Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Resignations

Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, Labour

Mr SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Winifred Alexandra Laban, resigning her seat in the House with effect at midnight on Friday, 15 October 2010.

Tabling of Documents

Aged Care—Labour, Green, and Grey Power Report

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I seek the leave of the House to table the Labour, Green, and Grey Power report into the future of aged care, containing 14 recommendations for the Government to consider.

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.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Emissions Trading Scheme—Iwi Advice on Carbon Assessment of Post-1989 Forests

1. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What advice has he received from iwi over the Government’s proposed new approach for assessing carbon stored in registered post-1989 forests, and what is the Government doing to action that advice?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): A key concern for iwi and the Māori Party has been the inherent bias in the carbon storage recognition under the emissions trading scheme for exotic over indigenous species. This arose because of the very conservative approach taken to the lookup tables for carbon storage in indigenous forests, and deficiencies in the data. I am pleased to advise that Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Ministry for the Environment officials have made very good progress on addressing this concern, and that the new lookup tables for indigenous carbon sinks provide 2½ times the amount of carbon sequestration from that previously recognised. This addresses this concern, maintains the integrity of the scheme, and also provides the inherent biodiversity benefits of having additional areas of native forest.

Rahui Katene: Does he believe that the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group has been engaged with properly; if so, what will he do in response to claims from Willie Te Aho that the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group has been reduced by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to just another stakeholder?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, the engagement has been very constructive, and progress is being made on what are quite complex issues. I remain in close contact with the chair of the Iwi Leadership Group, Api Māhuika. The latest issue we are consulting on is the field measurement approach, on which submissions are currently being reviewed.

Rahui Katene: What has been the practical impact of the Treaty clause in the Climate Change Response Act, which specifies how the Crown must act in order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The practical impact of that clause, which was advocated for very strongly by the Māori Party, has been that in any of the regulations we have developed for the emissions trading scheme we have had to make extra efforts to consult iwi and to ensure that their views are reflected in the decisions that the Government makes about making the scheme work as effectively as possible for New Zealand.

Nicky Wagner: Has the Minister received any reports on how the emissions trading scheme is impacting on confidence within the forestry sector?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reports have been very positive. After a record period of deforestation between 2004 and 2008, New Zealand is now planting significantly more trees than we are harvesting. Following the deforestation of over 30,000 hectares up to 2008, we moved to the point of having a small credit last year of 500 hectares. This year we are expecting net growth of 4,700 hectares, next year a net growth of over 5,700 hectares, and in the year following a net growth of 7,700 hectares. Those figures show that the Government’s modified emissions trading scheme is having the desired result of improving confidence in the important forestry sector.

Economy—Reports

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yesterday Statistics New Zealand issued the consumer price index for the year to September 2010. It showed that annual inflation was just 1.5 percent, which is the lowest annual figure since 1.5 percent inflation in the year to March 2004. The last time inflation was lower than 1.5 percent was in the year to December 1999. The consumer price index figures confirm that cost of living increases have generally been low, and we may put those low cost of living increases alongside relatively low wage increases. In fact, real wages have been gradually increasing, which is the opposite of what was happening under the previous Government.

Craig Foss: How does the latest inflation data compare with the situation 2 years ago?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the year to September 2008, when the economy was in deep recession, annual inflation was 5.1 percent. The Government of the day was not proposing any compensation for anybody, and, as a result of 5 percent inflation, real after-tax wages were falling. In the last 2 years the consumer price index inflation has totalled just 3 percent, which is less than half of the 7 percent inflation in the 2 years to September 2008.

Craig Foss: What are some examples of trends in consumer prices in the last 2 years, and how do they compare with price movements in the previous 2 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the 2 years to September 2008, overall food prices jumped 15 percent. In the 2 years since then, food prices have risen, but they have risen by only around 5 percent. In addition to changes in food prices, petrol prices jumped 22 percent in the 2 years to September 2008 and they have actually fallen by 14 percent since then. House rents have increased 6 percent in the 2 years to September 2008, and the increase in the past 2 years has been about 3 percent. The general pattern is that up to September 2008 real wages were falling, and since then real wages have been rising.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why is the Minister trumpeting his success in bringing down inflation, when it is a direct result of the worst recession in 70 years, and if he is picking a year to quote inflation, does this mean he will next be picking 1929?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, no. The issue has come up because the Labour Party has been claiming that the cost of living is out of control—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will agree with me that the supplementary question was quite direct and quite without political epithet. It simply asked about the relationship between his claims to have lowered inflation and the recessionary conditions. Instead of answering that with facts, he began a tirade about Labour Party policy, which he is clearly worried about.

Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect correctly, the member in asking his question asked why the Minister was using certain figures, and the Minister was explaining why. The Speaker cannot assist if the member does not like the Minister’s reasons but he is certainly at liberty to explain why.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, of course the recession has had some impact on inflation. But the member cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim it is out of control and then say it is low because of the recession. But he himself might be able to explain how he managed under his Government in a deep recession to achieve 5 percent inflation—very high—in 2008.

Craig Foss: How have real and after-tax wage movements also left New Zealanders better off since September 2008, and how do these figures compare with those for the previous 2 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If one uses the series of numbers that are used to determine national superannuation, which both Governments have used for some time, one will see that real inflation-adjusted gross wages have increased 5 percent in the last 2 years, after no movement at all in the 2 years to September 2008. If one looks at real after-tax wages, taking into account two rounds of tax cuts under the National Government, one will see that these have increased 9 percent in the last 2 years. This compares with the 1 percent fall in the 2 years to September 2008 and a meagre 3 percent rise in real after-tax wages from 1999 to 2008.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why would Kiwi families care about the square root of his housing allowance or some other number concoction, when what they know is that every week they are finding it harder to make ends meet, when median wages dropped by 9 percent in the last year—$9 a week—and vege prices, for example, have increased 20 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the last few weeks the Government has implemented its change in tax policy, and many New Zealanders will be finding that the reduction in income tax is giving them higher wages each week. Those higher wages more than offset the extra GST, so they are better off. More important, the tax switch will help us build a strong economy with more investment and more jobs, and in the longer term even higher incomes.

Craig Foss: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s tax changes this month, which have left the vast majority of New Zealanders better off?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I noted a report from KPMG—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I assumed you would interrupt that question. The degree of assertion in that question—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately—right now. If he had listened to his colleague’s question only a few moments ago, he would know that it contained more statements asserting facts than were in Craig Foss’ question. If the member wants me to clamp down on that kind of question, I am very happy to, but at least half of his colleagues’ questions would be ruled out.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I noted a report yesterday by KPMG that set out two things. The first is that New Zealand is unique in the world in matching higher indirect taxes with income tax cuts. Other countries have been lifting their indirect taxes, but New Zealand is the only country in the world that has matched it with reductions in personal income tax that will encourage savings, investment, and exports. I also note that the report stated that New Zealand has the fourth-lowest GST rate in the OECD. Behind Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, and Korea is New Zealand. So we have a comprehensive GST, which raises sufficient revenue to allow us to significantly cut income tax rates.

Overseas Investment Rules—Prime Minister’s Statements

3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I am concerned about the risk that New Zealanders become tenants in their own land”; if so, what specific actions will his Government be taking?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition used the same statement when he was getting monstered by Guyon Espiner on Q+A in the weekend, which, from what I could see, had a lot of “Qs” from Guyon Espiner and not many “As” from Phil Goff—

Mr SPEAKER: I say to Ministers I have just been clamping down on questioners who sought my assistance when some of their questions were perhaps not totally compliant with the Standing Orders, but this question was a pretty fair question. It asked whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement, and if so what specific actions the Government will be taking. I am sure that if the Prime Minister waits, the questioner will not be able to resist putting a political statement into a supplementary question, which maybe will give the Prime Minister some licence. But this primary question does not have the licence for him to dump on the questioner.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes; and as the Minister of Finance recently announced, we will be giving Ministers extra flexibility to consider a wide range of issues, including the large-scale ownership of farmland when assessing overseas investment applications for sensitive land. In particular, two new measures will be introduced in regulations. Firstly, a new economic interest test factor will allow Ministers to consider whether New Zealand’s economic interests are adequately safeguarded and promoted. This will improve ministerial flexibility to respond to both current and future economic concerns about foreign investment, such as the large-scale ownership of farmland. Secondly, a new mitigating factor will enable Ministers to consider whether an overseas investment provides opportunities for New Zealand oversight and involvement—for example, by appointing New Zealand directors, or by establishing a head office in this country.

Hon Phil Goff: Was the review that his Government instituted last year into foreign investment not, in fact, about making it easier for people from overseas to buy our farmland, not harder?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There were a range of objectives for the review, but what we have found is that the changes to regulations that I have just outlined are appropriate.

Hon Phil Goff: When the Minister for Land Information admitted to the House last week that not one single application from a foreigner to buy land under his Government had been declined, why does the Minister then go on to say he could not promise that the new rules that the Prime Minister outlined would result in any higher rate of decline?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I wonder whether the member could just repeat the question. I am sorry; I did not hear it.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat the question, please.

Hon Phil Goff: When his Minister for Land Information admitted to the House last week that under the National Government, not one single application from foreigners to buy farmland had been declined, why did his Minister then go on to say he could not promise that the new rules would result in any higher rate of decline?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Minister advises me that he did not say the last bit, and I accept him at his word. But I do know that he is not a Minister who has signed off on 680,000 hectares of land being sold. He is not a Minister who has signed off on 380,000 hectares being sold in 1 year. We would rather look at a Government’s track record than at its fake promises.

Chris Tremain: What safeguards currently exist in legislation regarding the sale of New Zealand land to foreigners?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What an excellent question that is. The Overseas Investment Act lays out that foreign investment in land is acceptable only if it substantially benefits New Zealand, and this is measured in section 17 of the Act. For example, under this section Ministers have to consider whether the overseas investment will result in “the creation of new job opportunities in New Zealand … the introduction into New Zealand of new technology … increased export receipts for New Zealand exporters … the introduction into New Zealand of additional investment for development purposes”, and “increased processing in New Zealand of New Zealand’s primary products”. These are precisely the criteria that Mr Goff tried to announce in the weekend as a brand new policy. All that he did was to read out the Act that he passed in 2005.

Hon Phil Goff: When none of what the Prime Minister has just read out has actually stopped every application under his Government from foreigners to purchase foreign land being approved, what will he do to guarantee that young couples wanting to buy a farm of their own are not priced out of the market by wealthy overseas investors seeking to buy up land here?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Deliver to them a highly competitive economy, and tax cuts so they can afford to pay their mortgage.

Chris Tremain: When was the Overseas Investment Act—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. I want to be able to hear. The senior Government whip does have a big voice, but I do want to be able to hear his question. I ask for a little more reasonableness in the level of the interjections.

Chris Tremain: When was the Overseas Investment Act last reviewed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is another excellent question. The Overseas Investment Act lays out that foreign investment in land is acceptable only if it substantially benefits New Zealand, and this is measured in the Act. It was last reviewed in 2005, after a comprehensive review initiated by the Labour Government. A key purpose of the new Act was to ensure that foreign investment in land would be permitted only if it made a positive contribution to the economy and advanced New Zealand’s interests. Under those criteria, in the following year David Parker as the then Minister for Land Information approved the sale of 380,000 hectares of land.

Hon Phil Goff: If the Prime Minister is saying that nothing that the Labour Party is proposing actually alters the existing rules, why did he then describe it as being Stalinist—or is it a bit like “communism by stealth”, which he described Working for Families as being like?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The reason that I described it in that way is that I noticed in the weekend that the Leader of the Opposition likes to get out there and—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, and there was a great deal of clapping because finally the Labour members were excited. But then the problem was that no one could hear the answer, because of the barracking.

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure the Prime Minister is probably keen to repeat his answer, but—

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sorry; I haven’t finished my answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister had not finished his answer. The question was a very provocative one, and there is nothing that the Speaker can do. It is a matter of basically letting the sides go when that happens. If the Prime Minister has not finished his answer I will invite him to finish it, and I ask that the level of interjection be no more than that which enables people at the back of the House to hear the answer.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the Prime Minister had sat down before Rodney Hide made his point of order. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being considered. I will hear Keith Locke.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your comment just before, you said that when a question is provocative you let both sides go. That is not very satisfactory to people back at this end of the House, who cannot hear what is going on because Labour and National may be barracking at each other. I think we deserve to be able to hear what is going on.

Mr SPEAKER: I certainly sympathise with the member. I accept the rebuke to me. I probably should not have allowed the question, because a question like that is strictly not in order. But the House has to have a bit of fun. The member wanted to ask the question, and I am sure the Prime Minister is perfectly capable of answering it. It was my impression that he sat down because the noise level was so high that he realised that no one was hearing anything, and he expected me to do something about it. I have invited the Prime Minister to finish his answer, perhaps without being any more provocative than he has to be.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Speaker can trust me; I will not be any more provocative than I need to be. I did not actually call the policy Stalinist, I simply said the Leader of the Opposition was having a “road to Stalin” experience. The reason why I said that was that when I looked at all the things that the Leader of the Opposition did in the weekend, I noted to myself that on foreign land, and on the cost of living, he simply cried Chicken Little.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not Chicken Little he needs to worry about—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is Andrew Little; that is it. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I say to all members, but mainly to those on the National backbenches, that if some of them do not want to be thrown out today, when I am on my feet they will stop clapping and they will stop behaving like buffoons. When I am on my feet even the Prime Minister will sit down. I believe I had allowed him the time to go on long enough about the question. When I am on my feet that is the rule, or people will leave this Chamber. I will not tolerate that again today; let me make that very clear to both sides of the House.

Hon Phil Goff: Since none of the criteria that the Prime Minister read out from section 17 of the Act has stopped his Government declining even a single foreign application for land, does he support making changes to the overseas investment framework to ensure that sales of farmland will be declined unless the overseas purchaser also invests in significant further processing of the primary product, creating significant extra jobs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I thought I made that quite clear in answering the primary question, when I said the National Government, after a review, has decided to make two changes to regulation in relation to economic interests and mitigating factors. They, by definition, are evidence that this Government—despite the fact that it has allowed only 30,000 hectares of land to be sold, as opposed to 680,000 hectares—still thought the law needed to be tightened up.

Hon Phil Goff: Because the existing framework is not stopping sales, does he support making changes to the overseas investment regime to remove the discretion of the Minister to consent to the sale overseas of any interest of 25 percent or more in monopoly infrastructure worth over $10 million; if not, why not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No; because that is a really dumb policy. The reason that it is a really dumb policy is that it would require Infratil to start selling its overseas shareholding, it would force a New Zealand company that had about 20 percent of its shareholding overseas, like Fletcher’s, to be unable to borrow overseas, and, as Guyon Espiner proved in the weekend on Q+A, Phil Goff does not understand his own policies.

Hilary Calvert: Has the Attorney-General advised the Prime Minister, following his visit to Taipā Bay in Northland last Friday, that residents and visitors feel like tenants in their own land because a group purporting to represent Ngāti Kahu have occupied the beach, declared it to be Māori land, and are physically threatening locals; if so, what is the Government doing about it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The question is a little outside the scope of the primary question, but I am happy to help the member as far as I can. The Attorney-General has not raised the issue with me, but I have had some information from the local MP. He has told me that any coastal occupation that is taking place is happening under the current legislation. As the Prime Minister, I expect New Zealanders to abide by the law.

Hilary Calvert: Will the Prime Minister assure all New Zealanders that they are citizens and not tenants, by ensuring that the Taipā Sailing Club will have support, if necessary from the police, for its race day to take place this Saturday, given that last weekend’s race had to be cancelled because the community’s safety could not be guaranteed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is a long way outside the primary question. I do not have any information on that matter, except to say that of course I expect the law—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the mistake that we are making in the House is that if we go back to the primary question, we find it does not mention foreign ownership or the Overseas Investment Act. It specifically talks about people being tenants in their own land, and that is precisely the report that we are picking up on. The question is quite within the rules.

Mr SPEAKER: No one has ruled the question out. The Prime Minister is indicating that he had not anticipated that kind of supplementary question, based on this primary question, and that therefore he does not have the specific information. That is not an unreasonable position. I invite the Prime Minister to finish his answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not have a lot of information on that question, but I do always expect the law to be obeyed and the police to enforce the law where they practically can.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister agree that the kind of economic interest tests or benefit tests that have been applied to overseas ownership have not protected land from falling into overseas ownership under the previous Government or the present Government, and hence will he adopt a brightline test that says any land over 5 hectares must stay in New Zealand’s ownership?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the first point, we have recognised that there was a need for change, and that is why, after the review, changes have been made. In relation to the second point, the answer is no.

Cancer—Treatment

4. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made in providing faster cancer treatment to New Zealanders?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): As the House will be aware, reducing waiting times for cancer treatment is one of the Government’s top priorities. Next year that target wait-time will reduce from 6 weeks to a world-standard 4 weeks. The Government is today investing almost $4 million extra into the cancer centres to help provide faster treatment for patients. This extra investment will mean that, for example, patients at the MidCentral District Health Board’s cancer centre are expected to start their radiation treatment at least 5 days sooner, and those at the Waikato centre at least 2 days sooner; the Auckland centre will be able to see up to five extra patients a day; and the Southern District Health Board centre will see an extra 10 patients a day.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What other initiatives has the Government established that provide faster cancer treatment for New Zealanders?

Hon TONY RYALL: As part of last year’s election policy, the Government promised to fund 12 months of Herceptin treatment for women with HER2-positive breast cancer. I can advise the House that the monthly treatment volumes increased from 19 in December 2008 to 234 in June this year, meaning 400 women received publicly funded Herceptin. The shorter cancer waiting-times and the increased numbers of women benefiting from Herceptin treatment are further examples of improving front-line services under this Government.

Tax System Changes—Effect on New Zealanders

5. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “the vast majority” of people will be “better off” as a result of his tax switch on 1 October 2010?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. If the member disagrees and thinks people have been made worse off, he will campaign on reversing the tax switch. I notice he does not want to do that.

Hon Phil Goff: If the vast majority of people are better off, why are the Federation of Family Budgeting Services and every other social agency reporting that more and more people in debt are coming to see them, and why is the Baycorp Advantage debt company expecting a massive spike in debt increases by Kiwis by the end of the year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One reason is that they were allowed to run up a lot of debt because of the policies of the previous Labour Government—that is actually the reason. Secondly, one would have thought that that member would know after 30 years in politics that when there is a recession low-income New Zealanders struggle. But the good news is that those low-income New Zealanders are being looked after by a National Government.

Jo Goodhew: How easy would it be to reverse the tax switch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As Mr Carter pointed out on television the other day it would be extremely straightforward to reverse the tax switch.

Hon Member: Your new friend!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: He was the member’s friend once. But for the most part it would be simply a matter of crossing out the existing tax rates and putting in the tax rates that applied before 1 October. The reason that Mr Goff does not want to reverse the tax switch is that alongside dropping GST he would have to do the following: firstly, he would have to raise income taxes across the board; secondly, he would immediately have to reduce benefits—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would have thought that after 2 years in Government the Prime Minister’s response would be about the policies of his Government, not speculation on the effects of the policies of another party, which is what he is doing now by going through the initiatives being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Members of the House know the rule: points of order are heard in silence. There is just too much noise. I knew that there would be robust debate today, but members have to be reasonable. The Prime Minister was saying what, in his view, would have to be done were GST to be brought down, and he was saying what Mr Goff would have to do. That is not saying that that is Labour’s policy; that is saying what he believes. I do not think I should necessarily rule that out. He must not allege that a policy is Labour’s unless he is quoting from reports, but I do not think it is unreasonable to describe what might have to happen, in his view.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me make it quite clear that despite the mobile charade known as “Axe the Tax” going up and down the country, that is not what is happening—that is exactly the point. He would have to tell beneficiaries that he is reducing their income. He would have to tell superannuitants that their income was going down. He would have to reduce Working for Families payments. He would have to increase companies’ taxes—

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Prime Minister that we have heard quite enough.

Hon Phil Goff: After 2 years in Government when will the Prime Minister accept responsibility for what his own Government has done, particularly when the recovery has stalled, prices are going up faster than wages, and he looks after his rich mates?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I accept responsibility every single day, and I speak for the Government. My president does not speak for the Government; I speak for the Government. Let us just go to this very helpful chart that was produced—

Hon Darren Hughes: Smile and wave.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —hello, how are you, “Dazza”—by the Minister of Finance yesterday. It shows that in the last 2 years of Labour—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that you are familiar with the Standing Order about the conciseness of both questions and answers. We are getting the usual litany of rubbish from the Prime Minister. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I am on my feet. The Leader of the Opposition may wish to leave the House, and if he is not careful, he will. His deputy may go with him if she is not careful. I invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to reflect on the provocative question he asked. It was a very provocative question. He cannot expect me as Speaker to stop the Prime Minister from giving a pretty political answer. If members want me to clamp down on Ministers’ answers I am very happy to do that. Members will note that I stopped the Prime Minister earlier on today when he answered in response to the honourable Leader of the Opposition’s question. It was a perfectly fair primary question, and I did not allow the Prime Minister to dump on the questioner. But that question was highly provocative, and I cannot, as Speaker, stop a Minister from responding to a highly provocative question. When the honourable member stopped the Prime Minister he was not actually saying anything provocative; he was referring to some information in respect of taking responsibility for his own Government.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not so much on the substantive point of order as on the comments you made to the two colleagues on my left while you were ruling. I just remind you, Mr Speaker, that earlier today you warned the Prime Minister twice about speaking while you were on your feet, without threatening to throw him out.

Mr SPEAKER: I take the honourable member’s reminder in the form in which it was offered. The right honourable Prime Minister was referring to some information in answer to the last question. I will allow him to continue that.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was referring to this very useful, important document produced by the Minister of Finance. It simply shows that over the last 2 years the real increase in after-tax wages under a National Government has been 9 percent. I must say that I was shocked that over the last 2 years of the Labour Government it was minus 1 percent.

Hon Phil Goff: In respect of the responsibility that the Prime Minister said he would accept, is he taking responsibility for the fact that power companies have charged consumers 15 percent GST on electricity prices for the month of September, before the increase even came into effect; and who benefits from that: the power companies or his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I take responsibility for the administration of the law. As the member would know if he looked at the rules around the pricing of GST components, the power companies have probably acted within the law. But my point would be that I think all of us are a little bit disappointed that they have chosen to act that way. The Minister of Revenue has worked with a lot of businesses around New Zealand to accommodate them if there was an unusual situation. Had they approached the Government, I think we would have given them an exemption for that.

Hon Phil Goff: Why should families who in September faced a nearly 20 percent increase in vegetable prices; faced big increases and premature increases in their power prices; faced, if they live in the Auckland region, a rental bill $23 a week higher than this time last year; and faced, time and again, Government-imposed increased charges, such as accident compensation, feel better off?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One needs to look at a number of component factors. Firstly, what is the overall inflation rate when taking into consideration a whole basket of goods across the economy? We know that under a National Government it has been running at 1.5 percent, and when Labour left office it was 5.1 percent. The second thing one needs to look at is the tax cuts that have been in place under the two Governments. The answer is that under a National Government they have been significant. The third thing one needs to look at is whether there have been wage increases. The answer is that under a National Government there have been but they reflect the cost of living. The reason that families should take some comfort is that, by and large, for the most part, their wages are rising faster than the rate of inflation.

Hon Phil Goff: Can he confirm that families are likely to face an inflation rate of over 4 percent by the end of this year, and of about 5 percent by mid next year; and why should those families feel better off when most have had little or no wage increases?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The answer to that question is that, yes, inflation will rise over the next 12 months, and the Reserve Bank will look through that rise because it is a one-off effect from GST. That same one-off effect took place when the member was in the Government that brought in GST and raised GST. The issue is not the underlying inflation rate per se; it is the impact on prices, and that impact is catered for by a tax cut.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister telling families who are saying that they are worse off because the price of everything is going up that they are wrong, and are they, rather than him, out of touch?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let us run through some facts, and then, in the end, I will allow those families to make that decision when they go to the ballot box next year. Let us run through some quick comparisons for the last 2 years of the Labour Government and the first 2 years of this National Government.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall the question; it was straightforward and asked whether the Prime Minister was telling those families that they were better off.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member actually asked whether the Prime Minister was telling those families that they were out of touch, or whether he was out of touch. The Prime Minister could have given a highly political answer. Instead, he said he wanted to resort to the facts in answering the member’s question. That is not unreasonable. I do not think I can stop the Prime Minister from answering that question that way. He wants to give some information that he believes shows that the people are—well, I will leave it up to him to show what—but he was not being abusive and he was not criticising the Labour Party at all. He was just referring to some information.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Here are some facts. Let us take the price of bread and the price of cereals. They went up by 18 percent in 2 years under Labour; they are up 4 percent under National. Milk went up 23 percent under Labour; it is up 7 percent under National. Cheese prices increased 50 percent under Labour; there has been a 3 percent reduction under National. Let us take the price of petrol. It went up 22 percent under Labour; there has been a 14 percent reduction under National. Let us take the price of gas. It was up 22 percent under Labour; it is up 5 percent under National. Let us take housing rents. They went up 6 percent under Labour; they are up 3 percent under National. This is what mums and dads will look at, and I think I know the way they will vote.

Young Offenders—Boot Camps

6. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing for young offenders?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Fresh Start legislation is now in place, with the first 10 youth offenders beginning military activity camp last week. This Government is serious about dealing with this country’s worst young offenders by giving judges access to tougher sentences and working intensively to address the causes of offending. This is their last chance to avoid a life behind bars. If we can save a few of these young offenders, it is better than saving none at all, because it means we are saving victims.

Hekia Parata: How is Child, Youth and Family working to improve data sharing with other Government agencies?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Child, Youth and Family, along with the New Zealand Police, have recently implemented the police Youth Offending Risk Screening Tool. This means that police information will be electronically attached to Child, Youth and Family records. It is great to see that after just 2 years in Government we are getting police and Child, Youth and Family to share more information.

Hekia Parata: What support is there for the community and grassroots providers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Today I am announcing that this Government is funding 14 new community programmes to tackle youth offending through the $4.5 million Fresh Start Innovation Fund. We are backing communities to address youth justice issues locally by finding new, effective ways of dealing with their young offenders.

Benefits—Beneficiary Numbers

7. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that the growth in benefit numbers is “slowing”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): I stand by my statement of 12 October that “The growth in the number of people on benefits slowed to 0.6 percent in September.” The member needs to read the whole press release, rather than relying on headlines.

Hon Annette King: Well, in fact, I did not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Annette King: She made an assertion in her answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Please just ask the supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Can she confirm there has been no downward trend in total benefit numbers in the last 6 months, according to her official figures and contrary to her claims, and, in fact, benefit numbers have gone up by over 13,000 in that period—every one of them a person?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, I can confirm that every person who loses his or her job is a person. I can also confirm that it is the growth in the numbers that I have been talking about, rather than numbers themselves.

Hon Annette King: If unemployment is the No. 1 priority for this Government, as claimed by the Minister in the House last week, why have unemployment benefit numbers continued to climb over the last 6 months, now reaching 65,281, which is an increase of 41,000 in total since National became the Government and an average of almost 2,000 people a month going on to the unemployment benefit since it became the Government?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think if that member listened to the Hon David Cunliffe today, she would have heard that he advised the House that we have been in the toughest recession since the Great Depression in 1929. Quite frankly, what I have been talking about is that the rate of unemployment benefit increase is slowing. It increased by 5.3 percent in September 2008 when the previous Government was in office, it increased by 2.6 percent in September 2009, and there was 2.1 percent growth in September 2010.

Hon Annette King: Is she aware that she has blamed the increase in the number of those receiving the unemployment benefit on seasonal factors for the last 6 months, and could she outline to the House which months do not have a seasonal factor?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can advise that member that I have never once blamed the sun, moons, or the weather, like some people in the previous Labour Government. I can tell the member that she might want to talk about the weather and the seasons, but, frankly, I am not going to.

