is a well-thought-out, well-considered bill. I congratulate the local member, Eric Roy, on his long involvement with this and his working through the issue with the local communities to find a solution to this problem for Stewart Island. With those words I commend the bill to the House.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): As my colleague David Parker said, Labour supports the referral of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, with some reservations. I stand here to speak in my capacity as Labour’s tourism spokesperson. David Parker was correct when he said that we need to look after the tourism industry because it is our second-biggest export earner. One in 10 New Zealanders derives an income from tourism, and $50 million a day is spent on tourism in New Zealand, so it is really important that we look after the tourism industry.

I can see both sides of this argument. It is really important that tourists who go to Stewart Island have access to the facilities, the amenities, and the infrastructure to provide them with a good experience, and also that Stewart Island can cope with the numbers. Every year 30,000 to 40,000 tourists arrive there, and that is a huge burden for the Stewart Island infrastructure to cope with. In particular, I refer to public amenities such as toilets. I come from a part of the country where the local infrastructure facilities, such as the sewerage system, did not cope, and that led to overflow into rivers.

That had a downstream effect on a number of oyster farms. We cannot have that sort of problem happening in Stewart Island, with effluent going into the sea and perhaps damaging the oyster industry around the bottom of the South Island. I see the need to invest in the infrastructure and the amenities of Stewart Island.

I have spoken to a number of people who work in the tourism industry or have accommodation businesses in Stewart Island. They said that they do not believe a levy of $5 will have an impact on the number of tourists going to Stewart Island. On the other hand, my concern is the cumulative effect of other areas of the country that might also want to set levies. We heard about the Chatham Islands, which have some sort of arrangement. But if Waiheke Island, Great Barrier Island, and, say, Queenstown and the Milford Sound also decide to set levies, the cumulative effect may have an impact on people sitting at their computers on the other side of the world who are making decisions about whether to come to New Zealand for a holiday. If those people see there are all those added costs, it may affect their decision to travel to New Zealand. As I have said, we need to make sure we protect the tourism industry in New Zealand in general. I spoke today to members of inbound tour operator groups. Their main concern was that if a precedent with these levies is set, it may increase the cost of holidays to New Zealand.

I go back to the number of tourists going to Stewart Island. Eric Roy said there are 36,000. Of those, about 60 percent are international tourists. We cannot have international tourists turning up to substandard facilities. They come here with an expectation of nice public facilities, good accommodation, and nice walking tracks. We need to make sure that the reality matches the expectations of those international tourists. It is appropriate that this bill goes to select committee so we can discuss all the issues around it. It is really important, as we do not have the regulatory impact statement that we would normally have, and we do not have input from the various ministries that David Parker talked about, such as the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Economic Development. It is important that we have all that information and that we have a big discussion. It is important that Stewart Island has the amenities it needs to cater for its tourists. It is important that we cater for the wider New Zealand tourism scene, so it is important that we have those conversations at the select committee. We support this bill being referred to the select committee and the committee having those discussions. Thank you.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party is very, very happy to support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. We recognise that Stewart Island / Rakiura is obviously one of the jewels, the treasures, in New Zealand’s landscape. Regrettably, I have not been to Stewart Island myself but I am looking forward to doing so. It is one of the great tourism gems of New Zealand, and it is little wonder that it attracts 36,000 or more visitors. I ask why on earth should all these visitors who come to Stewart Island not contribute in some way to the upkeep of that magnificent part of New Zealand and why it should be left to 300 or 400 local Stewart Islanders to bear the burden of trying to keep up the tourism infrastructure for 36,000 or more tourists.

We can see no reason why we should not be charging tourists a very small levy of $5. Some of the previous Labour speakers talked about how a $5 levy, which the member Eric Roy has said would be the maximum that would be envisaged, could detract or divert tourists from going to Stewart Island. I think that is totally untrue for a $5 levy. I think tourists would be surprised that they are able to enjoy such magnificent treasures in our world without contributing in some small way to the upkeep of that tourism treasure. It is absurd to suggest that that levy will somehow keep visitors away.

As I said, the principle that tourists should contribute to the upkeep of a great tourism attraction is one we strongly support. It is interesting to note that there are precedents. For example, Bhutan used to—and I think it still does—look at the debt it has for the year, then divide up that debt according to how many tourists it wanted to allow into the country. Every tourist had to pay quite a substantial fee to go to Bhutan, and that contributed to Bhutan’s national debt. That certainly has not detracted tourists from going to Bhutan, as they are clamouring to go there. I am sure there will always be tourists clamouring to go to Stewart Island, whether or not there is a $5 levy to pay when they fly in or catch the boat. It is a very sensible provision.

I notice that the people on the Southland District Council are fortunate. Before they would introduce such a levy, under this bill they will be able to have a special consultative procedure. There will be a special consultation in the area to discuss whether there should be a by-law and this levy should be introduced. I say that this is interesting and that they are fortunate indeed because for most of the rest of New Zealand, under some legislation that Rodney Hide and the National Government have just introduced into this Parliament, the ability to have a special consultative procedure, even for something like privatising our water supplies for 35 years, is being removed. They are not allowing even that basic consultation, so it is very fortunate that this bill allows for that.

One last point I would like to make is we have a real worry that Stewart Island could still be on the Government’s hit list for mining. The island was on one of the original lists for mining. Obviously it is not on schedule 4, but in our view it is still under threat because the Government is now taking a stocktake of the entire conservation estate, which includes Stewart Island. We sincerely hope that Stewart Island’s magnificence will be protected from mining, and we welcome this bill as a way—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): In the words of the people of Stewart Island, the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill has been a long time coming. Indeed, it would be rare to find anyone on the island who has voiced any opposition to the bill. That in itself makes a pretty good argument to support it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but maybe she should move to another microphone as there is some feedback. Is that OK?

RAHUI KATENE: How is this?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will try that. I have stopped the clock, so you are all right.

RAHUI KATENE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the local residents, Ngāti Kahungunu woman Gwen Neave, remembers debates around the proposal to initiate a levy for visitors to Rakiura when she was a member of the Southland District Council back in 1978. It was a debate that reared up again in the 1980s.

I think one of the dilemmas that confront a community is how to express manaakitanga without exploiting or damaging the quality of their home around them. We are aware of the increasing number of visitors who are making their way to the island. When I was talking to my stepmother just a few minutes ago, she said that it was at Rakiura where she first tasted blue cod. She talked about putting the line over the side and getting three blue cod at the same time. It is just as well she learnt to like it, because it was their staple diet once she married dad. She also spoke about being able to bring back kina from Rakiura that was the biggest my father had ever seen, which must be a record because he had seen a few. She said they only had to walk out knee-deep to get it. She just loves Rakiura. She says it is the island of the gleaming sun, and that it is pristine and beautiful there. We hope that it remains that way, and we hope that this levy will be one way that it can remain like that.

On one hand we have busloads of manuhiri exploring Rakiura, which is great for the local economy and, in particular, the tourism industry. But the damage that day trippers can cause must also be taken into account. The toll that fluctuating populations make on the local infrastructure, the roading, sewerage, health services, volunteer services, and the footpaths has to be taken into account. If we take just the area of roading, the unique island life brings with it a host of other implications. Local roading is a lot more difficult to maintain when all of the heavy machinery that is required needs to be transported from the mainland by barge. We are talking about a village that is hit by power prices that are four times higher than across the strait.

But I have to say again that it is disappointing to read the bill and to see no reference at all to mana whenua and their views on the levy. Under section 313 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu articulates a special cultural, spiritual, historic, and traditional association with Rakiura and to Te Ara-a-Kiwa, otherwise known as the Pathway of Kiwa or Foveaux Strait. In fact Rakiura has an association with all tangata whenua in relationship to the succession of explorers and iwi who travelled around the coastline at various times. It is said that Māui, in order to keep his waka from drifting away, reached into the sea and pulled up a stone to be used as an anchor, which he named Te Puka o Te Waka-a-Māui, which was the original name for Rakiura or Stewart Island. For Ngāi Tahu, traditions and histories such as these reinforce tribal identity and solidarity, and continuity between generations. So we would be very interested to know the views of the local families still on the island or, indeed, of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on the significance of this levy.

Another key source of knowledge about the value of this levy would come from Te Ao Mārama. This is authorised to represent Te Rūnaka o Awarua, Hokonui Rūnanga, Ōraka Aparima Rūnaka, and Waihopai Rūnaka, who hold mana whenua over all ancestral lands in Murihiku. It has a formal memorandum of understanding with Environment Southland, the Invercargill City Council, the Gore District Council, and the Southland District Council, so one would assume they would have a particular interest in how this levy will be administered, how the funds gathered from the levy will be distributed, and for what purposes.

We know that mana whenua on Rakiura are consulted about matters to do with conservation, fishing, and Māori land, and we hope that this consultation continues with the levy. We cannot forget that the history of Ngāi Tahu as laid out at the Waitangi Tribunal was very drastic but we can create a better future for them, and a Treaty-based partnership would be a good step forward. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I am delighted to rise in support of my colleague and friend the very hard-working MP for Invercargill—the electorate that includes Stewart Island—and in support of this bill. In fact Ms Katene stole my thunder a little bit by her description of the original name of Stewart Island, which translated means the anchor stone of Māui’s canoe. It is a lovely metaphor for the three islands in New Zealand with Te Wai Pounamu, the South Island, being the canoe; the North Island being the fish that Māui pulled in; and Stewart Island being the anchor.

At the outset I have to confess that I have never—despite having lived most of my life just 200 kilometres north of Stewart Island—been over to it. I have viewed its magnificence from Bluff Hill and from some of the beaches around Invercargill, but I am embarrassed to say that I have not actually made the journey—yet. I say “yet”; I promise to remedy that. Perhaps the member for Invercargill could consider leading a fact-finding delegation over to the island where such a visit might include sampling some of the many activities the island has to offer—purely for parliamentary purposes mind you; I am sure it would not be fun at all. But I certainly would not have any qualms about paying $5 extra for that privilege.

I note Mr Parker’s caveat around the lack of a regulatory impact statement, the care around the potential creep of levies, and I acknowledge those concerns. They are concerns that I do not actually share. I have no problem with the application of a small levy; more important, I do not think the tourists—domestic or international—have a problem with paying a small amount to visit these very special places in our country. But I accept that Mr Parker has a point around the issue of perhaps having a more coherent and consistent framework within which to apply these sorts of levies.

He talked a little bit about whether this bill is the appropriate way to deal with the cost of infrastructure development that is needed to deal with rapid rises in tourism. For me, the wonder of it all is not that the south has enjoyed such a huge growth in tourism, but that it has taken 150 years for the rest of the world to cotton on to what we have always known: that the south of the South Island is one of the most beautiful parts of the world. I do not share those concerns but I agree that we may need to take a more holistic look at this issue from a regulatory perspective.

The issue of the tourism revenue is also an interesting one because in fact the Crown enjoys the benefit of the tourism revenue through GST that is paid by international tourists and through the income tax that tourism operators pay on their taxable income. So local authorities do not have that benefit so much and I think this is a very pragmatic solution to that. With those words, I congratulate Mr Roy and I commend the bill to the House.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): I start with a brief commercial for the joys and delights of Rakiura, because I do not think any of the speakers so far have quite done justice to that remarkable place—and not just so that I can share with the House what I did in my holidays. I think that the fantastic qualities of Stewart Island are worth recounting simply because they explain why so many people go to this very remote part of New Zealand and create demand on the infrastructure and a burden on what is a very small population to fund that infrastructure.

My wife and I and friends rented a crib in Oban last summer and had a fantastic couple of weeks. We fished for blue cod and in fact we had the experience, which Rahui Katene described, of chucking a line with three hooks on it over the edge of the boat and seconds later—seconds later—pulling up three large blue cod. We did this time and time again for a whole morning and ended up with more blue cod than we knew what to do with.

The air in Oban and around Half Moon Bay is thick with kākā and kererū. It is unbelievable. Walking around and seeing a flock of a dozen kākā wheeling around the little township is like walking around a primeval Aotearoa. In fact, every day, a couple of times a day, a flock of kākā would land on the deck of our little crib and spend time playing there, and it was really quite extraordinary. Not only, as Rahui Katene says, can one pick beautiful fat kina by wading out in knee-deep water but in Paterson Inlet one can actually pick pāua knee-deep in the water and cook oneself a feed of fresh blue cod, fresh pāua, and kina, and that is an extraordinary experience—and one that people cannot have almost anywhere else in New Zealand, actually. Enjoying the hospitality at the Oban pub or fish and chips at the pie-cart in Oban just adds to the whole experience.

So it is no surprise to me that 36,000 visitors go to this remarkable corner of New Zealand every year. But I have to say that I thought the quality of the infrastructure was pretty good. The wharf, the roads, all the public infrastructure, I thought, were pretty good. Nevertheless, I think that it is right that Eric Roy should be congratulated as the local member on sponsoring this local bill. The numbers, I think, say it all. There are 36,000-odd visitors every year to a tiny community of, I think, 361 ratepayers who are trying to fund infrastructure for the island.

The points have been well traversed already. From our side there is a concern. It is not that a small levy would kill the goose that lays the golden egg on Rakiura but that this could have some precedent value that might not be helpful, and it needs to be considered in the wider context of how we fund infrastructure in the areas of New Zealand that attract large numbers of tourists.

It is also worth mentioning that in isolated communities like Stewart Island there are extra expenses. Rahui Katene pointed out that electricity is expensive on the island—that is true. The cost of freighting in all the goods that people need to run their businesses and to go about their daily lives also adds to the difficulties of living in such a remote location.

