Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Government Financial Position—Financial Statements for 6 Months Ended 31 December 2012

1. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I have received Treasury’s financial statements for the 6 months to the end of December. They show a $3.19 billion operating deficit before gains and losses for the first 6 months of the financial year. That deficit is $158 million lower than forecast by Treasury in its half-year update, primarily reflecting lower expenditure than was forecast. The Crown’s operating balance recorded a surplus of $1.7 billion, which is $2.3 billion higher than forecast. The result confirms that the Government is maintaining a track to surplus through careful fiscal management.

Todd McClay: What were the main factors behind the Government’s latest financial results?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The statements show core Crown expenses at 0.8 percent below forecast. Core Crown revenue is 0.1 percent below forecast. Lower expenditure reflects moderate underspends across most departments, which total around $87 million, with delay in two complex Treaty settlements until later in the year making up the difference. Core Crown tax revenue was $31 million less than forecast, or 0.1 percent, reflecting various overs and unders, including a higher than expected individual tax take and higher source deductions associated with labour earnings growth. The operating balance was boosted by investment gains from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the ACC fund. The figures show that the Government is in control of new spending and is getting better results from existing programmes.

Todd McClay: What steps has the Government taken to manage its finances and get back to surplus?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has put spending and revenue initiatives in place to balance the books. On the spending side, we have delivered two consecutive Budgets showing zero net new expenditure, while maintaining increases in health and education spending. We have launched the Better Public Services programme and reprioritised $4.4 billion over 4 years to ensure New Zealanders will see better results without new resources. On the revenue side, the Government has increased income while improving the fairness of the tax system by shutting down loopholes. These things include tightening the tax treatment of property, increasing GST, making it harder for people to avoid paying tax through trusts, and making resources available for the Inland Revenue Department to target tax avoidance.

Todd McClay: What alternative proposals has he seen for managing the Government’s finances?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen any number of alternative proposals. These measures include putting a capital gains tax on every productive business and farm, encouraging tax avoidance by increasing the gap between the top personal income and company tax rates, discouraging all sorts of private investment in the New Zealand economy, printing money, and so on. That is the Greens-Labour prescription for the New Zealand economy.

Skycity, Convention Centre—Expressions of Interest Process

2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Shearer: Why did he say in June 2012 that “my office has had no correspondence, no discussions, no involvement” in the convention centre process, when he and his chief of staff dined with the Skycity board on 4 November, he was given a presentation that evening, and he urged them to think outside the box?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite simply, the question the member is asking about that I answered was in relation to the expression of interest process. That was run by Mr Brownlee at that point as the Minister. The point that the member raises is quite right. All of that was in the public domain. I myself said I had had dinner with Skycity. That is all covered in part 1 of the report, and in part 1 of the report the Deputy Auditor-General says there are absolutely no issues at all. All of that was in the public domain.

David Shearer: Given that the Deputy Auditor-General found it was “not appropriate” for the ministerial office staff to continue meeting with Skycity, why did he allow his chief of staff to meet with Skycity executives five times, his deputy chief of staff and the chief executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to also meet with Skycity, and himself to meet with Skycity twice—all immediately before a supposedly open tender process?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again, I would go through the process. Firstly, let us quote from the report. The basic proposition the member is making is that there was some cosy deal. The Deputy Auditor-General says: “We have seen no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with SkyCity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations.” The Deputy Auditor-General also says in the report that it is actually quite normal and standard for Ministers and the Prime Minister to have discussions with—

Hon Member: That’s not what John Armstrong says.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, the member might not like it, because it does not suit his narrative, but it is actually in the report if he wants to read it. It is quite normal for that to happen—nothing to see there. The situations the member has outlined all happened in the exploratory phase. In part 1, the Deputy Auditor-General says there is nothing to see there.

David Shearer: Was he warned by Gerry Brownlee on 1 March 2010 that “too many people [were] talking to SkyCity,”; if so, why did his chief of staff, who promised to “step back”, continue to meet with Skycity at least two more times?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What did happen at that time was that we were moving beyond the feasibility stage to an expression of interest. What happened was that it was logical, because there were a number of Ministers involved—me as Minister of Tourism, Mr Brownlee as Minister of Economic Development, and other Ministers as well, because there were a number of proposals. What ultimately happened is that it made sense that, because what is now the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment would run that process, one Minister would handle it. That is the way we do things around here: quite often there are a number of Ministers involved, and in the end there becomes a lead Minister. That is normal practice.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The essence of that question was why his chief of staff met after the Brownlee warning. That was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought—[Interruption] Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! It would be helpful if I could make a ruling. I thought the question was satisfactorily answered in that the Prime Minister talked about it being a normal process. There were a number of other proposals on the table at that stage, and he felt it was quite normal that his chief of staff and Ministers were involved in meeting potential proponents of the convention centre in Auckland.

David Shearer: Given that his chief of staff asked Skycity what regulatory relief it required in return for building the convention centre, was that question put to other bidders; if not, does he consider that to be even-handed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There was an expression of interest process where, in fact, all of those who decided to tender were told, actually, that the Government was very cash-strapped. Every deal was different in terms of the way it was negotiated. Skycity was in a position where it was able, potentially, to go through a process where in return for some concessions it was prepared to fully fund the process. In fact, this is the whole debate, because—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Answer the question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I am answering the question, Trevor. If you want me to go through it, I can. If you want me to sit down, I am more than happy to do so. But if you go through the process, part 1, the exploratory phase—as the Deputy Auditor-General says, nothing to see there. Part 3, the negotiations—

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was waiting for the answer to this question. I actually asked whether the other bidders were offered regulatory relief, as Skycity received.

Mr SPEAKER: And the answer from the Prime Minister, in my mind, was quite clear: all of those involved in the expression of interest process were advised that there was a cash-strapped Government.

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I do not want the answer to be interpreted by you; I want the Prime Minister to answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: With the greatest respect to you, sir, you are asking me to interpret whether I think the Prime Minister has satisfactorily answered your question and I was doing that. The member has further supplementary questions if he wants to ask them.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your answer was that all the bidders were told the Government is cash-strapped—

Mr SPEAKER: No, that was not my answer. That was the answer from the Prime Minister.

Dr Russel Norman: —and the question was whether all bidders were told that they could get—or were they seeking—regulatory relief. If the Government is cash-strapped, there is more than one response to being cash-strapped. It could be that they want a low bid; it could be that they are seeking regulatory relief. So for the Prime Minister to simply say the Government told all bidders that it was cash-strapped does not answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: With respect, again, I have judged that the Prime Minister has, to my satisfaction, answered the question. The Leader of the Opposition has further supplementary questions if he wants to delve into the answer by the Prime Minister, and that is the way it should happen. It is not for members to take points of order to continue to dispute an answer that is given, if I have ruled that it is satisfactory.

David Shearer: Given his chief of staff asked Skycity what regulatory relief it required, was regulatory relief offered to the other bidders on the convention centre?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, regulatory relief has not been offered to Skycity. That may be part of the negotiations that they want, but, actually, all bidders were told that we were looking for creative solutions and it was a cash-strapped Government. Every bid was different. In fact, in the case of every bid, with the exception of Skycity, they were asking the Government for $300 million - odd to build it.