Hon Annette King: Can she confirm that when she told the House last week that 5,890 people had cancelled their benefits because they had found work, she failed to inform the House that 7,769 people went on to the benefit that month, and with that sort of manipulation of figures, why should New Zealanders have any confidence that the Government is serious about reducing unemployment or any benefit numbers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it is very important to remember that for people coming on to the benefit, it is very bad for them. However, the fact is jobs are being created and other people are moving off the benefit. I am sure that that member would actually appreciate the fact that it is good for people to be getting back into work.

Todd McClay: Can the Minister detail to the House an example where benefit numbers are slowing?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. Auckland is a good example where we can be cautiously optimistic that we have turned a corner.

Carmel Sepuloni: Ha, ha!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, that Labour member may laugh, but I do not think it is funny. So far this year the number of Aucklanders on the unemployment benefit has fallen from 26,375 in January to 22,636 in September. During the same period, the number of Aucklanders on all main benefits dropped from 110,227 to 108,370. It is cautiously optimistic news.

Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Number of Retrofitted Houses

8. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many houses have been retrofitted through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: The Warm Up—

Chris Hipkins: Desperate for patsies today!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They do not like it when we are doing good stuff.

Mr SPEAKER: I realise that when members interject, Ministers are at some liberty to respond, but today has got just unnecessarily disorderly, and I am not at all happy with the way questions are being answered. I must make that very clear. I ask the Minister, please, to answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Warm Up New Zealand scheme started only on 1 July 2009, but in 15 months over 76,000 houses have been made warmer, drier, and healthier under the scheme. Fifty-five percent of those 76,000 houses are those of low-income families, and I think it shows that this practical Government is helping low-income families to reduce their power bills, make their homes safer, and reduce their emissions. It is making them healthier as well as reducing their power bills.

Nikki Kaye: How does the Warm Up New Zealand scheme compare with the previous Government’s home insulation scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The rate at which houses are being insulated for families is five times the rate that was achieved under the previous Government—

Hon Tony Ryall: How much?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Five times. Rather than having 76,000 homes insulated, if we had continued at the very slow rate under the previous Government, we would have achieved only one-fifth of that number. I think that just shows how committed this Government is to practical measures that will help low-income families and reduce emissions, and it also shows the very balanced approach of the Government to helping both the economy and the environment.

Economic Performance—Minister’s Statement

9. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement: “we came into office with a very sound plan to lift New Zealand’s economic performance”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I certainly do. If there was anything we underestimated, it was the size of the mess left by the previous Government. We probably were not quite aware of just how much damage 9 years of economic mismanagement had done to the productive capacity of this economy.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does his “very sound plan” include putting 50,000 more people out of work, cutting real wages by $9 a week at the median, leaving most Kiwis worse off after the tax switch, and now trumpeting that he is “controlling inflation” because households have nothing left to spend?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The plan includes getting this economy restructured to fix the damage done by the previous Government, which was exacerbated by a worldwide recession, so that we can get through while protecting people from the sharp edges of the recession, and raising our long-term economic performance. I am pleased to say that the Government’s plan is on track, with extensive infrastructure investment, extensive review of the regulatory settings, lifting the productivity of the public sector, increasing support for business and innovation, and reforming the tax system.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does taking the sharp edges off recession include putting up power, rent, and food prices by 1.1 percent in a quarter, then introducing GST increases to push inflation up over 5 percent, and leaving working families worse off, with wages going down and prices going up?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know it does not suit the member’s leadership campaign, but in fact real wages are rising. Wages are going up faster than prices.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Coming from someone who got 20 percent in the polls, that is a bit rough.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to both sides of the House that questions today have been mostly out of order, and maybe I should have ruled them all out. That would have saved an awful lot of time-wasting. Answers have been absolutely unnecessarily gratuitous at times, especially the first answer to the primary question. I did not stop the Minister, but I was very close to stopping him. The primary question was dead simple. It asked whether the Minister stood by a statement. We did not need all the gratuitous comments that came in the answer. How could I stop, then, the Hon David Cunliffe when he put a whole lot of unnecessary statements in his following question? We can see how question time just goes from bad to worse. Maybe I will have to start getting tougher, stopping gratuitous answers when they are unnecessary, and ruling out questions that are totally out of order. I would rather not interfere in that way, but today has been totally unsatisfactory. But then points of order should not be raised in that manner either, I say to the honourable member. I think we have heard enough of that.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Greens very much appreciate your attempts to keep order in the House. When you say “both sides of the House”, I just make the point that the ACT Party, the Māori Party, and the Greens have done our best to maintain order in the House, because we want to hear the questions and the answers.

Mr SPEAKER: I rebuke myself, because the honourable member is quite right. I have not had problems at all with the Green Party, the Māori Party, or the ACT Party today. I must say it is National and Labour that have been very noisy today. What troubles me is the quality of the questions and the answers. I do not mind the House being, at times, robust, but to me the quality of questions and answers has deteriorated significantly, and I am contemplating doing something about that, because I cannot stop Ministers giving highly political answers when questions are highly political, and when they contain mostly political statement. But where there are straight questions, as there were today, I regret that I should have stopped some Ministers in their tracks before I did, because some of the answers were unnecessarily gratuitous.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can he maintain that his tax switch leaves the vast bulk of New Zealanders better off, when those figures show that they have already faced a 2.4 percent increase in the price of food, a 4.4 percent increase in local rates, and a 2.8 percent increase in power prices, with the prospect of further Government-imposed price increases yet to come?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because it is correct. On 1 October people on national superannuation, on benefits, and on Working for Families all had their rates adjusted to compensate for the increase in GST. Those in the workforce have had tax reductions, income tax cuts that are larger than the increase in GST, and those are matters of fact, not speculation.

Simon Bridges: What steps has the Government taken to pull the economy out of the recession that started in early 2008, and put it on the road to recovery?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, this National Government has supported the economy through recession by running fiscal deficits, and this year the cash deficit will be $13 billion. That is money we are borrowing overseas to pump into infrastructure projects that support jobs, and to maintain and improve public services that were run down under the previous Labour Government. We have also reformed the tax system with across-the-board personal tax cuts, we have taken steps to lower the future debt track, we have reprioritised $4 billion of low-quality spending from back office and bureaucracy into front-line services such as education, health, and law and order, plus a whole range of other initiatives, which would take me too long to outline.

Simon Bridges: What alternative approaches has he seen that would threaten the economic recovery and leave New Zealanders worse off?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have heard of one approach that was out of step with economic policy right across the developed world, and that is the New Zealand Opposition promising borrow and spend. Everywhere else in the world they are doing the opposite.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister might tell me why I should not ask him to leave the Chamber right now. I was on my feet and the Minister made no attempt to resume his seat. [Interruption] The Minister has indicated that he did not see me. Ministers answering questions should actually address the Speaker, and then they would see the Speaker when the Speaker gets to his feet. It would be unfair today, because of the shambles that question time has been, to pick on one Minister, but I warn Ministers that I will not tolerate this further. I will not tolerate patsy questions being used to attack the Opposition. [Interruption] If the member in the backbenches does not want to leave the Chamber, then they had better be very careful. Today has just been a total waste of time in terms of question time. In my view, it has been very unsatisfactory. I want members to reflect on it, because I am certainly not going to tolerate it as Speaker. I intend to make sure that this does not happen again.

I make it very clear to Ministers that I will sit a Minister down immediately if they attack the questioner or the questioner’s party on a straight primary question. Where supplementary questions contain political comment, there is obviously licence to inject political comment in the answer. I will not stop Ministers doing that, because I want the discipline then to be on the questioner to ask decent questions in order to hold Ministers to account, instead of making stupid political statements. But I mean what I say, and I do not want to see today repeated.

Aged Residential Care—Use of Taxpayer Funding

10. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: How does the Government ensure that all taxpayer funding for aged care is spent on the provision of care for subsidised aged-care residents, and not for other purposes?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): In the last 2 years the Government has put an extra $88 million into improving the quality of nursing supervision in rest homes and increasing aged-care subsidies. Government funding for aged care is delivered by contracting rest homes and others to provide this care, the details of which are specified in their contracts. The district health boards audit the rest homes and others to ensure that they are providing appropriate care.

Sue Kedgley: In the absence of any financial monitoring of how the $800 million - odd of taxpayer funding for aged care is spent, how can the Government be sure that funding that is intended to be spent on the provision of care for residents is not siphoned off by some providers into profits for shareholders?

Hon TONY RYALL: The district health boards and the Ministry of Health audit rest homes and others to ensure that they are providing appropriate care as per their contracts.

Sue Kedgley: Is he concerned that according to the Nurses Organisation many aged-care providers do not pass on funding they receive for wage increases to staff working in the sector, but instead use that funding to fund capital development projects, such as building new facilities, and to increase shareholder payouts and bottom-line profits; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am not concerned if aged residential care providers are also investing in providing more aged residential care beds. A major review released by the Government has indicated there will be a significant need for investment in this sector over the next few years, if we are to keep up with our ageing population.

Sue Kedgley: Will he agree to initiate an inquiry into how taxpayer funding of aged care is spent, just as he initiated an inquiry into the primary health organisations to ensure that taxpayer dollars got to patients and front-line staff, as he said at the time; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Ministry of Health and the district health boards are regularly auditing rest homes and others to ensure that they are providing appropriate care against their contracts. I agree with the Auditor-General, who released a report last year that said that the monitoring of rest homes under the previous Labour-Green Government was appalling.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We would have wished that there was a Labour-Green Government, but there was not a Labour-Green Government, and I would appreciate accuracy—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has supplementary questions with which to challenge a Minister’s answer, but she cannot by way of point of order challenge the accuracy of a Minister’s answer.

Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that there is no financial monitoring of how taxpayer funding of aged care is spent, and why, when the aged-care sector receives about $820 million of taxpayer money, is the Government—a Government that campaigned on being accountable to the taxpayer—not willing to investigate and track where money for the aged-care sector goes?

Hon TONY RYALL: The district health boards and the Ministry of Health contract rest homes to provide a certain standard of service for our older New Zealanders—it is a priority for taxpayers. They audit the performance of the providers against their contracts, and it is our expectation that those service specifications should be met.

Sue Kedgley: Does it concern him that some of the biggest providers of aged care are earning handsome returns of 14 to 16 percent every year, with one reporting a profit of $61 million last year, yet wages for caregivers are amongst the lowest in New Zealand; if this does concern him, will he begin an investigation into how aged-care funding is spent?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am unable to confirm the figures that the member has given. It is important to realise that a number of these providers are also retirement village providers, and often it is the significant profits that come from the provision of retirement village services that produce the figures she is seeing. It is quite clear from the aged residential care review that significant investment is still required in this area, and that matter certainly has the Government’s attention.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he agree to the plan of the Capital and Coast District Health Board to cut home help for a further 500 older New Zealanders from 1 December this year?

Hon TONY RYALL: I suspect that the member is referring to an announcement made by the Capital and Coast District Health Board that it would start means testing the provision of some services. That is the policy of every other district health board, including when she was an Associate Minister of Health.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Given his recent call for better support for people with Alzheimer’s, why did he agree to the closure of the psychogeriatric hospital in Richmond, which caters for the highest-need elderly people who have serious dementia and mental illness?

Hon TONY RYALL: The district health board is considering doing that because it has clinical advice that says care could be provided in much better settings than it currently is at that service. The Government is more interested in providing quality services than that member is.

Housing New Zealand Corporation—Tenants’ Behaviour

11. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Housing: What is Housing New Zealand Corporation doing to identify and address fraudulent behaviour by some tenants?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): The overwhelming majority of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants appreciate their home and abide by the rules. However, there is a small minority who access homes and subsidies under false pretences. Over the last 2 years, the Housing New Zealand Corporation has built a highly effective team of expert investigators. The team has identified $6.3 million worth of subsidised rent that tenants were not entitled to. In fact, 166 Housing New Zealand Corporation tenancies were ended following investigations of more than 130 cases of tenant-related fraud that have been before the courts. That is a tenfold increase in investigations and cases before the courts compared with 2 years ago.

Tim Macindoe: What kinds of activities have some Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants been undertaking that have led to action being taken against them?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: There are two examples that the previous Government would have allowed. One example is that an Auckland man failed to declare that he was running a large motor vehicle repair business. He also owned three rental properties and was living with a partner. He has been sentenced to 5 months’ home detention and 100 hours of community work, and a debt of $68,000 is now against his name. Here is something else that the previous Government would have tolerated: an Auckland woman, who had lived in her State house for 6 years, deliberately disguised her employment by using numerous false identities. During her tenancy she also purchased six taxis and two investment properties, and got married, none of which was declared. She has been prosecuted for fraud and she paid $50,000 at the time of sentencing to avoid prison.

Tim Macindoe: Why has the Housing New Zealand Corporation increased its investigation resources and activities over the last 2 years?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: There is no secret that the demand for Housing New Zealand Corporation property outstrips supply. Currently, we have over 4,000 people on the waiting list who have been classified as high priority to be housed. In our view, we would rather provide State houses to people who have genuine need than turn a blind eye to fraud, as happened under the previous Government.

Overseas Investment Act—Changes to Act

12. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for Land Information: When Rt Hon John Key said on Breakfast TV yesterday “we’ve changed the Overseas Investment Act to include 19 different criteria”, had he advised the Prime Minister that 17 of those criteria were inherited from the last Government and two new criteria have not yet taken effect?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information): When the National Government made the decision to review the overseas ownership rules under the Overseas Investment Act, it was decided that the criteria in place under the Labour Government and set in the 2005 Act were not satisfactory. The Government made a decision to add two new criteria—the economic interest and the mitigating factor—and not only did the Prime Minister not need to be briefed on that but he played an active part in the decision to introduce the two.

Hon David Parker: Given that following the review the Government left the 17 criteria and added two, does the Minister think his Government was coherent or incoherent when, having embarked upon a review of the overseas investment rules with the stated ambition of simplifying and liberalising the rules, after 18 months of polling-induced indecision it announced neither?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I think it is fair to say that when we did the review we found that it would be impossible to liberalise the rules any more than they already had been under Labour. So we went about the changes, and added two new criteria, which we think will have an impact.

Hon David Parker: Was the Government coherent or incoherent when at the start of that review the Deputy Prime Minister said he wanted to get rid of the strategic asset test because “I do not understand it.”; if so, was that same person being incoherent in keeping that same test at the end of the 18-month review?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I think everything the Government has done in this field has been very coherent.

Hon David Parker: Was the Minister for Land Information being coherent or incoherent last week when, in answer to a question on notice that asked: “Will the changes to overseas investment rules mean he will decline more overseas purchases of New Zealand farm land?”, he replied that he could not say, given that he later admitted he had not declined even one farm sale under existing rules?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: In answering that question last week I made it clear to the member that it was not possible to answer a hypothetical question. He had asked how many applications would be declined in the future, and until we know how many we get, and then until we know how many do not meet the new criteria that we have put in place, it would be absolutely misleading the House for me to make out I knew the answer.

Hon David Parker: Did the Minister advise the Prime Minister to put out the media release yesterday afternoon accusing others of an incoherent overseas investment policy; if so, was that to highlight the incoherent nature of the Government’s own statements and policy, or was that poor release hastily made on the advice of the Prime Minister’s own head spin doctor, whom Gerry Brownlee and others in the Beehive describe as “Captain Panic Pants”?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I think we need to get the coherent position strapped down. Labour put the rules in place in 2005, and since those rules have been put in place huge tracts of farmland have been sold to foreigners. So the National Government decided to add extra criteria to the Overseas Investment Act to give Ministers a better chance to make that determination.

Mr SPEAKER: That brings to a close questions for oral answer. I must say that the very last question of the day hardly helped in terms of good order. But today is today; tomorrow will be another day. Beware, the Speaker will be keen to see a rather different question time.

Bills

New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I move, That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I will start by thanking the chair of the Health Committee, Dr Paul Hutchison, and the members of the committee and its staff for their work on this bill. I also acknowledge the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Ministry of Health for their support to the committee.

The bill and its supporting regulations provide the statutory environment to improve the coordination of resources across the district health boards, reduce bureaucracy, improve front-line health services, and improve value in the public health and disability sector. The bill is consistent with the Government’s pre-election commitments, where we said we would make improvements to the public health service without the distraction of massive restructuring. This bill does that.

We can indeed be proud of our public health service in New Zealand and its many achievements, as evidenced by the recent improvements in the nation’s health targets. Emergency departments are seeing more patients faster. In the last year the number of patients admitted to, or discharged or transferred from, an emergency department within 6 hours jumped from 81 percent to almost 90 percent. District health boards delivered 105 percent of their target for elective surgery, and record numbers of patients are now getting surgery. There are shorter waiting times for cancer treatment, and 99 percent of all patients received their radiation treatment within 6 weeks of their first specialist assessment. In the third quarter of 2009-10, 11 district health boards achieved 100 percent, in the fourth quarter 17 district health boards achieved 100 percent, and next year this target moves to 4 weeks. Immunisation rates have increased. The national immunisation target of 85 percent for 2009-10 was exceeded, with 87 percent of New Zealand’s 2-year-olds fully immunised, and in the last year the rates for Lakes District Health Board jumped by 22 percent, MidCentral District Health Board increased by 13 percent, and Waikato District Health Board increased by 12 percent.

There has been better help for smokers to quit. There were significant gains over the past year in district health board staff providing smoking cessation support to hospital patients who smoke. However, there is still plenty of room to improve. The results for the diabetes and cardiovascular services showed a steady improvement, with the biggest annual improvements shown by Whanganui District Health Board, by 14 percent, and Counties Manukau District Health Board, by 10 percent.

But, as noted in the ministerial review group’s report, there are a number of major challenges facing the public health and disability sector: an ageing population, health workforce issues, service vulnerability, financial sustainability, and cost growth. The system itself, set up under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 and inherited by this Government, can at times hinder performance improvement. It does not provide the levers needed to optimise value for money and deliver a health service that meets the needs of New Zealanders into the future. It actually stands in the way of system-wide change and it slows coordination between district health boards, which is needed if they are to significantly improve their performance. It has encouraged localism, at the expense of overall coherence and performance. There is too much fragmentation, with 20 district health boards reinventing the wheel 20 times, and that has frustrated both this Government and the previous Government.

We need to get the public health and disability system to act as one system, with hospitals working more closely with each other and with primary-care and community services. Hospitals must collaborate better across regions and nationally. Decision making must become less fragmented and must be made at the right level in the health service, so that there is better prioritisation nationally and more efficient and effective use of our limited resources. In particular, we need more cooperation across district health board boundaries.

This bill will help by, firstly, improving sector planning and decision making by supporting district health boards to undertake smoother, more effective, and better balanced planning across the service at national, regional, and district levels. Better national and regional decision-making supports rational and cohesive service and capacity planning. District health boards will then be better placed to grow and protect the vulnerable health services.

Secondly, the bill accelerates improvements to quality and safety by establishing an independent Health Quality and Safety Commission. The Health and Disability Commissioner is reported as saying progress in this area has been slow and patchy under the present arrangements. The new commission will be led by clinicians, and it will help organisations across the whole health service to improve patient safety and service quality at the secondary, primary, and community levels, public and private. A Peter Davis study found that 13 percent of people admitted to hospital suffer an unintended injury caused by health care that resulted in some disability. Even a 20 percent reduction in errors could save us approximately $100 million a year—money that could be reinvested into front-line services. We want gains in better and safer care—better results, better patient experiences—and we want clinicians to lead this.

The bill will also minimise administration costs and reduce bureaucracy and waste in the public health service by supporting shared administrative support and procurement services across the public health service. That will reduce the cost of district health board back-office functions, with estimated savings of up to $700 million over 5 years. That money will be crucial to help us maintain and improve front-line services over the next few years. Specifically, the bill amends the district health boards’ objectives and functions so that district health boards are required to work collaboratively to meet national, regional, and local service needs. It creates a new planning framework, which supports district health boards to plan across national, regional, and district levels. It provides the Minister of Health with the power to direct district health boards in regard to how administrative support procurement services within the service should be obtained and who must provide those services. That is so we can make sure that there are no hold outs to our national approach.

The bill provides the Minister of Health with the power to give direction to all district health boards to comply with stated requirements for the purpose of supporting Government policy on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the public health and disability sector. It provides dispute resolution measures to support district health boards to work collaboratively. As I said, the bill establishes the independent Health Quality and Safety Commission, which will advise the Minister on health epidemiology and quality assurance matters, determine quality and safety indicators, lead and coordinate work with the purpose of monitoring quality and safety across the sector, and perform the other functions of quality and management that are assigned to it from time to time. The bill also enables district health board elected members to be appointed to other district health boards.

The Government and, indeed, all New Zealanders want a strong and sustainable public health service: one that works successfully at both a local, a regional, and a national level, where the planning and the service delivery is well coordinated, and where we can enhance the quality of health care and reduce the duplication of corporate and administrative work.

This bill will help us to change administrative functions and the way the health service works, to reduce bureaucracy, and to provide a greater focus on more important priorities. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am very pleased to stand in support of the third reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. I begin by commending the way in which the Health Committee considered matters during its deliberations on this bill. The select committee has three parties represented: National, the Green Party, and Labour. On many issues we have worked, I think, in an exemplary fashion. We should actually be given a gold star by the Clerk of the House and probably by the Speaker for the way in which we intelligently and seriously consider submissions. It is to the benefit of legislation that that is able to happen in the select committee process.

I also commend the officials who assisted us with this bill. There were some political tensions in relation to both the major parts of this bill. The advisers took those issues very seriously, particularly given that the concerns raised by both the Green Party and the Labour Party were backed up by an overwhelming majority of the 13 submitters. I think the advisers were really helpful in that regard. I also acknowledge the submitters.

There was no disagreement on the two primary purposes of the bill. The first one was to establish the Health Quality and Safety Commission. My recollection is that every single submitter who commented on the establishment of the commission supported it. The second primary purpose was to give a mandate for collective purchasing across district health boards, or arbitration when district health boards had any conflicts or disputes over shared services, and a mandate for the Minister of Health to require district health boards to plan in unison. So that is a much more centralised directive from the Minister in regard to purchasing and planning between the district health boards. Once again, every submitter said that that was an important step forward. The district health boards have made considerable progress in that regard voluntarily, but if there was one that was not happy to be part of that united picture then that really held up progress, so having a clear legislative back-up for that desire is a good thing. Those are both good aims, and Labour supports the intent of the legislation.

As I said, concerns were raised about both of the primary purposes. The first was in relation to the Health Quality and Safety Commission. I guess I could sum up by saying that submitters, the Greens, and Labour felt that a commercial model just was not a suitable model for the commission. That was the funding model in the original legislation; it is no longer in the legislation. I pay huge tribute to my colleague Kevin Hague from the Green Party for his tenacity in not only having his typescript amendment submitted during the Committee of the whole House but also his ability in persuading every other party in this House to support it. Kevin Hague’s amendment was passed unanimously. I think that was an excellent move. I am sure that he will speak to it further. It is not a very common occurrence that a member from a smaller party gets through a quite significant change to a funding model in legislation. This was clearly a different ideology from what the Minister had intended and it got unanimous support from this Parliament last week. So I acknowledge Kevin Hague’s work and congratulate him on it.

At an earlier stage of the bill the Minister commented that the primary purpose or overall aim—not its specificity—was to ensure that we had better planning for a more efficient health system whereby we would reduce waste and deliver better services. Who could argue with that? But my concern is that the statement is frankly just not true, and the bill will not deliver what the Minister sets out. We have heard a lot of this stuff before from the National Government. We have heard a lot about the delivery of more front-line services but in the last 23 months we have seen about 110 cuts to front-line services. There have been well over 100 cuts to front-line services, whereas the Minister promised to improve front-line services. So how do those two statements—the opposite in terms of facts—relate to each other? The answer is that they do not.

We have also heard the Minister say, on numerous occasions, that the Government will cut down on bureaucracy as part of getting more of these services to the front line. However, we have seen not only cuts to front-line services but also an increase in bureaucracy. There is a huge new bureaucracy in Wellington called the National Health Board. It has really undermined the Ministry of Health, even though the health board is technically a unit of the Ministry of Health. The National Health Board is calling the shots. We know that the Minister has appointed people who favour his ideology, rather than favouring independent Public Service advice. We know that the people who run the National Health Board, and the people who used to be employees of the Ministry of Health—who are now consultants to the National Health Board—are costing us huge amounts of money.

We know that Murray Horn was being paid $1,500 a day to prepare a report that was basically laughed at by the health sector as being a massive leap backwards. When it comes to saving money and decreasing bureaucracy, let alone getting more services to the front line where people in New Zealand badly need them, this Minister achieves zero out of three on all three counts. He has failed miserably. It is very obvious from the increase in public concern about cuts to front-line health services that people are becoming very annoyed and feel that this is not what they voted for and that it is not what the Minister promised. It is exactly the opposite.

In question time today I raised my concern about an entire service that is being exited from the Capital and Coast District Health Board. The Minister did not seem to be aware of that issue. He started saying that the Capital and Coast District Health Board is now in the same league as every other district health board. But that is not true, because the Capital and Coast District Health Board has said that elderly people who get no personal support at all but just get home support for laundry, meal preparation, or house cleaning will have their home support cut from their assessment. That practice will be rolling out from 1 December. That is exactly what has been happening in Otago and Southland. Members of Parliament from that region will tell this House that it has been an absolute nightmare for them in terms of elderly people coming to them with deeply distressing stories of their unfair treatment at the hands of the Minister of Health. Those people had been getting only 1 or 2 hours of home support a week—$30 worth—but that tiny bit of help makes the difference between those people being able to stay happy, well, and safe in their own home or having to go, reluctantly, into a rest home, which would cost the taxpayer around $1,000 a week.

Although the intent of this legislation is good in theory, we have been waiting for 2 long years to see some responsibility shown by the Government and some delivery on its promises. We are frankly sick of seeing the opposite of what National promised before the election. We have seen no reduction in bureaucracy. We have seen hundreds of front-line services cut. We have seen nurses, community health workers, social workers, and mental health support teams lose their jobs. We have seen home support cut. We have seen over a hundred other front-line health services cut, at the same time as the Minister is saying the Government is bringing this bill in so the sector can be more efficient and deliver more front-line health services. The question that remains—and it was certainly not answered by the Minister when he read that dreadful speech just prior to my taking the call—is how this move will be judged. Nothing at all in this legislation holds the Minister accountable for the promises he made. We have heard those promises before from a National Government. We saw cash registers in public hospitals in the 1990s. We are seeing a creeping move to privatisation by stealth in our health system now, and we are seeing cuts to front-line health services. Those are the concerns that submitters raised about this legislation. We have heard nothing from the Government to reassure us.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): It gives me great pleasure to speak on the third reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. It is somewhat disturbing to see the shroud-waving of the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, and to hear the misinformation about the extraordinary advances in productivity, efficiency, and efficacy in this health service.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Name one.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I will. There have been 18,000 more elective surgery cases per year—18,000 more per year.

But I will just for a moment agree on one thing, which was that during the submissions to the Health Committee, the committee did collaborate very well, and indeed collaboration in the New Zealand health services is something that we as the National Government want to promote. It was something very lacking under the previous Labour Government. I too want to thank the officials for their very helpful assistance.

In the true spirit of the efficiency and effectiveness that this legislation wishes to promote in the New Zealand health services, the parliamentary Committee stage of this bill went through in absolutely record time. In fact, it was a historical record that certainly in my time I have never witnessed. During that time Kevin Hague of the Greens managed to pass an amendment—relating to the funding of the Health Quality and Safety Commission—that even he was surprised went through. I say: “Good on you, Kevin!”.

This bill is indeed about ensuring that the New Zealand public health service becomes efficient and effective, and that every health dollar is spent well, because that certainly did not happen during the 9 years of the Labour Government. Treasury showed extremely clearly that under Labour the level of productivity in the health sector was abysmal, but this bill is one of the instruments that will certainly effect change.

This bill is about improving coordination at the local, regional, and national level. Again, that is something that has just not been there during the last 9 years under Labour. So busy was Labour with its massive restructuring, and with its massive building up of a bureaucracy, that it forgot about the aim of the original health and disability Act to ensure good coordination. This National Government is doing something about that.