There was one experience that I did not mention before that I think is a classic Stewart Island experience and explains why so many people go there. We walked across to Mason Bay, which is one of the premier activities that visitors to the island do, and spent an hour with wild kiwi in the middle of the day on the walk to Mason Bay. If any members have not had that experience I recommend it. I think it encapsulates why that part of the country is so magical.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata): I rise to support the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill, and I congratulate our colleague Eric Roy, who I understand has been working on it since 2004. That just goes to show again that good things take time. In terms of looking at how there will be provision for even more visitors on Stewart Island / Rakiura, this is, in fact, truly empowering and a way forward. The member speaking previous to this speech, Phil Twyford, mentioned 36,000 visitors—that being an average, I understand, from about 2005 through to 2009. Of course it does not actually state the real case, because it does not count the under-15-year-olds. They are such an important part of the visitor numbers to this island; those very important young people who get an understanding of the flora and fauna of this very special place. I say “special”, but I say so without knowing so. More than 5 years ago I bid on a few nights on Stewart Island / Rakiura at a lodge. I still have the voucher sitting in the desk. I have been told that it will not expire. But in fact I will take my family there sometime soon. This bill seeks to move forward the provision of visitor services and to fund it in a truly appropriate manner. I commend it to the House.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill): In reply I firstly thank members for their generous comments and also for the points they have raised, and for their indication of support of the Southland District Council (Stewart Island/Rakiura Visitor Levy) Empowering Bill. I have to say that the points raised that asked questions are important and we need to consider them as we go forward.

I will respond just to the issue of the lack of a regulatory impact statement and what it might mean. I accept all of those points, and, yes, a select committee should discuss them. But if we were to rule out this bill on that basis, it brings on to the table a much wider debate in terms of how we do a lot of things. Members might need to consider next time they pay a departure tax at an airport what such a debate might actually mean in the wider context. It has become intrinsically part of cause and effect and how we fund things in New Zealand. I say not just in New Zealand, because it is also very much a part of how international tourism works. Just for members’ interest I say that the United States has a provision that allows states and tourist operators federally to charge. In the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Germany, and Switzerland, and—closer to home—Norfolk Island and Rottnest Island out of Perth, this is a way in which the international community has also dealt with the issue. That does not mean to say that I am against our having a look at a regulatory impact statement to just assess any nuances, or the way in which the legislation actually works. So I certainly welcome some consideration of that, although I say that if we are going to apply it only to this legislation then we are falling short of what the wider debate on that matter might be.

In that respect Kelvin Davis raised the point of whether there is a disincentive when levies are charged. That I guess is a discipline in itself. Those who set the levies will not want to have any impacts that discourage people from participating in Stewart Island. David Parker raised the issue of the Queenstowns and the Milford Sounds. I have to say that I am familiar with both places, particularly with Milford Sound. If one needs a reason to apply a levy, one needs to go to Milford Sound, where there is a voluntary levy applied by all of the boats operating tourists out of Milford Sound. It is a voluntary levy that everyone has bought into by necessity. If one looks at the facilities that have been developed in terms of car parks, the visitor terminal, and the wharves, which are very much a feature of Milford Sound, one will see that it is a stunning example of where a reasonable but regular small levy has achieved such a significant outcome. That is particularly important.

To Rahui Katene, who talked of Te Ao Mārama, I say that we certainly canvassed this issue with Michael Skerrett and we have his support for that. So I acknowledge the point that the member has made. It is also a very valid point. Mr Speaker, members, I again commend this bill to the House and I thank members for their support.

Chris Hipkins: Keep going. Keep going.

ERIC ROY: I am looking at the clock, I say to Mr Hipkins, realising that this is significant legislation that should conclude so that another significant event, the dinner hour, can commence without members being concerned about this legislation.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National): Since the House has made excellent progress this afternoon, I seek the leave of the House for us to rise for the dinner break now and resume again at 7.30.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: As this is a members’ day, leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill

First Reading

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I move, That the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I hope to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for consideration. This bill creates a preference for renewable electricity generation. It reintroduces a 10-year restriction on new baseload fossil fuel thermal electricity generation capacity, except where an exemption may be appropriate—for example, to ensure security of supply. The bill reflects New Zealand’s commitment to addressing climate change.

Renewable energy is integral to New Zealand’s future, it is integral to our international reputation, and it is integral to our own sense of national identity. Throughout the world, New Zealanders can be proud that a large proportion of our electricity already comes from renewable sources. However, we need to acknowledge that in recent decades New Zealand’s proportion of electricity from renewable sources has diminished relative to that from non-renewable sources. In 1974, 83 percent of our electricity was generated through renewable sources. In 2008 that figure had reduced to only 65 percent, and in times of peak demand it is even lower. Growth in demand for electricity has largely been met by tapping into non-renewable thermal sources, such as coal and gas, and that is unsustainable for our future. During the Labour-led Government’s term in office, it took a number of steps to address these issues, including the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, the establishment of the Electricity Commission, and a number of energy-efficiency initiatives. However, much more still needs to be done.

Towards the end of the Labour Government’s term in office it introduced a restriction on new thermal baseload power stations, which was unfortunately repealed when the National Government took office. This bill reinstates that restriction, and sends a very clear message to New Zealanders and to the world. It sends a message that New Zealand is indeed a clean and green country that lives up to its “100% Pure New Zealand” brand and does not just talk about it. It sends a message that New Zealand is committed to being a world leader in the development of newer and cleaner energy sources. It sends a message that New Zealand is committed to the future, and that we are not interested in just exploiting the planet’s resources for our immediate gratification, without a thought for the needs of future generations. Most important, it sends a message that when New Zealanders stand on the world stage and talk about our commitment to addressing climate change, we actually mean it.

This bill addresses New Zealand’s essential commitment to tackling climate change by increasing renewable generation, leading to lower carbon emission rates. Contrary to some claims, this bill does not jeopardise the security of New Zealand’s electricity supply. It provides several exemptions, including new non-renewable plants in the event of a power crisis, generation plants that produce recyclable heat through the process of co-generation, plants using a combination of renewable and non-renewable energy sources, and thermal plants that temporarily replace all of or part of another thermal plant, so that security of supply is not threatened.

The bill also allows more efficient thermal generators to be developed in order to retire less efficient ones. It stops thermal power companies from undercutting renewable generators and closing out future renewable generation options. Finally, it will help to address the issue of rising household electricity prices, because renewable power is cheaper to run—much cheaper to run than gas, coal, and oil—and is likely to become significantly more so as the price for those non-renewable energy sources continues to increase.

In the debate about emissions trading and climate change, much attention has been focused on the impact of Government policies on household prices—and quite rightly so. A commitment to renewable energy demonstrates that we are committed to keeping power prices down in the medium to longer term. Renewable energy is cheaper; even if it takes a bit longer to get off the ground in the long term, it is cheaper. Reliance on gas and coal enables non-renewable energy providers to set a high market price, and encouraging more renewable electricity generation will help us to bring prices down or, at the very least, keep them at a stable level.

We need look no further than at the Māui field for an example of how price increases in the past have occurred as a result of the running down of thermal energy sources. When the price cap on the Māui gas field was lifted, the price of electricity in New Zealand went up substantially. The depletion of the Māui gas field has been one of the major drivers in the significant increase in electricity costs that New Zealanders have faced over the past decade. If New Zealand had addressed its reliance on thermal power a decade ago, power prices might not have risen quite as dramatically or steeply as they have. It is time for us to get serious about reducing our reliance on non-renewable energy sources, and about placing a much heavier emphasis on renewable electricity.

It is happening around the world already. New Zealand prides itself around the world as being “100% Pure New Zealand”, yet the brand we are so proud of risks being tarnished as we are left behind by other countries. Denmark started to address this issue more than a decade ago. In 1990 the Danish Government set out to address its carbon emission rate, and to establish more efficient ways to use energy. The Government did that by converting many of its coal and natural gas-fired plants into co-generators during the 1990s. It moved towards converting the remaining district heating plants to being fuelled by other sources, such as straw, woodchips, and other biofuels. Today Denmark has one of the most extensive co-generation systems in Europe. What is more, by 2030 Denmark’s reliance on coal will have decreased from 54 percent to only 6 percent. That country has gotten serious about addressing the challenge of renewable energy.

As a result of this scheme, Denmark is now considered a world leader in renewable energy—a massive transformation. In 1991 only 3 percent of Denmark’s electricity supply was renewable; by 2004 that figure had already risen to 25 percent, which shows the difference that can be made if a country is really serious about addressing this issue. Other Governments have caught wind of this, and have also been adopting similar initiatives, including the Governments of many American states. Participating states and provinces include California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec.

The purpose of the Western Climate Initiative is to identify, evaluate, and implement ways to collectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions in that region. It requires partners to set an overall regional goal to reduce emissions, and to develop market-based, multi-sector mechanisms to help achieve that goal. California has enshrined similar legislation to that which is proposed in this bill. In 2006 Senate Bill 1368 was introduced to limit long-term investment in baseload generation by the state’s utilities. Power plants must now meet an emissions performance standard. Washington has followed with the same approach as California, prohibiting coal plants whose emissions would exceed those of natural gas plants. In 2007 Ontario’s Government committed to phasing out all coal generation in that province by 2014.

New Zealand trades on its “clean, green” brand. We attract thousands of tourists here every year because of it. Our export dairy and agricultural industries rely on our “clean, green” brand for access to their markets overseas. That brand is reinforced or undermined by the decisions that we take in this Parliament. As I have demonstrated, other countries and other Governments around the world—be they at local or national level—are dealing with this issue systematically and in quite a significant way. New Zealand simply cannot afford to be following other countries; we need to be at the forefront of this debate.

This bill does not remove incentives for exploration in the oil and gas industry; it recognises that New Zealand needs to move to a much greater focus on renewables for our future energy supply, and that we cannot continue to rely on non-renewable sources for our energy future. I urge all parties in Parliament to give this bill the opportunity of consideration by a select committee. I am aware that when a similar measure was passed by the previous Government, one of the National Party’s criticisms was that people did not have the opportunity to have a say or have their submissions heard. National members have an opportunity to remedy that concern right now by voting for this bill to go to a select committee, so that everyone can have a say—so the public can have a say, and, yes, so the industry and those who will be affected by this legislation can have a say. I look forward to the debate; I look forward to the contributions that other parties will make to this debate.

The time for us to get serious about renewable energy is well and truly here. We cannot continue to rely on thermal electricity generation for all of our future demand; we need to place a much greater focus on renewable energy. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs): I wish to make a contribution on the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill in the name of Chris Hipkins. National has some concerns about the bill, and I will outline the reasons for those concerns.

Let us consider New Zealand’s electricity market, which is designed so that generators invest in the cheapest new electricity generation projects. We all know that that approach maximises efficiency and produces the lowest cost increases for consumers, which is very, very important. The ban on thermal electricity generation that was passed by the previous Labour Government was a very blunt and unnecessary instrument. For that reason, all the major electricity generators were opposed to the ban, along with all major lobby groups, which is an important point.

I think the member is trying to re-introduce something that nobody really wants. The definition of “fossil fuel” in new section 62C, in clause 5, defines it as “(a) natural gas: (b) coal …: (c) petroleum: (d) any refined petroleum product: (e) any other obligation fuel …”. We would consider banning those electricity generation sources to be very restrictive when we think about how this country, from time to time, relies on thermal generation. Coal and gas-fired plants generate about one-quarter to one-third, depending on the time of year, of our electricity. During the winter months of 2008—and I am not sure whether the member in charge of the bill has looked back as far as that—coal and gas-fired plants were at times supplying over 50 percent of New Zealand’s electricity needs. We obviously had had a very dry autumn, which we are not having at the moment.

The member will be pleased to know that a lot of electricity is being generated from a renewable source as we speak, with the lakes being full in the South Island. Just recently, as you will be aware, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, we have had deluges of rain down south, where a lot of the hydro lakes are, followed by snow. So it is looking pretty good for renewable sources of generation through this period.

Of course, new gas plants like e3p in Huntly, which I visited during its construction, are highly efficient and produce relatively low levels of carbon emissions. It would be foolish for the Government, I believe, to close off the option of more plants like e3p, if the gas is available, if the electricity system needs bolstering, and if the plant is economic.

The proposal of this bill is to block investment in new generation that could displace more inefficient and more carbon-emitting existing generation. An example is that the thermal ban blocks the building of new, efficient gas turbines in Huntly. One of the perverse outcomes of this bill could be even greater carbon emissions. In the short time that the thermal ban was in place in 2008, petroleum explorers and investors shied away from New Zealand because they had less opportunity to offset their exploration risks and costs against gas sales to new gas-fired plants. The ban also sent a clear message to the petroleum industry that New Zealand was not interested in exploring its hydrocarbon potential. This Government has made expanding the petroleum sector a priority, so it makes little sense in our minds to reinstate the ban.

The National Government has a very aspirational target of 90 percent of our electricity being generated from renewable sources by 2025. It is interesting to note, and I am sure the member in charge of the bill is aware, that 73 percent of electricity generated in New Zealand in the 2009 calendar year, which had the highest level of renewable generation since 2004, was primarily due to the hydro lake levels, and increased geothermal and wind generation.

I think it is also important to make a comment about the wind generation projects that are currently under way. I am sure the member is aware that Meridian Energy’s Project West Wind out in the hills behind Wellington will generate 143 megawatts when it is online. There is also Mighty River Power’s 132-megawatt Nga Awa Purua geothermal station, and back in December 2008 Mighty River Power’s 100-megawatt Kawerau geothermal station came on stream.

To conclude, National cannot support this bill this evening. We believe there needs to be a practical balance of energy generation, and this bill is too restrictive.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): Over the past 18 months I have worked as Labour’s energy spokesperson. I relinquished that role yesterday to my colleague Nanaia Mahuta, whom I wish all the best in the role. I also wish Chris Hipkins well in his role as the associate energy spokesperson, because he is continuing in that role, and he has done an excellent job. If anybody needed any evidence of his energy and commitment to the portfolio, they would need to look no further than the work he has done to get the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill introduced to the House.