David Shearer: Is he saying that his chief of staff did not offer Skycity, or did not ask it if it wanted, regulatory relief, or not?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I am saying is that no agreement has been reached with Skycity, although we hope one will be. But what is quite clear is that in the early exploratory stages where we had discussions with Skycity, I told them myself “Think creatively and see what deal you can come up with.” At that point, after we had done that, which was all in phase one, for which the Deputy Auditor-General says there is nothing to see, everything is totally fine, and that is OK, we went to an expression of interest process. What the Deputy Auditor-General does not like about that process is that she says—

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] I am sorry, but I have been very patient. The question I asked was: did his chief of staff ask or offer Skycity regulatory relief? It is simple.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that the Prime Minister certainly moved to the extent of saying that he himself offered regulatory relief. It would be helpful—[Interruption] Order! Order! I am trying to rule. It would be helpful if the Prime Minister was able to answer in respect of the chief of staff.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That may well be the case—that that is the proposal. But this is the whole point—the proposal of the deal to Skycity was one where we said to Skycity “If you want to come up with a proposal, the Government’s preferred position is no cash. Come up with a range of options.” In fact, what the Deputy Auditor-General says is that having gone through five people in the expressions of interest, what they were unable to do—the officials at that point—was to advise the Government what actually would be on the table. That is what took the extended period of time. The Deputy Auditor-General believes that we should have truncated discussions—

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to keep doing this, but I just want a simple answer to a very simple question: did his chief of staff offer Skycity regulatory relief? It is simple.

Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The simple answer is that I am sure the chief of staff reiterated my comments, which were to think laterally, of which that might be a possibility, and that has been the basis of the whole deal. That is the point, is it not—to come up with some proposals and we will have a look. The problem with the whole issue was that actually we have been unable to actually assist—

Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister—the Rt Hon Winston Peters, a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given who is there now, anyone could have the job. My point is this: the Prime Minister is being asked a simple question, and he is refusing to answer it. Thinking laterally is not the answer. Did he or did he not, or his chief of staff, engage in that arrangement? That is what he is being asked.

Mr SPEAKER: And the Prime Minister’s answer at the start was he is sure that his chief of staff repeated the same sorts of offers that the Prime Minister had made to all the bidders about being expansive with their ideas.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is not the question. The question is: was there a special offer made? Not to think laterally, but the offer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was not the question. The question has now very definitely been satisfactorily answered—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the answer yes or no?

Mr SPEAKER: The answer was he was sure that his chief of staff repeated statements very similar to the Prime Minister’s. If members bothered to listen to the question and to the answers, I am sure we would have far fewer points of order about the quality of answers.

David Shearer: Given that he told Skycity that the Government was providing no capital funds for the convention centre, did he provide the same information to other bidders; if not, does he consider this to be even-handed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is actually quoting me incorrectly. I said that the Government’s preferred position was no cash input. Yes, that was made clear to other businesses that that the Government was cash-strapped and that that was preferred. Yes, it was made clear through the expression of interest process that other tenderers should put up the best proposal they could. One happened to put up a public-private partnership, which meant the Government paid over a long period of time, one happened to put up regulatory changes, and others basically put up a proposal where we paid for it.

David Shearer: At what point in his interactions with Skycity was he told that Skycity wanted additional pokie machines as a condition for funding its convention centre?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sure that would have occurred when the officials came back at the end of phase two and said to the Ministers: “We think you should accept the Skycity proposal. It would require these sorts of changes, which would then have to be negotiated in part 3.”, which is what we are doing at the moment.

David Shearer: At what point did the Prime Minister come to understand that the condition of Skycity’s bid was that there be more pokie machines made available to them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That cannot be confirmed because we actually do not have a deal with it, and it may well come up with a variety of different proposals. But in 2009, when I had the dinner with Skycity and said to think laterally, of course I assumed that they would want to have more pokie machines or an extension of their licence. By the way, that is exactly what Labour did in 2002.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What discussions were he and his staff involved in regarding the planned location of the Skycity convention centre on land owned not by Skycity but by New Zealand taxpayers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot detail the exact ones, but what was clear was that if Skycity was to build a larger convention centre than the original one they wanted, at some point I was aware that they would need to acquire land. That land was owned by Television New Zealand (TVNZ).

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How did Skycity conclude it had access to taxpayer-owned TVNZ State-owned asset land if he did not do a secret side-deal in favour of his mates at the casino on that issue?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is pretty straightforward. Skycity, after it decided it would be prepared to enter an expression of interest process to have a larger convention centre, went off to its architects. Its architects designed such a thing, realised they needed more land, worked out who owned the land, and approached Television New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true, how come Television New Zealand and its board had no awareness of that, but Skycity did, and is it not true that he promised Skycity that his Government would privatise TVNZ’s assets—[Interruption] Well, you can laugh, but the board has no knowledge. At the time I am talking about, it had no knowledge of this, so Gerry can laugh all he likes, embarrassingly, I might say. But the fact is there was a secret side-deal—is it not true, Prime Minister—in favour of Skycity, in favour of his mates, and how sleazy is that?

Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Prime Minister, probably with no reference to the latter part of the question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot speak for the Television New Zealand board, but I am finding it reasonably hard to believe that Television New Zealand entered a commercial agreement with Skycity to sell land that it owned, and it did so without its board knowing. If that happened, then maybe its board process needs to be improved, and maybe the mixed-ownership model would work for it. But contrary to what the member says, we have no plans to sell it or enter it into the mixed-ownership process.

Skycity, Convention Centre—Expressions of Interest Process

3. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement that “anyone expecting details of a ‘cosy sort of little deal’ would be disappointed” by the Deputy Auditor-General’s report into the SkyCity Convention Centre negotiations?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, absolutely. The Deputy Auditor-General’s report examines all three stages of the process to date, and concludes that the initial exploratory and feasibility stage, which was the stage I was involved in, and the third stage, the current negotiations that the member is asking about, were entirely appropriate. The report noted some procedural issues, primarily that officials did not do enough planning, which I understand the ministry has taken on board, and that the assessment of the expression of interest process went on too long; however, as the Deputy Auditor-General said in the report and made quite clear, the substantive outcome would not be different. That is why the central finding of the report—and the basic accusation that that member has made and why she owes me an apology—is that there is no evidence to suggest that the final deal—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That answer went on far too long. It was a straightforward question. [Interruption] It was a straightforward question. We on this side of the House were allowing time for the Prime Minister to answer in full, but that, I think, undid the patience of the House. I would ask you to make sure he does not do it again.

Mr SPEAKER: It undid the patience of the member, I accept that. It was a very long answer. It was a very full answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While the co-leader of the Greens was making her point of order three Government front-bench Ministers, three in the second row, and six backbenchers interjected—at least.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his assistance. As was mentioned yesterday, points of order should be heard in silence. If they are not, then we get the sort of disorder that we are experiencing today, so I request the cooperation of all members for points of order to be heard in silence.

Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he made that statement hours before the Deputy Auditor-General released her report into the pokies for the convention centre deal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That may well be right. I cannot remember the exact time. It was probably Monday at my post-Cabinet press conference, which takes place at about 4 o’clock. The report was released, I think, at 2 o’clock, so I guess it was 22 hours.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a document, a transcript of a Radio New Zealand interview—

Mr SPEAKER: No, we are—

Metiria Turei: —that is not publicly available.

Mr SPEAKER: It is publicly available. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. We discussed only yesterday, when I elaborated on the tabling of documents, that we are not tabling transcripts from radio interviews. They are freely available to members if members want to search for them.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No they’re not.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes they are.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member disputing my ruling, because my patience is getting particularly thin today.

Metiria Turei: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member disputing my ruling?

Metiria Turei: No. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member about to dispute my ruling?

Metiria Turei: No. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Then I will hear the point of order.

Metiria Turei: Yesterday you did clarify the tabling of documents. You did say that old reports could be tabled, and that information that was not publicly available or widely publicly available could also be tabled. If you had given me the chance to explain, this is a transcript that is not publicly available. Even if it was reported yesterday, it still meets the criteria—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then the member—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. The member is now disputing my ruling and, if she continues to do that, I will ask the member to leave the House. [Interruption] Order! If the member continues—[Interruption] Order! Otherwise we will be having somebody with early showers. The member is disputing my ruling. What I also said yesterday was that we would table documents that I feel are useful to the debate in the House. If members are keen enough to discover that transcript, then they have the ability to go back to their offices and do so. I will not be putting the leave.

Rt Hon John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just speaking to your ruling, Mr Speaker, that was a transcript of Morning Report, which will be available on the Radio New Zealand website. It is freely available everywhere.

Mr SPEAKER: And so I have ruled.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to litigate this specific issue. I would like to ask you, Mr Speaker, whether there was an opportunity for you to consider the wider issue of radio transcripts, because, in the case of radio transcripts, it is often possible to purchase them. Ministers have them available, because they can purchase them. Opposition members cannot purchase them, and, therefore, we have to either have our staff transcribe them, which is quite a resource-intensive exercise, or, once it has already been transcribed by someone, get it from someone else. So can I ask you to consider it further—

Mr SPEAKER: And I will consider it further for the benefit of the member and for the House.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Office of the Auditor-General expected that report to be treated in the strictest confidence because of concerns about market sensitivities, and that no one other than Ministers, Skycity, and the Office of the Auditor-General had access to that report before 2 p.m. yesterday?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am well and truly aware that there was an embargo, but, as we know—for instance, last Friday I read reports of characterisation of Shane Jones’ Auditor-General’s report. The comments that I made, of someone claiming a cosy sort of little deal, are hardly market sensitive, and, as the member knows, her basic accusation and claim to the Auditor-General was as follows—because maybe she needs reminding of it—that somehow, the main question underlining the inquiry was whether the Government’s decision—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not an answer to my question.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did answer it directly—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is attempting to answer your question, but if the member continues to ask questions and then rises to her feet through the answer, she is not going to hear the answer to the question she has asked.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: So, continuing, the main basis of the allegation made by the Greens—and that was the basis of the report to the Auditor-General—was whether the Government’s decision to negotiate with Skycity had been influenced by inappropriate consideration such as connections between political—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question concerns the propriety of the early leak by the Prime Minister of a confidential document. What he makes of the document has nothing to do with this. It is the act of leaking it in advance, which we all know happened. He did not answer the question properly.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Mr Peters has misled the House. I have not leaked any document. I ask him to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Does the member have further supplementary questions?

Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister repeatedly refer to the Deputy Auditor-General’s report over the month that he had privileged access to it, including in January, when he said: “Put it this way, I didn’t lose any sleep when I was on holiday over it.”, and then again on Monday this week: “Put it this way, I’m losing even less sleep about it.”, if not to indicate to the market and to everyone else that the deal was safe and sound?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member is making many leaps forward. There is no deal on the table at this point—that is the first thing. Secondly, there is nothing wrong with the general characterisations—no leaking of a report—and the characterisation was, of course, quite accurate, because, as I picked up the New Zealand Herald today I read the editorial, and it said it finds nothing wrong with the Prime Minister’s dealings with Skycity.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister saying to the people of New Zealand that because he wanted people to believe that he was vindicated, he was therefore entitled to breach the Auditor-General’s confidentiality rules by releasing selective details of the report that he had privileged access to?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I think I am quite entitled to give a general characterisation. By the way, that general characterisation has proved to be absolutely correct, and I quote from the report where it says “We have seen no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with Skycity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations.” Let me make this one last point. This is the member who went to the Auditor-General and said that we had done something wrong. There is nothing wrong, and now all she can go on is the process of my characterisation—

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 383(2), which states very clearly that “The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked,”. The Prime Minister has repeatedly today gone well beyond the questions asked to make his political point. That is not what he is required to do by the Standing Orders, and I would ask you to enforce them.

Hon David Parker: Supplementary question—

Mr SPEAKER: I will just rule for the benefit of Mr Norman, first. I think when you consider the content of the questions that have been asked in relation to this, then the Prime Minister has every right to respond fully and with some political connotation. We have a further—[Interruption] Yes?

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Which Standing Order says that?

Mr SPEAKER: Oh, we are not getting into quoting Standing Orders—[Interruption] My job here is to anticipate the quality of the question and the quality of the answer, and I am ruling today that the quality of the question has received a perfectly satisfactory answer from the Prime Minister.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you please issue to members both of the two rulings that you have just given and indicate which previous Speakers’ rulings will be cut out as a result of them?

Mr SPEAKER: I can. I certainly do not intend to do that on the floor of the House today, but I am happy to look at that work for the benefit of the honourable member.

Hon David Parker: Was the phrase that the Prime Minister has quoted from the report today—and I will just repeat it: “We have seen no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with Skycity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations.”—included in the draft report that was earlier circulated to him?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister take any ministerial responsibility for a process that the Deputy Auditor-General has said left other bidders out in the cold and that was also described by the Deputy Auditor-General as neither “transparent or even-handed.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think what is fair to say is that officials will go away, I am sure, and look at the process, but, as the Deputy Auditor-General’s report makes quite clear, this was a non-standard type of procurement, and it is likely that Governments will have more of these types of thing in the future. What I go back to the member and say, though, is that she went to the Auditor-General, she made a claim, it was utterly wrong, and she has come today, theoretically, to pound me in the House, and the only thing she can ask about is whether I was right in saying it was a cosy little deal or not. And I was right; it was not a cosy little deal.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister hold the Office of the Auditor-General in such disregard that he was prepared to breach its confidentiality rules to make himself look good and to misrepresent the report while leaving his officials to take the blame?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I have done nothing to make myself look good. I go back to the Deputy Auditor-General’s report that says “We have seen no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with Skycity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations.” Sadly for the Greens, she has gone on a wild goose chase and found at the end of it that there is no goose waiting there for her.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister expect the public of New Zealand to believe that he has a meeting with Skycity and neither he, nor his staff, nor Skycity kept any record of what happened at that meeting?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have many, many meetings—[Interruption] I have many, many meetings where I do not keep records of those meetings. I meet people all the time. Actually, so does the member, because if I want to quote from some of the meetings he held in scampi restaurants, he might say the same.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You might well smile there, Mr Speaker, but you were sued on that very issue yourself, so I would not get too happy about that.