The bill is also about making the best of procurement opportunities and technology arrangements. It is about ensuring that back-office procedures are streamlined, and that resources are used for front-line services. Again, that has been badly needed for many years.

This bill is about ensuring that health services are led by clinicians, and that clinical networks are again led by clinicians, so that we have a patient-centred health service that is largely driven by our very important nurses, doctors, and technicians, etc., who work so ably throughout our health service. It is about ensuring the very highest quality in our health services, and about continuously seeking to improve quality; it is tremendous that we have someone like Professor Alan Merry leading the independent Health Quality and Safety Commission.

But it is profoundly important that this bill was supported by all 13 submitters and, indeed, by all the parties in this Parliament. One would not have thought that, though, when one heard the speech from Ruth Dyson. It is profoundly important, because we have seen tremendous turbulence in the health service over the last 30 years, due to successive Governments causing restructuring. So it is time—and timely—that some legislation is agreed upon across the board that will allow sustainability within our health service.

It is extremely relevant that this time the National Government has brought in legislation that has been very carefully considered and that has been very carefully crafted, and that, true to our word, the legislation is evolutionary rather than the massive restructuring we have seen in the past. The genesis of this bill, of course, goes back, firstly, to the 2008 election manifesto that National brought out, Better, Sooner, More Convenient, followed by the ministerial review committee so ably led by Murray Horn.

Perhaps one of the only controversies during the Committee stage was the issue of consultation with regard to strategic planning, but it is somewhat ironic that the Hon Ruth Dyson forgot to bring in any amendments regarding that during the Committee stage. She was either clearly in agreement with the Government or just too lazy to bring in changes. That is similar to the record that we have seen of the Labour Government during its previous 9 years in Government. I know that even the Greens were expecting Labour to bring in an amendment with regard to consultation. As it happens, the changes regarding consultation are very much fit for purpose. The previous rules were very prescriptive, and not efficient or appropriate for changes significant to particular groups. In contrast, the bill allows regulations to impose requirements for consultation on plans that will reflect the complexity and materiality of the changes. That is absolutely relevant and appropriate.

After 30 years of turbulence in the health sector, and after 9 years of fragmentation, poor productivity, and poor value for money, I cannot overstate how important it is that this health legislation is supported by all parties and all submitters. This means that the Government can concentrate on improving the efficiency and productivity of the New Zealand health sector well into the future.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a pleasure to speak in support of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. Dr Hutchison alluded to the fact that it appears that all parties will support the third reading of this bill, but I would like to address the concern Dr Hutchison raised about some of the material that Opposition members are covering and why we have spoken so forthrightly against some of the myths that the Government is creating about the health system.

The Minister and Dr Hutchison spoke at length about value for money and about productivity and, indeed, this bill supports shared procurement and is an attempt to reduce costs in the health system. It is a good thing; it has noble objectives, and the Opposition supports it. However, it is based on the premise that New Zealand’s public health system costs too much, has too much bureaucracy, and is inefficient and unresponsive. Indeed, all the Government’s spin, Dr Hutchison’s speech, and the Minister’s speech are all based on that premise. Much as we support any moves to make the public health system more responsive and more efficient, we must dispel this ridiculous myth that the Government is espousing.

In my second reading speech on this bill I offered up the amount of money spent per capita on health care in New Zealand as a way of measuring how New Zealand ranks internationally in terms of the total cost of health care, and New Zealand ranks very well by that measure. It spends less per capita than Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and, of course, the United States of America, where costs really have blown out due to that country’s total reliance on private providers and multinational health insurers, and due to the influence of the lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry. The United States of America is a country that needs to take a serious account of cost blow-outs in the health care system.

There are, however, a number of other measures by which we might look at how New Zealand compares internationally. Life expectancy is one measure. Not only do we compare very, very well in terms of life expectancy but when we measure life expectancy against how much we spend per person, we see that we do even better. If we look at the cost of purchasing pharmaceuticals, we see that New Zealand just about outranks every other country in the world, thanks to Pharmac. The use of technology and information technology is another area where we do very, very well internationally. I bet most people in New Zealand will be surprised by this one: satisfaction rates amongst primary-care physicians in New Zealand are absolutely astronomical in comparison with those of many overseas jurisdictions.

The New Zealand health system does very, very well, yet this Government seems to insist on pushing the message—and it does so through this bill; it has built a burning platform—that the health system is in absolute crisis. Yet when we look at it in real terms we see that there is a lot of good to be said about our health system, but—

Michael Woodhouse: Ruth says there is nothing right and Iain says there is nothing wrong.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —there are places where we can improve. My friend Mr Woodhouse is getting a little bit concerned but I ask him not to worry, because I am getting there. There are areas where we can improve. But this bill is just tinkering; it is small stuff. The real savings in health care are to be found in tackling the really big issues—the things that really cost our system.

Diabetes is one area where we do appallingly internationally. Youth suicide is probably one of our biggest shames internationally. Cardiovascular disease, and diseases related to alcohol abuse, to tobacco use, and to the abuse of other drugs are all things that cost our system. If the Government was serious about cutting costs it would not be dilly-dallying with this bill. Instead, it would have a serious strategy to take on those things—a strategy for wellness in New Zealand.

All those issues affect those who are most deprived in a far more destructive way than they affect those who are least deprived. So the single biggest thing that this Government could do, if it was serious about reducing costs in the health system, would be to have a serious strategy to reduce inequalities. What have we actually seen? We have seen tax cuts that increase inequalities. We have seen an increase in GST that affects those who spend the majority of their income on the basics in a far greater and more destructive way than it affects those who have more disposable income.

This Government is actively increasing those disparities, and it is undermining the good work that our physicians, our nurses, and our specialists are trying to do to clean up the mess left at the bottom of the cliff. This Government has no strategy for prevention. It does not care for prevention and it does not care for reducing inequalities. We can see this in the jack-up of the Horn report. The Horn report begrudgingly mentions the previous Government’s strategies for prevention and the effect they have had. It states: “New Zealand’s relatively strong commitment to prevention and public health has helped improve life expectancy, delayed the onset of disability associated with chronic disease, and reduced inequalities.”

Hon Steve Chadwick: 9 years of Labour.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes, 9 years of Labour and the Horn report had to admit that that was the outcome of the Labour Government’s strategies. It goes on to state: “Opinion is divided, however, on the much narrower question”—the much narrower question—“of the extent to which further spending in this area at the expense of more immediate health needs might help reduce future health costs or improve the country’s economic performance, thus making future health spending more affordable.” That narrow focus is what this Government is focused on.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Sleight of hand.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is sleight of hand; it is smoke and mirrors. The Government is not interested in the big picture. It is not interested in where our health system might get to in 2020 or 2030, or in improving outcomes for our children. It is interested in the very narrow focus of the here and now.

Do members know what? I am prepared to concede that that, politically, this bill makes some sense for National. People who habitually vote for the National Party do not tend—I am talking about tendencies here—to suffer from social deprivation. They do not suffer from the effects of low income. They do not suffer from diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and everything else. They certainly do not tend to suffer from rheumatic fever. So, politically, a focus on the here and now and on the health system’s ability to respond to people who are fundamentally well makes sense for National. If National was truly interested in all people in New Zealand, and if it really had a strategy that encompassed the whole community in New Zealand, then it would not be faffing around with this bill, and it would not be faffing around with the kinds of recommendations from the Horn report. Instead, it would be focused on a true preventive public health strategy—and do members know what? That is what Australia is doing.

We are very focused on the catch-up with Australia, on trying to close the wage gap, and on catching up economically with Australia. The Government is failing abysmally on that, as well. Australia’s big priorities are obesity, tobacco, and alcohol. Australia has not come up with just a few bullet points and a catchy slogan. On each of those issues it has an overview, a road map of how to get to its final goal, and technical papers that deal with the guts and the details. Australians have a plan and they know where they want to be in 2020. The Labor Government in Australia has a real strategy for encompassing everybody in the community and for wellness in the whole community.

The Opposition supports the objectives of this bill. It certainly does no harm, so we are happy to see it pass through the House. But there is a problem with our health system: it is not what the Government is offering in terms of problems; it is how the Government treats those who are most deprived and most vulnerable in our community. This bill does not address that problem, and it is about time we had a Government that was prepared to put up something that does.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Hear, hear! Iain Lees-Galloway made a great speech.

I begin by echoing the comments made by both Paul Hutchison and Ruth Dyson—and, indeed, by me in my second reading speech—praising the other members of the Health Committee for their work, and also the officials and the submitters; it was a great experience to be part of.

It was a shame that the Minister of Health, in his speech to open this debate, could not resist the temptation to talk about what he sees as the achievements of this Government in the health sector. Inevitably, that opens up the territory to members like me who see this Government’s achievements in health as particularly negative.

For example, I need to respond to the Minister’s comments by pointing out that in its two Budgets so far this Government has slashed funding for health services in real terms. In this year’s Budget we are at least $150 million down on what is required for the health sector to tread water in real terms. That is being measured right across the sector, and services that are being cut are struggling now to maintain parity with the task that has been set for them.

We have also seen the Government whittle away the targets that the health sector has, and focus those targets on particular areas of performance. For example, Paul Hutchison talked, as the Minister did, about increased elective surgery. Well, elective surgery is one of the few targets left in the health sector, so that is what the sector chooses to focus on, rather than everything else. As it happens, elective surgery makes up about 5 percent of what we ask the health sector to do, and if we asked most of the experts in health, they would say it is the least important 5 percent. And it is occurring at the expense of the most important aspects of the health sector, which are public health and primary care.

We have not seen from this Government any kind of coherent plan for dealing with the crisis in rural and provincial health services. Indeed, just 2 weeks ago we heard from Murray Horn, who chairs the National Health Board, comments along the lines of “when” hospital services for West Coast people are centralised in Christchurch. Well, for West Coast people that is an alarm bell, because it suggests that the Government in fact has made a decision about the future of health services, and the future of rural hospital services is to be centralised in city hospitals. That is certainly one of the options, but I think most rural people were hoping that the Government would instead support the retention of hospital services in rural areas, and would have something sensible to say and do about the retention of primary care services in rural areas, also. Sadly, no.

It is early days, but as yet we have not seen any kind of coherent plan for dealing with the crisis in the health sector workforce. We certainly look forward to the Minister having something to say about that issue. We have a Ministry of Health that is currently in disarray, and there is critical erosion of capability, largely as a result of the significant change that is occurring, leaving the ministry, effectively, in irons. I could go on, but I make these criticisms, as I said, because the Minister himself opened up this territory.

Collaboration is an important area, and it is one that the Green Party has advocated strongly for. Collaboration between district health boards and between other entities in the health sector enables us to have a health sector and a health service that is able to respond in an intelligent way to the fact that some services need to be organised very much at a local level, while others require a regional or national focus. So the effect of this bill, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill, in enabling better collaboration between entities in the health sector is good, and a far, far preferable alternative to restructuring the sector once again and forcing mergers between district health boards and other entities. I do not need to say anything more about that.

The Health Quality and Safety Commission is also a really important advance. Debates on earlier stages of this bill have highlighted the enormous potential to extract gains in the health sector from improving aspects of quality, such as accessibility of services, the acceptability of those services, their effectiveness, their efficiency, and the safety of services. The potential for gain is very great indeed.

It will be important when the commission begins work that it focuses right across the sector on all aspects, right from public health at one end—those services intended to keep people well—through primary care, secondary care, tertiary care, and even quaternary services, and also disability support services and aged-care services. It is also important that it not only deals with those aspects of health services that are about the interaction between individual clinicians and individual patients, but also reflects on, and works to create improvements in, system-wide effects—the systemic effect of health services, and the systemic situation of those people using health services. Iain Lees-Galloway referred to the effect of inequality on health, and that will have an important impact on the work that this commission does.

I thank both Paul Hutchison and Ruth Dyson for their kind remarks about the amendment to this bill that I brought to the House. Indeed, I congratulate the House and all of its parties, everyone represented here, on the unanimous support for the amendment. I probably do not need to go over the arguments, which have been well-rehearsed in the House, save to say that had the self-funding model that originally appeared in the bill been allowed to stand, the consequence would have been perverse incentives that would have produced suboptimal outcomes and, indeed, hamstrung the commission in its work. I think it is to the House’s credit that that model has not been allowed to stand. Instead, we have a rational and sensible basis for funding the service.

I want to finish by referring to a couple of the next priorities. As Gareth Morgan pointed out in his book Health Cheque, some of the real, outstanding priorities for the New Zealand health sector are, firstly, to massively increase the investment and focus of the sector on public health services—those services intended to keep people well in the first place and prevent illness and disability. As Gareth Morgan points out, those services have far and away the best return on investment. The second thing that Gareth Morgan says we should be doing is leading a focused debate amongst New Zealand citizens on how we should make decisions about allocating the limited dollars and resources that are available to the health sector. On the first of those priorities, we have a Government that is currently moving in the wrong direction. It is taking money away from public health and putting it into the more specialised end of services. That is absolutely wrong. On the second of those priorities, we are still waiting to hear from the Minister about the progress that is being made in reforming the National Health Committee and the Public Health Advisory Committee to actually undertake precisely that task that Gareth Morgan suggests is important, which is to start a national conversation about how we best prioritise scarce health resources.

This bill is an important start, but we now need to move on to the really important work that lies before us. Thank you.

Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT): I rise to speak to the third reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. We will be supporting the bill, as I think every party in the House is. I congratulate the Minister of Health on this bill. I think it makes some very pertinent changes to the public health sector.

The initiatives in the bill have been pretty well traversed by many of the speakers who have preceded me, and I will mention a few. The establishment of the Health Quality and Safety Commission is a very good move, and I think we can expect to see some good things come out of it. It allows elected district health board members to be appointed to other district health boards. It makes a good deal of sense, and we have already seen some people be appointed to more than one district health board because they have the right skills, ability, and experience in the health sector to make meaningful decisions and, in many respects, lead the discussions that need to be had.

The bill amends district health board planning requirements to provide for planning and accountability frameworks that take into account national, regional, and local requirements. The speaker who preceded me, the Green member Kevin Hague, mentioned that very pertinent things are happening at a local level, but there are times when regional and national initiatives are needed, usually because of geography or because of the sheer size of the issues being looked at.

The bill increases ministerial powers to direct district health boards to enhance the use of shared services in the health system. For many years now, we have been seeing boards cooperating and collaborating to establish shared services. The result is nearly always greater efficiency and a much better utilisation of scarce resources, particularly financial resources, and we want to see much more of that.

We are seeing much better cooperation and collaboration between district health boards, particularly since the change in Government. We have seen a significant emphasis on the regionalisation of services where that is appropriate, and it, too, has brought greater efficiency to the sector. As a result, patients are being seen in a much timelier manner, and waiting lists in many areas have been reduced. That is exactly what we need to see. I think there is a lot of scope yet.

This bill has brought about much better cooperation between the public and private sectors. The private sector is able to gear up when it has certainty of contracting to be able to provide services, particularly where there are significant gaps, long waiting lists, or whatever in the public system. We should not get caught up in the debate or the philosophical blinkering of the ills of the private sector or the ills of the public sector; we should be striving, day in, day out, to break down those barriers so that we consider health care, health services, and the health workforce as an umbrella. It does not really matter to a patient who is ill where the services come from, as long as that patient is able to receive timely quality services. That should be the aim.

The health sector workforce was also mentioned by the Green Party member. If he had not mentioned it, I was going to launch into that. We have seen in the last week a report saying that shortages of health professionals in the short and long term are significant issues. One of the things that I talked about a lot when I was the health spokesperson for the ACT Party in Opposition was the fact that we are very good at training health professionals, from physiotherapists and occupational therapists to nurses and doctors, but we are not good at keeping them in New Zealand. I used to talk about training our health professionals for export. Sadly, there is far too much of that happening and we need to find ways to combat that phenomenon. Recruitment and retention are still significant issues for the health sector and will be increasingly so looking into the future.

Iain Lees-Galloway talked about Australia. There are some impressive things happening in Australia. He talked particularly about primary care, and I think there are some lessons to learn there. He talked about the focus on obesity, tobacco, and alcohol. But he did not tell the House about the other side of that equation—that is, the Australian private health sector has much greater involvement in the overall health picture. More Australians belong to health insurance schemes. The Australian Government also makes a significant effort to contract with the private sector. Those things make a significant difference to waiting lists or waiting times—whichever we want to use as a measure—and they are much better at matching quality medical services with patients in a timely manner.

We have to pay attention to our economy. This Government is making significant gains in this area. I think we could be making faster, significant gains if we were prepared to make some tougher decisions, particularly about tackling Government spending, but that is really a matter for another day.

I am in favour of this bill; the initiatives are very good, but I wonder whether the initiatives are just about tinkering with the public health sector, rather than looking to make significant and meaningful change. One of the things that I think has been a lost opportunity with this bill is related to grappling with the way that we elect and run district health boards. We have just had local government and district health board elections, and one of the questions that I would like the Minister to address is why we have district health board elections. Most people have absolutely no idea whom they are expected to vote for. There is a cost to the elections; I asked the Minister in the House the other day what the cost was of running the elections to select people for district health boards, and what the cost was of running the boards. I think we need to look at the sense in doing that. I ask whether we need 11-person boards when in fact a three- or five-person committee might do just as good a job. I ask whether it would do the job more efficiently. I ask what the saving to the taxpayer would be, and how much that saving would translate into health services. That is something we need to look at very seriously. What is gained by having elections? What is the percentage of people who actually voted? The figures are not in yet from the latest round of district health board elections, but we need to look at the percentage of people who voted. Do voters know anything about whom they are voting for? Are we electing the right people, or are the district health boards heavily reliant on the Minister’s four appointees to each board for the skills that are needed? Personally, I think we would be much better off with a three- or a five-person committee appointed by the Minister to run each of the district health boards, and that would bring about significant savings.

I will finish there. I reiterate that the ACT Party supports this bill; we think that these are good initiatives that make a good deal of sense, particularly in relation to the running, functions, and organisation of district health boards, but the bill is an opportunity lost, because it could have been an opportunity to look at whether things could be run much more efficiently.

I acknowledge the points that the Labour and Green members made about looking to the future in terms of our health services. We need to take seriously the workforce issues and the use of the public sector, particularly in promoting primary care. We need to take seriously those issues as our population continues to age, and I look forward to continued debates on those issues. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): At the second reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill, I raised the issue of district health board public consultation requirements. The House will recall that the Health Committee’s view was that the bill would likely weaken the consultation element of the Act that is being amended. In essence, the core objection the Māori Party had to the bill was directly related to the Treaty clause in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act, which we see to be of crucial importance. A Treaty clause is also included in Crown funding agreements with district health boards. Although there is a standardised Treaty clause, some differ depending on the agreement with the provider. The general thrust of the Treaty clause is the statement: “The DHB has a responsibility to assist the Crown in fulfilling its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and are guided in that responsibility by the NZPHD Act and other policy directions from the Crown. The Act requires DHBs to take active steps to reduce health disparities by improving health outcomes for Māori.”

For all those prone to anxiety about how symbolic intent translates into implementation, let me assure the House that the strength of the principal Act is that it provides specific and pragmatic assurances about how these obligations can be fulfilled. For example, Crown funding agreements with district health boards state: “DHBs must establish and maintain DHB processes to enable Māori to participate in and contribute towards strategies for Māori health improvement. This recognises and respects the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. References to the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of partnership, participation and protection in DHB accountability documents and agreements between the Minister and the Crown derive from, and should therefore be understood, in this context.”

I want to be really clear about just how important this Treaty framework is and for all providers to understand how to enact the founding document of our nation. A Treaty clause is used in Ministry of Health contracts with providers, primarily to fulfil and comply with section 4 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000. The Act recognises the importance of the Treaty relationship in facilitating Māori involvement in Māori health provisions and outcomes. For the record, I remind us all of the wording of section 4 of that Act, which has become a benchmark for the way in which we can truly respect and adhere to the aspirations that all our ancestors had when they signed up in 1840: “In order to recognise and respect the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and with a view to improving health outcomes for Maori, Part 3 provides for mechanisms to enable Maori to contribute to decision-making on, and to participate in the delivery of, health and disability services.” This is a vital reference point for the bill as an entirety, and specifically in relation to the concerns I have raised in the House previously in relation to consultation.

I pay credit to my colleague the Hon Tariana Turia for the leadership she demonstrated back in 2002 with the introduction of He Korowai Oranga: Māori Health Strategy. That strategy says outright that the Government is committed to fulfilling the special relationship between iwi and the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi. It goes further, outlining how the principles of partnership, participation, and protection, derived from the Royal Commission on Social Policy, will continue to underpin that relationship. They are threaded throughout He Korowai Oranga. Partnership will be demonstrated in working together with iwi, hapū, whānau, and Māori communities to develop strategies for Māori health gain, and appropriate health and disability services. Participation will be illustrated in involving Māori at all levels of the sector in the decision making, planning, development, and delivery of health and disability services. Protection will be evident as a priority when the sector collaborates and cooperates to ensure that Māori have at least the same level of health as non-Māori, and that Māori cultural concepts, values, and practices are safeguarded.

The foundation that I have laid out today is critical to understanding why we have raised concerns about the vital need to enhance and articulate the detail in consultation. An overarching aim of the health and disability sector is the improvement of health outcomes and the reduction of health inequalities for Māori. How else are we to do this other than with the active involvement of whānau, hapū, and iwi? We in the Māori Party want to see the active involvement of manu whenua to facilitate Māori access to services, the provision of appropriate pathways of care, which might include but are not limited to matters such as referrals and discharge planning, and ensuring that services are culturally competent and are provided to meet the health needs of Māori. It is expected that there will be Māori participation in the decision making about, and the delivery of, the service.

When I spoke to this bill at the second reading, I raised my concerns from the select committee’s view that the bill would likely weaken the consultation element of the Act. Presently, the Act requires the same standard of consultation as section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. The bill requires consultation, but the standard of consultation is not defined. When I spoke I said that that worried us, and it continues to worry us. The local body elections held over a week ago have provided even further reason why we need to be vigilant about the issues of representation and participation of Māori in the health sector. Around the country we saw that Māori were unfairly, inequitably, and disproportionately under-represented on elected councils, including district health boards.

Section 29(4) of the Public Health and Disability Act 2000 requires the Minister of Health to ensure that Māori membership of the board is proportional to the number of Māori in the district health board’s resident population and that there are at least two members on the board. Despite the legislative measures in place, all our experience and anecdotal evidence tells us that there are still far too many district health boards that fail to meet even those most minimum requirements. We want to be absolutely sure that we have every base covered and that we maintain a determined resolve to ensure that Māori membership of the district health boards is both proportional to its Māori population and a minimum of two members. We will be insisting that robust and comprehensive consultation processes are in place to enable Māori to contribute to decision making on, and to participate in, the delivery of health and disability services.

Finally, I do not want to leave the impression that it is district health boards only where Māori representation is an issue. I refer the House to the report to the Minister of Local Government on the review of the Local Government Act 2002, and the Local Electoral Act 2001 special topic paper on representation, February 2008. They reveal that in Wellington and Dunedin, only 1 percent of the members on local councils are Māori; in Blenheim, there are none. Clearly, there is a much bigger picture surrounding Māori participation and representation. It is an issue that we want to fully canvass in the upcoming constitutional review.

We will support this bill at its third and final reading, but we will be looking to the Minister to provide us with more confidence on the capacities of district health boards to consult and fully involve mana whenua.

NICKY WAGNER (National): I rise to support the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill at its third reading. All parties in the House support this bill, which is designed to increase efficiency and effectiveness in the public health system. We all know and are concerned about the increasing costs of care throughout the world and in New Zealand, and, faced with an ageing population and increasing demand for new technologies and services, it means that focusing on cost-effectiveness and high-quality services is essential.

This bill is based on the recommendations of the expert ministerial review group, which was commissioned when National came into Government. The bill provides a framework to introduce national and regional cooperation, and to reduce duplication of back-office functions. It also supports a greater focus on patient safety across the health sector, and responds to the call from health professionals for an independent commission and an agency to step up quality involvement across the whole sector. The bill received very positive support from the 13 submitters. They supported the moves to improve the coordination of planning at local, regional, and national levels, and there was also support for an enhanced quality of health care and the reduction of duplication.

The bill also establishes a new Crown entity called the Health Quality and Safety Commission. Its function is to promote and support better quality and safety in health and disability support services, to determine quality and safety indicators, and to advise the Minister on any health epidemiology and quality-assurance matters. There is very good support for improved quality, and for an improvement in the coordination of health services and in the level of cooperation and collaboration between health sector agencies. There is also support for the need to drive better value for money in the public health sector, given the tight funding environment and the inexorable increase in demand for health care services.

The Nurses Organisation supported the direction of the bill, and saw it as “filling the gaps in the current health framework, without the need for major restructuring,”. It also noted that it was the intention of the bill to improve the functioning of the health system to deliver better, sooner, more convenient health services for all New Zealanders. The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists commented on the need to increase collaboration between district health boards, and to reduce the unnecessary duplication of resources in such a small country. It is hoped that the opportunity that this bill provides for district health board members to sit on more than one district health board will increase understanding between boards and foster closer working relationships. The bill also provides rules for mediation and arbitration to cover disputes between district health boards.

This is an important bill. It has been well supported in the Health Committee and in the House, and it will help the health sector to deliver better-quality and more cost-effective health services across the country. I commend it to the House.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): I join my colleagues, and indeed the whole House, in supporting the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill, but I put on record that I do so with some caution. No one would question the purpose of the bill, which is to establish the Health Quality and Safety Commission, and provide a mandate for collective purchasing, which, as the Minister says, will save—I think the claim is—some $700 million. Certainly those sound like very appropriate purposes. The bill also allows for a system of arbitration where there is conflict over shared services.

In terms of planning of health services within our hospitals, no one in this House would argue about the need for efficiency. In fact, when in Government, Labour made many moves to ensure that the health system was more efficient. But we on this side of the House express some caution—and it is very appropriate caution, given National’s history, and its record in just this term of Government.

I congratulate Kevin Hague, as my colleagues have done, on his successful amendment that went through. In fact it was agreed to without debate, because it was so well-supported. The amendment removed the requirement for the commission to be self-funding. I quote Kevin Hague when he stated a concern that “usually, with the best of intention, there could be an incentive for service providers, if they have to pay for quality improvement programmes and also have a constrained financial position”—which is, indeed, the case under this Government—“then they may well choose not to pick up all of the programmes, and whilst we hope that service providers would usually prioritise quality and safety over financial cost, the reality is that this will only occur through the ethics of the providers and their personnel, because the incentives are generally set up in the system to focus on the dollar.”

I say to Kevin Hague that that is very wisely put, and I certainly agree. When we consider some of the cuts to programmes that we have seen in the short time this Government has been in power, I agree with Kevin Hague, and I reiterate how important it is to have those checks and balances. In terms of consultation, I say that along with the checks and balances in terms of providing the best-quality health services, which are what every New Zealander is entitled to, I am in agreement with Women’s Health Action, which was really concerned that “Consultation with communities should not be viewed as a nicety but rather as a fundamental part of the public health and disability system that ensures health and disability services are appropriate for, and responsive to, those who use them.”

The purpose of my address this afternoon is to put the Government—and I say this along with my colleagues—on notice that Labour members will be watching, we will be monitoring, and we will be ensuring that we do not see this legislation brought in at the cost of consultation and at the cost of provision of quality services to people.

One may ask why we would have these concerns. Well, I think we only have to look at National’s record and we see a distinct change under this Government. The previous Labour Government was about promoting wellness in health, and the very successful primary health organisations ensured that doctors’ visits across the board within primary health care were affordable and were contained at an affordable level. It is very disappointing that that is now not the case, and we see the cost creeping up.