I will deal with some of the myths that were plentiful in the speech we have just heard, because what the Minister of Internal Affairs did not understand—it is pretty obvious—is that the bill applies only to baseload generation, and does not apply to any generation that is as efficient as renewable generation. So the two examples that the Minister used in his speech were simply not caught by the legislation that has been proposed by my colleague. That shows the poor level of analysis on that side of the House that has gone into the thinking behind the decision to oppose this legislation.

This bill reintroduces the 10-year restriction that Labour enacted as part of its emissions trading scheme in 2008. I chaired the Finance and Expenditure Committee that heard submissions on that legislation. It is quite clear to me that, having heard the industry, in particular, on the legislation, the restriction is the only meaningful way to ensure that the Government will give preference to renewable energy sources. The scrapping of that preference under urgency by the Government within a month or so of its coming into office was eloquent testament to its disregard for New Zealand’s environment.

We back this bill because we understand the need for New Zealand to maximise our existing renewable energy advantage. Already we derive between two-thirds and three-quarters of our electricity generation from renewable sources, and whether it is two-thirds or three-quarters depends on the time of the year, whether we are talking about baseload or peaking capacity, which are clearly concepts that the Minister is not familiar with.

I was proud to have been a director at Meridian Energy when that company made a decision to go 100-percent renewable, and when it made a commitment to build the Te Āpiti Wind Farm, the West Wind project, and others. It is great to see other companies going into renewable generation, for example Mighty River Power going into the geothermal business in a big way, and others looking at concepts like tidal power. Those technologies represent the pathway towards getting to 90-percent baseload generation and beyond. They show that in the area of electricity generation we can have the growth we need in generation capacity while enhancing our environment.

It is a tragedy that Gerry Brownlee appears to have shelved the New Zealand Energy Strategy, because that document very carefully sets out the pathway by which we would achieve the 90-percent target by 2025, by retiring inefficient, old, fossil-fuelled plants.

Hon Judith Collins: Yawn!

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Mrs Collins is bored, because she does not like the environment. For those of us who care about these things, I commend that document to her. It would be really good if she were to read the document to see that it does set out that pathway. It is a shame that Gerry Brownlee has just put it on the shelf and that he is ignoring it.

As well as preserving security of supply and supporting the environment, this bill would allow New Zealand to make significant strides towards lowering our country’s greenhouse gas emissions—something the current Government has abandoned any intention of doing. It was quite frank about that at the climate conference in Bonn last week. We just have to focus on developing more renewable forms of electricity, instead of burning more and more fossil fuels. I am yet to hear a plausible justification from the Government as to why it is voting down this bill. The bill’s proposals are not radical, it recognises the importance of security of supply, and it has sensible exemption provisions for situations like power crises.

Hon Judith Collins: Why didn’t you do it when you were in Government? You had 9 years.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: Mrs Collins asks why we did not do it in 9 years. She has obviously missed the point that we did exactly that, and that her Government voted to repeal it. She obviously forgot she voted for that. It is all very well for Gerry Brownlee and Nathan Guy to stand up and aspire to having 90 percent of our energy generated by renewables, but their words need to be backed up by action, and that has not been forthcoming so far. If the Government has any desire to be serious about that goal, it should support this bill.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I rise to speak in opposition to this Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill. The reason I oppose it is that it reinstates the ban on the thermal generation of electricity that was enacted by the previous Labour Government in 2008. National, as the incoming Government, repealed that measure in December 2008. In a case of a bill such as this, it is almost a waste of this House’s time and a waste of the energy of the people in the House. The Opposition is trying to reinstate legislation that was repealed by the current Government.

If we look at the purpose of the bill, we see that it intends to reduce the impact of fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation on climate change by creating a preference for renewable electricity generation through the implementation of a 10-year restriction on new baseload fossil fuel and thermal electricity generation. In order to achieve that, the bill makes the connection of new thermal generation plant above 10 megawatts for which an exemption has not been granted a criminal offence.

I support all the reasons that the honourable Minister Nathan Guy has outlined in his speech as to why National members oppose this bill. It is quite simple: the ban is an unnecessary intervention in the electricity market. It is unnecessary, because within the current framework—and we have supported the emissions trading scheme that the previous Labour Government had passed under its administration, with some adjustments—environmental effects are taken into account through putting a price on carbon in the emissions trading scheme. We are proceeding with the emissions trading scheme, and the price signals sent through that scheme incentivise renewable energy projects relative to the price of carbon.

As Minister Nathan Guy has alluded, this bill is a blunt and unnecessary instrument for the development of electricity in this country. The ban also puts the security of supply at risk. The Minister referred to the 2008 calendar year, in which the levels of the hydro lakes were abnormally low. During that winter of discontent—and with the glimmer of hope in November 2008, when our Government took shape—over 50 percent of New Zealand’s electricity needs were provided by gas and coal plants. We have to bear that in mind.

It is not only that, but having a ban does not even create environmentally sound outcomes. The Minister, again, referred to the fact that a ban blocks investment in new generation that could displace more inefficient and more carbon-emitting existing generation.

The ban also disincentivised oil and gas exploration. During the short time in which the previous legislation was in place, petroleum explorers and investors shied away from New Zealand. We know that, the public knows that, the market knows that, and this bill does not acknowledge that.

I, along with the honourable Minister, oppose this bill. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I rise to support the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill, and I commend Chris Hipkins for his initiative in bringing it forward in this House. The bill has—or at least the issues underlying this bill have—I think, had a strange, if not a tortured, history in this House. Of course, the ancestral legislation is to be found in the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and its derivative, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but the direct parentage of this bill is found in the Climate Change Response Act 2002. The bill that is before us essentially began life only 2 years ago, in the previous Labour Government’s Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill. That legislation, of course, introduced both the emissions trading scheme and the original ban for 10 years on thermal power plants. That legislation was killed in its infancy, after being in force for only 1 year, by the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill, which was introduced and enacted by the current Government. Now, 1 year after the premature death of Labour’s legislation, Labour seeks its reincarnation in the form of this Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill.

So, essentially, this is a see-saw political game, of the kind that we see so often between the two major parties. The bill seeks as much to score political points as to strike at a common underlying consensus, which is necessary for us to proceed substantively with addressing the overwhelming magnitude of the climate change problem. We need to ask ourselves about the kind of policy that underlies this kind of vacillation in the House. The answer is ideological differences. Both major parties—in fact, all parties in this House except ACT, which is becoming increasingly schizoid on the subject—acknowledge that climate change is a reality and acknowledge the need for action to be taken to combat it. But the differences between the parties on this issue immediately appear.

National claims that the market is sufficient to combat the effects of climate change, and that the price signal it sends out is sufficient. Nathan Guy speaks about this bill being a blunt and unnecessary instrument. He is wrong. He is wrong to think that we can rely on the price signal available through the market alone, and this Government is certainly wrong if it thinks that the current moderated emissions trading scheme is a good enough signal. But, on that basis, the Government opposes any kind of interventionist policy, such as a ban on thermal generation plants. In addition, the Government is worried about security of supply, and it wants new thermal plants to be built to underpin supply. It disregards the fact that those plants impede the switch to a low-carbon economy, which it claims to want to see occurring.

For its part, Labour believes that the emissions trading scheme and the ban on thermal generation will be sufficient, and in that it is closer to the mark. Chris Hipkins says the bill would reaffirm New Zealand’s commitment to climate change and turn New Zealand back into a world leader. With respect to him, I think that might be stretching matters a trifle. None the less, it certainly would be closer to the mark than anything that the current Government in any way achieves.

For our part, in the Green Party we differ from Labour in the sense that we believe climate change is not just another problem that can be solved through more strenuous efforts at mitigation and adaptation within the prevailing economic model. We say the overdeveloped world of the North, including Australasia, cannot and should not wish to continue with economic growth. Instead, we seek an economy that attains an optimal scale, rather than eternal growth. At that optimal scale, we will find a dynamic equilibrium within an ecosystem, rather than a necrotic production process that ignores the natural resource base at the pre-productive end, and the waste disposal challenge at the post-productive end.

But having said that, I reiterate that the Green Party will support this bill, despite our reservations over the weakness of some of the clauses in the 2007 bill. We will support the current version simply because it is better than the status quo. Thank you.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT): In a very short call on the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill, I will start by saying that, contrary to the picture painted of us by the party of the previous speaker, Kennedy Graham, and other parties, we in the ACT Party are in favour of green solutions to problems. But we are in favour of smart green solutions to problems.

An example of how complicated the position can be is biofuels. Five or 6 or not many more years ago, biofuels were the greatest thing since sliced bread—almost literally. Here we are, 5 or 6 years later, having discovered that first-generation biofuels led to starvation or, at least, very severe food shortages, because food crops were being used to generate them. So, the first green solution that comes along is not always the smartest. We will always be in favour of the smartest solution.

There is no doubt, as other speakers on both sides of the House have said, that there is great potential in this country for tidal generation, wind generation, and geothermal power. But, sadly, the nimby syndrome is seen in all of those alternatives. I live not far from the shores of the Kaipara Harbour, coincidentally, very near the proposed thermal power station and a little bit further from the proposed tidal generation station at the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour. There are nimbies in both areas. Those living on the land object to the power station because it will be lit up like a Christmas tree, make noise, and emit greenhouse gases, supposedly, and those opposed to the—one would have thought—benign, environmentally friendly tidal power station say that it will interfere with snapper-spawning grounds and what have you. So there are always complications. It is never as simple as we would like it to appear.

But I have always found it amusing that the one thing the Green Party members here never discuss—and they are unique in the green political world, so far as I am aware—is their attitude to nuclear power. In my far distant youth I demonstrated against nuclear weapons and nuclear propulsion being brought into this country, and I think I might do so again, but it has come to the stage, 25 years later, that I realise that maybe, just maybe, we will have to look at it. The Greens in Europe are enthusiastic advocates of nuclear power. The Greens in New Zealand—

Charles Chauvel: So is the King of Tonga.

DAVID GARRETT: Yes, a small island nation not far from us is also apparently dabbling with the idea, apparently oblivious to the cost of the fuel and other problems.

Charles Chauvel: And what to do with the waste.

DAVID GARRETT: And what to do with the waste, as Mr Chauvel says. But the European Greens—and I am glad to see Dr Graham nodding his head—are all in favour of nuclear power as the greenest solution of the lot. I would not go as far as that, but I think we will have to examine it, because, clearly, our energy demand will increase, and unlike the Greens, ACT members do not advocate Luddite solutions and we do not advocate Stalinist-type bans, which this measure seems to be.

I think there is some comfort to be had from looking at past technology. In closing I will mention that a century and a half ago coal gas was the greatest thing on Earth. It lit homes and lit streets. If we turned a switch on and lit a match, we could cook dinner, rather than relying on a fire. A century later, it was gone, replaced by electricity. Nowadays, in 2010, we are stuck, I believe, with oil and gas generation for a while yet.

I will go on record on behalf of the ACT Party and say that we in this country have received a stark lesson from the Gulf of Mexico in recent days. I think I can safely assume I am the only member of the House who has worked in the Gulf of Mexico. I would have ridiculed the Greens 6 months ago for their concerns about oil exploration, but we have seen just how dangerous it can be. Oil exploration—an industry in which I spent 10 years of my life—off our coasts is far, far more likely to damage our environment than any emissions from thermal power plants. I will put on record again, just to underline it, that ACT stands for the protection of the environment. No amount of oil is worth despoiling our environment as is happening in Louisiana, but we are not in favour of heavy-handed Luddite solutions, as this measure appears to be. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, kia ora tātau katoa e te Whare kua hui mai i tēnei pō. Pēnei i ētahi o ngā mea kōrero i te pō nei e tautoko ake i te āhuatanga o te hiahia o te Whare ki te tiaki pai i te taiao, i a Ranginui e tū me Papatūānuku e takoto nei.

[Greetings to you, and to us all, the House, who have gathered here tonight. Like those who have already spoken tonight, I endorse the wish of the House to protect the environment, the great sky before us, and mother Earth lying here.]

Keeping our natural resources healthy, and investing in the good health of our environment, as other members of the House have talked about tonight, is a priority for our party as well. We promote the development of renewable energy resources, including geothermal, hydro, wave, wind, and solar energy. We do this to protect and preserve limited resources, such as oil, gas, and coal. We support the intention to develop further renewable electricity generation, rather than relying on fossil fuels. Pēnei tāku kōrero nei, me kāti ake tātau i a Papatūānuku. Kia kaua e waiho a ia hai mea whakatūkinohia e te pīrau, ā, ka mutu, te waiho ake mā te moni anō rā a Papatūānuku e whakahaere. Kāo, kāore mātau e whakaae atu ki tērā.

[My word is this: we must close ranks on mother Earth. Do not leave her there, putrid, a victim of contaminants, and administered by the dollar. No, we will not allow that.]

Enthusiasm for alternative sources of energy is evident in many Māori communities. Solar heating for marae, the construction of wind turbines, a commitment to energy efficiency, and other strategies are being developed and they are coming up alongside developments like healthier kai on marae. They are major developments that our marae are seeing the benefits of. I roto i a au, in my electorate, I know that the Māori research unit of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Te Kūwaha, invested a lot of time working with mana whenua in Waihī, near Lake Taupō, the home of the Hon Georgina te Heuheu, in an effort to improve access to power and energy efficiency. After initial assessments of energy needs and available energy sources, they set out with a range of small-scale renewable energy systems, including solar hot-water systems and photovoltaic cells. E ai ki taku mōhio nei, tērā pea e tekau mā rima, e rua tekau ngā whare kai reira; ko te marae, ko te whare puni, ko te whare kai me te kōhanga reo. Katoa o ēnei kai te pūtake me kī o tēna o ngā kāinga, o ngā rau kāinga noa o tērā takiwā.