Mr SPEAKER: Do not bring the Speaker—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: But back to my point—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member has a point of order, I will listen to it, but I certainly will not tolerate him bringing the Speaker into the debate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, well, if you found it so funny, I thought it should be brought to your memory.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: But here is my point—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will give the member one more opportunity, if he wants to raise a genuine point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is the same Standing Order that Russel Norman cited. The Prime Minister’s answer had nothing to do with the nature of the question that I asked. I want to know how come such an important meeting happened and no one there had any memory of—

Mr SPEAKER: No, you are now asking—[Interruption] Order! Points of order will not be used to raise a further supplementary question. It certainly was not helpful, the last part of the Prime Minister’s answer, to the tension in the House today.

Christchurch, Recovery—Criteria for Offer on Vacant Red Zone Land

4. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What criteria did he use in deciding that owners of vacant sections in the red zone of Christchurch should only be compensated at half of the sections’ most recent rateable value?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): There has been no decision to compensate the owners of vacant land in the red zones in Christchurch. There has, rather, been an offer to purchase that vacant land in those red zones, and that offer has been made to the owners of those properties. The criteria for determining the offer were in relation to the original red zone offer to insured homeowners in those areas, where we sought to give those people certainty, simplicity, and confidence moving forward. The plan was to get those families in the worst-affected areas into positions where they could move on with their lives. By very definition, people who own vacant land are not living on it.

Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific in asking about the criteria for valuing the compensation offered by way of offer, which was only half of the rateable value. I do not believe that question actually was answered. All sorts of other things were said, but there was no actual information about the criteria that led to a 50 percent offer.

Mr SPEAKER: The question was around compensation, and the Minister started his answer by saying they are not offering compensation; they are offering to purchase. He then went on to say that the two criteria that were important were the opportunity to give certainty to those people with that land, and confidence to move forward. I would have thought that adequately answered the question. The member has further supplementary questions.

Denis O’Rourke: Given that it is standard practice to pay full market value when the Government compulsorily acquires private land, why was fair and established practice not followed when, effectively, compulsorily purchasing red zone vacant sections, irrespective of whether there is any land damage or not; or is the Government just taking advantage of a disaster situation to get the land on the cheap?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Firstly, I refute many of the allegations and inferences in the member’s question. But what I will say is this: if he wants to insist that the Government pay market valuation for those sections, he does not do those people any good at all. We had a valuation conducted on 4,136 properties on 30 June 2012, and the result of that was that the market value assessed for those properties was $2,600 per property. If he wants to get the map, good luck with his crusade. I want to be more generous, and give them 50 percent of the 2007 valuation.

Skycity, Convention Centre—Potential Economic Benefits

5. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What economic opportunities will a new convention centre bring for Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): It is estimated that the proposed Auckland convention centre would generate very significant economic benefits, including a $90 million annual injection into the Auckland economy, an estimated 1,000 jobs during construction, and 800 jobs once it is up and running. Of course, the overall economic benefits of the proposal will be assessed before the Government will proceed, and of course we want a good deal for taxpayers. But there is no question that an international-size convention centre is essential for New Zealand if we are to tap into the growing market of valuable business visitors that we are currently missing out on.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What support has he seen for the proposed new convention centre in Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen very widespread support. For example, I have seen a report from Martin Snedden, who heads the Tourism Industry Association, who said: “Development of a world-class convention centre will not only create a major new market for our tourism industry, it will contribute significantly to New Zealand’s economic recovery,”. I have seen a report from the Holiday Parks Association of New Zealand that said: “A world-class convention centre will provide a real boost for holiday parks, New Zealand’s tourism industry and the country’s economy,”. Michael Barnett, from the Auckland chamber of commerce, said: “the SkyCity proposal to fund and build a purpose built national convention centre in central Auckland is a game changer.” And, of course, there is the backing that one Helen Clark gave to a similar deal to this current Skycity convention centre proposal. That deal involved far less investment than is being proposed now, in return for an additional 230 pokie machines.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Is he aware of any opposition to the proposed new convention centre in Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen some opposition to the proposal, just as I have seen opposition to a number of the hands-on decisions made by this Government to encourage jobs in the New Zealand economy, which is, at the very least, a little ironic. Some organisations have consistently opposed new convention centres, but others have a more confusing history. For example, the leader of one organisation said in 2004, in relation to a similar project: “Here in New Zealand it has been pleasing to see continuing investment in the quality of our tourism infrastructure. In Auckland, Sky City has pumped $140 million into its new Convention Centre,”. Yet the current leader of the same organisation today supposedly vehemently opposed this proposal. That organisation is, of course, the very confused New Zealand Labour Party.

Skycity, Convention Centre—Expressions of Interest Process

6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Did he or his office receive the 12 November 2009 report from Ministry officials to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, summarising the process with SkyCity for the building of a convention centre; if so, did he read it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): A search of my office records indicates that, no, a report was not received by my office.

Hon David Parker: Was he aware at the time that the 12 November 2009 report, which the Deputy Auditor-General refers to, said that Treasury had advised that advice be sought from the Auditor-General to determine the probity of the process with Skycity; if so, what did he do about it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was made aware, from my officials, that good process would be required, and that is exactly what took place. That is why the expressions of interest process was handled by the Minister for Economic Development’s office. This period of time that the member is talking about—12 November 2009, in that interim period—was all before the expressions of interest process, which was in March 2010. This is all covered in part 1 of the Deputy Auditor-General’s report, and part 1 of the Deputy Auditor-General’s report has 100 percent tick-off from the Deputy Auditor-General.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not that; my question was whether around 12 November he was aware that Treasury had advised that advice be sought from the Deputy Auditor-General. The Prime Minister has not addressed that.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty was the answer to the first part of the question to the Prime Minister, when he said that he was not aware that this report had even been received in his office.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was my previous question.

Mr SPEAKER: That is my point. Well, let us have the question put again to the Prime Minister. It is the easiest way to move forward.

Hon David Parker: Was he aware at that time—i.e., around 12 November 2009—that Treasury had advised that advice be sought from the Auditor-General to determine the probity of the process with Skycity?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was not aware of that report, because my office never got that report. Sometime after that date my officials did advise me that there should be good process in all the things we do, and that is what took place from March onwards, when there was an expressions of interest process.

Hon David Parker: Did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet follow up the earlier report with a prior briefing note to him on 2 December 2009, repeating Treasury’s advice; if so, why did he ignore the second written warning to ensure that a fair process was run?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We did not. It was not the second one, as I made it clear. We never received the first one in my office. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet did write a note to me, as is normal. The note was actually largely about a lot of other things in relation to the convention centre. But, yes, it indicated good process was important, and good process was followed by independent officials.

Hon David Parker: Given that he was intimately involved with arranging the Skycity deal, including meetings and dinners, and personally he has already conceded he knew that very valuable regulatory concessions, like extra pokie machines, a longer casino licence, or changes to gaming laws, were being discussed, why did he not ensure that the possibility of valuable regulatory breaks was made known through the requests for proposals to other parties?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are a lot of assertions in there and I refute them. The simple bottom line is that there was a proper process run by officials that started in March and that was handled completely away from my office. I was never involved from that point on. In regards to the earlier point—the exploratory phase, which is stage one—the Deputy Auditor-General in her report says that is quite normal, to be expected, and nothing to see there. The Deputy Auditor-General’s report says we have seen no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with Skycity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations, and the simple facts of life are that the Labour Party does not like it any more than the Green Party that there is nothing to see in terms of my involvement.