We have seen real cuts to primary health initiatives that promote wellness and prevent major financial cost, to say nothing of the cost to people’s quality of life later on, or indeed the ultimate cost, the cost of their life. Those supports, the promotion of health initiatives, have not been there at the important times. If members in the House, or the Government, were to ask where that could be seen, I would have to ask for an extension to this speech to go through all the cuts that have occurred.

If we look at the issue of obesity, we on this side of the House are not of the view, if we can go back, that in terms of promoting wellness—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a third reading speech.

LYNNE PILLAY: Promoting wellness is very much part of what should happen in primary health care or in our health system. I know that district health boards are responsible for funding many of these health care programmes, whether they are about drug or alcohol abuse, whether they are about dependency, or whether they are about things like smoking cessation programmes, which are absolutely vital in terms of the health and safety of our nation. The cuts in these areas are to the mental health services, and we know that due to the dramatic cuts in funding in those areas, we will be paying the price much further along the way. With the best will in the world, with the purpose of this bill to establish the Health Quality and Safety Commission, many of these cuts have been at the cost of health and safety to all New Zealanders. So there is a certain irony there.

The mental health service is really important to invest in, as well as healthy eating programmes. If we look at initiatives that are often provided or funded through the district health board, we see the cuts to healthy eating programmes in school, such as Fruit in Schools, to sexual and reproductive health services, and to support for Alzheimer’s disease. All of these services are effectively getting the chop. There is some misgiving and much concern—I see Paul Quinn over there sharing his concern, as well. Paul Quinn is someone who often does not act entirely in a partisan way. He often has the courage to speak out and say that he agrees with the Opposition in some instances when there are concerns about what is being cut, certainly in the area of health care.

We in Labour are putting the Government on notice. We will be monitoring this efficiency. We believe that if we got our calculators out and looked at the millions in savings at the moment that this Government has brought in, we would see that the savings are from cuts to services—cuts to vital services that should be provided. These savings of efficiency cannot be at the cost of quality.

So certainly this bill is supported, and it is enhanced by the Green Party’s amendment. I congratulate Kevin Hague; he has had lots of accolades today in the House and I think that is very fitting. So along with my colleagues, I do support this bill, but certainly give notice that Labour members and, I know, the very hard-working members on the Health Committee, will be taking a real interest in this bill. Thank you very much.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am very pleased to speak in the third reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. This bill is the result of proposed changes that came about from the recommendations of the ministerial review group. I believe that it was a landmark document from the ministerial review group. It really discovered that the public sector was not working well. It was working in a siloed way, and the group was concerned about the 21 different ways of doing things in the 21 different district health boards. Essentially there was competition and very little collaboration, in some instances. This bill is not a major restructuring of the health system. It is about making things work better and making people work more collaboratively. The proposed changes will result in better value for money in our public health sector, will enable greater national cooperation in the sector, and will reduce duplication and bureaucracy.

The ministerial review group comprehensively assessed the sector, and I think it did an excellent job. I congratulate the group on the extremely impressive work that it did. It made 170 recommendations on how to reduce bureaucracy, improve front-line health services, and improve value in the public health and disability sector. This bill is about progressing some of those areas.

The public health sector faces many challenges. New Zealand has an ageing population with more long-term and chronic health problems, and it has a health workforce that has been dependent largely on staff trained overseas. This all comes with the backdrop of international workforce shortages. There are district health boards struggling to be financially sustainable, there are concerns about the quality of care and preventable errors, and there are concerns about the health indicators that we have had, which have been quite a mixed bag when New Zealand is compared with other OECD countries. This bill is about ensuring that the public health system is better positioned to meet the growing need and demand for it, while the world remains in an economically challenged position.

There have been a number of amendments to the principal Act, and I would like to deal with the establishment of the Health Quality and Safety Commission in Part 1 of the bill. The ministerial review group was very concerned about the quality of care, and in particular about preventable and avoidable errors. It is estimated that avoidable and preventable errors—adverse events—cost around half a billion dollars each year, which is staggering. This bill proposes the establishment of a stand-alone commission, which could save up to $100 million each year. The commission’s objectives are to monitor and improve the quality and safety of health in the disability support sectors and to help providers to make improvements. New section 59B, inserted by clause 11 of the bill, defines the functions of the commission, which cover the areas that were previously undertaken by the National Health Epidemiology and Quality Assurance Committee. The committee’s functions all relate to quality and safety indicators, reports, and the promotion and dissemination of information.

Huge inroads have been made in productivity in the health area, all under the leadership of our Minister of Health, Tony Ryall. I will talk a wee bit about the six health targets, which have been at the front of people’s minds in the public health sector, and I believe that is important. It keeps the issues at the front of the mind of clinicians and district health boards, so that they know what they critically and urgently need to be focused on. We have seen improvements in many areas, and elective surgery is one outstanding area. The target for elective surgery was an increase in volume by an average of 4,000 procedures. In the last year, despite swine flu and the recession, that target was exceeded by over 12,000 procedures. That is a staggering result.

There have been shorter emergency department waiting times. Emergency departments are the shop fronts of district health boards. The target is that 95 percent of people should be treated within 6 hours, and it is pleasing to see that district health boards are stepping up. That target has been increasingly achieved by district health boards around New Zealand. I visited Counties Manukau District Health Board when it celebrated its achievement of that target. It did not happen just overnight. It was about consultation. Everyone, from the orderly to the reception staff and the clinical team, was involved and consulted. They were told exactly why it was important to reach that target. The issue was all about collaborating, consulting, and talking, and that is how that district health board achieved that.

The waiting times for cancer treatment are something that is particularly dear to my heart. Radiation oncology times have improved markedly since the previous term of Parliament. Virtually every district health board is achieving improvements. Every cancer centre is achieving the 6-week target and, under Tony Ryall’s leadership, not one person has had to go to Sydney for treatment. By December this year that target will be down to 4 weeks, and there is every expectation that the cancer centres will achieve that target. That is also a fantastic result.

Immunisation is another success story. The target is to have 85 percent of 2-year-olds fully immunised. We have achieved that. That was achieved 3 months sooner than had been expected.

We have had a fragmented public health system, and along with that district health boards have had to cope with significant financial and clinical challenges. There has been too much duplication and poor regional and national performance. This bill will go some way towards ensuring that the public health system is better positioned for the future. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): What a pleasure it was to hear, particularly, the last parts of that speech from Dr Jackie Blue. Dr Blue, who is a good member of the Health Committee, pointed out that there is duplication in the health system. Indeed, I think that most of us would agree that there has been much of that. Indeed, it was set up in the 1990s by the previous National Government, which thought that having Crown health enterprises competing against one another would be efficient, effective, and market-driven. Well, blow me down, National members have finally discovered that a little bit of collaboration and coordination is actually good, particularly in a system that has the potential to consume huge amounts of money and can have an unlimited demand for its services, depending on the technology.

The New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill is a good bill, but it offers us the opportunity to raise a few questions. As has been said, it establishes a Health Quality and Safety Commission. No one could argue with the objective of trying to improve health and safety in the health system or to improve public safety. We need to get better at every opportunity, and that is great.

The bill has also introduced a mandate for collective purchasing across district health boards—that is, having a Pharmac-type body that has some grunt, some muscle, to negotiate better prices for services, goods, and consumables in the health system, which can get a better deal and lower the costs for everyone. It is smart; it should have been happening.

In fact, the previous National Government brought in Pharmac, and I applaud it for that, but when National came back into Government, John Key said that Pharmac might be up for renegotiation because the US - New Zealand free-trade agreement might require some reconsideration of Pharmac’s role. Well, because I have not heard that being said for a while, I hope that the Prime Minister is being guided by the collective wisdom of his colleagues. He has not been there for long—I can accept that—but his colleagues know that Pharmac is the single best thing that National did when it was last in Government—I have to say that. It is acknowledged throughout the world as being the way to control the cost of pharmaceuticals. This bill allows for coordination across district health boards, and that is good.

This Government talks about customer focus, market drivers, user-pays, and all those wonderful commercial terms. Normally, customers should be able to have a say in the services they get. That occurs in this system through consultation between the district health boards and the people in their regions. These are taxpayers who fund the public health system. They expect to have a good public health system in their regions and they expect to have it delivered by the district health boards. But this bill removes the obligation for district health boards to consult the public, and that is a backward step.

Clause 10 repeals section 38 of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act and substitutes new section 38. That new section removes any obligation to consult. That is quite bizarre. I can state categorically that the people of the West Coast have different expectations and needs from those of the people of Manukau. It is important that the senior managers of the district health board consult the community to get a steer on what it expects from its public health system, because it is not as easy as that to define.

As members will understand, another silly exercise conducted by National was the core health services review. The previous National Government thought it could identify what core health services were. It was going to define them and say that they were what the public health system should deliver, that all the rest would be up to the private sector, and if people wanted to purchase those services or get insurance, then they could do that.

After a couple of years—2 or 3 years; it was a long process—National discovered that one cannot define core health services. Why? Because they are different for every part of the country and for every single community. Yet this bill removes the obligation for the people in charge of literally hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of expenditure to talk with their communities. That is a silly piece of this legislation. [Interruption] I ask the member, who spoke for National, to explain why he thinks that removing the obligation to consult is a good thing.

This bill is also about Tony Ryall’s claim to efficiency and effectiveness in front-line services, and all the rest of it. We hear the figures dribbling off the tongues of the National members quite regularly. We hear about elective surgery, etc. We have seen cuts being made to the investment side of health to pay for those elective surgery procedures. No one would deny that new hip replacements, new knees, etc. are necessary—no one would deny that. There have always been waiting lists. Because of technology and the fact that there are more things we can do in health, there is always a demand. But if we invest in that end, where we can easily count the procedures and take the money from the investment input end—that is, preventive health care and having better knowledge in the communities—it is a zero sum game, because over time it costs the Government, and each and every one of us as taxpayers, more and more money in health care.

Labour had a huge commitment to primary health care. We invested literally hundreds of millions, and, yes, we were crucified by National for doing that. We invested it at the preventive end. But right from the moment that National came in, we have had cuts and cuts and cuts. Tony Ryall said that he would cut $700 million from the health system. Well, he is doing pretty well. He has reversed healthy food guidelines—

Michael Woodhouse: He never said that.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: He made a song and dance about them and said they were silly things. Then he cut things like sending the breast cancer bus to places like Westport. People now have to travel 100 kilometres, whereas the bus used to come to them. National has cut home support services in Southland and Otago—$10 million was cut from home support services. These are people in their homes who need 1 or 2 hours’ help a week to maintain their hygiene and their good health, and Tony Ryall has cut those services. National members have cut anti-obesity funding, oral health care funding, and mental health care funding at a time when we have acknowledged the obesity epidemic.

Jo Goodhew: No, they have not—oral health funding has not been cut.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There is the member for Timaru. Well, Timaru Hospital cut services. It said it had to cut 5,000 people from coming into the emergency ward at Timaru Hospital. One just cannot do that without squeezing access to services for many, many people, particularly in Timaru. Radiology services in Timaru were cut by 10 percent. That means that the people who needed those services either had to travel to Christchurch or they did not get access when they should have. There have also been cuts to services for the elderly in South Canterbury, in that member’s electorate. Those cuts were to achieve Tony Ryall’s $700 million of tax savings. If that member wants to go out and explain to the elderly why she has cut 1 hour or 2 hours from their home-care services, then good luck to her. I think she will find out the effect of those cuts next year, in the election campaign.

This goes on and on. I could list literally hundreds of cuts across the health sector. The member for Rangitata says those cuts were in the area of low-value spending, but they were not. Those areas of expenditure were in the preventive, investment side of health care, to improve the health status of the population across the board. When the district health board went out to consult, it picked up where the most effective areas were to make those inroads. Was it in oral health care? Was it in the area of good eating, or obesity?

This bill has some good components in collective purchasing, but the removal of the ability and the obligation by district health boards to consult communities is a very backward step, and we will pay for that dearly in the long run.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): One of the most important parts of the democratic process is the ability to debate the merits of a policy or a bill. Most of that happens in this Chamber or at select committees. That is the pointy edge of democracy, I guess. So although there appears to be unanimous support for this bill, we have heard a number of members on the other side of the House say that it is tinkering or that it does not go far enough, and they want to ask the Minister this, that, and the next thing. If that is of such concern to those members, where on earth were they at the stage of the bill when they could do just that—the Committee of the whole House? Although it is very rare to have a public health and disability bill passed unanimously through the House, I am absolutely certain it is unheard of that such a bill is passed unanimously without a single word being said or question being asked of the executive by the Opposition at the Committee stage.

It really does lay bare the empty rhetoric that we have heard, including from the member who has just resumed his seat, about all the concerns about cuts, which, frankly, I would be very happy to refute emphatically. It is simply empty rhetoric, none more so than what we heard in the call from the member Mr Lees-Galloway, which I would describe as very articulate nonsense. He talked about there being no true public health strategy for prevention, and he even accused National voters and supporters of not having diabetes, heart disease, or any other chronic illnesses. It was absolute nonsense. But here is what I would like him to do. I would like him to go to the 75,000 homeowners who have had their houses insulated under the Warm Up New Zealand programme, 55 percent of whom have a community services card, and ask them whether the National Government has a public health strategy. When we had 30 percent increases in the price of tobacco—

Hon Member: That was the Greens.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That programme was a joint initiative, no doubt, but it did not happen under Labour; that is the point I am trying to make. National came up with the money. What else did not happen under Labour is 30 percent increases in the price of tobacco; again, that is unprecedented in this country. If Mr Lees-Galloway thinks that this Government is in the pockets of the tobacco lobby, and if he stands as the champion for Labour in tobacco cessation rates, then he needs to explain why Labour, when in Government, did not take the same bold steps, as a public health initiative.

Thanks to the efforts made under this Government, nearly 90 percent of our children are now fully immunised against vaccine-preventable diseases. Thanks to the Health Committee’s recommendations, which will come out of the inquiry into how to improve childhood immunisation rates, I have every confidence that that rate will go to 95 percent. It is absolutely unprecedented in this country, and, again, certainly no public health initiative by the previous Government matched it. It is just a fallacy to say that this Government is not focused on public health. I suspect that Mr Iain Lees-Galloway cannot see the wood for the public health trees.

There have been some changes. We might have dispensed with a few poster campaigns and we might have stopped funding a particular Internet programme that did not actually add any value, because the Minister of Health has made it very clear that our limited resources have to be spent on services that will add value, and I think a few of them did not. But it is not true to say that this Government does not fund public health. I think Mr McCully, in his capacity as Minister for Sport and Recreation, summed it up when he said that we could spend a lot of money on these poster campaigns or Internet campaigns, or we can just give kids a bat and ball and send them out into the playground to exercise. I think that is where the merits of this Government lie.

We heard from Ms Dyson that there was nothing from the Minister to reassure the public that their health needs will be met. Well, the extra 25,000 elective surgeries are a good start, the reduction in cancer treatment waiting-times is a good start, the really good performance in emergency department throughputs is a really good start, as are our immunisation rates, our improvements in our health workforce, the voluntary bonding scheme—I could go on. The very fact is that, much as the Opposition do not like to admit it, this Government has managed to get a lot more for a little more. I think that is very commendable. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup: I move, That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a second time. I begin by thanking members of the Government Administration Committee, and its chair, the Hon David Parker, for dealing with this bill so swiftly and efficiently. They have undertaken a very thorough examination of this bill, and have given careful consideration to the matters raised by submitters. I approve of the amendments proposed in the select committee’s report and am confident that the bill will help to ensure that New Zealand is able to deliver an exceptional Rugby World Cup tournament next year.

The bill is temporary legislation, intended to enable the consent and regulatory approvals necessary for the smooth running of activities related to the Rugby World Cup and the facilities that will support the event. It will help to ensure that New Zealand can meet its hospitality and hosting requirements and can take full advantage of the opportunities that hosting this event will provide. The bill establishes a Rugby World Cup Authority to consider and determine applications for temporary approvals for activities and facilities related to the Rugby World Cup, as well as declarations of permitted activities. It will be supported by territorial authorities throughout New Zealand, which will act as the administrative secretariat to the Rugby World Cup Authority.

The bill includes provisions to enable the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, after receiving advice from the authority and after consulting relevant Ministers, to grant approvals in circumstances of unforeseen urgency. It enables declarations of permitted activities to be made urgently by Order in Council. Finally, the bill establishes a Rugby World Cup liquor licensing regime that will ensure that the extraordinary hospitality requirements in relation to the Rugby World Cup are able to be met.

The select committee has obviously given thorough consideration to the issues that have been raised by submitters and has recommended some practical amendments to the bill. In response to concern from the territorial authorities, the select committee has recommended the clarification of the roles and functions of territorial authorities that will be responsible for supporting the Rugby World Cup Authority to be established under the bill. The revised bill also provides greater clarity on the authority’s processes, particularly where the application is for a temporary activity or facility and an accompanying Rugby World Cup liquor licence. The bill now requires the involvement of the New Zealand Fire Service in considerations of applications to the authority. This will ensure that fire safety is properly taken into account in any approvals granted. As was noted by Mrs Jacqui Dean, that is part and parcel of the safety considerations dealt with by the select committee.

The committee also recommended other additions to the bill that will enhance New Zealand’s ability to deliver a successful tournament. For instance, the bill provides an exemption from the usual change of use provisions in the Building Act to enable apartment buildings to be used for temporary Rugby World Cup accommodation. That will help address pressure on the availability of accommodation, especially in Auckland, during the final and semi-final stages of the tournament. It also provides that the Rugby World Cup activities and events that occur near the water will be able to be declared major maritime events under the Maritime Transport Act 1994. That will enable the police to create an exclusion zone in designated areas where venues or fan zones are located near water, such as Queen’s Wharf.

The liquor licensing provisions in Part 5 of the bill were a particular focus of the submissions made to the select committee. The committee weighed up all the submissions and has recommended some useful amendments to liquor licensing provisions. They include allowing holders of current owner licences to apply to have their licensing hours extended to coincide with live screenings of Rugby World Cup matches and to allow cruise ships, the holders of pub licences under the Sale of Liquor Act, and chartered clubs to apply for Rugby World Cup liquor licences. I note that I imagine, however, they may rarely be used, as the matches will be held largely in normal hours—but what needs to be done will be done.

Hon Trevor Mallard: People need to be able to drink afterwards, as well.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is a fair point made by Mr Mallard. On the other hand, the committee has been very clear in its recommendation that Rugby World Cup liquor licences granted under the bill should not extend the hours during which liquor licensees can operate gambling machines.

Jacqui Dean: That’s right.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I thank the member. The bill also requires that the provision of food and free drinking-water is mandatory for all Rugby World Cup liquor licences. These are additional requirements not provided for under current liquor laws. The bill also gives police greater enforcement powers to control the consumption of liquor during the tournament. Where licensees have breached conditions of their licences, or disorderly behaviour occurs on the premises, the authority can suspend or cancel the licence without giving notice to the licensee.

I thank the select committee, the officials, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, all submitters, and those people who have had a part in crafting the bill to date. The Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill will give the mechanism to ensure that all necessary approvals for Rugby World Cup activities and facilities are considered and determined expeditiously. I note at this point that I was exceptionally impressed by how quickly Eden Park was prepared a whole year in front of the event. I think that is a great testament to, and an indication of, the success of the tournament next year.

The bill provides that unforeseen emergencies that might affect New Zealand’s ability to host the tournament next year can be dealt with. It is further evidence that the Government—and I believe it is supported by Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition—continues to deliver its commitment to maximise the benefits and the opportunities that our country’s staging of the Rugby World Cup will present to our country. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think that speech finished in a rather optimistic way, because if Minister Mapp had been at all well-briefed he would have known that the Opposition is not supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. We are certainly supporting the Government to make this Rugby World Cup the best Rugby World Cup that we can have, but there is an outstanding issue that goes to the emergency powers that the Government is giving the Minister. In our opinion, that is undemocratic and it is wrong. I will get into more detail on that. Unless there is an undertaking to reverse it, this bill—parts of it will be supported—will be opposed at the second reading, and those—

Nikki Kaye: Why did you support the Canterbury bill?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The discussion around the Canterbury issues has highlighted the emergency powers. It is fair to say that we have more time to consider this bill. We have more time to consider it, and as a result of that we will not be supporting it.

But I do say that my thanks go also to the officials. It is fair to say that we had a very good group of officials, including parliamentary counsel, working on this bill. It is also fair to say that with the leadership of the chair of the Government Administration Committee, being my colleague David Parker, but also with the active cooperation of members of the Government and the Opposition on this legislation, with the exception of the one issue, we have worked through the bill and come to compromises, although it is also worth pointing out to the Government, as I have done to the acting Leader of the House, that this bill includes a number of conscience provisions and there are some issues that need to be dealt with there.

Before I get on to the main issue I should signal the inconsistency of the arrangements that have been made in this bill between the liquor and the gaming areas. I will use cruise ships as an example. The fact that cruise ships will be required to apply for this type of licence if they want to serve liquor, but they will not be allowed to have gaming licences, and the fact that hotels will be allowed to extend their hours for liquor but not for gaming is an indication of the inconsistency in this legislation—an inconsistency that I think is subject to a conscience vote. I am a slightly simple person, and I have a lot of friends who are involved in Sky City, but I think the efforts of the Sky City people in their lobbying and in their restrictions against anyone else but them being able to gamble during the night hours, and the fact that people on the large number of cruise ships that will be parked, the thousands—

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s the situation now.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member is absolutely right, but we are extending drinking hours but not extending gambling hours in the same institutions that will be open for drinking. So, now people can gamble for the same hours in which they can drink. We are extending the drinking hours, but not the gambling hours. We are giving cruise ships, for example, the opportunity to apply for these special licences but not to apply for gambling licences. So there are inconsistencies. As I have indicated, in a slightly cynical way, I think we saw the lobbying powers of people who are involved in the gambling industry.

Chris Hipkins: They’re not watching the rugby.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, one could also say that when the rugby has finished everything should close automatically at that time. I do not think that anyone has made that argument. That would destroy quite a few good parties, but the member will learn more about that as he gets a bit older and reaches the age where he is allowed to go to hotels.

I will focus on an issue that the Opposition takes very, very seriously. I say to everyone who is watching this debate and who is looking to the Opposition response that this bill—notwithstanding what I said before about drinking, gambling and other things that will lead to this bill taking quite a long time to go through, from the Opposition’s perspective—would go through very quickly if one clause were sorted out. That clause relates to the ability of the Minister to override the authority that is set up under this bill in the later stages before the Rugby World Cup. I might say that an ability of a Minister to override an authority to grant a consent is something that I would not get too upset about, but in this particular case the Government has determined that the Minister will have the authority to override a decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is headed by a judge, with a deputy who must be a lawyer of at least 7 years’ experience. The Minister can approve an application that has been turned down by the Rugby World Cup Authority. My view is that that is just wrong. If we have a quasi-judicial process that has been set up, and that authority conducts hearings of opponents for and against an application, and makes a planning decision, the idea that a Minister can override the decision is wrong. For example, the Minister could say that a historic home could be demolished. The Minister has the right to do that. The Rugby World Cup Authority can say no, but the—

Jacqui Dean: That’s just so lame.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member says that it would not happen.

Jacqui Dean: I said: “That’s just so lame.”

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member says: “No way!”. Why, then, is there a power given for that to happen? More important, can we have one example from the next Government speaker, just one, of an emergency situation where a Minister’s use of this power would be appropriate? I ask for one example where a judge and the rest of the authority have decided that it is inappropriate to use this emergency power, yet the Minister, Mr McCully, can say yes. I have asked that question on a number of occasions, and no one has been able to give me one example of where it is appropriate to do this sort of override of process. Let us remember there are a lot of Acts involved. The example I keep on using relates to a historic house that might be near to a fan zone or in a fan zone, and the ability of the owner to demolish in circumstances when that would not otherwise be the case. But there could be—

Nikki Kaye: What about a road closure?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: As far as a road closure is concerned, the Rugby World Cup Authority is still required to have a hearing of all the evidence. The authority, headed by a judge, and a deputy who is a lawyer with 7 years’ experience, will hear evidence from town planning experts and roading experts. The authority will consider all the evidence and the authority might say no. So how can it be that the Minister has more knowledge than them? How can it be that Murray McCully knows more about roads than people with roading experience, people with planning experience, the judge, and the lawyer with 7 years’ experience? I think Nikki Kaye has to think of another example that she could bring up to say why Mr McCully should be trusted with the ability to demolish houses all over Auckland—with no appeal, no right to go to court, no right of review, and no right to a hearing before a court. Mr McCully can make a declaration at 12 o’clock, and at 5 past 12 the bulldozers could move in and do that job. That declaration would be over the recommendation of a judge and a properly formed authority.

That power given to the Minister forms a tiny part of this bill but I am one of very few MPs left in the House who can remember Muldoon’s emergency powers legislation and his use of those emergency powers to control wages and do things that were wrong. I have explained to the people who are in charge of the Rugby World Cup why Labour is taking this approach. They understand it; they know that as soon as the Government gets the provision right, we will flag the bill through.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Unfortunately, the previous speaker, Mr Mallard, has been looking for bogeymen under the bed, and I am afraid he has found a very small and lame bogeyman. His argument, I am afraid, is clearly not working in the House however much as he might try. It is worth noting that the Government Administration Committee worked very cooperatively on this bill, and it was at the eleventh hour that Mr Mallard chose to come in and look for something to criticise in this bill.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Rubbish! I heard the first few submissions.

JACQUI DEAN: I want to raise a couple of points in rebuttal. The first is the scope—

Hon Trevor Mallard: The member should have turned up to the committee.

JACQUI DEAN: What did that member say?

Hon Trevor Mallard: The member should have turned up and listened.

JACQUI DEAN: So this member should have turned up and listened?

Hon Trevor Mallard: At the first meeting.

Paul Quinn: Point of order—

JACQUI DEAN: Are you raising a point of order?

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, he’s asleep.

JACQUI DEAN: OK. I continue by saying that Mr Mallard has been the one member who has not worked cooperatively on this bill. I think he is trying to make the point that perhaps the legislation gives the Minister unfettered power. Clearly, that does not exist in this legislation; it exists only in the member’s imagination, and the argument will not fly in this House.

I also refer to the issue of cruise ships, which under this legislation will be regarded as floating accommodation. There will be no open access on to cruise ships while they are docked in Auckland Harbour or in other places around New Zealand. Cruise ships will be allowed to serve liquor but will not be allowed to provide gaming. The select committee looked at this issue very carefully but was unwilling to go against the spirit of the Gambling Act. Indeed, the committee considered the issue of the extension of gaming to be outside the scope of this bill. So contrary to what Mr Mallard would have us believe, the committee considered—when we were having constructive discussions—it to be outside the scope of this bill. This is a good bill, and the select committee worked proactively on it.

A successful Rugby World Cup is vitally important for New Zealand’s global brand and for our economy. Finally, I put in a plug for the North Otago Rugby Football Union, which has really seized the day with the opportunities that will be presented by this Rugby World Cup opportunity. The union is hosting the World Golden Oldies Rugby Festival during the course of the Rugby World Cup. It is that kind of regional initiative, which I hope will be replicated all around New Zealand, that will make this tournament such a success and will be expedited by the very good work contained in this bill. Thank you.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am very happy to take a call on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. Like all New Zealanders, I am excited about the Rugby World Cup and am looking forward to the event, which is coming up around the corner next year. It will be the largest event that New Zealand has ever staged. As a result, there are good reasons for many of the rather extraordinary powers that the Minister for the Rugby World Cup is being given in this bill and for why it should be passed through this House to deal with unforeseen circumstances, to ensure that things can all be ready, and to make the event successful for New Zealand. We are looking at a television audience of close to 4 billion people and 70,000 international visitors to New Zealand over that 6-week period. This will be a very big event for New Zealand.