[According to what I know, perhaps 15 to 20 houses are included, namely the marae, the main house of the marae, the whare kai, and the kōhanga reo. All of these are at the root of it, all of those homes, the hundred or so homes of that district.]

Te Kūwaha went in there, boots and all, looking for evidence of standard efficiency measures, such as ceiling and underfloor insulation, thermostat settings, and insulation of hot-water cylinders, lighting appliances, heating, curtains, dampness, and mould. As a result, a large chiller and a hot-water cylinder for the communal showers were identified as inefficient power users, and indeed several houses were in need of hot-water systems. With the support of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, they formed the retrofit team, who were extensively trained. They provided income to the community, and this was an incredibly useful learning environment for whānau to understand the basic principles of heating, indoor air quality, and home energy management.

As well as that, they installed a 720-watt photovoltaic system on the whare kai, which would help to offset the chiller load that was early identified as a problem. That is just one community, starting small, and making a big difference to the challenge to reduce our dependency on oil.

Nā, kai tērā pito me kī, arā anō a Tūaropaki nō ngā iwi o ngā hapū o Mōkai, ko Ngāti Parekaawa tērā, Ngāti Te Kōhera, Ngāti Wairangi, Ngāti Whaitā, Ngāti Moekino, Ngāti Haa, Ngāti Tarakaiahi.

[Now, at the other end, there is Tūaropaki, an amalgamation of the tribes and subtribes of Mōkai, namely Ngāti Parekaawa, Ngāti Te Kōhera, Ngāti Wairangi, Ngāti Whaitā, Ngāti Moekino, Ngāti Haa, and Ngāti Tarakaiahi.]

The trust’s wholly owned subsidiary, Tūaropaki Power Co. Ltd, was established in 1994 for the sole purpose of generating and marketing electricity from the Mōkai geothermal resource. Mōkai is now New Zealand’s largest privately developed geothermal project, and is solely owned by tangata whenua.

Nā, ki taku mōhio, te mea nui o tēnei rā e pēnei ana, e te kau mā whā pai hēneti me kī mō te hiko ka puta mai i te New Zealand geothermal energy, ā, kua whakatuaruahia, kua piki haere tēnei mai i te tau 2005.

[Now, to my knowledge, the most important thing today is that 14 percent, shall we say, of the power from New Zealand geothermal energy is renewable energy, and has been climbing since 2005.]

Another initiative in the mighty Waiariki electorate was announced just over a month ago, with resource consents approved for the construction and operation of Ngā Tamariki geothermal power station, as the honourable Minister referred to earlier. The consent application for the proposed power station north-east of Taupō was lodged by the Rotokawa Joint Venture Ltd, a commercial partnership between Mighty River Power and Tauhara North No. 2 Trust. Once commissioned in 2013, it is believed that the Ngā Tamariki will create enough geothermal electricity to power half a million households. The initiatives of our iwi, and our enthusiasm for renewable energy, give us every reason to support this bill, which aims to restrict the building of new oil, coal, and gas-fired plants, and to instead promote greater use of renewable energy. We will support this bill at first reading.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I support Chris Hipkins for introducing the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill as a measure to foster and encourage renewable energy sources. It is no coincidence that it is introduced on the same day that President Barack Obama made his live televised address calling on Americans to accept that the world is running out of places to drill for oil. Americans are facing a huge environmental battle trying to contain the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Although we in Aotearoa New Zealand do not face the same kind of disaster as the United States does, we do have the same challenge: to move aggressively towards renewable sources of energy generation, to reduce our carbon emissions, and to provide greater cost benefits to consumers in time. Simply put, it is the right thing to do, but we have to take action, rather than thinking that, in time, it will be an inevitable outcome. This bill clearly moves in that direction, and I hope that Parliament will see the benefit of sending the bill to a select committee to hear the views of New Zealanders, which is an important part of this whole process. I am really disappointed that National has stopped the bill at the starting post without really seeing what the will of other New Zealanders is on this particular matter. I am sure it is very important to them all.

I listened carefully to the contribution of the Hon Nathan Guy and found it remarkable that nearly in the same breath as stating that his Government was committed to 90 percent renewable electricity generation by 2025, he said that his Government will not support this bill and will vote it down. It is a shame. A softly, softly approach offers no leadership on the matter, and it confirms that the Government lacks the vision and ambition to demonstrate Aotearoa New Zealand’s commitment to preserving our unique environment while promoting better, more efficient, and, in time, more affordable energy solutions from renewable resources. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga struggled to convince members on this side of the House that he had a coherent argument to justify National’s opposition to the bill. He struggled with the whole argument, and he was not convincing, at all.

National needs to recognise that climate change does not have a silver bullet to address the compounding affects of carbon on our environment. Each step towards reducing carbon emissions—preferring renewable energy sources and investing in innovative clean technology—adds up to solid steps forward. But National refuses to take that step. This bill is just one part of that picture, and National should support it to select committee at the very minimum.

It is important to stress that no attempt has been made by the current Minister of Energy and Resources to review the Energy Strategy, at the same time as he and members of his Government continue to promote the target of 90 percent renewable electricity generation by 2025. But there are a lot of questions that have emerged from that lack of action. How will it be achieved? I ask the Minister to please explain that. What steps is he taking to ensure that the target of 90 percent renewable electricity will be reached by 2025? For as long as Charles Chauvel has held this particular spokesperson role, no answer has been forthcoming, whatsoever.

I listened carefully to the contribution of Te Ururoa Flavell and the fact that the Māori Party will support this bill. We are pleased to receive that support. We only regret that he could not convince his National mates to support it as well, because we know that the opportunity to have that discussion and receive feedback would be a positive one. I note also that he cited a number of opportunities where Māori have actively been involved in renewable generation, like Tuarōpaki Trust, and, in my own area, Taharoa C Block, which wants to see wind-farm generation along the West Coast. In fact, Māori are identifying that they want to actively partner in that type of opportunity because it is good for the environment, it can be good for business, and it can be good in terms of returning benefit back to tribal members. They are no dum-dums these days. They can see that the opportunities in this area are extensive. They can see that it is win-win from an economic, an environmental, and, in some respects, a cultural viewpoint, and they want to be a part of it. But when we look at the opportunity that this bill provides to move forward, we do not see any support from the Government on the matter.

This bill is a good step forward. Once again, I commend Chris Hipkins, his endless stock of energy, and his desire to see a greater emphasis on renewable energy sources. Nō reira, ki a koutou katoa, tēnā koutou.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I congratulate the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, on her appointment as energy spokesperson and I congratulate the member across the House Chris Hipkins on his tenacity in bringing the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill forward. Surely he is the “Energizer MP”.

I make it clear that we are all heading in the same direction in terms of wanting to see renewable energy increase in its supply to generators. Our commitment is that by 2025 we will have 90 percent renewable energy. I think our area of disagreement is the mechanism by which that happens. The Labour Party wants to bring back the ban, just like it brought back the bus. We prefer, through the emissions trading scheme, to bring a financial mechanism that will make renewable energy increasingly the energy source of choice as we see the cost of fossil fuels increase around the world.

I think that Mr Hipkins may be incorrect in saying that the attitude out there in the market place is not averse to his suggestion in this bill. Certainly, if the comments that came through in early 2008 stand true today—and I do not see why they would not, because there is such similarity in the situation—he is not correct. We know, for example, that Todd energy, one of our major exploration companies, said that the then Labour Government’s planned 10-year ban on gas-fired baseload power stations was ill-conceived—that was its opinion. It posed risks of much higher power prices. It went on to say that it would bring damage to the gas sector.

It is very interesting because although members may dispute that it brought a slow-down of gas exploration, it was noticeable, particularly around my neck of the woods in New Plymouth, that generators started to look for alternate gas supplies when they thought that the gas supply in New Zealand was going to diminish. Contact Energy and Genesis at that particular point in time looked at importing gas. Interestingly enough they looked at liquefied natural gas (LNG), which is happening more and more around the world as people are hungry for energy. If members have done their research they will know that LNG—in terms of the process used to liquefy it, transport it, and then regasify it—creates a carbon footprint equivalent to coal. So it is interesting to see that when the Labour Government’s moratorium came into place generators in this country were looking to replace a diminishing supply of gas with gas from overseas that had an increased footprint of 40 percent.

Chris Hipkins: You’re making a circular argument.

JONATHAN YOUNG: No, I am not, indeed. I am stating that there are unintended consequences to what Mr Hipkins is proposing, which is why Richard Tweedie made the comment that, ironically, this upward pressure could lead to a switch back to coal or other greenhouse gas - intensive sources of energy. That is the comment of people in the industry, and it was the outcome in our area of Taranaki.

It is notable also, and I think the Hon Nathan Guy mentioned it, that in this last year Meridian Energy’s Project West Wind in Mākara of 143 megawatts has come on line, as well as Mighty River Power’s 130 megawatt Ngā Awa Purua geothermal station. In December 2008 Mighty River Power’s 100 megawatt Kawerau geothermal station also came on stream. An increase in renewable power sources is happening in the country, which causes me to ask why the member Chris Hipkins is bringing this bill forward. He proposed a nation that, as a world leader, went from—I forget the figures—7 percent to 25 percent, or something like that. I ask whether I am correct; I cannot recall. That nation, up there in Scandinavia, has only a third of what we have in terms of renewable energy. We are a world leader. We have very high levels of renewable energy, and we are, I believe, moving in the right direction. The only point of disagreement, I believe, is the mechanism by which we get there. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to speak in support of the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill. There is no doubt that the world has a problem with climate change. It is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels. The two biggest sources of fossil-fuel burning in the world are burning fossil fuels for electricity generation and the use of oil in cars. If we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the world, then we have to reduce them from those two sources. If a country like New Zealand cannot do well in respect of reducing the source from our electricity generation, then I ask who can. We are one of the most richly endowed countries in the world with regard to renewable electricity. Indeed, there was a phase in New Zealand’s history when we already had 90 percent of our electricity coming from renewables. We went backwards after that, because we did not understand back then the threat of climate change, and we had discovered an enormous pool of gas in the Māui gasfield. As a consequence of that, in the years following the development of Māui Gas our percentage of renewables went back to under 60 percent of renewables, when it was at it lowest.

The Labour Government turned that situation round. We turned the energy settings of this country round, and we set the country on a course heading back to having 90 percent renewables by 2025. It was the Labour-led Government that did that; it was the National-led Government that opposed every meaningful step that we took along that path. It opposed having proper emissions pricing in electricity and other sectors of the economy; it is still wavering on having proper emissions pricing in agriculture, despite the sound economic theory behind that; and now it is refusing to ensure that we reach the target of 90 percent renewables in electricity by 2025.

Why is this important? It is important for exactly the reasons that were enunciated by the previous speaker, Jonathan Young, but they were misunderstood by him. The price point difference between gas and renewables is very close. The New Zealand gas market is a closed gas market. It is not connected to other markets. If we do not burn the gas that fuel companies find or explore for in New Zealand, we do not sell it. The sellers of gas will price their gas at below the cost of renewables, and they will forestall the development of renewables if they are not prevented from doing so. Gas is increasingly a by-product of oil exploration and it will be priced lower than renewables. New Zealand needs to build between 115 and 130 megawatts of new renewable generation capacity every year between now and 2025 in order to reach that 90 percent target. It is not a big ask. But if a 400 megawatt gas-fired power station is built and it has a lifetime of 30 to 50 years, that is 3 years of demand growth that is not there for renewables.

We know that our renewables are cost-competitive. We know that geothermal and wind are already cost-competitive, because they are being built. But they could be undercut marginally by gas, and what is National’s response to that? Well, Gerry Brownlee, the Minister of Energy and Resources, said this week that the big development in energy this year is the gasification of coal in the Waikato. Does that not show to National members that there is a very real risk that that gas will be priced at marginally below the cost of geothermal energy and that it will close out renewables? Our greenhouse gas emissions will go up. We will be further exposed to the cost of those emissions as a country. We will then have an even more difficult choice as to how much of the cost of emissions should be faced in the agriculture sector, which is another area that has been avoided by the Government.

Charles Chauvel: 19th century solutions.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That is right. You know, this is so simple for New Zealand if we get it right. If we do not get it right, then I am depressed for the world. If New Zealand cannot get it right on one of the two major sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, and if we cannot get it right with the bounty of renewable resources that we have from existing technologies, then I ask who can.

I heard the ACT Party talk about tides. Well, tidal energy generation is way off in the distance. It is uneconomic at the moment. Other than experimenting on it, as we are, to bring it forward as another technology—another initiative of Labour when in Government—it will not be here for probably a decade or two. But at the moment we have lots of geothermal and wind. We should stop them being closed out by the building of thermal in the form of gas-fired generation.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I will respond to many of the comments raised by Government members, but before I do so I will extend particular thanks to Charles Chauvel, my senior colleague who assisted me in the drafting of this Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill, and in bringing it forward to the House. I also thank Nanaia Mahuta, the new Labour energy spokesperson, whom I am very much looking forward to working with, and David Parker, the previous Minister of Energy, who I think brought a very coherent focus to the energy and climate change portfolios.

That coherent focus is something that the current Government is woefully lacking in. There is no coherent focus in the current Government’s approach to dealing with climate change, energy, and environmental issues. They all go hand in hand, yet we have Gerry Brownlee saying that he will release a new New Zealand energy strategy, which he has been promising ever since he first became the Minister of Energy and Resources, but which we have still seen absolutely no sign of.