Welfare Fraud—Deterrents

7. MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: What steps is the Government taking to reduce welfare fraud?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development): Today I announced new measures to prevent, detect, and deter welfare fraud. We know that the vast majority—more than the vast majority—of the 340,000 beneficiaries in this country are honest and follow the rules, but fraud, even from a small minority, is unacceptable. That is why the Government is equipping the Ministry of Social Development with the ability to target high-value fraud to prevent reoffending by known fraudsters and to recover money that is taken faster. These changes will help us ensure that the welfare system is there to support the needy and not be taken advantage of by the greedy.

Mike Sabin: How much money is lost to welfare fraud each year, and what effect will these changes have on that loss?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: A small minority who rip off the welfare system cost the taxpayer a sizable amount of money. Last year 714 people were convicted of fraud totalling over $23 million. A further $18 million was taken by dishonest overpayments where there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. These changes will help us stop that money going out the door in the first place and to recover what is taken even faster. They aim to deliver on the Government’s election commitment to catch, prevent, and recover $200 million worth of welfare fraud over the next 4 years.

Mike Sabin: How will these new measures prevent reoffending by known welfare fraudsters?

Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Three-quarters of the people we caught last year who were taking money they were not entitled to had previously been investigated for potential welfare fraud. Even though we know these people have been dishonest before, too many of them end up reoffending. Starting this year these people will find their future interactions with Work and Income subject to greater scrutiny, and we will restrict their access to self-service options and place a higher bar for them to prove that they are not trying to rip off the taxpayer again. Although they will still receive what they are entitled to, there will be strong barriers in place to stop them from taking more than that again.

State-owned Energy Companies, Sales—Electricity Market Conditions

8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What contingency plans, if any, does the Government have in place regarding its asset sale programme should the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter reduce production?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): The Government contingency is that the minority share sale is, and always has been, subject to market conditions. The New Zealand electricity market is well experienced in factoring in production fluctuations at Tiwai—for example, aluminium production was cut by 10 percent in 2008 and the market adapted to that. The Government share offer programme aims to raise between $5 billion and $7 billion to help control debt and invest in important social infrastructure in the future, like schools and hospitals.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What effect would he expect a reduction in national electricity demand by 14 to 15 percent to have on the value of State-owned electricity generators?

Hon TONY RYALL: Well, of course, that is hypothetical, but what I would say is that our electricity markets in New Zealand are able to price in uncertainty. I think the current situation in respect of negotiations at the smelter is well known by the electricity market and certainly has been priced into the publicly listed electricity companies already on the New Zealand sharemarket. The member can be assured that any offer document for any of the Government’s share offers will disclose the risks and issues that potential investors need to consider before participating in any such offer.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: By acknowledging the issues with Tiwai Point and its potential effect on the electricity industry, is he admitting that an uncertainty discount will be priced into the shares by purchasers and that the Government will be accepting a lower price for the power companies than it otherwise would if it maintained its current asset sale schedule?

Hon TONY RYALL: No, I am not saying that. I would have thought the company most affected by the uncertainty is Contact Energy, and its share price has gone up.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Was the chief executive of Contact Energy wrong when he said that “electricity demand is weak”, was Statistics New Zealand wrong when it said this morning that “The input price of electricity for producers declined 5 percent in the past year.”, is the New Zealand electricity futures market wrong in showing that wholesale electricity prices will increase below inflation through 2015, and is PricewaterhouseCoopers wrong when it says that electricity “demand growth is stalling. Generation development programmes are being delayed or put on hold.”; and if these entities and people are, in fact, correct, why is he selling State-owned power companies when electricity supply is high and demand is low?

Hon TONY RYALL: All those matters are factored into the price that the Government will get, but the fact is that our nation’s debt is growing significantly as the Government has sought to take the sharp edges off the recession and protect New Zealanders from some of the significant cuts that we have seen elsewhere. By selling these assets, minority stake, and freeing up cash, we continue to invest in our growing economy and important social infrastructure, like schools and hospitals. I must say it is very odd that that member opposite is advocating for higher power prices.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Investor-State Dispute Provisions

9. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Trade: Will New Zealand support Australia’s objection to signing up to investor-state dispute provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not, why not?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): New Zealand is strongly supporting Australia in the related case in the World Trade Organization and will continue to do so. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, however, is a negotiation and we no more negotiate for Australia than Australia negotiates for New Zealand. If the member is interested in our substantive negotiating position on this issue, he could simply refer to a very recent and comprehensive reply from the Prime Minister on this point to the leader of his own party.

Kevin Hague: Why is the Government willing to sign up to investor-State dispute provisions when Australia refuses to do so because it means that it can be sued for making laws to protect Australians, like plain packaging for tobacco?

Hon TIM GROSER: Well, the Government is not prepared to sign up to such unqualified provisions and will not do so.

Kevin Hague: Is the Minister ruling out the Government signing up to any provision that might allow investor-State dispute provisions by big tobacco companies?

Hon TIM GROSER: No, of course I am not, on behalf of the Government, ruling out signing up to any agreement. We are looking towards a well-constructed agreement along the lines that the previous Labour Government—in our view, very correctly—agreed to in a number of trade agreements. Without similar provisions with similar public policy protections giving policy space to future Governments, we will not be signing a thing.

Kevin Hague: What advice has he received or sought on the likely cost in New Zealanders’ lives lost of the delay due to trade considerations in implementing plain packaging requirements for cigarettes?

Hon TIM GROSER: I as the trade Minister have sought no such advice on that matter.

Kevin Hague: Indeed. What guarantee can he give New Zealanders that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will not give multinational tobacco companies even more opportunity to maximise profit by blackmailing a timid Government into stalling public health measures?

Hon TIM GROSER: I refer to my previous statements.

Christchurch, Recovery—Criteria for Offer on Vacant or Commercial Red Zone Land

10. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Why is he offering only 50 percent of rating valuation for commercial or bare land in the residential red zone where the land could not be insured?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): We are making a voluntary offer for that land that is many times in excess of its market valuation and in line with offers made to uninsured parties.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How does he explain to people like the McLeans, who had not started building on their land, why they have been treated so differently from their neighbours, who also could not insure their land but were offered 100 percent of their rating valuation because they had started building?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I cannot know the detail of that at this point. I would be happy to have a look at the particular circumstance. What I might do for the House is suggest that there will be different insurance arrangements for people who own bare land and people who have started construction on that land.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How does he tell a business owner who is fully insured that he or she will be offered only 50 percent of the rating valuation of the land when he or she would have been offered 100 percent if they operated their business from an insured residential dwelling?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is the point—they were not operating their business from an insured residential dwelling; they were operating their business from a commercial premises that now has very, very low land value.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Will he extend the 31 March deadline faced by these landowners so that they can carefully consider their options and so he can respond to Scott Robertson’s plea on Campbell Live last night: “I’d just like you to take your time and reconsider your decision. We’re good, honest Kiwis that have done nothing wrong.”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, I think the first point is that Mr Robertson, I understand, has a property in the Port Hills, and no offers have been made to those people. So there is no time line for him to be concerned about. On the other point, I repeat what I said before. We conducted a valuation of 4,136—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is true that my question had two parts. The Minister responded to the second part. He is now responding to a part that I did not ask. I said: “Will he extend the 31 March deadline?”.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty the member has is that she asked a supplementary question with two parts. The Minister is required to answer only one. But if you will allow the Minister to finish, he may well answer the first part of that question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In June 2012 the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority asked valuers to value 4,136 properties in the red zone. This was a land valuation. The valuation came in on a per-property base at about $2,600 per property. On that basis, the 50 percent offer for those properties, based on the 2007 rating valuation, is extremely generous.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I said before, he answered the second part of my question. The first part of my question he has now not addressed at all, which is “Will he extend—”