I want to pick up on some of the issues that were raised during the select committee process. I am absolutely amazed at the comments made by the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean. I do not think she could have been at the same select committee meetings that I was at, if she is claiming that the Labour Party raised its concern “at the eleventh hour” about the unfettered power this bill gives the Minister, Murray McCully. In fact, I think we raised that concern at the very first meeting—

Hon Trevor Mallard: At the first reading.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, at the first reading of the bill and at the very first meeting of the Government Administration Committee, when we went through the briefing with officials. We asked exactly why it was necessary to give Murray McCully this extraordinary power that is not offered Ministers in almost any other legislation that we could find. We could not find any examples of why it would be necessary. I am quite concerned about that and I am absolutely staggered that Jacqui Dean claimed that we raised that as a concern at the eleventh hour, because we raised that concern all the way through.

Let us be very clear about what this bill does. It gives Murray McCully the ability to overturn decisions made by the judge heading the Rugby World Cup Authority, the experienced lawyer on the authority who must have 7 years’ experience, and all of the relevant experts. Murray McCully can overturn their decisions. He can say, for example, that we will demolish a historic building or close a road. He can overturn recommendations that the authority has made, and Labour does not think that is right. I guess we would be willing to accept that he could have the power to turn down a recommendation or to put a stop to something. But to proactively approve something that the commission has not recommended—

Hon Trevor Mallard: He could go with the status quo.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —he should go with the status quo, I should say. He should have the power to overturn recommendations and stick with the status quo, but to proactively approve something that has otherwise been declined is not a power that we think the Minister should have. This is not urgent legislation in the sense that we are not dealing with something that has happened; we are dealing with something that may happen in the future, so we have the time to work through this and get it right.

We went through the legislation at the select committee, we heard evidence on it at the select committee, and we received a lot of advice at the select committee, yet there was no advice or evidence put forward to suggest that the Minister should have this power. Let us be really clear about what this is. It is about Murray McCully wanting to have the power to meddle in things and to control things. We are not talking about a Minister who has not got into trouble before for meddling in things; we are talking about a Minister who has a track record in meddling in operational issues in the departments and agencies that he is responsible for. I have no confidence that giving Murray McCully the power that this bill does will lead to responsible use of that power. That is one of the reasons why I think it is very important that in the Committee stage of this debate we pass the amendment being put forward by Trevor Mallard to ensure that the Minister cannot abuse the powers provided under this legislation.

I will talk a little about the different treatment given to alcohol and gambling, because that is something that Trevor Mallard raised in his first reading speech. It would be fair to say that Trevor Mallard and I do not necessarily agree eye to eye on this particular issue. We have a moratorium on new gambling venues in this country. We are bringing in cruise ships to act as temporary hotel accommodation. We want to make sure that they can operate effectively as temporary hotel accommodation when they are parked up at the wharves so that they can provide food, alcohol, and so forth. But why should they have an exemption that allows them to run gambling facilities when we would not allow that on land? In fact, they would be prevented by law from opening a gambling facility without a legislative change to the Gambling Act in Parliament. It is a conscience issue, and I think that that should apply to any cruise ships brought in to provide temporary accommodation. Alcohol is a different issue. People can apply for licences for alcohol; they cannot apply—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think we can debate it for 3 or 4 hours in the Committee stage.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I am looking forward to an extensive debate with Trevor Mallard about this during the Committee stage—for hours, in fact—of this legislation. If Murray McCully is so determined to force through these additional powers that we do not think he should be able to have, then we will make sure that this bill is debated line by line and clause by clause all the way through the Committee stage. This will include the provisions on gambling and alcohol, where we have some disagreement amongst the members of the Opposition.

The second part of this legislation to do with gambling is on pokie machines in pubs. I am happy for pubs to be able to extend their liquor licensing hours to work around the Rugby World Cup schedule to make sure that people can enjoy the Rugby World Cup. I do not see how sitting at a pokie machine in any way contributes to the Rugby World Cup experience that we want to offer New Zealanders and those visiting this country. I see no justification for saying that we should extend the hours that the pokie parlours attached to pubs are open in order to facilitate a successful Rugby World Cup event. This bill does not allow those venues operating pokie machines to use their special Rugby World Cup liquor licences to extend the hours that they can have pokie machines operating. If their hours are extended through their special licences, they will have to close off the pokie machines for those hours that they would not otherwise be open.

If they would already be open for the period of time that the matches are taking place and so on, then they will be able to have the pokie machines operating. If there is a special licence applying during that period of time, then they would have to shut down the pokie machines. That is something that I totally agree with. It is about ensuring that people can enjoy the Rugby World Cup; it is not about extending the opportunities for people to gamble.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s afraid of the booze because it’s his vice.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I am quite comfortable with people being able to have an extra drink. It is perfectly all right for people to grab a pint, to stand there watching the big screen to watch the game, and to enjoy the Rugby World Cup experience that we want people to have. I do not see that gambling is necessarily part of that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What about gambling on the next try? What about the TAB?

CHRIS HIPKINS: This bill does not impact on the TAB at all.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What about the TAB at the pub?

CHRIS HIPKINS: No, it does not impact on the TAB in the pub, but maybe that is something we should clarify during the Committee stage.

Hon Trevor Mallard: With half a dozen amendments.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I think that we might look at some amendments on that during the Committee stage. Hopefully, the Minister will take some calls on that during the Committee stage of the bill so that we can clarify whether the amendments we made at the select committee will impact on the ability of the TAB operating in the pubs to take bets during that period of time. I am pretty sure that we have restricted only class 4 gambling in pubs, but we should double-check and debate it thoroughly to make sure that if there has been an unintended change to the ability of the TAB to operate in pubs, we deal with that during the Committee stage. There may be some further amendments.

Overall, the intention of this bill is good. It is to make sure that the Rugby World Cup, a big event for New Zealand, is successful. The majority of the bill is supported by the Opposition. There is one point that we are sticking on, and that is whether the Minister should have these extraordinary powers that no other Minister has and no other law appears to offer. Frankly, I do not trust that the Minister would exercise those powers responsibly. We are putting forward an amendment that would stop the Minister having that power. If the Government agrees to support that amendment, then the Opposition will support the bill progressing through its remaining stages. We will not vote for it on its second reading because the Government has indicated that it will not support the amendment being brought forward; therefore, we are uncomfortable with the powers that the Minister is being offered.

Whether this bill goes through with wide party support across Parliament is a matter for the Government to determine. It can support the amendment that Trevor Mallard has put forward and get wide-ranging support through Parliament, or it can insist that Murray McCully has these extraordinary powers conferred upon him and it will not be supported by the Opposition. The choice is now over to the Government.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kia ora koutou. We in the Greens share with everyone else in the House—and, indeed, most of the general public—a wish for next year’s Rugby World Cup to be a successful event and to fulfil its potential. It has considerable potential economic value, it has resonance in our communities and in our culture, and we hope it goes ahead and is successful.

We opposed the first reading of the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill on the basis that it went many steps too far in terms of overturning processes—well-tried and proven processes for achieving the outcomes we are seeking. We saw no point, no real justification, for the level of powers and changes in the original drafting of the bill. The granting of the right to host the cup was given in 2005—a 6-year window of opportunity to get it right, and we have considerably more faith, it seems, in the ability of New Zealanders to organise a good event, to allow for contingencies, and to anticipate what may happen than have the drafters of this bill, who seem to believe that there will be numerous occasions for urgency, for unforeseen occurrences, and for emergency situations. Frankly, we do not see that that is realistic. It is unlikely to arise; some good project management and forward planning should facilitate a good event on the day.

This bill is undoubtedly a better bill for having been through the select committee process. It contains more clarity, particularly around matters relating to health and safety. I am quite sure that nobody on the Government Administration Committee, or indeed in the House, was willing to accommodate any compromises in terms of the health and safety of New Zealanders, of our visitors, and of anyone else.

There were some issues around the provision of housing: for example, the construction of temporary structures at venues and the like. The Fire Service made a particularly good submission to the committee, which was taken on board, and I am quite confident that it is possible to ensure people’s health and safety and that all the steps have been put in place to make that work.

The bill as it is currently drafted still leaves room for some disappointment—staying with the issue of short-term accommodation. There was some concern about the safety and well-being of people with disabilities who might be moving into, effectively, private apartments that would not normally be used for rental accommodation but that, under this bill, would be allowed to be. Clearly, the health and safety issues have been dealt with, but we still feel that there is a considerable likelihood that people with disabilities may in good faith book accommodation assuming that it will be appropriate to their needs and that their needs will be met, and those people could be disappointed.

Access tourism—that is, tourism for people with disabilities or who are over the age of 65—is an area of opportunity for New Zealand tourism that is currently not being exploited. We are very slow to come to that party and realise that access tourism is actually a very, very valuable niche market worth billions of dollars internationally. If people with disabilities are caught out by the very weak provision in this bill that suggests that councils and property owners be encouraged to make clear that their particular accommodation is not appropriate for people with disabilities, then we will do ourselves a disservice in the longer term. Clearly we want to leverage every ounce of benefit out of this event, and it would be unfortunate and to our cost in the long run if, for the want of some stronger provision making it very clear, accommodation unsuitable for people with disabilities is not flagged as such.

This bill has some very strange things to say about adverse effects. It suggests that in the situations where there are likely to be adverse effects from particular activities, the authority, when making its decisions, must disregard the adverse effect of an activity or a facility that relates solely to the site or location of the facility. I struggled with the logic of suggesting that an adverse effect is OK if it impacts only on the site of the activity—that somehow the adverse effect must flow over into some other site, place, or activity before the authority may have regard to it. That simply makes no sense to me. The logic of it escapes me completely.

There is also a suggestion that adverse effects must be disregarded if they are of a temporary nature. But anyone with any knowledge or experience of resource management decisions knows that temporary effects can, in fact, have some quite long-term and unexpected consequences. It seems to me that inserting these rather clumsy clauses is a fairly clumsy and strange mechanism for overriding genuine and well-grounded objections on the grounds of adverse effect.

The issue of the ministerial power that is being given by this bill has already been raised. It is worth stepping back one pace and thinking about what is being proposed here. We have in place substantial legislation: the Sale of Liquor Act, the Resource Management Act, and the Building Act. This bill is designed to sidestep the processes contained within that legislation, which contain agencies and process and are tried and true ways of delivering good outcomes to New Zealanders and our visitors.

It is proposed that this legislation be able to substantially override the Sale of Liquor Act, the Resource Management Act, and other legislation. We already know of examples where hotels have applied for extensions to existing licensing hours and have been turned down on very good grounds. They will come back for another bite, and in all likelihood they will be approved under the so-called empowering bill. We have good, substantial legislation in place. Now we are putting in place legislation that can override that tried and true legislation. To add insult to injury, almost, we are told that there will be a ministerial veto—that is, the ability for the Minister to override not only the substantial legislation but also legislation that exempts that standard practice. That is just many steps too far.

We have recently seen—and, indeed, the Greens supported it—legislation giving significant and almost unprecedented ministerial powers to cope with the effects of the Canterbury quake. That was an extraordinary event. Thousands of people were made homeless, there was many millions of dollars worth of property damage, and there was significant social and environmental disruption. We supported that legislation. But for equivalent override powers—the ability to override not one or two but numerous pieces of legislation and all the protections and public processes involved and engaged in them—to be at the fiat of the Minister, effectively, is simply unacceptable and ought not to be countenanced by this House. We will continue to oppose this bill. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga): I am really pleased to stand and speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill because I really enjoy watching a great game of rugby. I especially enjoy watching the All Blacks do the haka and then go on to beat the Aussies, the Boks, the Lions, and especially France. In my own humble estimation Māori have not only excelled at this sport but also have been contributing to our top-class international reputation for over a century.

This year on 18 June there was a wonderful launch of Te Ao Hōu, the new dawn, which was the unveiling of a distinctive new rugby jersey to mark 100 years of Māori rugby since the first game in 1910 in Rotorua. We in the Māori Party celebrate the contribution that Māori have made ever since 1888 to rugby in this country. Indeed, Māori continue to make a unique impression on the status and reputation of rugby at home and across the world.

There are more than 500 living former Māori All Blacks. Many of this elite group have also played for the All Blacks, and some—like Tāne Norton, Buck Shelford, and Taine Randell—have had the privilege of captaining both teams. There is also widespread Māori support of rugby, and, of course, a particular highlight this year for us was the event hosted by Minister Sharples in Parliament on Thursday, 18 March on the celebration of 100 years of Māori rugby.

So when we came to the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill, we were under the distinct impression that this legislation was about empowering rugby: rugby players, rugby fans, rugby spectators, rugby historians, and the like. Instead, one might be forgiven for thinking that empowering liquor outlets and gambling venues is the dominant feature of the bill.

The Government Administration Committee made a determination around the hours for gambling by inserting a new clause that ensures that operating hours for pokie machines are determined by the Sale of Liquor Act rather than the Rugby World Cup license. This bill provides more power for the Rugby World Cup Authority. During the select committee consideration it was clarified that basically the intention is to amend clause 16(1) to ensure that statutory planning instruments—the by-laws and plans—are captured under this law. Essentially, it means that the authority is not constrained by by-laws.

I think this is where the hub of our concerns starts to play out. Of course, like every other party in this House we have a commitment to ensure that this bill will support the smooth and expedient administration of Rugby World Cup activities. But we cannot ignore the wise advice of the Law Commission to the select committee that “placing liquor licensing decision-making in the hands of a body that does not have ongoing experience in these types of decisions may not be conducive to expeditious decision-making.”

Even more graphic illustration of these concerns was provided to the committee by Dr Tony Farrell from Mount Medical Centre, who was a powerful witness to the effects of alcohol harm. He told the committee: “I believe the only people benefiting from the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill (RWCEB) will be the vendors of alcohol, and the companies who make and supply alcohol. … I firmly oppose any aspect of this legislation that increases availability of alcohol without due control so the police should have significant discretionary powers to revoke and to suspend the sale of alcohol should problems arise.”

The Alcohol Advisory Council gave particularly effective advice to the committee on this matter. In their view “While existing legislation expressly sets out to control the sale of liquor and contribute to the reduction of harm, the proposed legislation does not … Ensuring health and safety and the minimization of harm is not as proactive as contributing to the reduction of harm.”

I want to just summarise where we are up to. This bill has its origin in seeking to establish a Rugby World Cup Authority to enable applications for activities or facilities necessary for the proper conduct of the forthcoming Rugby World Cup to be determined efficiently. That is an honourable and sensible development. The Rugby World Cup will bring the eyes of the world into our nation, and we must ensure all aspects of the administration of the activities associated are carried out with professionalism and efficiency. Our concern is whether we have the balance right.

As we have mentioned, the bill establishes a temporary process for licensing the sale and supply of liquor to the public during the period of the Rugby World Cup 2011 as an alternative to the process under the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. The bill defines the nature of a premise or area related to alcohol licences. It also determines that a licensee commits an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 if he or she fails without reasonable excuse to appoint a manager for the purposes of the Sale of Liquor Act 1989.

The problem is that the bill does nothing about our alcohol binge-drinking culture. In fact, it seems to me that it is encouraging tourists—those who are coming in to enjoy the Rugby World Cup—to buy into our binge-drinking culture, and this is something that I think we should not be exporting to the rest of the world. We should be looking at other things. For example, the bill does not mention the whole concept of access tourism. The message from Rugby World Cup advocates is that the provisions in the bill are simply about providing hospitality for the tens of thousands of visitors who arrive. I am not sure how hospitable it is to have drunk people everywhere, because that is what they seem to be saying.

Hospitality could also extend towards ensuring we are truly prepared for the influx of overseas visitors through such specific and tangible provisions as ensuring the Rugby World Cup website is accessible. By that, I mean being able to quickly navigate the Tourism New Zealand website to find out information about accommodation, airports, transport, and parking, which will ensure disabled visitors, the elderly, and others seeking to even gain access to the venues will be supported.

We could be creating a common brand. “Be Accessible Aotearoa” would welcome all people of the world to the 2010 Rugby World Cup, and we could do all this tomorrow by auditing the main tourist accommodation venues to ensure we have a set of standards around what venues have to have in order to cater for all. This is a massive area of work that is not being adequately addressed, and we would like to see that improved.

To conclude, I note that the bill increases liquor supply, puts the final say on Rugby World Cup activities in the hands of a group that has no guaranteed Māori representation, and gives the Minister for the Rugby World Cup too much power. All of that worries us. But there are two important provisos that we cannot ignore. The first is that iwi do not seem to be at all focused on profiting from the sale of alcohol. They are focusing on other opportunities, and we would be extremely loath to do anything that closes that down. The second issue is around the potential of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup to override decisions, removing public participation from the process. To this effect, we have certainly been interested in the amendments, which Trevor Mallard has been promoting, that place checks and balances upon the powers of the Minister.

We will support this bill at its second reading, but I hope that if my comments achieve anything they will serve as a prompt that if we are to be truly successful in the Rugby World Cup we must be able to cater to all—not just the boozers, the booze barons and associated businesses, or the gamblers and their enablers.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill this afternoon. It is a very important bill, because it will underpin the fact that next year New Zealand will be on show throughout 2011.

I am quite astonished that the previous speaker, Rahui Katene, made no submissions in the select committee process. In fact, I do not recall a member of the Māori Party coming to our select committee at any point, or making any representations along the lines that are being made here in the House this afternoon.

We are dealing with an event that will involve something like 85,000 visitors coming to New Zealand. This bill is critically important to the promotion of Brand New Zealand—who we are—and it is also important for economic reasons. As I recall, about 4 billion people will be watching New Zealand on TV. This will be the opportunity to showcase New Zealand to the world, and to demonstrate that it is a great place to live in, a great place to do business in, and a great provider of food. The Rugby World Cup 2011 will be the largest event New Zealand has ever hosted, and we are turning the whole country into a stadium of 4.5 million people, with 48 games spread over 13 venues.

Inevitably, an event of this size and importance presents significant challenges. Anybody in this community who has actually tried to do something will realise there are rules that kill initiatives. Mr Mallard has sought an example of a reason why we need to have the particular provision to give the Minister for the Rugby World Cup an overriding power in this process. I would like to give an example from my electorate, particularly from the southern end, through the South Wairarapa District Council.

New Zealand’s next, newest, and most major music event will hopefully take place in Martinborough at the Alana Estate on 31 December this year, as the kick-off to the Rugby World Cup. By July this year negotiations had taken place between the concert organisers and the South Wairarapa District Council. Whether there was a miscommunication, I am not in a position to judge, but I can say to this Parliament that something like 12,500 tickets were sold, at an average price of $350 each, for the concert. Then the whole event was ankle-tapped by the South Wairarapa District Council, which said: “No, no, this concert cannot proceed; it needs a resource consent.” As I said, whether there was a miscommunication I do not know, but the consequences of this decision—and it was all spelt out about a month ago in the Dominion Post—was that an employee of the South Wairarapa District Council publicly said: “I’m going to try and stop this process from happening.”, rather than: “How can I help this economic activity to happen?”. The council was absolutely negative in its approach, and the consequences for the concert organisers is that they now have to fork out $50,000 for consultants to put in a resource consent application, and it is still not clear, 2 months from the event, whether the concert will be able to proceed because there is no permission in place. This situation absolutely highlights why we cannot organise something that involves 48 games in 13 venues right throughout this country, trying to do something on the world stage, when we have the nanny State imposing regulations and closing down activities.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What happened to the rule of law in New Zealand?

JOHN HAYES: Our select committee recognised this—and Mr Mallard was at our committee—and it came up with some significant recommendations. I acknowledge that Mr Mallard raised concerns about Part 4, the part that will allow the Minister to grant an approval in circumstances where the authority has recommended against that. Mr Mallard argued that power to grant urgent approvals should rest with the authority rather than with the Minister. He raised similar concerns in the media. The power of the Minister to grant urgent approval under Part 4 requires a recommendation from the authority. Although the Minister is not required to act in accordance with the recommendation before granting approval, the Minister must also consult with the Minister for Economic Development—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Gerry Brownlee.

JOHN HAYES: —yes, Mr Brownlee—and he must also consult with the Minister with the relevant portfolio responsibility. For example, it might be that the Minister for the Environment would need to be consulted on matters that would ordinarily require consent under the Resource Management Act. It may be that the Minister has to consult with the Minister of Police or another Minister.

It is hoped that no need arises for the powers in Part 4 to be used, but it is necessary to have available an urgent and flexible approval process to deal with approvals that may be necessary, in the event that some unforeseen situation—as we have in Martinborough—occurs that could impact on the delivery of the tournament. It is considered that the provisions in Part 4 will ensure that appropriate decisions will be made in such circumstances. It is also appropriate, given the extraordinary nature of the power to grant urgent approvals, that that power is given to the Minister of the Crown who is publicly accountable, rather than to an unelected body. With those comments, I say that I support this bill wholeheartedly.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): Labour does not need convincing that there is a great deal at stake for New Zealand in the Rugby World Cup 2011. We do not need persuading that there will be a television audience of close to 4 billion people or that this is important for Brand New Zealand, as the previous speaker put it. Labour would be supporting the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill at its second reading if the Government had seen fit and seen sense, and had removed the provisions that we shall perhaps call the “Murray McCully Provisions” in this bill. Part 4 is the sticking point here; it is the part we object to. We do not believe that the Government has made the case that the Minister should be given unfettered power to override the recommendations of the Rugby World Cup Authority.

At least when John Hayes was speaking, he acknowledged that there is a substantive issue here. I was horrified to hear Jacqui Dean earlier deny that there was even a provision in this bill that gives the Minister power under the urgency provisions to grant an urgent approval, or to decline an application against the recommendations of the authority. In case Jacqui Dean is listening to or watching this debate, I want to point out that Part 4 of the bill goes for page after page, setting out the process and criteria that should be used by the authority in considering urgent applications. At the end of that part, after nearly six pages of process and detailed prescription about how the authority should go about considering these issues, it states: “A decision of the Minister under this section is final.” Just a few lines before, it states: “The Minister may grant an application for an urgent approval in full or in part, or decline the application.”, potentially in complete disregard of the work that has been done by what will undoubtedly be a highly qualified panel that constitutes the authority. As my colleagues have pointed out, it will include either a retired judge or a lawyer of at least 7 years’ standing.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Two of them.

PHIL TWYFORD: Two of them. Undoubtedly, they will be people who are experienced in town planning and other relevant disciplines.

There is a reason why this is important. There are good reasons why, in our system of Government, Ministers do not exercise unfettered power. They are bound by the Cabinet Manual and they are bound by convention, their relationship with public servants, their reliance on the advice of officials, and their obligation under law to make decisions in a reasonable way. These are all important checks on executive power. This Minister Murray McCully, perhaps more than anybody in this Parliament, has demonstrated why we have those rules and conventions. They are there for a good reason, and it is called accountable Government. In 1999 we had a Minister of Tourism who was the subject of an investigation by the Audit Office. There were allegations that members of the Tourism Board had resigned in protest at ministerial intervention, and at the suggestion that the Minister had sought to gain control of the promotional activities of that Tourism Board in order—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who was the Minister?

PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the then Minister of Tourism was the Hon Murray McCully. It was alleged that he had subverted the activities of the Tourism Board so that he could “build a feel-good factor for the election.” Three members of that board resigned in protest, and $900,000 was paid out to those three people.

The Audit Office found that there had been politicisation and unwarranted political interference in the activities of that board. I quote Victoria Main from the Dominion Post on 3 May 1999, when she said: “The Audit Office report raises questions about two highly unorthodox units, the Office of Tourism and Sport and the Tourism and Sport Ministerial Advisory Board, that the bureaucrat-hating Mr McCully set up as sources of independent advice.” Well, if there was an example of why Ministers should be bound by the conventions of accountable Government and be required to justify their decisions against the impartial advice of public servants, this is one such case study—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Judges, in this case—even more important.

PHIL TWYFORD: —that is right—and this is one such Minister.

There are plenty of other examples, and examples that have happened much more recently. We have a Minister of Foreign Affairs who regularly disregards the advice of officials in the administration of our taxpayer-funded overseas aid programmes of half a billion dollars, and who repeatedly rejects their advice until he gets the advice he wants.

Hon Steve Chadwick: He bullies them.

PHIL TWYFORD: He bullies them, and he micro-manages the details of a half-billion-dollar Government programme. We saw recently the awarding of a $78,000 contract to the former National MP Mark Blumsky. The awarding of that contract by the Minister of Foreign Affairs was without a tender. That is highly unorthodox; it is highly unusual. Almost every significant contract let in the overseas aid programme is tendered, yet this one, which went to a political crony of the Minister, was not tendered. That raises serious questions, I think, about the commitment of this Minister and this Government to the basic conventions of accountable Government.

I can give members four or five examples that we have seen over the last 18 months of the cutting of multi-year funding commitments to aid projects in the Pacific, with no policy rationale and on the basis of there being no written advice from officials. We saw the cutting of nearly a million dollars a year from the Council for International Development, the peak body of the country’s international development non-governmental organisations. A similar amount of money was committed in a multi-year contract to the Global Focus development education programme based here in Wellington. More recently, there has been the cutting of a major commitment to the Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International for doing disaster risk reduction work in the Pacific, but no written advice justified that. It is a classic example of meddling and micro-management, and of a total lack of accountable Government.

It is precisely the kind of behaviour that should give this House pause for thought before the Government pushes through these urgency provisions. So far, Government members have failed to come up with one compelling scenario that would justify why these extreme powers are being given to the Minister in this case. This is the Minister who only a few months ago did his utmost to bowl the heritage sheds on Queen’s Wharf in Auckland, and it was only a knock-’em-down, drag-’em-out fight, led by Mike Lee and the Auckland Regional Council, that convinced the Minister that he should listen to public opinion and negotiate an acceptable compromise.

Under the powers in this bill, he could override the advice from a highly qualified and eminent panel of commissioners on the authority. He could go ahead and demolish a heritage structure on his own whim, without any official advice to justify it.

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

PHIL TWYFORD: I just want to summarise the concerns I was speaking about before the dinner break. Labour would be voting for this bill at its second reading if the Government was to see sense and remove the extraordinary power that it intends to put in the hands of the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, the Hon Murray McCully. He has demonstrated, more than almost anyone I could imagine in this Parliament, that Ministers should not be given unfettered executive power and that they need to be held accountable. Trevor Mallard has put an amendment on the table. If the Government sees fit to support it, we will vote for the bill.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I stand to support the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. The aim of the bill is to attain the consent and the regulatory approval essential for the smooth running of the activities related to the Rugby World Cup, and of the facilities that will support that event. It is extremely important for New Zealand to host this event successfully, and to take all opportunities offered for such a large-scale event, which will in turn bring prosperity and opportunities to businesses, and chances to show the world that New Zealand can capably hold such successful events.

Hosting an event on such a scale, which will see 85,000 overseas visitors and tens of thousands of New Zealanders attending games in the Rugby World Cup in different zones, brings a lot of challenges. Therefore it is crucial that we have special legislation set up to enable the event to be a success, and to make sure we make the most out of all the opportunities the event brings. This bill is very important because the existing regulatory approval process will not be able to process the extraordinary requirements of the tournament. This bill will be able to provide the urgent approval that may be needed to resolve unforeseeable circumstances immediately before and during the tournament.

The Government Administration Committee considered this bill and recommended a few changes, which are non-controversial. Some of the recommendations of the select committee include a change of use of the provisions in the Building Act, to enable apartment buildings to be used for temporary Rugby World Cup accommodation without seeking building consents. It is also recommended that Rugby World Cup activities and events occurring on or near water be declared maritime events under the Maritime Transport Act 1994, which will allow the police to create an exclusion zone in designated areas such as Queen’s Wharf.

The select committee also recommended allowing cruise ships and chartered clubs, and holders of Sale of Liquor Act licences, to apply for Rugby World Cup liquor licences. It is worth mentioning that the granting of a Rugby World Cup liquor licence will not extend the hours during which existing gambling machines can be operated, and it will also prevent an installation of such machines in newly licensed areas.

Appointments to the Rugby World Cup Authority are to be made by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup, following consultation with the Minister for the Environment, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister for Economic Development, and the authority will operate on a cost-recovery basis by passing costs on to applicants. The administrative and secretarial support to the Rugby World Cup Authority will be provided by the territorial authorities of each district in which an application is made. The ability to grant approvals by the Rugby World Cup Authority will expire on 31 October 2011. All approvals under this bill will be temporary, and will expire no later than 31 December 2011.