Nick Smith is running around the world, with Tim Groser in tow, saying that New Zealand is committed to addressing the challenge of climate change, yet Gerry Brownlee is back at home, going in the opposite direction. He is leaping up and down, waving his arms, and saying: “Come and drill here. Come and drill here. Come and explore the fossil fuels that we have in New Zealand.”, which is in total contradiction to the Government’s purported commitment to addressing the challenges posed by climate change. It is absolutely bizarre that at a time when the whole world is watching and waiting to see what is going on with the BP oil well that is gushing out oil in the Gulf of Mexico, Gerry Brownlee is waving his hands furiously in the air, trying to encourage people to come and drill exactly those types of holes here in New Zealand—before we even know how to plug them if something goes wrong.

I will respond specifically to comments raised by National speakers. Jonathan Young, in particular, said that we needed to build more gas-fired power plants so that we could then encourage more exploration to find more gas to power those power plants. That is absolutely ridiculous. It is a totally circular argument to say that if we want more renewable energy, we need to build more gas-fired power plants. That is simply ridiculous. It is simply ridiculous. The argument goes around in circles and it barely needs any further rebuttal than that.

Nathan Guy clearly demonstrated that he had not actually read the bill, because he tried to claim that it would prevent generators from replacing non-renewables with more efficient non-renewables, but in fact that is not the case. The bill clearly states that there are exemptions in the bill relating to that. It would not have taken him very long to read the bill through and ascertain that fact. This bill applies to baseload only; it does not restrict more efficient energy, contrary to what National members claim. Nathan Guy said that in 2009 we had the highest percentage of renewable energy for some time. That could have something to do with the fact that over the previous 5 years or so, the previous Labour Government had done a lot to encourage the uptake of more renewable energy sources. In 2008, the last year that Labour was in Government, 426 megawatts of new renewable energy was added, and that well outstripped the growth in demand in that year. A lot more renewable energy was brought in under Labour’s watch than was needed to meet the increase in demand.

National talks about being committed to the 90 percent renewable energy target as being an aspirational goal. Aspiration for National is a bit like one of those things that they say when they do not really want to do something, but they know that it is popular and that they still want to have the photo opportunity so that John Key can smile and wave. Those members will just commit to that target as an aspirational target, despite the fact that all of their policies and all of the things that they are doing are actually going entirely in the other direction. They will just call it aspirational and, therefore, that gets them out of actually having to do anything about it. It is a bit like their aspirational goal to catch up with Australia, despite the fact that they are already dramatically pushing New Zealand in the other direction.

The oil and gas exploration companies, of course, would have expressed their reservations about this legislation when it was first introduced to Parliament in 2008. It did not stop them from continuing on. Of course they are going to talk about something that is against their financial interests. I appreciate that this bill is potentially against their financial interests, to some extent, but the original bill did not stop them from being in New Zealand.

This bill is not a complete solution; it is part of an overall picture. It is part of an overall commitment to dealing with the challenges of climate change, and to paving a New Zealand energy future that is sustainable and that thinks of future generations. It does not set up a position for future generations whereby they are reliant on energy sources that will run out and leave them with much higher electricity prices than we pay today, when they could have an energy future that is based on renewable energy sources. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1.

Noes 63

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill

First Reading

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

If we go back in time to set the scene a few years ago, the Local Electoral Act 2001 was a hugely significant moment in our history. That legislation provided councils with the opportunity to establish Māori wards along similar lines to parliamentary electorates. In the same year, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act introduced Māori wards in constituency seats, thereby guaranteeing Māori representation at the local level in at least one region. I acknowledge the work done on that legislation by the Hon Mita Ririnui.

A year later the Local Government Act 2002 created the incentive for local government to place greater emphasis on Māori participation and representation. Within that Act, section 81 provides explicit commitment for local authorities to establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes at the local authority level. As agents of the Crown, all local authorities are required to take into account the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Indeed, the Treaty provides the ultimate guarantee to tangata whenua that self-determination and authority can be best expressed in local government decision-making.

Just over 2 months ago the Minister of Māori Affairs, in front of over 2,000 people—and the event was beamed around the world through satellite TV—announced that New Zealand would finally support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I was there; I saw it happen. For the benefit of all members I can tell the House that article 18 of the declaration confirms: “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.”

I would like to say at this point that I rest my case. The Treaty of Waitangi, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and three separate pieces of local government legislation are surely all the evidence that is needed to consolidate Māori representation in local government, but no, not quite; far from it. Despite the requirement of yet more legislation—section 4 of the Local Electoral Act 2001, which requires local government to provide for fair and effective representation—Māori representation on local government councils is, at its best, less than 5 percent. Clearly Māori representation at the local body level is minimal. We just do not have a Māori view at the decision-making table.

What we are talking about here is the Treaty partner, the indigenous people of this land, being marginalised by limited representation and participation. When we talk about tangata whenua, we are not just talking about a community of interest or key stakeholders; we are talking about signatories to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Māori Party wishes to promote this bill because direct representation in local government would reflect the Treaty obligation to actively protect Māori rights. Māori representation is the first step towards building a Treaty-based partnership with local Māori. This bill is an attempt to do all of this.

The bill goes back to the original intention of the Local Electoral Act 2001 to replace voluntary Māori representation in local government with a requirement for territorial and regional authorities to establish one or more Māori wards. The number of Māori seats would be in proportion to the total Māori population of the relevant territory or region. And why not? Surely our decision-making bodies should reflect our communities.

Why then is this such an issue? Let us think how well the Treaty principles of partnership, protection, and participation have worked out in practice. We could look at the unfair rating and valuing of Māori land, and at the decimation of Māori land and water resources through pollution. Indeed, earlier today my colleague Rahui Katene talked about the waste that was discharged directly into the Waikato River from Parana Park under the authority of the local council.

We could talk about the disregard of other Māori resource values, such as the protection of wāhi tapu. It is a very topical issue today with the actions of Ngāti Ruanui, who have complained to the South Taranaki District Council and the Taranaki Regional Council about the damage done by cows that are allowed to trample and desecrate wāhi tapu and pā sites.

We can look at the history of public works. I think that members got a good feel of what we are talking about when my member’s bill was debated earlier during this term of Parliament.

Perhaps if I move to the more positive approach to the issue of Māori representation, I would remind the House of the vital importance that mana whenua places on our environment, and of our role as tangata kaitiaki to ensure the active protection of resources for all New Zealanders and especially for those generations to come. At home in my area, the responsibility that we uphold as guardians of the environment has been recognised at the national level with the return of the Te Arawa lakes. The Rotorua Lakes Strategy Group is made up of two representatives from the Te Arawa Lakes Trust, the Rotorua District Council, and Environment Bay of Plenty. The sole purpose of that group is to promote the sustainable management of the Te Arawa Rotorua lakes and their catchments for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations, while also recognising and providing for the traditional relationship of Te Arawa with the lakes. However, even without this mechanism, there are many and varied issues that would benefit from active community participation and representation of Māori outside the lake structure. That is at the crux of the issues motivating this bill.

Local authorities throughout the country have tried to varying degrees to enable the views of Māori to be heard through advisory committees, standing committees, and other consultative processes. But it is entirely random as to how effective local authorities are in consulting with tangata whenua and Māori communities before making major policy decisions that significantly affect Māori people.

Three years ago, Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tāwhai released a report on Māori engagement with local government, which I think is of immediate relevance to this bill. It stated: “Lack of political will in the past to advance Māori local political self-determination within local government structures has stifled Māori participation. This [still] holds true today. Seeking full Māori participation and the changes required to secure such participation must be re-conceptualised as an effort for enhancing social justice and the democratic legitimacy of our local body institutions. In this way, local governments can be leaders in creating a better future with Māori, for all New Zealanders, in Aotearoa.” Those are worthy goals and honourable sentiments for all members to reflect on. We know from the experience of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act that the relationship was positive and valuable, and that other councillors learnt a great deal from their Māori counterparts.

Just as an aside in terms of finishing my contribution in introducing this bill, a report on the bill has been tabled by the Attorney-General. It noted that it is both significant and important to provide better provision for Māori representation in local government. It suggested further that the establishment of dedicated Māori representation could be said to be rationally connected to the objective of making better provision for Māori representation in local government. Notwithstanding the conclusions of the Attorney-General’s report, which has been made available for members, I still believe that the circumstances for Māori representation are so compelling that this Parliament must adopt this bill as a direct means of “creating a better future with Māori, for all New Zealanders, in Aotearoa”.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): National will be opposing the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill. It does so from a position where, much as it would be very happy for councils to utilise the powers they currently have to decide to have specific Māori seats, it does not believe that this should be legislated for. A community should decide whether to have Māori seats, not the Government. No one will be too surprised to find that that is National’s take on this bill. The key messages behind National’s policy in respect of this bill are that good local government is essential for our communities, our economy, and our environment. The National Government values having an honest and open working relationship with the local government sector. We recognise that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to local government; hence the ability of local governments to choose for themselves whether to include specific Māori seats.

The purpose of the bill is to require all territorial authorities and regional councils to establish Māori wards and constituencies to provide for Māori representation. That would be achieved by amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001. The general policy statement accompanying the bill controversially asserts that there is a requirement to establish Māori seats arising from the Treaty of Waitangi. That is not currently an accurate reflection of the state of New Zealand law. The general policy statement accompanying the bill says that the number of Māori seats is to be calculated from total population data as opposed to electorate population data “because 40% of the Māori population is under 18 years and is therefore excluded under the current formula.” That is inaccurate, as the current formula in schedule 1A of the Local Electoral Act 2001, and also the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act, uses the definition “Māori electoral population” as defined in the Electoral Act 1993. That Act defines Māori electoral population to mean “a figure representing both the persons registered as electors of the Maori electoral districts and a proportion of the persons of New Zealand Maori descent who are not registered as electors for any electoral district and a proportion of the persons of New Zealand Maori descent under the age of 18 years …”.

The Government’s decision regarding Māori representation on the new Auckland Council recognises that there is already provision in the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 for specific recognition of the position of Māori. Under the Local Electoral Act, councils have the power to decide whether to have specific Māori seats. Voters are able to require that of the council, or to change a council decision on that matter with a referendum. Many of us on this side of the House who happen to find ourselves voting against this bill are of a mind that we would much rather see that being the process. We encourage and applaud the move of local constituents to vote in that way, but we do not believe that in New Zealand in the 21st century we should be legislating for it. Rather, we hope that people are wise enough to see the need for it on their own, without having it imposed on them.

Under the Local Government Act, there must be a consideration given to Māori views. Under section 81 of the Act, councils are required to take steps to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes. Those steps include fostering ways of developing Māori capacity to contribute to decision-making processes. Given the opportunity councils currently have to have separate Māori wards if they want, and the requirement to be able to consult with Māori, we believe that there should be no need for people to pat Māori on the head, make special courses, and open special doors for them to get in, in the way this bill prefers they did.

Section 11 of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, which is the third piece of legislation required to implement the Government’s decisions on the governance arrangements in the Auckland region, sets out the first steps for an independent statutory board established by Part 7 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. Its purpose is to promote cultural, economic, environmental, and social issues of significance for mana whenua and Māori in Tāmaki-makau-rau to assist the Auckland Council in making decisions, performing functions, and exercising its power.

I want to make the point once again, quite strongly, that much as we would love to see a situation in this country where Māori representation was willingly attributed across all local governments, it is not National’s position that we should legislate for it in this way. We will not be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): We will be supporting the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill being referred to the Māori Affairs Committee, to see where it goes.

I have always found the previous speaker, Chester Borrows, whom I have known for a period of time, to be a fair-minded person, even when he was a policeman. For him to come out with that stuff was quite amazing. It is unnerving that National ignored what the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance said about the Auckland super-city. It said that the super-city council needed three Māori seats. He danced around—he is leaving the House—and made all sorts of excuses about why this bill is not important. If the Māori Party were more influential—and I mihi to Te Ururoa Flavell, who introduced this bill—we would not be here today, discussing this issue. The real test is that the time has come for Mr Flavell to walk the talk. Not having Māori seats is a real smack in the face not only for Māori people but also for the Māori Party.

Labour strongly supports Māori seats, as we did in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. It was our party that put up those seats. We sit here and listen to this hypothesis about the reasons for fudging together cultural aspiration and having special representation by vote. I come from an area where we have a Chinese Māori-speaking mayor, and the Māoris vote for him. It is well known that the real power is with the local authorities. God forbid, we have just witnessed one of the worst travesties, in relation to the Auckland legislation.

I remind that member that the Government saw fit on 6 May 1867 to imbue in legislation Māori seat representation at the local level. I am sorry that Georgina te Heuheu is not here. The last time we put this issue up, she crossed the floor and voted with us. Tau Henare ran for cover. Hone Harawira needs to stand up and listen to what Georgina te Heuheu said in her delivery. She said: “The issue of representation for Māori in local government is a significant issue, and not just for Māori. It has been around for a long time, as evidenced by a notice in the Auckland provincial government’s Gazette of Saturday, 6 May 1867, when J. Williamson, the superintendent of the Auckland province, gave notice that he had appointed Paora Tūhaere of Ngāti Whātua to give advice…”. From Auckland’s tūpuna those Pākehā people did it; they had the guts and gumption to do it. These members now turn round and shiver with pain because I have dared to mention that. Shame on them! They sit there and talk about the Treaty of Waitangi and partnership but when it is really tested they will not do it.

I hope the Māori Party does walk the talk. I hope that this bill has brought the issue to a head, like the ignoring and the fake delivery of the takutai moana bill did. Why should we not have that representation? John Key spun round; the Prime Minister changed his mind. Also, the Minister of Health right now, who professes to help everybody in New Zealand, was candid enough to move in 2006 the removal of the existing provision in the local government law that allows councils to establish Māori seats. He also sought to remove the Bay of Plenty Māori seats. So I can well see why people over there are ducking.