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty, as I explained to the member, is that if you put two parts to a supplementary question, the Minister is required to answer only one part, and the Minister has done that.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table an email from Rebecca and Shane McLean, and who now live in Te Atatū South, who had an empty section in Brooklands, and who have been absolutely gutted after waiting—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has described it sufficiently for the House. Leave is sought to table that email. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the letter of offer that Shane McLean received from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on 17 January—

Mr SPEAKER: That is sufficiently described—a letter of offer from Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to a constituent. Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There is not. It may be tabled.

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

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the letter that I have written to the Controller and Auditor-General making a detailed series of complaints about the residential red zone offers.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a letter from the Hon Lianne Dalziel to the Auditor-General on this matter. Is there any objection? No objection.

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

Prisoners, Employment and Training—GPS Monitoring for Release to Work Scheme Participants

11. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Corrections: What announcements has she made on improving prisoner employment training in New Zealand prisons?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): More good news. Yesterday I announced that GPS monitoring will be extended to prisoners on Release to Work schemes. Initially, up to 40 prisoners from Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison, Spring Hill Corrections Facility, Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility, and Rolleston Prison will have ankle bracelets fitted that will monitor offenders in real time while they work outside the wire.

Mark Mitchell: What impact does the Release to Work programme have on reoffending rates?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Release to Work programme has a significant impact on reoffending rates. Research has shown that reoffending rates were reduced by 16.7 percent for prisoners who participated in the programme. The research also found that nearly half of the prisoners involved in Release to Work kept their job after the release. Having a stable job after release from prison is a key element in stopping someone from continuing a life of crime.

Schools, Canterbury—Interim Decisions on Proposed Closures and Mergers and Branston Intermediate School

12. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her decisions in relation to schools in Christchurch?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I stand by all my interim decisions in relation to schools in Christchurch, and I remain open to the views of the schools subject to further consultation.

Chris Hipkins: Did she, or her officials, give Branston Intermediate School an assurance that any students enrolled for 2013 would be able to finish their 2 years at Branston Intermediate School before any closure?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: We provided proposals to Branston Intermediate School giving it options, and those have been reaffirmed in the letter it received from me this week.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question and the Minister’s answer did not address the question I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: Will the member please repeat the question for the benefit of the Minister.

Chris Hipkins: Did she, or her officials, give Branston Intermediate School an assurance that any students enrolled for 2013 would be able to finish their 2 years at Branston Intermediate School before any closure?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I did not.

Chris Hipkins: Did she write to Branston Intermediate School on 28 September stating that she had made “a proposal about the closure of Branston Intermediate School to be implemented for the end of 2014.”, and did she tell a public meeting at Branston Intermediate School that the school would definitely be open in 2014, as parents have written in to say she said; if so, why is she now changing that proposal so that students who have only just started school this year will have to change school next year?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I did provide Branston Intermediate School with a proposal, and in the meeting with the Branston community I repeatedly said it was a proposal and that they were free to make submissions on it, as indeed they can on the proposal they now have.

Chris Hipkins: At the public meeting with Branston Intermediate School did she give them an assurance that Branston Intermediate School would still be open in 2014?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: I made it clear, repeatedly, that it was a proposal, and that they had the opportunity to give a submission on that proposal. I got their submission, and they now have a further opportunity.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has indicated some other things that she said to the parents at Branston Intermediate School; she has not indicated whether she gave them that assurance.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I took it from her answer that she was talking of a proposal when she went to that public meeting at Branston Intermediate School.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not ask about the proposal she presented. I asked whether she had given them an assurance that they would stay open in 2014. She has not addressed that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I think she has, actually. [Interruption] Order! I do not need help from the Hon Annette King on this. What she said, as I took it from her answer, was that she was talking of a proposal that had been put to the school rather than an assurance under all circumstances, and that when those proposals were finally concluded there was no guarantee given that they would be able to continue beyond 2013.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I put it to you that you are the only person in the House who interpreted it that way. It was a very straight, direct question: was an assurance given or not. We do not know what the answer is.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I have attempted to explain it to the member, because I think I know exactly what the answer is. The answer was that the assurance was not given, that at that stage they were talking of a proposal to that school—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The problem we have with that is that if the Minister gave it, it would be a breach of privilege because she knows she was wrong. But because you have interpreted it that way, which we know is not in accordance with the facts, then you are effectively getting her off the hook for not answering the question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, and I am certainly not attempting to get any Minister off the hook. Quite the opposite—I want Ministers to answer questions as clearly and concisely as I can. The difficulty we are getting into is that there is now a regular habit, particularly from Opposition members, of, firstly, demanding that the question be answered to satisfy them. My job is not to design the answer to the satisfaction of the Opposition. My job is to make sure that the question is answered to the best of that Minister’s ability. I cannot then be further responsible, but in further question time any member can delve into the answers that have been given by that Minister.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order I am happy to take it.

Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order, Mr Speaker. If, subsequently, we can produce evidence that suggests that what you have indicated to the House, the Minister’s answer was incorrect and that she misled the House, will you consider a breach of privilege complaint based on your interpretation of her answer?

Mr SPEAKER: We certainly do not consider breach of privilege complaints on the floor of this House. Any member has the ability to write to the Speaker alleging a breach of privilege, and that will be considered.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The member of the House who objected during question No. 10 to the tabling of this document wanted an assurance that they had given permission for their details to be made public, and they have. Therefore, I seek the leave of the House to table the email from Rebecca McLean to Phil Twyford.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the tabling of that. Is there any objection to it? There is objection.

Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table a letter dated 28 September 2012 from Hekia Parata to the board of trustees of Branston Intermediate School, indicating that they would be closed at the end of 2014.

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

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

Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table a letter from the principal of Branston Intermediate School, dated 14 September 2012—

Mr SPEAKER: Addressed to whom?

Chris Hipkins: It is addressed to parents and caregivers, indicating that the school had received an assurance that they would be—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is satisfactorily explained. Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table an email from a parent at Branston Intermediate School stating that the Minister had given them an assurance at the public meeting—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Questions to Members

Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill—Purpose

1. BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) to the Member in charge of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill: What is the purpose of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill?

DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Member in charge of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill): Back to the future. The purpose of this bill is to correct a number of irregularities that occurred when the council set and assessed the rates for the Tasman District Council between 2003 and 2009. The council also wants to address the irregularity with the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates that were set for the 2006-07 financial year.

Brendan Horan: Does he think it reasonable for the Tasman District Council—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty the member has got now is he is seeking an opinion. The supplementary question on this occasion must relate to the member’s responsibility for that bill. So if the member can phrase the question under that regime, rather than seeking an opinion, that will be adequate.

Brendan Horan: Given the member’s answer, that it is desirable to address these irregularities, is that reasonable, given that the Tasman District Council has paid its chief executives over $2.5 million—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. I rule that supplementary question out of order.

Urgent Debates Declined

Skycity, Convention Centre—Report of Deputy Auditor-General into Expressions of Interest Process

Mr SPEAKER: Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of miscellaneous business?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to members, but I think there was an urgent debate you might have to rule on.

Mr SPEAKER: I do apologise, Mr Mallard. I have received a letter from Grant Robertson seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the report from the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General on the Skycity convention centre. The release of the report is a matter of recent occurrence. As an Auditor-General’s report there is no ministerial responsibility for the report itself, though I do accept that it deals with matters involving ministerial responsibility.

The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. The report finds no evidence that the final decision to negotiate with Skycity was influenced by any inappropriate consideration, but it raises some process concerns. There must be an element of urgency for a matter to take precedence over other business. Working through the concerns raised may take some time. The purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government accountable for its decisions. The Government is accountable for the concerns raised, but this is an ongoing matter. To warrant an urgent debate being held, there must be a new situation or decision of importance in itself. Good practice for public sector purchasing is important to public confidence and our system of government, but I am not convinced that the matters have reached the point where I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today. There are other occasions on which this matter can be debated. The application is therefore declined.

General Debate

General Debate

DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday we had the announcement of the Deputy Auditor-General’s report on the Skycity deal, and the Prime Minister said that he was totally vindicated by this report. Everybody who has read this report, any reasonable New Zealander, will see that he was not vindicated; he was implicated. He was implicated right up to his eyeballs. This was a shonky deal, and Mr Key is donkey deep in a shonky deal. He was seen to be pulling the strings right up to the last minute. It is a litany of his involvement in ensuring that Skycity got the best deal. It was ensuring that his mates got in front of the process.

Let us just look at how this litany started. In 2009 John Key advised himself—as you do, of course—to chase Skycity for a deal to build a national convention centre. Then he was not sure about ensuring that his own people and his own staff would make sure that that deal was nailed down and sealed, because he met with the Skycity bosses in May 2009. But he cannot remember exactly what was discussed—but that is what happens. We do have brain fade in this Chamber, and that was what happened.

On 24 August he wrote on a briefing note that he wanted the Skycity deal closed off. In September his chief of staff, his deputy chief of staff, and the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet met with Skycity to go over the plans. In September a senior tourism official told them that Skycity wanted its gambling licence extended for building the centre—it gets worse and worse. Then in November John Key and Wayne Eagleson had a cosy little dinner with Skycity bosses so they could look at the plans and “think outside the box”. On 3 December 2009 the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet warned John Key about the dodgy process in a private briefing note, but he does not care—he does not care. He does not need to care, because his chief of staff was still going on and on meeting with Skycity and seeing what it wanted for this little deal.

On 23 December 2009 the chair of Skycity wrote to John Key telling him of the regulatory reforms he wanted. What were they? What were those regulatory reforms? Well, more pokies. They were more pokies and an extension to Skycity’s gambling licence. In other words, the problem gamblers of New Zealand are stumping up the money for this convention centre in a dodgy deal that no other bidder gets to have a look at. In fact, no bidder other than Skycity gets to know that actually the Government is not going to put up any of the money. No other bidder actually knew that; only Skycity knew that. Only Skycity gets to be offered regulatory reforms in the form of some sweet deal that John Key offers to it.

This is a shonky deal. It is a deal that should not be allowed in a country like New Zealand. John Key is involved up to his eyeballs in a shonky deal. It is a deal that John Armstrong calls something that you would expect from a “banana republic without the bananas”. That is a disgrace to this House.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Ah! The only problem with that observation from the pro tem leader of the Labour Party is that it is all rubbish. Firstly, the Deputy Auditor-General made it clear that there is nothing—nothing at all—to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with Skycity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations. The report says that a great deal of careful work was undertaken by officials to understand the market and that the officials were acting in good faith, and it stresses that any issues were procedural rather than about the substance of what was being considered. So that is the first problem with the Opposition’s opposition to this proposed deal.

There are two other problems with the Opposition’s opposition to this particular deal, and the first one is political history, because despite its virulent opposition—its virulent opposition—to the proposal that is in front of us, it did the same thing not 10 years ago. In fact, the former Prime Minister “St Helen of Mt Albert”, Helen Clark, actually said in respect of the previous Skycity convention centre poker-machine deal: “Here in New Zealand it has been pleasing to see continuing investment in the quality of our tourism infrastructure. In Auckland, Sky City has pumped $140 million into its new Convention Centre,”. And the tourism Minister of the day, Mark Burton, said that the investment “will give it the capacity to compete for a whole new range of prestige events. The potential gains from this are widespread—not only for Skycity, but for the Auckland city and region, the tourism industry, and the whole of New Zealand.” This was the Labour Party not 10 years ago. Today the Labour Party is a new Labour Party that wants nothing to do with those sorts of arrangements.

The interesting thing—and the second problem Labour has—is that this is supposed to be the new “hands-on” Labour Party that is supposedly interested in rolling its sleeves up and making hands-on approaches to Government. Well, not today—not today. Today it is hands-off. Today the chief whip of the Labour Party was on the radio saying: “The market should provide. We shouldn’t get involved in regulatory deals for Skycity convention centres. It is the market that should provide.” That was Mr Hipkins just this morning as he repudiated the new “hands-on” approach of the Labour Party. But it was only today that it was hands-off—really! Well, apart from with The Hobbit. With The Hobbit Labour was also hands-off. It did not want any law changes to allow the Hobbit films to be done here.

It is also hands-off on resource management law changes. So Labour is hands-on except for resource management and for The Hobbit, and it is also hands-off for the Auckland convention centre.

Hon Paula Bennett: And job creation.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: And job creation. Yes, it is hands-off there. It is hands-off for oil and gas exploration. It does not want anything to do with any law changes there. But apart from that it is very hands-on. Well, except for Bathurst Resources at the Denniston Plateau. It is hands-off about that, but that is just an exception. It is also hands-off about aquaculture investment. Yes, indeed, it is hands-off about that. Apart from that it is hands-on. Oh no, actually, no. It is hands-off. It does not want any international investment. It does not want any increase in irrigation or intensification of agriculture. It is hands-off there too. But apart from that it is hands-on, which means that it is hands-on only in one way, and that is hands on your wallet. That is the only way the Labour Party is hands-on: it is hands on the taxpayers’ wallet. That is its solution to every problem. It would roll out the cheque book, raise the debt, and get the Greens to print the money. That would be the solution.