I support this bill. I recognise the huge opportunities that the Rugby World Cup will bring to our country.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. He mihi hoki tēnei ki a koutou o Ngāti Manawa me Ngāti Whare. Tēnā rā koutou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This salutation is to you, as well, Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare. Welcome.]

The Rugby World Cup is the third-largest sporting event in the world, third only to the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. This comes from a diehard rugby fanatic: everybody in this House and everybody watching this debate needs to realise that the on-field results of the Rugby World Cup are not what is most important for New Zealand. Now, do not get me wrong, I really want it to be Richie McCaw who this time next year lifts the Webb Ellis trophy above his head. I do not know whether I can take another 4 years with a thick cloud of despair hanging over my head, and I really hope it is Richie McCaw who lifts that trophy next year.

But it is not about the rugby. What is most important about the Rugby World Cup next year are the 3,000 media people who will arrive on our shores; media people with their pens poised to write stories about New Zealand, and their cameras poised to take photographs and hours and hours of footage of New Zealand. Those people will be travelling from north to south, east to west, and all around New Zealand, experiencing our landscapes, our people, and our unique Māori culture and heritage. They will be visiting our art galleries, our museums, and our vineyards. They will be participating in activities all around New Zealand, and in between that they will even get to watch a bit of rugby. Those 3,000 media people will be portraying New Zealand to an audience of 4 billion people, and if we can get just 1 percent of those 4 billion people to say New Zealand is a place they really want to visit, and if 1 percent of them come to New Zealand in the next 10 years, then the Rugby World Cup will have been a real success for New Zealand.

Aside from those 3,000 media people, 70,000 to 80,000 visitors will land on our shores and do exactly the same thing: they will travel north to south, and east to west. They will go to the museums, vineyards, and art galleries, and they will sit in our cafes. They will participate in all the activities that will be organised around the Rugby World Cup. They will meet our people and experience Māori culture. When they go back we want them to tell a dozen of their mates that they missed out on the experience of a lifetime, and that they need to come down to New Zealand. If we can achieve that, if they tell their friends and families to come down to New Zealand, then the Rugby World Cup will have been a success for New Zealand.

What we cannot afford are any “Delhi moments” or people visiting or watching saying “Crikey! New Zealand was disorganised, it was chaotic, and it was not prepared for us.” That is why the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill is good legislation, bar one point. We want to work with the Government to make sure that the Rugby World Cup is a success. We want to make sure that everybody who comes here goes back and tells the rest of the world what a great place New Zealand was to visit, how highly organised it was, that everything shone and was polished, and that everything worked really well.

But as my colleagues have explained, we have one issue with this bill, and we would like that issue to be ironed out. We believe that we need to remove the ability the Minister for the Rugby World Cup has under this legislation to override any decision of the Rugby World Cup Authority. We have asked what possible credibility the Minister could have over and above that of the Rugby World Cup Authority, which is made up of a judge, lawyers, and other experts and people with experience in their particular fields. We would expect the Minister to defer to those people and their wisdom and experience, and follow their recommendations on any particular issue. The Government has not been able to describe a situation yet where unfettered power is necessary, but it still insists that the power remain. As clause 51(4) says in Part 4, “A decision of the Minster under this section is final”. That means it does not matter how rational and reasonable an argument may be, or how good it is, if the Minister does not like that argument, then he can say no to it. There is no right of appeal; there is no right to any come-back. We believe that unfettered power is unnecessary. We believe that there is an inherent danger in one Minister having unfettered power. I guarantee that if we swapped sides and there was a Labour Government over there and a National Opposition over here, and we were debating the same issue, National would also be raising it with us. The only difference is that we would listen to National.

The argument of John Hayes that the Minister’s involvement will hasten the process is flawed. He claims that after the authority has made a decision on any application the Minister can consult with various Ministers, perhaps the Minister for Economic Development or the Minister of Police. Well, it will not streamline the process if the Minister listens to a recommendation and then goes off to consult with three, four, or five—or however many—other Ministers. This simply adds steps to the process and in no way streamlines or speeds the process up. Therefore, the notion that granting the Minister unfettered powers will make a decision quicker is nonsense.

When Mr Hayes’ argument ran out of steam and puff, he just flung that good old Tory endearment at us that Labour was being a nanny State. I do not quite understand that. Here we are arguing for an organisation’s decision to have standing and mana, and he was arguing for the Minister to have unfettered power and to override the decision of the authority—and he is calling us nanny State.

At the Committee stage of this bill, Labour, in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard, intends to introduce an amendment that will provide that the Minister may not grant an urgent approval that has not been recommended by the authority. This will introduce greater democratic oversight to the urgent approval process.

It is important that the Rugby World Cup is highly organised. It is important that we put on our best show for the rest of the world. It is important that we do not have any “Delhi moments” where we are disorganised and chaotic, and things are not organised properly. But we can make sure that all that organisation happens under this legislation without the one part that we disagree with, which is the part that gives the Minister unfettered power to overrule any decision of the authority. Unless we have ironed that out, the Labour Party will not support this bill. I think National needs to seriously consider that small part of the bill. Kia ora.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I acknowledge the presence of Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa in the gallery: tēnā koutou.

I am pleased to speak on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. I will speak on three things this evening. Firstly, I will set out the scale of the tournament to outline how important this legislation is to New Zealand. Secondly, I will briefly highlight where we are at in terms of infrastructure and delivery for the cup, and, thirdly, I will touch on two key issues that have been raised by the Opposition—provisions for urgent consents and issues regarding gambling—during the submissions process.

A major reason we need this legislation is that we are stepping up to hold what will be the third-largest sporting event in the world. It will also be the largest sporting event this country has ever held. In terms of people, we are expecting 85,000 international visitors over the 6-week period of the tournament. On top of that, tens of thousands of Kiwis will need to travel and be accommodated around the country to attend games and be part of the fan zones.

The tournament is not just about Auckland and our main centres; we will need to be able to accommodate domestic travel and infrastructure throughout New Zealand. We have made a deliberate decision to spread the tournament throughout the country and into the heart of provincial and rural New Zealand, so that this tournament can be about a stadium of 4 million people, with 48 matches in 13 venues across New Zealand. In short, we are spreading the love all over the country so that all New Zealanders can experience the cup. This is the right thing to do, given that we have so many people in this country who are passionate about rugby, but it is also the right thing to do because this is not just about rugby, as Kelvin Davis acknowledged. It is about the extraordinary opportunity for economic development from the country’s exposure and from tourism from the cup.

That moves me to the fact that we are on track in terms of infrastructure and services for the Rugby World Cup. I was recently with the Minister for the Rugby World Cup and the Prime Minister at the re-opening of Eden Park. The redevelopment is superb. We have all stadium projects on track. The new Otago stadium will be delivered next year, but the rest will be delivered this year. We have confirmed team bases and logistics, and we have tested a variety of match-day processes. We have launched a drive to recruit 5,000 volunteers, and our ticket sales are on track, with over 500,000 having been sold in phase one. We will deliver in terms of the infrastructure and services that are required to hold this wonderful sporting event for New Zealand.

If we focus the mind, then, to when 4 billion people will be watching New Zealand hold the largest sporting event this country has ever seen, and 2,000 media will be here to report what happens, it is the view of members on this side of the House that just having the people and the infrastructure in place may not be enough. We have to have systems in place to deal with the difficult issues and situations that may arise. So it is pleasing that Opposition members have stated that they agree with the Government that the hosting requirements of an event of this scale present significant challenges. In principle, the Opposition also agrees that the bill will provide temporary legislation to enable the timely granting of consents.

But we are left with contention on two issues. I would like to correct the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis. One of the issues that he has not mentioned is an issue raised by Trevor Mallard in terms of the gambling provisions. This is a situation where we have members on this side of the House agreeing on the gambling provisions, and we also have all of the members on the other side of the House agreeing—except for one member, Trevor Mallard. He is the true “Lone Ranger” of this House. Trevor Mallard has said—and there are splits within Labour on this issue—that he disagrees with the gambling provisions. National has said that the reality with these cruise ships is that they are, effectively, floating hotels. But we will not allow them to be exempt from the gambling provisions because they are floating hotels, and they will have to be subject to New Zealand law. We think that that is the right decision, as do the majority of Labour members, except for Trevor Mallard.

The second issue of contention is the issue about urgent consents. Let me be very clear: firstly, it is really hoped that we will never ever need to use these provisions within Part 4. Secondly, let me be also very clear that this is not some unfettered secret process, as has been made out by the Opposition. This is about contingency planning and risk management for what will be the largest sporting event in New Zealand’s history, so let us also be very clear about what the specific process is. Before granting the approval, the Minister must consult with the Minister for Economic Development, and also with Ministers responsible for other relevant portfolios. The Government believes that this is necessary in order to have an urgent and flexible approval process to deal with approvals that may be necessary in the event of an unforeseen situation.

I know members opposite have asked us to come up with what may be an unforeseen event, but I ask them to reflect on the contradiction of that. We actually do believe that there could be some unforeseen events. We have given some examples, such as road closures, whereby—let us be clear, again—the Rugby World Cup Authority will go through the process of considering the situation and making a recommendation to the Minister, but it might be that the Minister for Economic Development and another Minister, such as the Minister of Transport, will decide that they need to overturn that decision. We think that that is a natural check and balance on the system. It is also our view that given the extraordinary nature of the power to grant approvals, it is best that a Minister of the Crown has the ultimate public accountability rather than an unelected body, as members opposite would have us believe.

Members on this side of the House support legislation that will enable us to minimise the risk to New Zealand when 4 billion people and 2,000 media will be watching us. We are united on this side of the House; we are not split, and we are delighted that we will be able to deliver not only the infrastructure but also the legislation and the people to ensure that when the eyes of the world are on New Zealand, we will play our best game.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 69

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

Noes 51

New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Progressive 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill

First Reading

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: E ngā pae maunga o Tāwhiuau rāua ko Tūwatawata, tēnei te maunga o Tongariro e tuo’u nei. E ngā awa o Rangitaiki rāua ko W’irinaki, tēnei te awa o Whanganui e rere hūmarie nei, ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au. Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Whare kei te mi’i, kei te mi’i, kei te mi’i.

[To the mountains of Tāwhiuau and Tūwatawata on the horizon, this mountain of Tongariro stoops before you. To the rivers of the Rangitaiki and Whirinaki, this is the river of Whanganui flowing serenely. I am the river, and the river is me. Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare, I bid you welcome, welcome, welcome.]

I move, That the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement 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, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 March 2011, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, and during the evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).

I am proud to acknowledge the inherent connection that we, as an uri of Ngāti Apa, have to the people of Ngāti Manawa through our ancestor Apa-hāpai-taketake. In fact, if we were going to Murupara today, we would be welcomed into the meeting house, which takes its name Apa-Hāpai-Take-Take from our eponymous ancestor. It is with much sorrow that I remember that my last visit to that place was to honour the memory of a man who truly invested his last breath in the legislation that we debate tonight. In thinking about Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare, one cannot go past the memory of Bill Bird and his absolute dedication to the settlement of these claims. One can never dispute the absolute commitment of that rangatira to the people of Ngāti Manawa, and we must view this legislation as part of the enduring legacy that he gifted to the whānau, hapū, and iwi.

The legislation brings together the claims of Ngāti Manawa alongside those of Ngāti Whare. The two iwi share in close bonds of whakapapa and the experience of a historical context laid out in the legislation under their name. The claims of Ngāti Manawa relate primarily to the consequences of their loyalty to the Crown during the New Zealand Wars; the Crown’s actions and omissions in respect of the operation and impact of the native land laws; the Crown’s land purchasing techniques, particularly in respect of the land that Ngāti Manawa wished to retain; and the 20th century development of lands, rivers, and forests. The legislation travels from inland Bay of Plenty and the lands of Murupara and the Kaingaroa plains, to the tribal base of Ngāti Whare, which is located around Minginui, the Whirinaki forest park, and the Whirinaki Crown forest rental lands.

The claims of Ngāti Whare relate primarily to the Crown’s actions during the 1860 wars, the impact of the Native Land Court and subsequent land alienation, the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, Crown corporatisation, the cessation of indigenous forest logging, and the return of Minginui village without providing Ngāti Whare with sufficient resources to bring village infrastructure up to Government standards. There is a devastating history under each of those events that is known only to the people of Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa, but this legislation starts the process of healing the grief of their shared histories.

The bill responds to the impact of the several wars that were fought between the Crown and other Māori in the eastern Bay of Plenty between 1865 and 1872, which this bill acknowledges had a prejudicial effect on Ngāti Manawa. Through the passage of this bill, we recognise the history in which the Crown has denied to Ngāti Manawa their capacity to uphold their mana-o-awa and mana whakahaere over the Rangitaiki and Whēao rivers, in which the Crown has failed to respect, provide for, and protect the special relationship of Ngāti Manawa with the Rangitaiki River and its tributaries.

The bill is a crucial step in acknowledging the deep regret of the Crown for the loss of lives, destruction, and harm inflicted on Ngāti Whare during and after its 1896 attack on Te Hārima Pā, and, significantly for the Crown, an opportunity to unreservedly apologise to Ngāti Whare for its actions. The bill also provides an important acknowledgment that the Crown regrets that Ngāti Whare have borne the stigma of being labelled rebels.

How, then, do we advance to a position in which the historical account, Crown acknowledgments, and the apology accorded to both Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare shape out a new future for their peoples? The bill gives effect to a cultural redress package designed around Ngāti Manawa’s aspirations. Its aim is to reinvigorate the relationship between Ngāti Manawa and sites of significance in their rohe, and includes the transfer and gifting back of Ngāti Manawa’s sacred maunga, Tāwhiuau; a classification, to be known as Ahi-kā-roa, that will recognise their sacred association with Tāwhiuau; the vesting in fee simple of 17 sites of significance; identification markers for 27 pou rāhui sites that set out the traditional boundaries of Ngāti Manawa; and a special projects fund of $2.6 million to assist Ngāti Manawa in undertaking various projects for cultural revitalisation.

For Ngāti Whare, this bill sets out a cultural redress package designed to acknowledge the Whirinaki Te Pua-ā-Tāne Conservation Park as a special place to both Ngāti Whare as kaitiaki and Aotearoa as a whole; the designation of the new name for the park, Whirinaki Te Pua-ā-Tāne, to express “Whirinaki, the bounty of Tane”; the provision of a co-governance role for the Whirinaki Te Pua-ā-Tāne Conservation Park between Ngāti Whare and the East Coast Bay of Plenty Conservation Board; the establishment of a joint Crown - Ngāti Whare trust for the purposes of regenerating the native forests destroyed over the last century by logging; the gifting of 609.4 hectares of land within the Whirinaki Crown forest land to kickstart the regeneration project; and a fund totalling $1 million for the purposes of managing the regeneration project.

But what is really significant about this bill is that there is also the opportunity for shared redress for both Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa, including the joint vesting of three sites of cultural and spiritual significance to Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare, and the creation of the Rangitaiki River Forum, made up of equal iwi and equal council representatives in order to protect and enhance the health and well-being of the Rangitaiki River catchment. The Rangitaiki River and its tributaries, the Whirinaki, Horomanga, and Whēao Rivers, are synonymous with Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare. This shared redress sets the benchmark for future relationships between iwi, the Crown, and local authorities, and is a welcome initiative.

Treaty settlements are always fraught with conflict, and are distinguished by the memory of all those who have fallen in the name of pursuing their claims on behalf of future generations. This bill is no different. In giving effect to the deeds of settlement, in which the Crown, Ngāti Whare, and Ngāti Manawa agree to final settlement of their historical claims, including a Crown apology, this bill also provides a pathway forward, a pathway in pursuit of the aspirations of their mokopuna.

Nā reira tēnā koutou Ngāti Whare, Ngāti Manawa. Ka nui te mihi rawa atu ki a koutou kua tae mai nei i tēnei pō.

[So thank you, Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa. Huge greetings to you who have arrived here tonight.]

I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tautokotia atu ngā mihimihi o te whaea a Tariana ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai. He rekareka atu i te kite atu i a koutou e whai atu ā muri i tēnei take e tū roaroa atu. Nō reira tēnā koutou. I hīkoi tahi atu a Te Kani, haere tata ana ki Hāpuku, i haere pērā rātou ki Pūkawa, ki te wāhi o Iwikau. I reira kē e mau kaha atu te rangi mō te taura, te kōrero mō te Āpitihonohonotanga o tātou Ngāi Māori e wero atu rātou mō te maunga o Taupiri. I reira kē, e tata ana te tū kaha o Ngāti Manawa. Tihei mauriora!

[I endorse the Hon Tariana Turia’s acknowledgments to you. Greetings, welcome, welcome. I am delighted to see you follow up this matter, which has been standing for a very long time. So, well done. Te Kani marched and went close to Hāpuku with others, as they headed that way to Pūkawa, the domain of Iwikau te Heuheu. It was there that a strong bond came to be, as a challenge for the mountain of Taupiri was parried and is acknowledged as the beginning of the King movement for us, the Māori people. It was there that the might of Ngāti Manawa was seen to the fore. Behold the breath of life.]

It would be remiss of me not to remember Bill Bird and Denise, a whole lot of other people, and the tīpuna of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare in relation to this settlement, which is well due. In 1856 the Māori chiefs got together in Pūkawa, and Ngāti Manawa were there. They were on their own, and they were not tied down very much in relation to the issues that were being put asunder by the British troops at that time. They got together with te Heuheu tipuna Iwikau in Pūkawa, and they talked about the relevant issues, how they could deal with the great new group of people that was coming and pushing them around, and they decided to do things in their way. It is significant that our leaders got together in 1856 and had that discussion. It is between then and now that a whole lot has been put asunder.

Labour will support the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill, as we have done from the outset. I commend the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, before we go any further. I thank Michael Cullen, Mita Ririnui, and, dare I mention it, myself for triggering this bill and getting things going. I recognise that great leader Bill Bird, and Denise. Bill was a man who was unequivocal both outside and inside, and he stood the test of time. That mongrel disease that eats a lot of our people took Bill away. He is not here today, and that is certainly sad. But I feel proud enough to stand here and humble enough to mention him and Denise and a whole lot of other kaumātua who are not here. They put tireless hours into getting this settlement done, and we are getting very close to that. I agree with Minister Turia on why this settlement needs to be done. It is a full and final settlement, and it is what it is.

This bill gives effect to the deeds of settlement in which the Crown, Ngāti Manawa, and Ngāti Whare agreed to final settlements of the historical claims of both iwi. Labour supports this bill. The agreement in principle for the Ngāti Manawa claim was signed by Labour on 18 September 2008, and for Ngāti Whare it was signed by the Hon Chris Finlayson on 19 June 2009. I commend him for that. The deeds of settlement for Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa were signed by the Government on 8 December and 12 December 2009 respectively. Both iwi were part of the central North Island forest land collective settlement negotiated by Labour and finalised in 2008.

Firstly, with regard to Ngāti Manawa, their historical grievances relate primarily to the New Zealand Wars. It is an untold story generally, but it is a story that abounds with a whole lot of nastiness and bullying, for which they were unprepared. That we can get to this stage as a nation is a wonderful thing. Ngāti Manawa have withstood more pressure and more shoving around than most iwi. The Crown’s actions and omissions are in respect of the operation and impact of the native land laws; the Crown’s land purchasing techniques, particularly in respect of land that Ngāti Manawa wished to retain; and 20th century land, river, and forestry developments. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to see how well the choice to negotiate a settlement was made. This is a wise choice and a decision that needs to be made on behalf of the nation as a whole, to ensure that what Ngāti Manawa have been deprived of and what they have been denied is put right, and not left asunder.

An account of the historical background agreed between the Crown and Ngāti Manawa is included in the deed of settlement, along with the acknowledgments of Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and a Crown apology for those breaches. The Crown recognises the mandate of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa to negotiate a settlement on behalf of Ngāti Manawa. An agreed historical account and Crown acknowledgments form the basis for the Crown apology to Ngāti Manawa. There is a lot to apologise to Ngāti Manawa about. They were an interesting people. They stood alone. They certainly understood their mana, and they certainly wanted to ensure that there were succession plans and that their tikanga, their culture, their social development, and, hopefully, their business development were run and controlled by them. But, alas, a lot of dastardly deeds happened. It is certainly wonderful to be here this evening to head towards finishing this settlement.

The deed of settlement will provide for the Crown to pay $2.6 million to Ngāti Manawa to fund special projects nominated by Ngāti Manawa, and for the gifting of three school sites. One of the things that stands in my mind about Ngāti Manawa is their kura. I had hoped that the Minister of Education would be here in the House, but as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is here and Hone Harawira is here, I will tell them about it and hope that they do something about it. Certainly the kura at Ngāti Manawa decided to do its thing in its way again, and that is exactly what it has done. Its literature is all about Ngāti Manawa. Its stories are all about Ngāti Manawa. Its schooling, its culture, is all about Ngāti Manawa. So Ngāti Manawa are well prepared to take hold and grasp the fruits of these settlements. That kura and that practice of educating the people to remember that they are the tangata whenua there ensures that they have choices to go nationally and globally. It is a fantastic summary of a people trying to do their own thing for themselves. It is not new; it is something that they have inherited. It is not that Ngāti Manawa deny the importance of Shakespeare, or that other people might want them to talk about Rumpelstiltskin or talk about Caesar sticking somebody in the back, or whatever else it may be. But they do certainly understand that they need to differentiate themselves, so their people understand who they are and have the courage to protect what they have, what they get back, and what they intend to hold on to.

After Te Tāpiri, Ngāti Manawa had to abandon their path and cultivations in the Rangitaiki valley. They were cut off from their traditional economic resources for more than a year, while living as refugees in Rotorua, the land of the famed Te Arawa. Ngāti Manawa lived in exile. That is the other issue that is relevant to Ngāti Manawa. They were exiled from their whenua, and it is really important that they go back.

In relation to Ngāti Whare, mihi kau ana ki a koutou mō tērā. [I really acknowledge you for that.] The iwi’s area of interest is based around Te Whāiti, Minginui, and the Whirinaki Forest Park. It has a population of between 1,500 and 3,000. These people were put asunder by industrialisation. These were the people who were promised thousands of jobs; these were the people who developed the forestry. But then the companies moved on. High unemployment—what did that do? Old Tories privatised things, and they threw the people out of work. It is great that this Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is putting things right—and so he should. He should be putting them right.

Hon Dr Wayne Mapp: Who sold Telecom? I think it was Labour.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA: To that person who is barking up there and who is in charge of our Defence Force, I say he has inherited a lot of the dastardly tricks of the past soldiers. I tell him not carry on like that, because it is no good—it is no good. He should make sure that Ngāti Manawā get what is due to them.

The things that were inflicted on Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare were very, very unfair. In my notions of history, this is one of the worst issues that were put aside. But, at the end of the day, I am glad that there have been people like the great barrister Denese Hēnare, who understands all this stuff and works really hard to protect her people. How she ended up with a barking British person, I do not know—I do not know. But I am very thankful that there have been barristers like Denese Hēnare who have tried hard for Ngāti Manawa, like the Labour Party has. We totally support the Minister. Ngāti Whare should not be forgotten; Ngāti Manawa should not be forgotten. At the end of the day we will be very, very thankful if they are overcompensated for what was taken away from them. No matter what we give back to them, it will never be enough.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I welcome the representatives of both Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare who have joined us tonight for this great occasion. Engagement in these settlements requires commitment and courage. It often involves some difficult trade-offs, personally and professionally, by those who are so involved in it. I pay tribute to the leadership, the pragmatism, and the hard work of the negotiating teams of the two iwi who are with us tonight. It is through the diligent labour of those people that we are here on this occasion. I particularly acknowledge those who are no longer with us, especially the late Ngāti Manawa leader Bill Bird, who provided leadership and guidance for Ngāti Manawa for so many years. His determination to ensure that the settlement addressed the grievances of Ngāti Manawa and that there was meaningful redress that would benefit Ngāti Manawa now and in the future will be his legacy. He will never be forgotten. Mr Horomia was so right: that ghastly disease weakened and killed Bill, but he fought to the very end. Indeed, I recall my last meeting with him at a hotel in Rotorua. He was so ill it took him about 20 minutes to get from the car into the hotel, but he was a man of great courage and great spirit. He made a huge contribution at that meeting. I think it was at that meeting that we sealed the deal. I am so very saddened he has passed prior to this bill being introduced in the House, but I am heartened that he was able to sign the deed of settlement on behalf of his people. E te rangatira, moe mai rā. [Oh chief, rest in peace.]

I also mention Denise Howden, a negotiator for Ngāti Manawa who has passed away. Her legacy lives on in the settlement, especially in the commercial redress. E te tuahine, moe mai rā. [Oh sister, rest in peace.]

So this is, as other speakers have said, a very important day, not only for those of us gathered here today but for those who have gone before us and for those who will follow us. Today is as much about them as they are about us here today.

As other speakers have said, the grievances of these two iwi are significant and they are longstanding. This bill recognises and addresses those grievances. This bill settles all of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare’s historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. Both iwi have a close relationship. Their areas of interest overlap each other. It is important to remember that they are intrinsically linked. Ngāti Whare’s ancestor Wharepākau, and Ngāti Manawa’s ancestor Tangiharuru, were uncle and nephew. So it seems only fitting that the two iwi come together as whānau to complete their settlement legislation. In November 2003 the Crown recognised the mandates of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, and negotiations began with the signing of terms of negotiation in May 2004. As Mr Horomia has said, both iwi were part of the central North Island collective whose forestry claims were addressed as part of that settlement. Since the central North Island settlement, Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa have progressed largely in parallel to complete their comprehensive negotiations.

In 2009 the Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa signed separate deeds of settlement to settle all of their outstanding historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. I acknowledge my predecessor, Dr Cullen, and the work he did. I also acknowledge Mita Ririnui and Mr Horomia for their contribution.

It is significant and a reflection of their longstanding whakapapa ties that these two iwi are back together in this omnibus settlement bill. Although they have strong links it is appropriate that their grievances are recognised in their own settlement Acts, so I, in due course, will seek permission from the House to split the bill into two parts: namely, the Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill. These settlements, along with the central North Island settlement and the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū settlement will greatly assist toward the resolution of historical Treaty claims in this region. So today is a very important step in acknowledging the grievances and moving forward together.

Ngāti Manawa’s settlement is intended to meet the traditional historical, cultural, and spiritual interests of the iwi. The aspects of the cultural redress package aim to reinvigorate the relationship between Ngāti Manawa and sites of significance in their areas of interest. Included through the vesting of sites of particular significance are the erection of pou rāhui to mark traditional iwi boundaries, the creation of a body to restore Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare’s mana over their ancestral river and their relationship with eel or tuna, and, importantly, the transfer and gift back of Ngāti Manawa’s ancestral maunga Tāwhiuau.

The redress provided to Ngāti Whare recognises that the nation has benefited greatly from the resources of their rohe. We should recognise that many of the State houses in this country that shelter our people in times of need and in which future leaders have been raised came from the Whirinaki. The Crown has not always appropriately recognised this contribution Ngāti Whare have made to the history and future of our nation, nor has it noted the costs that their ancestral lands bore as a result of the forestry industry.

Following the signing of the deed of settlement in December last year, I had the honour of planting a few trees as a first stage of the regeneration project. I have to tell Mr Hughes that they were not cactus, they were rimu, and I hope that James Carlson is looking after them. It is my sincere hope that in the years to come, future generations of New Zealanders will enjoy the Whirinaki as it was before the forestry industry took its toll on the mighty rimu, kahikatea, and miro. Other speakers are quite right, and they have said it in this debate and in other debates that of course it is not possible fully to compensate iwi for the loss their peoples have suffered. But hopefully the cultural redress in this bill seeks to recognise Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare’s longstanding cultural and spiritual association with this region. The Crown is acutely aware when it enters negotiations that full restitution is impossible; we cannot turn back the clock or return all that was lost. I am very aware of the generosity of both these iwi in accepting this, and I pay tribute to that now. Their gift to the nation in doing so is gratefully received.