We heard about the issues and the strength of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, and we heard the different suggestions from the leaders of the Māori Party and the Prime Minister. But it was cited at the time that the reason we supported the UN declaration—simply, in layman’s language—was that it would support and back up issues that are relevant, like this one. But, alas, it has faded quickly. Barely 6 weeks are over and it means nothing. What does the Treaty mean to us? The Government kowtowed to Rodney Hide’s threats.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): The Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill is in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell. I certainly acknowledge and respect the contribution that that member makes, but National will not be supporting the bill. I will tell the Opposition on the other side of the House why I have great respect for the Māori Party. In under 2 years its members have achieved more for Māori than Labour has ever achieved.

The bill’s gestation was in reaction to the Auckland City legislation, and one thing the Opposition will have to acknowledge is that National is being consistent. Local councils are very important, and we recognise that it is important to have embodied in them the very essence of that community. Councils are already empowered to be able to decide whether they want specific Māori seats. National’s view is that communities themselves should decide whether they want seats to be provided for Māori. That can still happen under the Auckland City arrangement, and it will be something that will play out in the future.

At the moment National is very, very clear on its position. It recognises the importance of good local governance, and it also recognises that one size does not fit all. On that basis, when I reflect on this bill, regardless of what the Opposition says, I think about the various councils that I have to deal with in the Kaikōura electorate. I think of the Waimakariri District Council, the Hurunui District Council, and those in Kaikōura and Marlborough, and then, of course, Environment Canterbury, and I see that this legislation is very, very complex and very difficult to administer.

Section 19ZD, in clause 9, states that every district council must have at least one constituency seat for Māori. The formula in section 19ZA, in clause 9, is very complex and would be most difficult to apply, and I would say that that alone—the pure mechanics of the way the bill is structured—makes it very difficult to support. The Government is being consistent. We believe that the communities should decide. We argue that the present system is best. I would ask members on the other side of the House who will actually represent Māori when there is already Māori representation on a local council. At the top of the South Island we have eight iwi, so we will put in a person to sit on a council, and we would still have to—

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is outrageous. Certainly, if that is the essence of his analysis, then one has to really—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Let us hear.

Hon Parekura Horomia: The point of order is that he is stretching his rationale in support of this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Firstly, I say to the Hon Parekura Horomia that that is a debatable point. The member knows it full well. It is not a point of order. I say to other members that when a member is raising a point of order, the general rule is that there should be silence in the House. I am quite able to make my own judgment of it. I now call on Colin King to finish his speech to the House.

COLIN KING: Effectively, the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Act 2001 already provide for local councils to have Māori seats. So let us leave it up to the communities and let them use the mechanisms that they have available, such as referendums. It is on that basis that we will vote against this bill. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I am happy to be able to speak in support of sending the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill to select committee. I listened very carefully to Te Ururoa’s explanation and motivation for introducing the bill.

Firstly I take the point that Colin King raised: that the current Local Government Act has provision for Māori representation to occur. He is indeed right. However, the difficulty with the provision under the Local Government Act is that the 5 percent threshold, at which a poll is held for all electors in that territorial authority to vote on whether we should have a constituency, is quite a high threshold for Māori to pass to get enough momentum to have the opportunity to put a Māori seat on a particular council. That issue was brought up when the Local Government Act was being reframed and renewed. However, when Labour was in Government, that was the basis for the support we could get from support parties at the time, recognising that it was indeed quite a high threshold for Māori to pass to be able to get a constituency.

The points around the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act were well made, as was the debate on the shared demographics the Bay of Plenty needed in order to have Māori representation. If they had not made the decision to have separate Māori constituencies they would have faced a huge backlash from the Māori constituents who were landowners in that region. But enough said about that. I was at the select committee when a number of positive submissions were heard, but I was also in this House when members who are now sitting on the Government benches were vehemently opposed to the introduction of that bill—and I congratulate Mita Ririnui on getting it through.

I say that in sending this bill to a select committee we should be prepared for the obvious arguments, because it will raise issues for local government. They are the types of issues that we already know about, such as when determining wards and constituencies that are on territorial authorities whether we should be looking at just Māori electors on the electoral roll or the number of Māori in the whole territorial authority, the cost of running two types of constituencies, and whether there should be a minimum threshold whereby the regional population base of Māori should first be justified in terms of proposing whether we should have a Māori constituency. I raise those issues, I say to Te Ururoa, because they are exactly the types of arguments against Māori representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council from local authorities that were concerned about the precedent that that bill would set.

The real point of Māori representation is to improve the quality of decision making at council level, whether it is at regional council or local council level. If there was a time to do something different, that time would have been during the Auckland super-city legislation. National opposed Māori representation even though its support party, the Māori Party, advocated strongly for Māori representation on the super-city council. If it was to be done, it should have been done then. Even the royal commission recognised that on sheer demographics the emerging face of brown people, Māori and Pacific, would necessitate Māori and Pacific people, Māori specifically as tangata whenua, being represented on that council.

In some ways I am not surprised that National is objecting to this move. It is absolutely consistent with its position. It is no wonder why it continues to pat the Māori Party on the head and say: “We enjoy having you as our support party, but only when we want you.” That is the great irony of this debate. Every initiative that the Māori—

Dr Cam Calder: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find that comment objectionable. We do not pat our coalition colleagues on the head at all. They are an equal part of this National-led Government.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Speaking to the point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): No, I do not need anybody to speak to that. Mr Calder, that is not a point of order; it is a debatable point. I think you know that full well. You have made the point, but that is not the proper way to do it. I say to members to use the points of order process properly. It is about structure and the order of the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That member may object to the phrase used, but it was actually first raised in the House by his colleague Chester Borrows when he made his contribution on this very bill. I just rephrased it and re-termed it. That is exactly what National is doing. National is saying to the Māori Party that it is OK with having the Māori Party as its coalition partner, but only when National needs it. That is the great irony of this debate. The Māori Party wants to try to promote something tangible to ensure that representation is on the council. But National is saying: “No, too much, too soon; we don’t want it.” That is the great irony. It is counter-intuitive to the way we want to ensure positive gains on Māori representation.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kia ora koutou. I am very pleased to stand for the Greens to tautoko the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill, and to commend Te Ururoa Flavell and his party on bringing it to the House.

This bill aligns perfectly with Green Party policy, which states that we will promote and support guaranteed tangata whenua representation in local governance. The bill is timely, coming, as it has, hard on the heels of the Auckland super-city legislation. The Government had an opportunity to establish dedicated Māori seats on Auckland Council, which will represent about one-third of New Zealanders, but chose not to support the inclusion of the seats despite the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and the very solid and sound rationale that the commission used in coming to that point of view. This bill creates another opportunity to at least debate the issue. If we could persuade the National Government to support it, it would provide another opportunity to guarantee Māori a place at the decision-making tables throughout this country.

The Human Rights Commission recently in its annual review of race relations identified Māori participation in local government and an effective voice for Māori in the decisions of the new Auckland Council as being among the top 10 race relations priorities for 2010. That is very strong language given the number of race relations issues that exist in this country—Māori participation in local government was among the top 10. The commissioner went on to say that unless positive steps were taken, Māori representation in local government would continue to languish well below the proportion of Māori in the population.

The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance considered the precedent of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council—Environment Bay of Plenty—which, as has been referred to, has had guaranteed Māori seats since 2004, on the same basis that the Māori seats in this House were established. The evidence of the council to the royal commission was that the system was working extremely well in the Bay of Plenty. The chair of the council, Mr John Cronin, was quoted as saying: “The system works well for us. It has been a catalyst for an improved relationship between the Council and Māori.” He went on to say that the Māori councillors had proven their worth both to Māori and to non-Māori, and that they appeared to have given Māori a sense of participation and a sense of belonging in the democratic process that they did not have before. He said that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council was a richer democracy for their participation.

It is well known that participation in local body elections in New Zealand is low; the percentage averages in the high 30s to the low 40s. Māori participation is lower still. The evidence is before us in the Bay of Plenty that improved participation from guaranteeing Māori seats does bring that richer democracy that Mr Cronin talked about. This bill is an opportunity to spread that richer democracy throughout the country.

We need only to look at the quality of the councillors who are filling some of those seats in the Bay of Plenty to see that democracy. I think of Tiipene Marr and Raewyn Bennett. They are two regional councillors who have brought a unique perspective to that council, and who have brought to that decision-making council such issues as the disgrace that is the Tarawera River. Their unique breadth and depth of knowledge about the culture, the landscape, and everything and anything to do with the environs of that place has brought extraordinary value to the decision making of that council. That is an example of what could exist in the rest of the country, to the benefit of all of us.

There are those in the Bay of Plenty who disagree with the provisions of guaranteed Māori seats. One of those is a sitting councillor who confessed that he is opposed in principle to separate Māori representation, but acknowledged that in practice it works very well. He went on to say that Māori and Pākehā have learnt to respect each other and that both councillors and staff have learnt a lot.

Nobody disputes the value of Māori seats in this House, in the central government chamber. There is no reason that we ought not to carry that through to local governance, both on the basis of strengthening Treaty relationships and for the very practical, positive benefits that Māori representation could bring to local governance in this country. Kia ora koutou.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): The ACT Party will not be supporting the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): I am delighted to stand to formalise the support of the Māori Party for the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill, a very important bill put forward by my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. This bill is a genuine and well-developed intervention to invest in the decision-making process on matters of concern and of cultural significance to the Māori community. The issues of representation and participation by Māori are core requirements if we are to establish a nation that lives up to the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Establishing Māori seats responds to the expectation that Māori cultural values and knowledge will be regarded as being important.

The bill is also an excellent means of responding to the Local Government Act 2002, which I remind the House sets out the obligations of local authorities in relation to the involvement of Māori in decision-making processes. That legislation specifies that a local authority must establish and maintain processes to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to its decision-making processes. Local authorities must consider ways in which they may foster the development of Māori capacity to contribute to their decision-making processes. When those authorities are making significant decisions relating to land or a body of water, they are required by law to take into account the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral land, water, sites, wāhi tapu, valued flora and fauna, and other taonga.

That legislation itself, indeed like sections 6, 7, and 8 of the Resource Management Act, is a genuine and very positive approach towards supporting opportunities for Māori in decision making. But the truth is, as every member of this House could testify, that Māori representation at the local level leaves a lot to be desired. Quite simply, it is under-representation, and it is disproportionate to either the population or what we should expect to see or have in the representation of a Treaty partner.

Mr Flavell spoke earlier about the findings of the research by Christine Cheyne and Veronica Tāwhai about Māori engagement with local government. Their research revealed that participants felt there was little opportunity for Māori representation or for consideration of Māori issues in local government, nor for the incorporation of tikanga and Māori processes in local government, and, where it is incorporated, that is often tokenistic. We have heard throughout the debate today about the poor representation of Māori across local government, right throughout the country. I have had an opportunity to look through the report of the Attorney-General, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, in which I believe he lays out a case for positive discrimination. Again, I remind the House that we are talking about the Treaty partner experiencing representation of just 5 percent.

The report provides a table of the numbers of territorial and regional seats, when compared under the formula proposed in this bill and that set out under the Local Electoral Act 2001. If I look at my electorate of Te Tai Tonga, looking for instance at the regional authorities, I can see that the numbers are not huge. Indeed, in the West Coast region, the Canterbury region, and the Otago region, we are talking about one Māori seat. When we go to Southland, the numbers leap hugely to two seats. Moving into the territorial authority area, and looking at Waitaki, Dunedin City, Gore, Queenstown Lakes, Waimate, Wellington City, Kaikōura, Buller, Grey, Tasman, Nelson, Hurunui, Waimakariri, Christchurch City, Selwyn, Timaru, Ashburton, and Central Otago, all we are talking about in any of those 18 areas is one Māori seat respectively. But there is an explosion in the Chatham Islands territory, where it is proposed that five out of the eight seats would be Māori. The key thing is that the number of Māori seats is in proportion to the total Māori population of the relevant territorial region—in proportion; neither under-represented nor over-represented, but just right.

I am proud that the Māori Party has put forward this bill, and I congratulate the hard-working member for Waiariki on his efforts to replicate the model expressed in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council as an excellent opportunity to advance Māori representation.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. E tū ake ana ahau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire nā te whanaunga a Te Ururoa Flavell i tuku mai ki tō mātou nei aroaro ki roto i te Whare nei. Tū ake ana ki te tautoko i te tukunga o tēnei pire ki te komiti whāiti hei whiriwhiringa mō tātou katoa, kia taea ai e te komiti hei whakawhitiwhiti whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa. Nā reira, mihi kau ana ki a Te Ururoa nāna nei i mau mai tēnei pire pai; he kaupapa rāinei kāhore ana hau i te kitea nei, horekau tērā taha o te Whare e tautoko ana i tēnei kaupapa. E pāpōuri ana, engari horekau ohorere ana i te mea, mōhio ana tātou katoa ehara tērā rōpū, tērā kāwanatanga, he kāwanatanga e ngākaunui ana i ngā take Māori. Nā reira, e mōhio ana tātou mai rā anō rātou, kīhai i tautokongia ngā kaupapa Māori.

Taku whakapae, i hea rātou i runga i te hīkoi i hīkoingia e tātou i tērā tau mai i Takaparawhau tae noa atu ki tērā atu moka o Queen Street. I hea rātou? I hea rātou i a mātou e hīkoi ana ki te tautoko i ngā tūru Māori mō Tāmaki-makau-rau? I hea rātou? Horekau i kitea. Nā mātou i hīkoi, i tautoko tēnā kaupapa, mātou te Rōpū Reipa. He aha ai? Taku whakapae, taku pātai ki a rātou, he aha ai rātou e mataku ai kia whai reo ai a ngāi tātou te Māori; mātou katoa te iwi Māori kei roto i ngā kaupapa e pā ana ki ngā kaunihera ā-rohe? He aha ai rātou e mataku ai ki te rangona i te reo Māori, te reo o ngā Māori ki roto i aua kaunihera?

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to endorse this bill that the relative Te Ururoa Flavell brought before us in this House. I rise, as well, in support of this bill being sent through the select committee process, where the matter can be considered on our behalf. So I acknowledge Te Ururoa for bringing this wonderful bill before us. Indeed, I fail to see why the other side of the House is not supporting the matter. Sad as it is, I am not surprised, because we all know that that party, that Government, is one that is not committed to matters relating to the Māori people. We have known for a long time that they have never supported Māori policies.

My accusation is this. Where were they in the march last year, when we walked from Bastion Point to Queen Street? Where were they? Where were they when we marched in support of Māori seats on the Auckland super-city council? Where were they? They were not to be seen anywhere. We, the Labour Party, marched, and supported that cause. And why did we do so? My accusation and question to them is this: why do they fear Māori representation, our total representation, in local government matters? Why do they fear Māori gaining a voice in those councils?]

I stand to support the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill and its progression through to the select committee. I support and congratulate Te Ururoa Flavell on bringing it to the House. I support the bill, but I am not surprised that the party on the other side of the House does not endorse it, and will not support it to go any further. That is a crying shame, and I have to ask why it is that National members are so afraid of Māori representation on councils. I hear from National members over there that they are saying that if the community wants Māori representation, then the community will ask for it. But that is fine if people live in the big, broad, white world, where they are in the vast majority and not in an ethnic minority like Māori. We are always—always—going to be trampled on like this.

This is a matter of Māori representation; we want our voices to be heard. We want to be able to put our case forward on all the issues that relate to us as a people, but time and again National and ACT put down Māori aspiration. It is about the Treaty. It was only a few weeks ago that the National Government endorsed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Those members endorsed it, but this is a sign that they never ever intended to actually give it any mana, any status, whatsoever. This is just another way of National and ACT putting down Māori people. It is fine to keep on saying that the community, if it wants Māori representation, will ask for it. But if people are an ethnic minority, a minority in their own land, when do they ever get to have a say, in reality? When they are only 15 percent of the population, how will their voices ever really be heard? I think that it is a shame.

Surely the National Party has members out there—not just members of Parliament but members out there in the community, Māori members—who should be standing up and saying that this is not good enough. They, as National Party members, need to stand up and say to their MPs over there that enough is enough, and that Māori deserve representation on regional councils, on district councils, and on all councils, so that the Māori voice can be heard. It is just not good enough that we keep on getting put down like this, over and over again. Māori need to have a voice on those councils and I think that National and ACT need to be condemned for the stance they are taking in not allowing Māori to have representation on councils. Kia ora.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I acknowledge my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. When asked why he was in the Parliamentary Rugby Team, he said “Because I’m good.”, and he is. He was an excellent player at Tolaga Bay, as was my colleague across there, Mr Kelvin Davis.

I would like to make a comment to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. She made the point that National is not supporting the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill. Indeed, she is correct; we are not. But I point out, however, that friends and colleagues can agree to differ on certain things, and can agree to broadly support each other on others. That is the relationship we have with our colleagues in the Māori Party.

I point out that much progress has been made. I had the privilege of going to the Ratana gathering this year and to Te Tii Marae at Waitangi. In both places orators made the point that Māoridom has made more progress under this National-led Government than in the previous 9 years—9 years of wasted opportunities, 9 years of the Labour Government turning its back, and 9 years of it ignoring these issues.

My colleague opposite, the Hon Parekura Horomia, who sold me a lot of things at auction a couple of weeks ago at Tolaga Bay, mentioned a very fine mayor in his local city. That gentleman is Māori-Chinese. He is a very fine local government mayor. He did not get there because he was Chinese, and he did not get there because he was Māori; he got there because he put up his hand and said that he was good, he was able, and he should be elected.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to assist the speaker. The mayor he is referring to has no Māori in him whatsoever; he is Chinese.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member again that that is not a point of order; that is a matter of debate. That is not a point of order, and the member knows that. It is not good practice to interrupt a member when he or she is speaking with a point of order that is not a point of order. Let us give Mr Cam Calder the floor again, and listen as we should do.

Dr CAM CALDER: I thank my colleague. Obviously, in that case the mayor did not get elected because he was Māori—we have established that.

The purpose of the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill is to require all territorial authorities and regional councils to establish Māori wards and constituencies to provide for Māori representation. This would be achieved by amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001. The general policy statement accompanying the bill controversially asserts that there is a requirement to establish Māori seats arising from the Treaty of Waitangi. That is not currently an accurate reflection of the state of New Zealand law.

We believe that good local government is essential for our communities, our economy, and our environment. National values an open and honest working relationship with local government, and as my colleague Mr Colin King pointed out earlier, we do not believe that one size fits all in local government. The National Government will not be supporting this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Kia ora anō tātau e te Whare. Ka mihi atu ki te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia, ā, tino rata atu au ki ngā kōrero kua puta i ētahi. He kawa tonu te kōrero a wētahi engari, he pai tērā.

[Greetings to us once again, the House. I acknowledge the tenor of the addresses presented. Some were very satisfying to me, but some were somewhat distasteful. But that is fine.]

I thank all members for their contributions tonight. They have pretty much covered the length and breadth of some of the discussion on the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill. I do not intend to go back over all of those points, but I will make a couple of points.

The one person, one vote principle is a great ideal, but for Māori the aspiration of equality before the law has been a long time coming. When we look at the establishment of Parliament in this country, we know that when the General Assembly met for the first time in 1854, Māori had no representation. That anomaly was because their property was in hapū ownership rather than individual title. As Ranginui Walker has pointed out, that gave Parliament pretty much free rein to alienate and confiscate Māori land, and to make war on Māori. Eventually, 23 years later, Parliament passed the Maori Representation Act to establish four seats in Parliament. That was all well and good, but on a population basis in a House of 80 members there should have been 20 Māori seats.

The issue of Māori representation has been with us a long time, and it is likely to stay with us into the future. The whole crux of the bill that I have put before the House is to try, on the basis of the Treaty relationship, to find voice for Māoridom within local government, having stabilised at least the position for Māori seats at the national governmental level.

One thing I found interesting while doing some work on this bill was a thing called the ratepayer franchise. Most New Zealanders get to vote in the local body elections only where they live, but a very special group of New Zealanders get to vote both where they live and where they own property. That means that those who can afford to have a property here and a property there get an extra vote. So I ask myself why people find that acceptable under the rules. For Māoridom we seem to struggle with the notion of allowing equal representation, yet we have an anomaly of that sort. Why has nothing been done about that particular notion?

Chester Borrows, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, talked about the notion that communities should decide. As we explained through the Auckland super-city discussion, that is all well and good, but the practical reality is that that is not how it happens. It cannot be left for councils to make the decisions on representation. Those councils are already likely to not have Māori representation, so are they likely to support the notion of having Māori representation without going through the argument? I do not think so. Those councils will for ever hold on to that notion of power.

When we talk about Māori representation—and, indeed, the Treaty of Waitangi—the problem for us and this Parliament is the whole question of understanding what the Treaty of Waitangi relationship stands for. In the last couple of years that I have been in this Parliament, there have been times when members of this House have come up to me and, for one reason or another, all of a sudden realised that there is a Māori voice. That voice at this point in time happens to come from the Māori Party, and some of the discussion that we have put on the floor of this House has been a real awakening for them and a new discussion that they had never ever heard. If that is reflective of the national Parliament of this country, I wonder what hope Māori representation has at a local body level.

I suggest that if I were to ask the members of the House how many of them have been to a marae and stayed over for a tangi, for example, it would be very few. That is not to say that going to a tangi is the greatest experience in one’s life, but it means we must ask how those people will ever get to an understanding about the views, the dreams, and the aspirations of Māori people if they cannot see, feel, and be amongst the people. That is why Māori continue to demand a place at the decision-making table: because those who are at the decision-making table at this point in time in most cases will never ever be able to understand what we feel as a people, and what our hopes, dreams, and aspirations are for our tamariki and mokopuna.

In closing I say that I hope members who are not in the House in this point in time can reflect on that. At times when there are crucial decisions to be made, when Māori would like to get next to our Treaty partners—as on issues such as the Tūhoe settlement and the foreshore and seabed legislation—it would be really good if we could come together, and if Māori and Pākehā actually understood how Māori people feel about this country and issues, and their desire to contribute. Hopefully at one point or another there will be that realisation that we can make a positive contribution; it would help if many members understood the dreams and aspirations of Māoridom in this country.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Electoral (Māori Representation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Māori Party 5.

Noes 64

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill

First Reading

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I move, That the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill amends the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 to improve its operation in two areas: firstly, extended warranties, and, secondly, the supply of goods and services by suppliers through a competitive bidding process that uses an online trading facility. At the appropriate time I will be requesting that this bill is referred to the Commerce Committee.

I first acknowledge the support and assistance I received from James Ryan, an adviser in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. James is a passionate advocate for consumer rights, and in particular for the two aspects of this amendment bill. James was a driving force in getting this bill drafted in a timely way, and I would like to thank him for his enthusiasm and hard work, and wish him well in his career.

I will talk firstly about online sales. The current situation is that if a consumer wins a competitive online auction from a professional seller, the consumer is not covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act. If the consumer, however, hits the “Buy Now” button, the consumer is covered. That is an anomaly, and it needs to be clarified. Unfortunately, there is evidence that unscrupulous sellers are using that loophole to sell inferior products, which means that the buyer has no protection under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

Increasingly, competitive online auctions are a way by which New Zealanders buy products. There are a number of online auction sites, but TradeMe would be the most used website for online transactions. An astonishing 2.5 million New Zealanders are members of TradeMe. They complete around 280,000 online trades a week, and over 1 million a month. It is estimated that over 15,000 New Zealand businesses sell on TradeMe.

Consumers who buy through the competitive online auction process fall through a loophole in the current form of the Consumer Guarantees Act. Specifically, the Act’s provisions do not apply to professional sellers when items are sold through a competitive auction. The loophole currently allows unscrupulous professional sellers to sell poor quality products without fear of come-back.

Amongst those people taking advantage of that loophole are some motor vehicle traders. I was extremely concerned to hear reports that at the motor industry forums run in 2008, the Motor Trade Association was actively advising car salespeople to make use of the loophole to dispose of older or less reliable stock before the loophole was closed up through legislation such as this. TradeMe has been arguing for that loophole to be closed for 5 years, and so have Consumer New Zealand and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. We must do it now; it is urgent. To put it simply and bluntly, New Zealanders are being ripped off.

Currently, the only recourse disgruntled buyers have is through a disputes tribunal. However, without protection in law, a disputes tribunal referee has little reason to find in favour of the consumer. TradeMe has been so concerned about that situation that 16 months ago it brought in a voluntary code of practice for professional traders. Trust and transparency are the two values that are paramount in the successful running of TradeMe. As an example, 65 personnel, or one-third of TradeMe’s staff, work fulltime, 24/7, actively on safety, trust, and policing issues.

Last year, Consumer New Zealand found that traders were selling hundreds of new computers on TradeMe, with a starting bid of just $1 less than the buy-now price. Most of those computers would have been purchased through a competitive online auction, and therefore would not have been covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act. It is not hard to imagine the distress of consumers who bought brand-new expensive computers that malfunctioned shortly afterwards, and then found out they had no cover, whatsoever. It was the view of Consumer New Zealand that, unfortunately, unscrupulous traders were using that legal loophole to avoid the Consumer Guarantees Act and their trading responsibilities.

I will now talk about extended warranties. A consumer can buy an extended warranty for a huge range of items, from bread makers to plasma televisions and even furniture. But Consumer New Zealand has noted that customers’ uncertainty about their legal rights and their insurance cover has created an opportunity for retailers to sell extended warranties. The costs can be significant—up to 15 percent of the purchase price. The fact is that often when consumers buy extended warranties they are probably paying for protection they are already entitled to under the Consumer Guarantees Act and other consumer laws, their home and contents insurance, or the manufacturer’s warranty. In some cases, Consumer New Zealand has noted that the extended warranty offers less cover than consumers are entitled to under the law.

Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, manufacturers and retailers are obliged to guarantee that the products they sell are of an acceptable quality and are fit for their purpose. Most appliances, certainly the big-ticket items, can be expected to perform well over many years, not just during the period covered by the manufacturer’s warranty. That means that under the Consumer Guarantees Act, if the product fails when it is still reasonably new the purchaser can have it repaired, or, if that is not possible, replaced, even if the manufacturer’s warranty has expired. In that situation, there is no value or extra benefit in having an extended warranty.

The Consumer Guarantees Act also offers broader cover than some manufacturers’ warranties imply. For example, if a product fails when it is reasonably new but has not been misused, the manufacturer cannot say that the fault is because of wear and tear and refuse to repair it, even if the warranty says that wear and tear is not covered. In those cases, there is no additional benefit from an extended warranty that gives cover for normal wear and tear. The extended warranty may say that it covers accidental damage, but so do most home insurance contents policies.

For some people, the hassle of getting legitimate repairs done using the Consumer Guarantees Act is daunting, and extended warranties are an attractive alternative form of protection. That, of course, is a personal choice for consumers to make. Consumer New Zealand warns that, importantly, nothing in the warranty contract can reduce the consumer’s rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act. If a purchaser has a faulty product but is not getting compensation because of a restrictive clause in the warranty contract, the purchaser can challenge the contract using the Consumer Guarantees Act.