I am confident that this bill will settle these claims in a just and final manner, taking into account all of their grievances and the rights of all New Zealanders. I acknowledge these two iwi, who have suffered the breaches of the Treaty and who have carried these grievances, as Mr Horomia said, for far too long. I acknowledge the trustees of both rūnanga. Their dedication and determination on behalf of their iwi have been vital in achieving settlement.

The introduction of this bill begins the last stage of the settlement that seeks to recognise what is important to the peoples of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare, and to provide redress for historical breaches of the Treaty. It is one of the many settlements the Government is progressing at this time. So I pay tribute to those who are present. I promise them that this bill will be entrusted to the Māori Affairs Committee under the excellent chairmanship of Mr Henare, and I am sure Mr Horomia, Mr Ririnui, and Mr Davis will be there helping. We will get the bill back to the House as quickly as we can and enacted into law.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour): Otirā, hei wāhi tuatahi māku, e tū tautoko ana au i ngā mihi ki a koutou a Ngāti Manawa, a Ngāti Whare. Koutou rā, i takahia mai te huarahi, mai rā te tīmatanga mai o tēnei mahi ā koutou, tae noa mai ki tēnei wā. Me pēnei rā te kōrero, ka nui te aroha, ka nui te mihi ki a rātou kāore i tae ā-tinana mai. Rātou kua whetūrangihia, rātou rā hoki i ārahi mai i a koutou kia tutuki pai ai ngā moemoeā, ngā wawata a koro mā, a kui mā. Nō reira e mihi ake rā ki a Bill, ki a Denise, kīhai i te haramai i tēnei wā i roto i te tinana, otirā kei roto i te wairua, ā, kua tae mai. Nā runga i tēnā, mihi kau ana ki a koutou. E kore e taea e tēnei ki te mihi ki tēnā, ki tēnā o koutou kei mahue ake ētahi ki waho. Nō reira kia ora rā koutou mō te kaha o tā koutou mahi i tēnei wā, ā, ka nui rā te mihi.

[Firstly, for me, I rise to support the accolades accorded to you, Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare. You were the ones who set out on the road at the very beginning of this task of yours and have finally arrived here today. Let me put it this way: there is much regard and admiration for those ones who could not be here physically. I refer to those ones who have since passed away and who led you here to ensure that the dreams and aspirations of the elderly menfolk and womenfolk are fulfilled. So I doff my hat to Bill and Denise, who are no longer able to be here physically, but in spirit only, and say: it is done. With that, I welcome you most graciously. It is not possible to acknowledge each and every one of you separately, in case someone is left out. At this point, I acknowledge the hard work that you have done, to date. Well done.]

I first join with my colleagues the Hon Parekura Horomia; the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson; and the Hon Tariana Turia. They are the previous speakers who paid special tribute to a very, very fine individual, a fine New Zealander, he being the lead negotiator for the Ngāti Manawa claim, he being Bill Bird. He was a person well known throughout the claims community and certainly in the central North Island where he played a big part not only in leading the Ngāti Manawa people to this point but also for his contributions to the settlement of Ngāti Manawa’s interests in the central North Island settlement. So with those thoughts in mind, I pay special tribute to him and to Denise Howden. They were involved in a very difficult undertaking.

I first encountered Bill Bird and Denise Howden’s negotiation skills some time in 2005, I believe, and I was really impressed by the way they handled themselves with absolute dignity. As the Rt Hon Doug Graham would say, one gets some lessons in dignified behaviour from the types of people whom one meets in the negotiation process. The way they conducted themselves and the way they treated other people, in particular Ministers of the Crown, was an unforgettable experience. These people had to endure very challenging times, in particular in representing not the easiest iwi to get along with—Ngāti Manawa.

At this point I declare a conflict of interest: I too am Ngāti Manawa. I expect my cousin Paul Quinn to make the same declaration in this House. Having made that statement, I really have no difficulty in representing the best interests of Ngāti Manawa. The people who make up the iwi of Ngāti Manawa in Murupara and areas throughout the central North Island are people who want to move on. They are people who want to put the grievances of the past, the sadness of the past, and the hurt of the past behind them. They want to create a benchmark or a platform for the development of their people. Their legacy to future generations is in the fact that they made the big decisions, they did the hard yards, and they made the hard decisions. That has made life easier for future generations of Ngāti Manawa. Ngāti Whare, who are of the same area—in particular, Minginui and Te Whāiti—have done that also.

While sitting beside my colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia, the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, who played a big part in these negotiations, he reminded me that I should make special mention of his whanaunga James Carlson, who is in the gallery, and mention that James Carlson is also a “Horomia”. I have never heard this translation before, and I will be honest about it. “Horomia” in English means “pigheaded”. I said I did not think that was true but he said: “In our family it does.” Having thought about how difficult James Carlson was to deal with, I think he is pretty close to the translation. James Carlson is here today and that takes quite a bit of grit, quite a bit of substance, and quite a bit of what my friend Parekura Horomia referred to. We will leave that subject there.

Other people who need some acknowledgment in the first reading of this bill include the Hon Margaret Wilson, who initiated the discussions on behalf of the previous Labour Government. The mantle was then transferred to the Hon Mark Burton for a short time and then to the Hon Michael Cullen, who basically put the vehicle in top speed and gave instructions that this deal must be done. Although I congratulate the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations this evening, in particular on the acknowledgments in his own speech, I have to say that by the time he took responsibility for the portfolio the hard yards had been done! The hard yards had been done, so from here on it is easy, as far as he is concerned.

Having said that, I admire Minister Finlayson’s tenacity, because as I read through the bill, and previous speakers have gone through the components of the bill, I see aspects of cultural redress that are quite rightly included; they are areas of specific cultural and historical importance to the people of Ngāti Manawa and to the people of Ngāti Whare. The commercial redress, as my colleague Parekura Horomia said, will never be enough. The people of Ngāti Manawa and of Ngāti Whare acknowledge that this settlement is the best they are going to do for now, and the test for them will be how well they can grow it.

A part of the settlement package that I am interested in is the relationships with other Crown agencies. I will say, while the Minister is in the House, that there are some concerns within the claimant community that this Government is no longer committed to securing relationships between iwi and other Crown agencies as part of a Treaty settlement. I hope I am wrong and that what I have heard was just a rumour, but I know that a few iwi around the country are very concerned about that. Rumours being rumours, I would rather not take too much notice of them until I hear the substance, and that can come only from the Government.

Protocols in terms of Ngāti Manawa’s interests in fisheries are really important. There is special mention in the bill of their interests in the native eel industry. I had the privilege, I would say, of going walkabout in Minginui. I got an understanding of how vast and how commercially viable that industry is. I am not suggesting that Ngāti Manawa or Ngāti Whare will start to get into the commercial eeling industry, but they could make a pretty good contribution to it, given the geographic nature of the area they come from and the vast amounts of wetlands in the area.

There are also relationships, or protocols, with the Minister of Conservation. That is important. I think it was the Minister who made reference to the importance of the Whirinaki Forest. Having been there and having seen Jurassic Park the movie, I can understand how brilliant that area is. I happened to be wandering around there one day when people were filming. It has incredible scenery, it is an incredible environment, and it is incredibly Hollywood as well, but never mind! That was Minginui; the area where many of my tīpuna lived. To see them on the screen was quite moving. One never knows: my friend Parekura Horomia might make the movies one day.

The Minister of Energy and Resources is very important as well in terms of energy and alternative energy resources in the future. Those iwi, like many other central North Island iwi, will be very important in terms of alternative energy sources. We have seen the same with Ngāti Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau with geothermal, as with Ngāti Tūwharetoa as well. We will soon see much more of that with Te Arawa, particularly Ngāti Whakauē.

I think I have made my point fairly clear that Ngāti Manawa went on a very, very long journey to get to this point, as did Ngāti Whare. The reason why the journey took so long was that there were some points about the settlement legislation that needed to be understood and covered thoroughly. Although cultural redress has a very broad meaning, when we get down to the tin tacks of the detail of what cultural redress means, in particular for Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare, we realise that there are some areas of land that cannot be forgotten, cannot be left out of the discussion, and cannot be taken off the table in terms of the settlement. We realise that their interest in these areas have to be acknowledged in the settlement legislation. As with commercial redress, the challenges are there for them.

The protocols with the Crown agents are equally important, when we see what happened to Tūhoe recently. I understand that those discussions have reopened; it will be interesting to see what will come of that.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: They never stopped.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: Tūhoe say something else. I am glad to hear the Minister say that they never stopped, but Tūhoe have a different opinion. I am sure we will see a lot of that come to fruition in the days to come, but we also may not.

In my closing comments, I once again pay tribute to my people of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare who have been on this incredible journey and got their people to this point. I say well done. Ngā mihi o te rā ki a koutou katoa. Mā te wā ka whai hua, ka puāwai a koutou moemoeā, ā koutou wawata. Kia ora tātou.

[The compliments of the day to you all. In time, your dreams and aspirations will bear fruit and flourish. Congratulations.]

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I begin by joining other speakers in acknowledging and welcoming the presence in the House tonight of representatives of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare, for whom this is a special night. It is another step towards seeing the wrongs of the past put right and some basis for a better future laid down. I have been in this House only a relatively short time, but already I have seen a large number of bills go through this House, and they cover the whole gamut of purpose and content, from the profoundly important and meaningful to some bordering on the ridiculous. But I think that none of these bills are more challenging or more potentially rewarding than the settlement bills—the bills that are intended to at least partly remedy historic injustice and to provide the wherewithal for iwi and hapū to build their own cultural, their social, and, critically, their economic base so that into the future these people—our people—can create their own futures on their own terms and according to their own evolving tikanga.

This bill is currently in one piece of legislation, one quite large piece of legislation, but the stated intention is that it should be divided into two at the Committee stage. That is an entirely appropriate process to deal with the claims of two peoples whose histories have been so closely intertwined and whose histories continue to be linked, but who must, nevertheless, be given the opportunity and appropriate recognition as two distinct peoples, each with their own interests and aspirations when it comes to determining the nature and the detail of the settlements that will emerge from this process.

As an omnibus bill, this is a large and complex document, building on the deeds of settlements already signed by Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare in December 2009—coming up to a year ago. The detail of the settlement proposed is equally complex, trying as it does to serve the interests of the three affected parties: the two iwi and the Crown. It will require considerable work at select committee to ensure that appropriate and genuine recompense is made for the injustice that began in the 1860s and continued to the latter part of the 20th century.

We have had this bill for only a relatively short time to read and to endeavour to understand it, but it is clear even from quite a cursory reading that there is much in the detail of this bill that has the ability, or at least the potential, to derail the good intentions and the purpose of the bill. It is to be hoped that this detail can be resolved in a way that gives a fair settlement, for only if it is honest and if it is fair can any settlement be truly final.

It must be said that some of the land affected by this bill, particularly the Whirinaki and parts of the Rangitaiki areas, are of significant value to non-Māori, and not least of all to conservationists. We know that often there are significant concerns and even fear when it seems that Māori will reclaim some rights to manage, to protect, to use, and to develop land that was historically theirs and is being returned. There is often a fear that conservation values will be compromised in some way, and we in the Greens will commit to, perhaps, mitigating or allaying some of those fears, knowing as we do that kaitiakitanga is something that has a longer history in this country, is more profound, and has similar intentions and purpose to modern conservation.

One of the great benefits of the processes of the Waitangi Tribunal and of the settlement documents that can emerge from that tribunal process is that it provides a forum. It provides a canvas upon which we can write the extraordinary stories of our own shared history, too many of which have never before been heard except by perhaps a handful of those most closely affected. For the most part, even in my lifetime, non-Māori and Māori alike could grow up in New Zealand knowing the stories of European conflict, struggle, and change. We heard at school and in popular culture the stories from North America, from Asia, and from the Indian subcontinent, but we heard very little of our own stories. We heard far too little about the history of our own land and the people in it.

This has changed in recent times, but there is still a long tail of ignorance about what happened here before and since European contact, and that is reflected in the number of people who still fail to recognise, or even refuse to believe, that the Treaty and Treaty settlements have a vital part to play in our present and future well-being.

The historical accounts set down in this bill are written in a very dry and factual manner, and that is appropriate to the context and to the purpose of this document. It requires, however, only an ounce of imagination, an ounce of empathy, just the slightest experience of the land, the rivers, and the taonga that are being managed or returned, to bring alive the true drama and the tragedy of these accounts. The sets of relationships within and between Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare, and their historic relationship with their land, suffered a series of disruptions that may be directly and indirectly attributable to the arrival of Europeans, the signing of the Treaty, and the process of colonisation that followed on from it. As a result of war, of invasion, of legal and quasi legal alienation and confiscation, the iwi and hapū were rendered effectively destitute. They were deprived of their possessions, deprived of their ability to maintain their own economy, and, all too often, deprived of their very lives. It is to the eternal credit of ngā iwi that they persevered and maintained their commitment to finding justice for 150 years, and we in the Greens will be very pleased to lend our support to the legislation that might finally make good on that justice that has been earned. Kia ora koutou.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Tū ana au ki te tautoko i ngā mihi o te Whare nei ki a Ngāti Manawa, a Ngāti Whare.

[I rise to endorse this House’s acknowledgments to Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare.]

I am very pleased to stand briefly in the House today to lend my support to a long-awaited settlement bill, the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill. We are dealing with areas that may mean very little to some, but to others it means a hell of a lot. When we talk about areas like Murupara, Te Whāiti, Minginui, and Whirinaki, we are talking about an area that has helped house thousands of New Zealanders. In that respect alone we should tip and doff our hats to the local people of those areas. Not many of us have ventured into those areas. Those I know of have come out alive and better for the experience. I can remember back in 1977, when I was just a very young lad, being taken to Murupara by my teacher Bill Tāwhai for a wedding. There was nothing strange about that wedding other than I got to listen to the third test, I think, between the All Blacks and the Lions in the church, with a little earpiece.

As I have spoken of many times before in this House, this is but a small offering that the Government of the day can make in response to some horrendous things that have happened. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to be able to work with the other side of the House as well to get settlements—meaningful settlements—moving as fast as possible. My colleagues Mita Ririnui and Parekura Horomia have said that no matter what we come up with and what we settle on, it pales into insignificance next to the hurt of those we are trying to settle with.

Like I said, I will be brief, but one thing that really worries me about the settlement process is who learns from it. Today at home I opened up the New Zealand Herald and there was a public notice for the AGM of what I found out was the Ngāti Whare Trust, but the New Zealand Herald had “Ngati Trust”—it was the AGM for “Ngati Trust”. Obviously it might have been a typo; it might have been an innocent mistake. But an innocent mistake can be a huge mistake when the public notice is so meaningful to the local people. Although we are part of the 21st century, and although we are about to see the progress of a settlement bill, it still happens.

I say to the people in the gallery, Ngāti Whare and Ngāi Manawa, that we will do our best on the Māori Affairs Committee to make sure this legislation has a fast and safe passage. I am looking forward to coming back to Murupara when we have the select committee hearings.

Nō reira e te Whare, kei a koutou e aku rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[So to you, the House, and my chiefs, greetings, acknowledgments, and salutations to you all.]

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): Tēnā rā koutou. Tēnā anō koutou e Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Whare. Ka nui ngā mihi atu ki a koutou i takahia mai te huarahi kia tatū mai ki raro i te tuanui o tō tātou nei Whare, hei whakarongo ki tēnei te pānuitanga tuatahi o tō koutou nā pire. Nā reira, tēnā rā koutou me ngā tini mate kua pīkaungia e koutou, tērā ko Bill Bird, rātou katoa mā. Nō reira, e ngā mate haere.

[Greetings to you, collectively. Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare, welcome. I commend you greatly for travelling here to be under the roof of this House of ours to listen to the first reading of your bill. I also acknowledge the many deaths that you have had to bear, including Bill Bird. So farewell, the deaths.]

It gives me pleasure to speak on the first reading of the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill. I have to admit that I have been to Murupara only once. That was for the tangihanga of my dear friend Pererika Twist, a colleague from the world of education who passed away, unfortunately, way too early. That is what drew me to Murupara. Like my whanaunga over there from Ngāti Hine, Tau Henare, says, we are looking forward to going back to Murupara. It will be a more joyous occasion than heading off to the tangi of a friend.

As my colleague Parekura Horomia says, this bill gives effect to the deeds of settlement that the Crown, Ngāti Manawa, and Ngāti Whare agreed to as the final settlements of the historical claims of both iwi. I read here in the notes that this is one of the many settlements that the Government is progressing towards its goal of settling historical Treaty claims justly and durably by 2014. We really intend to make sure this is a durable settlement. But part of that sentence says that we are settling the claims justly. It is really hard to argue that any settlement will be just when we consider everything that was taken—the land, kua raupatuhia, the culture—and all the negative impacts that had on the people since that time. It can never really be just compensation when one is getting a fraction back of what was lost. I am not talking just in terms of the amount of land and resources lost; the loss of language and culture can never be compensated for. It is a bit like someone coming along and pinching my car, and then 20 years later turning up with the hubcaps and saying: “Here you go. I hope you’re happy with the return of your asset.” It is a bit like that.

This settlement will not be just, but I have to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare for accepting that there is not a blank cheque to just write out a figure with as many zeroes on the end as the settlement should be worth. I acknowledge them. I also say that their story is our story. Be it Ngāti Manawa or Ngāti Whare—or, like me, Ngāpuhi—their story is our story. The details may be different, but the general theme, the broad outline of the story, is the same. We have all suffered as a result of actions of the Crown over the last 170-odd years. That is why it really gets under my skin when I hear people out there in the community say: “Oh, these blimmin Māoris have got their hands out again. They’ve been given millions of dollars, and I wish they would just get on with things.” It annoys me when they say that without acknowledging the extent of the losses. But this is a time to move forward. This is a time to put that behind us. As much as it hurts, it is a time to put all of that behind us and move forward, and use the settlement to renew the language and the cultural well-being of the iwi. So I ask Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare to take this settlement and make the most of it for the benefit of their people. When Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare do well, and when all the other iwi that have received their settlements are doing well, then we are building and lifting and rising up as a people. It will not be easy; it has not been easy. But we must strive forward and upwards for the sake of our kids and our grandkids for the years to come.

I am pleased that we are working through these settlements, as unfair as I believe the quantum is. It does not compensate for the loss that we have experienced, as I have said, but I am glad that we are working through these settlements so that we as a people, te iwi Māori, can move forward, progress, and advance our interests. Education is what I know and what I am in Parliament to improve, so I really hope that part of that settlement is set aside for the kids to improve educational outcomes so that as many Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare kids as possible can move through the school system successfully, can go on to university, can go on and become the business leaders and the people of influence in this country, and can sit here in this House and make decisions so that Māori never again have to go through what we have gone through in the past.

I could go through the litany and the length and breadth of all the issues and confiscations, and all the things that have happened to these two iwi—I looked through the bill and I saw page after page of history of all the wrongs—but this is not really a time to relitigate. It is a time to remember but it is not a time to relitigate all those issues. This moment at this time is about moving forward and moving ahead, not about looking back and feeling sad about everything. It is about moving forward and progressing into the future. As I say, I am really looking forward as a member of the select committee to heading up to Murupara. I know that not everybody in Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare will be happy with what is being offered, and no doubt we will hear from those people. I am looking forward to hearing their side of the story and what they want to have happen. But, again, I hope we do not get bogged down with infighting and bickering, scrapping over this blade of grass and not that blade of grass, or whatever. We have to make sure that we are moving forward and that we get the best deal for Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare.

It is an honour to stand and speak to this first reading. I look forward to the select committee process, the second reading, the Committee stage, and the third and final reading so that Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare can then move ahead into a future where their kids, their grandkids, and their great-grandkids are all successful and influential people contributing to Aotearoa New Zealand. Kia ora.

PAUL QUINN (National): Tēnā koe, e te Mana Whakawā, tēnā tātou te whānau Pāremata. Ngāti Whare, Ngāti Manawa, nau mai, haere mai. Tēnā koutou, nau mai ki te Whare Pāremata.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to us, the family of Parliament. Welcome, Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa, welcome. Greetings to you, and welcome to Parliament House.]

It gives me, along with others, great pleasure to join and welcome Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa. As my taina, Mita Ririnui, has already pointed out, I have to declare not a conflict of interest but an interest, because I am, like him, Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa. Having said that, it will not stop me from voting in full spirit for the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill right through its stages; indeed, it will give me great pleasure to do so.

Like previous speakers, I too pause for a moment to acknowledge the outstanding leader Bill Bird. I attended a number of meetings before and after entering Parliament in terms of these negotiations, and it is a great sadness that he is unable to join us to witness for himself this moment. It is one that he worked so hard and so diligently for.

I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge some familiar faces in the gallery. In particular, I acknowledge Bronco Carson and my friend and colleague James Carlson. James Carlson and I played rugby together for one of the great club teams, Marist St Pats. In fact, before I stood I was just reflecting on that great team, which I think went 2½ years and 42 games without loss. It was interesting because in that team James let everyone know that he was part of the front row, and that without him as the cornerstone tighthead nothing would have ever been achieved. Other interesting characters in that team went on to take leadership positions with other organisations: Brian Dickson is now the chief executive officer of Ngāi Te Rangi, and Tū Wyllie was our first five-eight. So it is great to be able to, as James would say, stand here and do his work for him in terms of joining to speak on this bill, which is enacting the deed of settlement.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Todd McClay, the local constituent MP, who has assisted the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in working with the local Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare people in progressing this bill. I think it is appropriate we acknowledge him.

The reason I had to reflect on my taina is that during the course of his speech I think he was somewhat cheeky in terms of talking to the Minister, who has done an outstanding job in getting this bill to where it is. I decided that like all taina he tends to be a bit cheeky and a bit disrespectful to his elders. I have to apologise to the Minister on my relation’s behalf for his cheekiness, but I am sure it was meant in good spirit.

I do not have much more to say—I think that most of it has been said—other than to say that I can assure our visitors and representatives from Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa that the Māori Affairs Committee works very well and diligently on ensuring that Treaty settlement bills are expedited through the select committee process. I can guarantee that this bill will be no exception. The committee is a very collegial one, and we are at one in terms of making sure that Treaty settlements get the highest priority in our work programme. With those few words, it gives me pleasure to join others in supporting the first reading of this bill.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia ora anō tātou. Kāti, hei tīmatanga tautoko i Te Reo, whakamihi atu ki ngā manuhiri, ki ngā huānga kua tatū mai ki Te Ūpoko-o-te-Ika, ki te mātakitaki, whai taringa atu ki ngā kaitōrangapū o tēnei wā, e whakakaupapa ana i ngā moemoeā mō te hia rānei roa e tārewa ana. Nā, ka tāngia ki te kapu o te pepa, ā, tōna wā, ka whakatutukitia te ōhiatanga o te ngākau i poua ai i te wā i ērā atu o ō tātou mātua erangi rawa i roto i tō koutou rohe. Nā reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou. Kāti e te Kaihautū o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tautoko mātou i tēnei pire. Otirā, te aroha atu mō te hia rānei te roa, e tārewa ana tēnei take. Ahakoa ko Tūhoe, ko Te Arawa ngā iwi e mōhiotia whānuitia ana i roto i ēnei rohe, arā noa atu te hunga taketake nō roto i ēnei ngāherehere, i runga i ēnei papa, nā, ko Ngāti Whare, ko Ngāti Manawa. Te pai hoki, ehara i te mea, ēnei iwi, tō rātou mātotoru e rite ana ki tō Tūwharetoa, ki tō Te Arawa, ki tō wai atu rānei; otirā, he mana whenua anō ō rātou, he pānga taketake anō ō rātou i roto tonu i te puku o te motu. Nā reira, he aha oti te raruraru? Me āmene katoa tātou i tēnei pire, kia whiwhi paku aha rānei rātou, hei muru i ngā nawe i māturuturu mai, mai i te wā i hainangia ai te Tiriti o Waitangi, mai i te wā i pahū ai te whenua i ngā tau ka pahemo ki muri. Nā reira, ngā mihi ki a koutou, ngā mihi ki a tātou kia tautokotia ai tēnei pire i te pō nei.

[Greetings again, to us all. By way of beginning this endorsement in our language, I extend greetings to the visitors and relations who have arrived in Wellington to observe and listen to the current politicians as they pass into law the dreams held suspended for such a long time. It was signed in the hollow of the deed of settlement, which will eventually achieve in time that which was driven into the seat of the affections of those of our parents in your region, and cherished. Therefore, greetings to you collectively, greetings.

So greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker of the House. We support this bill. Indeed, we sympathise because of the length of time this matter has been held over. It has been too long. While Tūhoe and Te Arawa are the most well-known tribes in these domains, there are others, too, who are indigenous to these forested areas, such as Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa. And it is wonderful. It is not as though their number equals those of Tūwharetoa, Te Arawa, and whomever else. They have their own individual influence over the land and indigenous interests in the abdomen of the country, the central North Island. So what is the problem? We have to totally endorse this bill to ensure that they get a little compensation to rid themselves of the transgressions that have come their way since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and the land erupted in those years gone by. Therefore, acknowledgments to you, Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa. Acknowledgments to us; let us pass the bill tonight.]

I rise to reflect our support for the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill. The two tribes at stake come from an area that the average Kiwi might regard as obscure, but the history in that area of the motu is deep and, just as I have said in Māori, other tribal names are often associated with this broad region of Aotearoa—Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Te Arawa, Tūhoe, and, a bit further afield, Ngāti Awa. This bill affirms that Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare have deep and ancestral connections with this part of Aotearoa. Part of what we are doing this evening is not only effecting a transfer of capital assets, cash, etc, it is providing an overdue affirmation of how central these tribes are in terms of the historical identity of this part of the country. They add colour and vitality to what it means to come from this part of Aotearoa.

Part of this settlement was slightly delayed as a consequence of Dr Cullen, in an earlier Government, wanting to effect the transfer of forestry-related assets to the tribes of this part of Aotearoa. I think it is fair to say that for some of the beneficiaries in these tribes, it has been a positive outcome. It takes far too long for us to move through the process and effect these settlements, but I think that given the quantum—and perhaps the mix of asset has improved—I doubt that there is any serious politician who is going to dissent from what has been delivered upon.

I went to St Stephen’s School, and I have been to one of the sites to be vested in Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa—a place called Kiorenui. Of course, being very humble and from Ngāpuhi nui tonu, we actually derived a great deal of pleasure in contemplating what might be the origins of the village called Kiorenui. I can assure the House that in the Ngāpuhi dialect, a kiore is a native rat. The Tūhoe and Ngāti Manawa boys chased us around the rugby field and said: “We might come from the area of rats, but this is how big our fists are.” So at that point we stopped making fun.

These are historic areas. Fort Galatea is a name that evokes an important part of our history—when colonial forces sought to subdue the tangata whenua. Indeed, in the history of these two tribes there is a fantastic story about a flag that historically was flown on the marae, and it was a flag of resistance. I am not entirely sure whether it is at Te Papa or even whether a replica exists, but I recall a kaumātua of these iwi telling us when we were lads at St Stephen’s School about their history and this particular flag.

It is disappointing that the neighbours of these two iwi, under the current circumstances, are unlikely to recover the title to their ancestral lands in what is currently known as a national park. However, I note this evening’s news commentary that the current Minister is looking at an innovation, something akin to mana whenua or customary title, etc. But if ever there is a case for tribes to enjoy the experience of recovering their estate, it will be difficult to find a more compelling case than in this part of the country. Very few people actually visit the area; many have recently left the area. I think it is important that we all join together, because all areas need positive contributions—an infusion of interest, enthusiasm, and resources.

I look forward, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, to learning about, seeing, and hearing about this new innovation that might allow the broader New Zealand society to sleep soundly at night, knowing that the title is not racing off somewhere in relation to the “Tūhoe National Park”, because if it is possible for us to use some innovations with these two tribes, surely it is possible for an innovation to be derived to settle the outstanding issues associated with some of the neighbours of these two iwi.