There are situations where an extended warranty is worth considering. Those are when the warranty cover goes beyond that of the Consumer Guarantees Act. The warranty may give cover for a very long period in the form of an extended service contract. If the purchaser anticipates giving the item a heavy workload—for example, the use of a washing machine by a family of eight—the purchaser may see his or her rights under the Act expire quickly, and the extended warranty may be of value in that situation.

This bill provides that consumers must be informed about whether an extended warranty they are considering purchasing provides any benefit, right, or convenience that is greater than their rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act. The bill also provides for a cooling-off period, once an extended warranty has been purchased. This will allow consumers to reconsider whether to continue with the extended warranty, and if they decide not to do so within the cooling-off period they will be entitled to a full refund.

Consumer New Zealand made the comment that as consumer advisers, it hears more from people who have not bought an extended warranty, and who are turned away by the retailer because they do not have an extended warranty, even though they do not realise that they are covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act. This highlights the urgent need for both consumers and retailers to be informed about exactly what the Consumer Guarantees Act covers. I certainly hope that all parties will support this bill to go through to the select committee. It is all about protecting consumers. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in the name of Dr Jackie Blue. I congratulate Dr Blue on bringing this bill to the House. It deals with an important issue. In tough economic times, making sure that consumers are protected is more important than ever. Both parts of this bill address areas where there is a genuine concern in the community. I have certainly heard it being expressed, and I am sure that other members of this House have, too. So Labour supports this bill and will cooperate with its consideration in the select committee.

This bill will ensure, as Dr Blue has said, that extended warranties will include more information about enforceable guarantees, and will also ensure that there is a cooling-off period after purchasing an extended warranty, during which time a consumer can cancel the warranty and be entitled to a full refund. That is important, because far too many people are unnecessarily purchasing extended warranties, often at quite considerable cost. As has been said, the bill also extends the general consumer protections to purchases made through websites, such as TradeMe. As Dr Blue has said, a significant amount of buying and selling in this country occurs on TradeMe, so that is very important. It is important that consumer legislation is kept up to date. I note that this matter is one that the Minister of Consumer Affairs talked about some considerable time ago. As Labour’s spokesperson on consumer affairs, I heartily agreed with her at that time. But nothing has yet happened, so I say again it is great to see Jackie Blue’s work here.

We think this is a sensible bill that we should support. But an interesting point is that this bill is being introduced at a time—and there are quite specific amendments in this bill—when finally we have seen the consumer law reform discussion paper emerge just in the last day or so. The Minister of Consumer Affairs, the Hon Heather Roy, has been talking about this much-awaited reform discussion document for some time. It is part of her one law, one door approach to consumer law. We will take the same constructive approach to that review that we are taking to this bill, because consumer law is by its nature something that changes and can change quite rapidly. The requirements and needs of consumers can change quite quickly. We expect that the Government will support Dr Blue’s bill, so the Government is prepared to advance some quite narrow amendments at a time when it is reviewing consumer law. But the Government also seems to be indicating that it is unwilling to support my bill, which looks at putting in some regulations at what we might call the fringe end of the consumer market—the loan shark end of the consumer market—because it is reviewing the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and, in fact, probably because of the wider review of consumer law. Therefore the Government says it cannot possibly support the bill that I am sponsoring. That seems to be somewhat of a double standard.

I would just put it on the record that we can look at Labour’s voting record during the term of this Parliament in relation to certain members’ bills and see that Labour members have not been petty and political about the bills that we have supported. We have supported bills on their merits. This is one such bill, and Amy Adams’ bill and Simon Bridges’ bill in relation to animal welfare are two more bills that come to mind.

As I said, Labour will support the intention of this bill to amend the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 in relation to both extended warranties and the supply of goods and services by suppliers through a competitive bidding process that uses online trading. Both provisions are about assisting consumers to make informed decisions about purchasing, in terms of extended warranties and competitive bidding. In relation to extended warranties, the cooling-off period during which a consumer can change his or her mind, cancel a purchase, and still receive a full refund is important.

Labour is supporting this bill because it is sensible. That is a good reason to support a bill. It is sensible and it meets an express need. This bill does, however, underline for me just how long it has taken the Minister of Consumer Affairs to get around to doing anything. Even members of the National Government are becoming sick of waiting for something to happen in the consumer affairs area and have to put bills up to amend the legislation. It is interesting indeed to see that happening. However, I acknowledge that the consumer law reform discussion paper has finally emerged this week. It is quite an extensive document, I have to say, and it does what the Minister said she would do, which is go through most of the existing consumer law, such as the Fair Trading Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act, the Weights and Measures Act, the Auctioneers Act, and the Door to Door Sales Act. That Act definitely needs to be reviewed, I might add; it is one that I have been working on, as well. Also included in the discussion paper are the Layby Sales Act, and the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act.

It will be very interesting to see how the process regarding the discussion paper works and what people have to say. I do hope that a real effort is made to get extensive consultation on this document and lots of submissions, because certainly in terms of the review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, despite that being an absolutely critically important area and one that is of massive concern in terms of fringe lending, only 55 submissions were received. I understand that that particular review was not actively promoted to the public; there was quite a limited process of getting contributions to it. I think that was a shame. I do hope that in relation to the Minister’s consumer law reform, we—absolutely all of us in this House—generate a lot of contributions to the review process.

I comment that not only has it taken 19 months for that review document to come out—or the discussion paper, I should say—but the review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act took 9 months to come out. Despite the fact that the 55 submissions were received by the end of November, still no policy recommendations have emerged from the other end of that process, either. So there is a need to make sure that we make progress in terms of consumer legislation. I wonder whether this Minster’s heart is in it. Dr Jackie Blue, on the other hand, has not sat by and waited for things to happen. She has got out there with this member’s bill and brought it to the House, and we support her in that.

Much change is needed by consumers, and perhaps it is worthwhile to reflect on the sorts of things that are needed. As I said, in tough economic times the consequences of making poor consumer decisions can be very significant for families. There can be situations where people do not know their rights; in fact, those situations are very common. I am sure that across this House we would share a concern about things like poor levels of financial literacy and a lack of understanding of consumer rights. The consequences of that can be very, very significant for families. Improving consumer knowledge and protection is important; that is a good purpose of this bill.

I think that probably we need to do some work in the consumer area around vulnerable consumers, in particular. There are people who, because of language barriers, low literacy, poverty, or age—because they are older or younger—are perhaps not as able as other people to look after themselves. We have seen some very sad cases. Just in the last week I read about the case of an elderly lady who was absolutely pressured into buying a completely unnecessary vacuum cleaner. She was completely traumatised by the whole experience, and she felt that she had been physically intimidated by the salesperson. So consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers, need much information. I do think we need to look at situations where exploitation is happening, as is the case with regard to loan sharks.

Of course, updating our consumer law is also important because relationships in the consumer area change. Who would have thought that there would be the amount of trading online that now happens? Who would have thought that even 3 years ago? Certainly 10 years ago it would have been a complete surprise to people. From this side of the House I think one can imagine that we want to see greater regulation in some areas, and certainly the area of loan sharks is an example of that.

Finally, in terms of what consumers need, I say there is also an increasing desire by consumers to ensure that the products that they buy are well understood and are ethically made—all of those things. That is my final point in terms of consumer law.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): I rise to speak to the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill, which has been presented to the House by my colleague Dr Jackie Blue. I commend her for bringing this bill to the House. It is a bill that is welcome. It is overdue, as Dr Blue stated in her speech to this House, and I support it. I preface my comments by saying that this National-led Government is committed to promoting an environment where consumers may make purchases knowing that their consumer rights are protected. That is particularly important. This National-led Government is also about enacting effective consumer laws to develop a competitive business environment, where both consumers and businesses can engage with each other with trust and confidence. We are about enacting laws that help to build a more productive and innovative economy. That is what this Government stands for.

I welcome the Labour’s support for this bill; that is to be commended. It is the only member’s bill tonight, I believe, that enjoys multiparty and cross-party support and we welcome Labour members’ support for the bill. As has been stated by the previous two speakers, it amends the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 in two specific areas: first, in relation to extended warranties, and second, in relation to the supply of goods and services by businesses through a competitive bidding process using an online trading facility. The latter issue was discussed in the Commerce Committee earlier during this term with regard to motor vehicle sales, and the conclusion that we came to was consistent with what Dr Blue is suggesting in this bill.

The main provisions of the bill provide that consumers are to be informed about whether an extended warranty they are considering purchasing provides any benefit, right, or convenience that is greater than their rights under the Act. That is important. But the other clause in the bill that has not been mentioned is that it provides for a cooling-off period of 7 days once an extended warranty has been purchased. That allows consumers to reconsider whether to continue with the extended warranty. If they decide not to continue with it within that cooling-off period, they may cancel the extended warranty, and they will be provided with a full refund. In terms of competitive online auctions, this bill protects those consumers who, for example, buy a sofa online in a competitive bidding process. That would attract the same Consumer Guarantees Act rights as if that sofa was bought at a national retail store of the same supplier. This bill means that consumers and suppliers will have confidence in market rules, and that is really important. They will have confidence that when they buy a product or service, their reasonable expectations about that product or service will be met. In such circumstances, the consumer must understand that if those expectations are not met, their rights will be maintained and asserted.

We have heard about the success story of modern New Zealand that is online trading through TradeMe. This bill will address a lot of the anomalies that occur through online trading, where dishonest professional sellers are using the legal loophole to sell goods without having any fear of being held to account. This bill will protect the rights of those consumers.

The bill is also about extended warranties for goods that are sold. Those extended warranties started being sold for electrical goods, but they now cover a whole range of items, including home appliances, furniture, and the like. Often when consumers buy an extended warranty, they are likely to pay for the protection that they are already entitled to, and that must be clear at the time of purchase.

I support this bill, because ultimately it is about enhancing the rights of consumers and about ensuring that consumers receive the protection they deserve under the Consumer Guarantees Act. Thank you.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): As a Parliament, we have the responsibility to ensure that New Zealand’s legislation is relevant to the context of our times. Sometimes that may mean tweaking Acts to bring them into line with technology that had not been developed when they were originally passed. This, it seems to me, is what Dr Jackie Blue’s Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill aims to do in amending the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. For that reason, as my colleague Carol Beaumont has said, Labour members will support at least its referral to a select committee. This seems to be a sensible bill, in that it appears to ensure that the principle of protecting consumers is upheld in our modern day and age.

I think it is important to note, in passing, that the National Party backbenchers, from the speeches that have been given so far, seem to be more on to it in relation to consumer affairs issues than the Minister of Consumer Affairs, Heather Roy, who has proven through the document that my colleague Carol Beaumont referred to earlier that she thinks the complexity of the issues involved is only an excuse not to act.

One of the technological developments that we have to be mindful of in this context is online bidding on sites like TradeMe. This has become increasingly popular in recent years, with many professional sellers effectively choosing to sell their goods and services via such sites. These sites have moved beyond just being fora for individuals to sell second-hand goods. With the increasing popularity of competitive online bidding, we have seen the inconsistencies arise that other speakers have referred to. The Act was passed in 1993. It incorporates a principle that I think has broad support across the House: the protection of the consumer when buying goods. But there was no equivalent of online bidding at the time that the Act was passed, so of course no consideration could be given to how the Act’s aims could be achieved in that context.

As an earlier speaker said, one of the inconsistencies raised in the bill, and dealt with by it, is the fact that on sites like TradeMe consumers are protected if they purchase goods in one way, but not in another. If there is a bicycle for sale on the site, buyers are protected by the Act if they hit the “Buy Now” button, but not if they win through a series of bids. The bill will remedy that by amending section 41 of the Act. It will add a new subsection (4) to it, to clarify that the rights of consumers under the Act will apply to the supply of goods and services through a competitive bidding process using an online trading facility. In this way the original intent of the Act of protecting all consumers will be brought into line with the reality of online trading and its increased popularity.

The bill also seeks to improve the Act in relation to extended warranties. Generally these are sold to consumers who buy electrical appliances like fridges or washing machines, but, despite the name, they generally do not give consumers any more rights than they already have under the Act. Clause 5 of the bill would insert new sections 15A and 15B to require suppliers to disclose any extra benefits as a result of offering an extended warranty to consumers. That makes for a fairer situation for them, where they are able to assess whether to pay more on the basis of quality, rather than because of the attractive sound of a so-called extended warranty that may not actually give them any extra protection as a consumer. The bill also allows for an innovation that is common now in New South Wales and other jurisdictions, which is a cooling-off period immediately after the purchase of an extended warranty, so that consumers can have fair time in which to consider whether they really wanted to make the purchase that they have, under this legislation, preliminarily concluded.

All in all, the bill seems to be sensible. It tweaks the Act to make it fairer and more relevant to the way in which things work today. The member has done a good job and should be congratulated on that. But I must ask why the Government is so willing to make changes in this area, when it is currently failing to offer support to my colleague Carol Beaumont for her loan sharks bill because it is “an area under consideration”. Unfortunately, I am led to the conclusion that the Government places petty politics above the importance of protecting our most vulnerable consumers. It would be really nice to be proven wrong about that in 2 weeks’ time, on the next members’ day.

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to rise to speak for a very short time on the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill in support of my colleague Dr Jackie Blue, who is sitting next to me. She is also my neighbour and colleague. We have offices on the same floor in Bowen House, and she is also right next door in my neighbouring electorate of Mt Roskill as a National list MP, and what a wonderful MP she is. It is a pleasure to rise to support this bill.

This bill is about consumer rights, and this Government is committed to promoting an environment where consumers—and all of us fit into that category—can make purchases, knowing that our rights are protected. But it seems that our rights are not always protected as they should be. As in the example that Jackie gave at the beginning of this debate, if one wins a competitive online auction from a professional seller such as the TradeMe online auction site, we as consumers are not covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act. But if I hit the “Buy Now” button in the same online auction, I am covered. That anomaly must be fixed.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.