When sites are vested—and there are a number of sites here—I think it is important that all New Zealanders realise that when we marry cultural heritage with geographical location, then the landscape comes alive. There is an ancient Māori proverb: “He mana anō tō te kupu.”, which means that to utter the name is to invoke the presence. Because this legislation reunites the cultural heritage reflected in the names and the origins of the names with points on the landscape, that part of New Zealand’s cultural history comes alive for all New Zealanders. It injects a sense of indigeneity into the landscape that may, for a host of casual observers, look like a series of hills and valleys covered in pine trees or regenerating native bush. But that is the real value, because when we bring back the ancestral names, we affirm the indigenous history. Although the resource base may not be of a large quantum, fiscally speaking, the fact that the names, the connections, and the sense of belonging is upheld leads to a better-adjusted younger generation. And that is why we are very, very happy to support this bill. No doubt it will go to the Māori Affairs Committee, to the tuakana of Paul Quinn and to the current chair of that committee, Tau Henare, who will acquit himself with a great deal of courtesy, one would hope, and not tell the submitters to bugger off. Kia ora tātou katoa.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It is a pleasure to speak on the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill. I acknowledge that, as with any good settlement, it has been some time coming. In November 2003 the Crown recognised the mandates of iwi, and it took through to December last year for each rūnanga to sign a deed of settlement in order to settle all outstanding historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. I acknowledge as well, of course, that these settlements are part of a much bigger picture, in which the Government is delivering on its promise to complete full, durable settlements of the remaining historical Treaty grievances by 2014, whereby we recognise the wrongs of the past, help iwi unlock economic potential, and provide a welcome economic boost, particularly in regional and provincial areas, such as those we are dealing with here.

It seems that debate on this bill has been an evening of anecdotes, but I have not spent a lot of time in the areas that are being settled here.

Hone Harawira: Tauranga?

SIMON BRIDGES: No, Murupara. I had, I suppose, a rather stressful time—although in hindsight it had a good ending—trekking around in the Ureweras with my wife and friends.

Hone Harawira: Stumble across anybody’s dack?

SIMON BRIDGES: No. We were coming home in a Subaru when the petrol tank was opened up on the gravel road. We managed to putt into Murupara, and spent the night in the local motel there.

Hone Harawira: Which one?

SIMON BRIDGES: I do not know what it was called; there is only one, I think—next to the petrol station. Then we went across to the tavern, where we experienced some of the best hospitality we had had, and certainly the best kai we had had, all trip. On the trek we were eating baked beans, which my wife complained about because they weighed the packs down too much.

It is indeed an area of beautiful people and beautiful land. Some members have talked already about that beauty, and about the Kaingaroa forests and areas of ancient giant podocarps that David Bellamy, I think, waxed lyrical about years in the past. So it is good that today and this evening we are coming close to finishing the journey, and to settling the claims of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare. It is a pleasure, as I say, to be part of the process.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I start a very brief intervention on the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill by paying tribute to Bill Bird for his leadership and vision. I know that Bill put great effort and much of his life force into this agreement. Although, sadly, he cannot be here with us in person, I know he will be here in spirit, and that he will be celebrating this event in another place.

I recognise and welcome the people of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare: those who have travelled to be here in this House today, and those who are at home watching on television in Minginui and in Murupara, and in the places in between. I have spent a great deal of time in Murupara as a local MP, hunting and fishing in the area as well as performing my work, and I recently visited Minginui for meetings with the local community. It is a vibrant and rich part of New Zealand: vibrant because of the plentiful rivers and the great forests, and rich because of the people who live there, who are proud of their heritage, and who are proud of their culture.

As a local MP, I was honoured to join Mr Finlayson and colleagues Te Ururoa Flavell and Mita Ririnui for the signing of the agreement in principle at the marae at Ngāti Manawa. We were made very welcome there on that day, and we put aside the politics of this place to join together in support of a people, as we do so here again.

For those in this House who have declared that they have visited Murupara only once, I invite them to return there very soon, if not before the end of the year, and to come and join us early next year when we will have the Parliamentary Rugby Team playing in Murupara. The people of Murupara and that area are warm and friendly, but I suggest that the welcome may not be so warm on the rugby field that day.

For my part as a local MP, I say that I look forward to this bill passing through the House in its remaining stages, and I wish my colleagues well in working together whilst it is in the select committee. I wanted to briefly show my support to the people who have travelled here, to the people of the area, and to the people whom I have the great honour and pleasure to represent. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Māori Affairs Committee consider the Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 March 2011, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 187, 189(a), and 190(1)(b) and (c).

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Identity Information Confirmation Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 14 October.

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East): Tēna koe, matua Lindsay Tisch. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the call, because only last week, on Thursday evening, prior to the House rising at 6 o’clock, I was addressing the very important issue of identity fraud. It is an important issue, one that has taken the time of this House, and now I have the opportunity to complete my address. What we have to do is discuss this whole issue, and the Identity Information Confirmation Bill needs to go through this House and off to a select committee.

The bill provides great assistance to companies that need to comply with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. In supporting this legislation one has to be ever mindful about the issue of privacy. We on this side of the House are really concerned about issues relating to privacy. [Interruption] My colleague Dr Ashraf Choudhary agrees wholeheartedly with that. We have Big Brother syndrome, we have the excessive powers of the State, and we have state-of-the-art technology, and everywhere people go today there are closed-circuit television cameras all around the place. So we are mindful of privacy, but we also know that that needs to be balanced with the issue of identity fraud.

Here are some facts for New Zealanders about identity fraud, which I found fascinating when I was having a look at the issue. The average amount of money lost due to fraud in New Zealand in 2009 was $1.5 million. The top four types of fraud reported are false invoicing, which is very prevalent; theft; bribery and corruption; and, of course, lending fraud. Ninety percent of those responsible for managing the risks of fraud do not hold any form of fraud management or investigation qualification.

Forty-two percent of New Zealand businesses were affected by identity fraud during the year. New Zealand police identified 900 cases of identity fraud in New Zealand last year, but they believe that they are only a fraction of the number of cases that actually occur. In a high-profile case of identity fraud, New Zealand fraudster Wayne Thomas Patterson was sentenced to 8 years in prison after being convicted of using 123 different identities. He stole $3.4 million in benefits in 2007.

Let me conclude by saying that we support this bill’s referral to a select committee, but we are ever mindful of privacy concerns, and we will be paying very close attention to the views and the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner.

Hon Simon Power: Who’s we?

H V ROSS ROBERTSON: We, I say to Mr Simon Power, are the members of the Opposition. We are concerned about the issues of privacy on this side of the House, even if the member on the Government benches might not be. We are concerned, we will take notice of any recommendations that the Privacy Commissioner puts forward during the select committee process, and we will take those recommendations seriously. It is obvious that the Hon Simon Power does not care about privacy. Tihei mauri ora.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Identity Information Confirmation Bill is a difficult bill. There is a genuinely good purpose behind it, which is to prevent fraudulent activity—that is, claiming someone else’s identity for a fraudulent purpose. However, there is also a big downside. It is, in effect, a significant move in the direction of an electronic ID card, with all the civil liberties difficulties that that entails.

The Government databases for births, deaths, marriages, civil unions, passports, and citizenship will be at the service of not only public agencies but also private agencies such as banks, insurance companies, and credit agencies. Those private agencies will be able to have the identity of a person confirmed by the State and use that information for their own advantage.

It could also enable discrimination against people applying for jobs. For example, one of the pieces of information that employers and others will be provided with instantaneously by email is the place of birth of a person. That could open the way for discrimination on the basis of national origin, as it has in similar circumstances overseas. Take, for example, a South African - born job applicant who is faced with an employer biased against people who, in Paul Henry’s terms, are not real New Zealanders. The State will now provide any such discriminatory employer with an immediate check on the applicant’s place of birth, and that employer will be able to exclude that person from the job even before they have got to the interview. Potential employees are supposed to give approval for the employer to check State databases, but if applicants really want the job they would be unlikely to block it.

One thing that particularly concerns the Greens is that the system does provide for what is, in effect, an electronic ID card via a provision in clause 5, whereby identity information includes “the photograph in the passport”. This electronic photograph provides a biometric identifier of the person. There is already a photographic identification system operating at the SmartGates at New Zealand’s airports, which compares our features in photographs taken of us as we pass through immigration and customs with a simplified version of our photograph contained in the immigration and customs database and in the chip in our passport. According to the Customs Service website this “Facial recognition technology works by mapping the underlying bone structure of the face, for example, the distances between eyes, nose, mouth and ears. The measurements are then digitally coded to be used for comparison and verification purposes. With SmartGate, a mathematical formula is used to determine whether the photo of the traveller’s face matches their ePassport photo.”

So what is likely to happen under this bill—and fairly soon, I imagine—is that when people stand at the counter of their bank, a camera will take a photograph as they fill in, say, a form to start up an account. The form will contain a box asking whether they agree to the bank checking their identity, which if they want a bank account they will be likely to tick. The photograph the bank takes will then be emailed to the Department of Internal Affairs, which will respond in seconds as to whether it matches the digitally coded version of the photograph in its passport database. One might say that is the same as the existing SmartGate procedure, but, firstly, one has a choice of whether to use a SmartGate or to go through customs in a less biometrically intrusive way, and, secondly, do we really want all kinds of private agencies such as banks, shops, insurance companies, and credit agencies checking us in this way? It is true that under clause 13 Government officials must consult the Privacy Commissioner if they “are proposing to enter into a confirmation agreement that will allow a comparison of an individual’s photographic image against any photographic images of that individual”. Such consultation with the Privacy Commissioner is good, but in reality it would only slow down, not stop, the creep towards a universal ID card and all the ethical problems associated with it. If this bill is passed, facial recognition systems may become commonplace in banks and in larger shops.

There is already a debate about privacy problems associated with facial recognition systems, particularly around their use on the Internet. Google already has a facial recognition system in Picasa to allow people to tag a particular individual in their own photos on the Picasa photo storage site. It can scan thousands of such photographs in an individual set to tag individuals in this manner. Google was also going to introduce a more general facial recognition search function on the web, but pulled back because of a bit of reaction as to the privacy implications. Another agency, face.com, already finds photos of people by searching Facebook sites. One can imagine the problems here not only for people’s privacy but also, for example, for a woman trying to stay away from a violent, possessive former spouse. If the woman happened to be snapped in a group picture at some event, perhaps without her knowledge, the picture could be put on the Net and discovered by the former spouse, who is chasing her by using facial recognition technology.

The debate over privacy issues around facial recognition systems and ID cards is growing around the world. In Britain, the Liberal Democrats made privacy issues a major issue in their election campaign, and the very first bill introduced by the new Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition was the Identity Documents Bill, which cancelled the Labour Government’s programme for a universal ID card, a programme that was already under way. The bill cancelled all those ID cards that have already been handed out and abolishes the national identity register.

The British Home Secretary, Theresa May, explained to Parliament on 9 June: “Photographs and fingerprint biometrics will be securely destroyed. This will not be a literal bonfire of the last Government’s vanities, but it will none the less be deeply satisfying. The national identity register will then cease to exist entirely.” The Home Secretary also said such moves were not “just about saving money”—which was estimated to be about US$6 billion—“It’s also about principle … We did believe there was a liberties argument for not enforcing ID cards on the British people.” Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said: “Cancelling the scheme and abolishing the National Identity Register is a major step in dismantling the surveillance state—but ID cards are just the tip of the iceberg. Today marks the start of a series of radical reforms to restore hard-won British freedoms.” There is also an intention to abolish biometric fingerprint passports, which was another British Labour Party measure.

In New Zealand we are not “dismantling the surveillance State”, to use Nick Clegg’s words, but extending it, not only through this bill but also through continually expanding the number of linkages between the database of one Government department and the database of another. This is called data matching, and there are now around 50 bilateral operating programmes linking the databases of departments, covering the Customs Service, the Inland Revenue Department, ACC, the Ministry of Justice, the Immigration Service, the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Education, and the Department of Internal Affairs.

The bill before us allows this data matching in terms of confirmation of identity to extend well beyond existing State agencies to a whole range of private agencies in New Zealand. This bill will also, by its example, encourage more private agencies to keep their own identifying databases of people, including digital photos or digitally coded representations of photos matching those in the Passports Office database.

The Identity Information Confirmation Bill is not part of what Nick Clegg calls the dismantling of the surveillance State; rather, it is a step towards such a State. For that reason the Green Party will be voting against this bill.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): It is quite distressing that my colleague Keith Locke across the House feels biometrically violated by the Identity Information Confirmation Bill, and I hope that it is not too painful. It was interesting that he reflected on the moves by the administration in the UK to dismantle the system, just as the Labour Party is quite keen to dismantle recent changes in our economy by introducing capital gains taxes, increased tax rates, and other things. I suggest to the biometrically violated member that any increases in tax by those people across the House will violate him to a far greater and a far more painful degree.

I think that my colleague from the Green Party is not thinking very clearly about the work that he has been engaged in this year. He was a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee when we worked very closely with industry in New Zealand, particularly the banks, to come up with arrangements for strengthening our anti - money-laundering and counterfeiting legislation earlier this year. This particular bill will help to prevent the use of fake identities, and, as we have discovered in this House, even some of our former members have created fake identities. That is absolutely outrageous.

The bill will extend the use of the web-based Data Validation Service to public and private sector agencies on a strictly need-to-know basis. I do not think that the Green member should feel biometrically violated at all, because that information will be used on a strictly need-to-know basis. Agencies—and by “agencies”, I am talking about banks, for example—will check whether the identity information presented by a customer is consistent with that held by the Department of Internal Affairs through the citizenship register, the passports database, and the various registers of the Births, Deaths and Marriages registry office.

My Green colleague will remember very specifically that the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act requires all people who go into the bank to conduct a transaction to take photographic identity information with them, to prove that they are who they say they are. It is a critically important tool of our society that we have this information available for preventing identity fraud and for reducing compliance costs.

At the same time I say the Government is mindful of privacy concerns, because it does not want anybody to feel biometrically violated. Any agency using the tool must have the consent of customers. People have to agree to this; they cannot just be violated without agreement. Any agency will require individuals to give their permission. The decision as to whether an individual provides his or her identity is left entirely to the individual concerned, and if the individual does not do it, he or she will not get a bank account. Agencies must also have an alternative process for dealing with people who do not consent to a check by the service. That means that those people are not forced into consenting.

With those few words, I say I totally disagree with the previous speaker, Keith Locke, and I totally support the clauses of this bill. Thank you.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—

H V Ross Robertson: Salaam alaikum.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: Salaam alaikum to the member. First of all, I say that it is interesting to hear from John Hayes—

John Hayes: Salaam alaikum.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: Salaam to that member, as well. He was criticising a Green MP who had, I thought, highlighted some important issues. I know that the Greens disagree with the Identity Information Confirmation Bill and will not be supporting it, but I thought that Keith Locke highlighted some key issues in this bill. Hopefully, when the bill goes through the select committee process, some of those issues will be fixed.

This bill is important in order to provide a consent-based service to allow both private and public sector agencies to check identity information. I will talk about the issue of consent later on. I think that issue will be very important, particularly when dealing with people like the migrant community and people who are not sure why they have to give this information. Some bullying tactics could be used on people to make them provide information that they may not want to give consent to sharing. That will be an important issue for a lot of people.

The Identity Information Confirmation Bill extends the use of the Data Validation Service to public and private sector agencies on a strictly need-to-know basis, as John Hayes said before. Clearly there are privacy issues. As Ross Robertson was saying earlier, that is where we will have to be very careful as this bill goes forward in the select committee. We will have to listen very closely to what the Privacy Commissioner has to say about some of the privacy issues in this area. This bill is important, and this kind of service will be important in ensuring compliance with anti - money-laundering and counterfeiting measures and in protecting against terrorism and those kinds of issues.

It is important for this bill to go forward, but those two issues, as I mentioned—the obtaining of consent from people and also the privacy issue—will be two key areas where we will have to—

H V Ross Robertson: The Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations are very important.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: That is right. As Ross Robertson has rightly said, we will have to listen to the Privacy Commissioner’s views on this bill as we go forward. Clearly we will be looking to the Privacy Commissioner’s report.

Identity fraud is a very serious and growing problem in New Zealand, and we are supporting this bill for that reason. We know that some issues have arisen recently in the local elections—in the Papatoetoe area, for example—that could be related to some of these identity issues. I think it is a very important issue, and this bill is very timely from that point of view, as well.

The accessing of information held by the Department of Internal Affairs by private and public agencies that is proposed in this bill is facilitated by the digitisation of the department’s records, which was kick-started under the previous Labour Government. The recent saga of David Garrett—“The Jackal”—shows how easy it is to commit identity fraud. It is very unfortunate—

Su’a William Sio: Especially from an ACT member.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: —particularly from an ACT member who believes in making these kinds of laws to make it very difficult for others to do these things. It is amazing. It has been said that the former member made an application for a passport—a second passport, if you like—but that he never travelled overseas on that passport. One day, when it comes out, it will be interesting to know whether he actually used the second passport. A person could get out of New Zealand with his or her original, real passport, but what about somebody using that passport overseas? How would we know whether it was used overseas? It could be taken in the person’s bag and used somewhere overseas. Hopefully those issues will come out one day, and we will all find out.

I will be very keen to see whether the ACT Party will support this bill. Those members do not seem to support the notion of transparency and openness when it comes to their own MPs. I think it would be interesting to hear. I see that no ACT Party MP is present to say what ACT will do about—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot refer to the absence of members.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: We want to make sure that going forward this bill has the support of, hopefully, most of the political parties in Parliament. Too much identity fraud is happening in New Zealand at the moment, as has been highlighted by my colleague Ross Robertson. He listed a number of the frauds that have happened in this country in terms of money being withdrawn from banks and also in terms of theft, bribery, corruption, and lending fraud. I think this bill is important, and it has come out in a very timely fashion to respond to identity fraud.

It is important particularly in respect of the diversity of our population. People come from different backgrounds. Some people change their name, particularly their first name. When some people come to Western countries they change their first name to make it easier for other people to understand. That can be an issue, particularly in relation to issuing passports and certificates. I think that is something we have to look into.

Going forward, I am particularly worried about the consent provisions. As I said earlier, ethnic communities and migrant communities often come from countries where they have not had a good experience, if you like, with the police and with State agencies. When they come to this country they are often very scared when dealing with the Government and the police. They can be forced in some different ways to provide consent to give their information. We will have to educate our people about the fact that they have the right, under this bill, not to provide their information without proper consent. I think that is important. I am sure members across the other side of the House will be writing to ask some of the migrant and ethnic communities to make submissions on this bill. I think it is important for them particularly.

H V Ross Robertson: In Manukau we have so many different groups.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: Exactly—180, or something. Mr Ross Robertson deals with them all the time. He knows the vulnerability of those people. People who cannot understand English very well can easily be pushed into giving a consent that they otherwise may not want to give.

Some members on this side of the House are very familiar with some of those issues among the ethnic communities. I hope that Mr Simon Power is listening to this. I know he lives in the beautiful town of Palmerston North, which probably does not have such huge problems. But in the very diverse situation in Auckland we have people who are not very familiar—and I am very serious about this—with the local law. Particularly if somebody is asking for consent to give some information, they might very easily give that consent, when they do not have to. Those issues concern my community.

I know that Mr Bakshi on the other side of the Chamber is probably listening too. He will know that there are vulnerable people out in the community who would like to have some assurance that they will not be forced into giving consent to provide this information, particularly to the private sector. I am more concerned about that. I do not have a serious concern at all about giving information to public departments, to the public sector people, but there is a real concern about giving information to the private sector.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal, Ross Robertson, and Dr Ashraf Choudhary. Mr Deputy Speaker, the members called everyone with their salaam, but did not address me, so I am extending the greetings now.

I stand to support the first reading of the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. Dr Choudhary has just mentioned a few cases, and I think they are very relevant in today’s world. In recent times we have seen many cases of fake identities. We need to stop the practice, and I think this is the most important and appropriate time to pursue this bill. Under the present Privacy Act of 1993, Government agencies have access to match information about individuals, and discover whether the information is accurate. But the private sector has limited access to such information. That sector is not able to confirm whether the information provided by its clients is correct. The protection of identity is very important in today’s age.

The purpose of this bill is to help combat identity fraud. In this modern day and age this is a real problem. We regularly hear news of people being hounded for debts, when those people have absolutely no idea of how the debts came about. Under this bill, with the consent of individuals, both private and public sector agencies will be able to check identity information held on Government databases, such as the information held by the registry of passports and the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages. To combat the misuse of this facility, the Identity Information Confirmation Bill will offer the use of the Data Validation Service to the public and private sector, on a strictly need-to-know basis. Data validation will permit agencies to check whether the identity information produced by a customer is reliable and consistent with the information held by the Department of Internal Affairs, through the citizenship register or any other register they have.

This bill will also allow banks and other financial institutions to carry out more dependable assessments on customers who require loans. That will extend the application and compliance of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act of 2009.

On the other hand, the Government is fully aware of privacy concerns. The consent of the customer is paramount; the customer is not compelled to consent to that background check. Personal information is protected, and the Data Validation Service will only confirm the accuracy of a person’s information. It will not reveal any other personal information.

This bill also protects privacy in other ways. The Privacy Commissioner will have the authority to compel the department to provide a report to her on the operation of the service. This is to monitor the consistency of the information delivered to various agencies, as they will need to demonstrate a genuine need for this service. Those organisations will also be listed on the department’s website.

The Identity Information Confirmation Bill has introduced a solution for our modern times. The National-led Government has assessed this problem and has acted promptly. This bill will help in the prevention of crime, particularly of identity-related crime, and will also ensure that public agencies can use, and if necessary record, criminal identity information. To protect the privacy of personal information, any agency using this service will need to enter into this agreement with the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs or the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, or both. Private agencies will have limited ability to check whether the identity provided to them is correct. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take a brief call on the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. Most of the arguments have been made, so I shall repeat just a few of them.

Hon Simon Power: Ha, ha!

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: But the important ones. We have had one good comment about Feilding, I say to Mr Power.

Hon Simon Power: Fine place.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The member may make a second one. Ashurst was where I lived, so I do know the place well.

Identity fraud occurs when a person’s privacy is breached—that is the most important aspect of it—and someone pretends to be another person and takes on his or her persona in order to access resources of some kind, generally credit, moneys, etc., for personal gain and in that person’s name. It is not a victimless crime; there are often victims. But often we do not fully understand what the effects of the crime are on the victim. If someone simply has to pay for somebody else’s theft of one’s identity, then that is one thing, but the scar of the emotional effect of having one’s identity stolen can last a long time for a person. Therefore, it is a serious issue. Organisations are also victims; businesses can be victims when they suffer financial and reputational losses in the same way.

The issue really was brought into quite sharp relief for this House, as others have said, when a former member of this House in a previous life stole somebody else’s identity, which showed how relatively easy it was to do. That person has paid a heavy price for that action and thoughtlessness. But the effect of the illegal action on the family of the child whose identity was stolen has also come to light in this period as well. Likewise, New Zealanders were shocked when a couple of Mossad agents stole the identities of children and took up passports in their names. They travelled to New Zealand and used New Zealand passports for their illegal activities. So there are those kinds of cases as well. There is the well-known case of Wayne Thomas Patterson. He used over 123 different identities to commit fraud of $3.4 million. These cases all tell us that indeed there are problem and they need addressing. This bill sets out one way of trying to address those problems. Whether this legislation addresses all of the problems is something we are not certain about, but we know there are problems to be addressed. Identity fraud has serious consequences, so it is important to support the Government to send this bill to the Government Administration Committee where it can get detailed examination by a whole bunch of other people who have experience either as victims or those who have dealt with fraud cases from a privacy perspective. For those reasons Labour will support the bill’s referral to select committee.

There is another aspect that concerns me. Certainly studies overseas talk about identity fraud and the extent of identity fraud that is taking place. Some studies show that it is about 2 percent. Some other figures we see in New Zealand suggest that some companies are saying it is much larger, although when they report about their own experiences, it is much smaller. New Zealand is unclear about the extent of our identity fraud, except for the types of cases that have come out that have shown us it is a problem that it is important for us to address.

The other point is that it is not easy to identify identity fraud. There are so many different ways that people can do it. The attempt in this bill is simply to match the data of somebody applying for some service with the information given to the service against reliable data that is in the State’s databases. That is a useful way to start. Whether that is enough, we are uncertain. This will test our own privacy laws, and the privacy laws in New Zealand are particularly good. They have held us in good stead over a long period of time. The very good Office of the Privacy Commissioner monitors this quite well and has been instrumental in taking New Zealand to quite a sophisticated level of data matching, because at the moment it keeps quite a good lid on the situation.

There are a number of good things about this bill. The most important one is that it is consent-based. I think that is a powerful aspect of this bill, seeing as it is opening a facility to the private sector, so people need to consent. But as my colleague Ashraf Choudhary said, that in itself raises a problem, which the select committee ought to examine in some detail. The select committee should examine how that consent is to be given and how the person acquiring that consent needs to know that it has been understood what the person is giving, particularly when it comes to people who are unfamiliar with the English language, with filling in forms, and with dealing with systems like that. Great care will need to be taken to ensure that the consent is available.

The other good thing is we are using databases that we currently have. The bill addresses, as the commentary states, some compliance cost issues at the moment to do with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Finance of Terrorism Act, which the bill addresses. Perhaps the other powerful aspect of this bill is that it involves the Privacy Commissioner, and in the regulatory impact statement it was the major mechanism by which some guarantees could be given. So there is a lot of work for the select committee to do on that particular aspect, as well. However, there are some risks, such as the amount of information that could be available to the private sector and how that information would be utilised. Imagine the case of a person in New Zealand on a work permit who applies for a job. There is a need to get the data right. Employers are aware that that permit has only a short period to run. They may be in a position to abuse the kind of information that could be available. I think that raises questions and I would be very, very interested to see in the report back how those guarantees will be given. The committee will have to look at safeguards.

I say to my good friend from the Green Party Keith Locke that it is precisely for these reasons that Labour is happy for this bill to be referred to the select committee so those kinds of guarantees that we require at least can be addressed, and it will go further if we can be satisfied that those conditions that we require have been met. The points that the Green Party raised are very good ones. We have seen that when we try to address one problem, it has unintended consequences. It is entirely possible that this bill will create some new ones, which in time will cause us greater difficulties. So for those reasons it is useful for us to send the bill to the select committee.

The final point I make is that—and Mr Power looks surprised—this will not be a cure-all for identity fraud. It cannot be. Identity fraud is an issue that is probably much wider and much more complex, and this approach to it cannot be the full solution, so I hope that we do not take these provisions as a cure-all. The select committee might have other ideas that it wants to propose to the House for us to look at. We are pleased to support the bill’s referral to the Government Administration Committee. But members on this side of the House have some very serious concerns and we look forward to those matters being addressed in the report back. Thank you.

NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am so pleased to take a call on the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. As Dr Rajen Prasad has already said this evening, a number of the arguments for it have already been canvassed, so I will take a very brief call.

Firstly, I say that I have been the victim of identity fraud. I was overseas when it happened. Someone swiped my credit card and I ended up in a pretty difficult situation, so I know what it feels like to have that happen. But much more serious situations can occur when individuals’ identities are stolen, which causes a lot of grief to the families involved.

This is very important legislation. It is modernising legislation. We are very clear that this bill is about giving the private sector and public agencies the ability to better cross-check information, and I think that there has not been a speaker in this House who has not agreed with that.

I will touch on a couple of issues that the select committee will have to deal with. The first is the issue of consent, which has been well canvassed, and the need to balance that with any privacy considerations. The term that will be crucial is what constitutes identity information. Finally, there will need to be a real focus on the conditions that an agency can use for the confirmation of the service. One positive aspect of the legislation is the fact that the Privacy Commissioner will have to provide a report on how the confirmation service is going.

I am very pleased to make a brief call on this bill this evening. It is an important bill to combat identity fraud. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Identity Information Confirmation Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 111

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Māori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1.

Noes 9

Green Party 9.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.