So today we have learnt that Labour’s “hands-on” slogan is rubbish. We have learnt that it has a new hypocrisy about what it did 10 years ago. We have learnt that the Opposition leader is grasping at straws with an Office of the Auditor-General report that, frankly, says that there were only some procedural issues and that the substantive result would not have been changed. That is the quality of the Government’s opposition today.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): There is no way that the Government can claim vindication from this report. This is another tawdry example of low standards by a Government that does the opposite of what it says it will do. It was elected with John Key saying: “I expect high standards from my Ministers. If they don’t meet the standards I set, then, obviously, I will take action if necessary.”—except when it is him.

Time after time we have got low standards from this Prime Minister, whether it is the teapot tapes and using the police against the media during the election; whether it is the Dotcom affair, where he had brain fades and denied having received information about Dotcom, because it was embarrassing for the line he was running; or whether it is the spin that he is now putting on this report from the Deputy Auditor-General in respect of Skycity.

The Office of the Auditor General says: “we do not consider that the approach adopted was appropriate. The result was that one submitter was treated differently from the others during the evaluation process.” And what are the consequences worth? Millions and millions of dollars and, of course, terrible social harm from gambling.

The Deputy Auditor-General’s report shows that officials were worried. On 12 November a ministry official emailed the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet summarising where the process was at, noting that Treasury had advised that ministry officials should seek advice from the Auditor-General to determine the probity of the current process with Skycity. The Deputy Auditor-General says it was emailed to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

What does the Prime Minister say today? Oh, no record of it being found on their side. That is just not credible, because do you know what? Some days later we had a personal note sent to the Prime Minister. I will read what the Deputy Auditor-General says for this: “The Treasury’s comments were referred to in a 12 November 2009 email from a Ministry official to DPMC and included in a private DPMC briefing note to the Prime Minister on 3 December 2009.”

What did he do today in respect of being asked about that note, about that reminder? He obfuscated. He did not answer the question. He denied, effectively, taking responsibility for the fact that the officials were worried, the officials were concerned, the officials were warning the ministry, Treasury had been alerted to it, Treasury was worried and raised it with the Prime Minister, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet raised it to the Prime Minister again. Still the Prime Minister ignored it. And he pretends he comes here with clean hands.

It is just as incredible as his earlier denials of responsibility around involvement with Dotcom, his refusal to read the other things involving Skycity again, on that occasion with Mr Banks in respect of the donations saga, which was plainly illegal. The Prime Minister is not worried about it. It is banana republic stuff, as John Armstrong said in the New Zealand Herald. It is disgraceful conduct. It is the slippery slope towards corruption.

In Auckland business people are worried about it. When this happened, before this report came out, I had approaches from amongst the most senior business people in Auckland, who were saying it was not fair. It was not fair that a secret deal is done with Skycity showing that regulatory holidays are available, worth millions and millions of dollars, and that they are not shown as potentially available to other tenderers who might be interested, or other people who might be interested in building a convention centre. It is disgraceful cronyism.

It is on the back of the Prime Minister having Mr McElrea, his electorate chair, on the Broadcasting Commission, also known as New Zealand On Air. It is on the back of the teapot tapes saga. No standard is too low for this Government. We are sliding towards being a banana republic in respect of these sorts of issues.

This is the Government that is pretending to make amendments to improve fiscal responsibility when it will not even adhere to the standards of decency, openness, and transparency, which we have long held to in New Zealand, and which we should strive to uphold every day. This sorry saga does not reflect well on the Government or the Prime Minister.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): What a fantastic start to the year this John Key - led National Government has had—what a fantastic start. As much as the Opposition might want to scrape the bottom of the barrel and throw accusations and mud around this House, this Government is delivering for New Zealanders, and, what is more, New Zealanders know it. In the last two public polls that we have had in the last week, what have we seen? We have seen 49 percent support for National in Television One’s poll, and, what, 45 percent in Fairfax’s. Actually, it is around about the election result at the end of 2011. In fact, that shows that New Zealanders think that no matter how much the Labour Opposition and its colleagues the Greens might like to come to this House, be nasty, and throw accusations around that have no substance in fact—no substance in fact—the people of New Zealand actually do not give a toss what they say, whether inside the House or not. They can see that this Government is getting on with doing things that actually matter to everyday New Zealanders.

We had the Prime Minister’s announcement at the beginning of the year of the increase in and reorganisation around apprenticeships, and that went down well out in provincial New Zealand, I can tell you. Then the Prime Minister came to this House and made his annual statement, and that was well received. That showed New Zealanders that the National-led Government has a strong plan, that it is focused on its four priorities, and that it knows that it is slow and steady as she goes. No rinky-dinky silver bullets are going to make this economy suddenly start up, and printing money is not a good idea.

I want to take just a few minutes to talk about two portfolios that I have responsibility for that have had an enormous start to the year 2013. So far this year we have announced, first of all, that we are turning three prisons into working prisons, to make sure that prisoners get increased opportunities for employment training. So that means structured 40-hour weeks for prisoners working inside those prisons, getting good work experience, getting good qualifications, and having a better chance of not reoffending when they leave prison.

We have talked about the increase in police foot patrols. There is an average 70 percent increase across New Zealand in police out on the beat in their communities—visible, preventing crime, and deterring crime from happening. The Prime Minister and I launched last week the delivery to our police of expert technology that they should have had years ago. You have to wonder what the Labour Party did with all those surpluses that it had. Labour did not equip our modern police with modern technology, but this Government is supporting them with the roll-out of technology. That roll-out will mean an extra half a million front-line policing hours every year available for crime prevention.

Last week I opened in Christchurch the new police station. That is a first in this country, because we have Police and the Department of Corrections working together in the same building. That was an enormous ask and a significant event not just for Christchurch but also for the justice sector. Corrections and Police are working together, talking together, and making sure that they work together to keep our communities safe.

That is a fantastic start to the year for National’s work on law and order, but, actually, that is what this Government has been delivering. We have seen a clamping down—and there is legislation before this House at the moment—on the criminal activity of gangs. We are taking seriously the criminal activity of organised crime, both in this country and internationally. The Prime Minister himself has led the efforts to clamp down on the production and sale of methamphetamine—that terrible, terrible drug that does such damage to our children. We have toughened sentences and we have toughened bail, and we have abolished parole for the worst repeat offenders. We have put 600 extra police on the streets. The contrast with the previous Government, which was transporting prisoners around in police vans, because it had taken so little—

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): It is important when we start to look at the “pokies for convention centre” debacle to ask the question of why transparency and accountability are important, because that is what this is about. At the heart of a good democracy is the notion that the exercise of the people’s will will be done in their interests—not in the interests of a small cabal, not in the interests of a particular business, and not in the interests of an individual, but in the interests of all the people of New Zealand.

New Zealanders want simple things out of their Government. They want to be treated fairly and they want to make sure that it is accountable, that it is transparent, and that they know what their elected representatives are doing. Fundamentally, in this case the New Zealand notion of a fair go has been broken. One submitter in this process was treated more favourably than the others—a fundamental breach of New Zealanders’ values of a fair go. A fair go was not present in this process. People were treated differently. Skycity was treated materially differently. It was not done in a transparent or even-handed manner. They are not my words; they are the words of the Deputy Auditor-General. This was not a fair process. This was not a transparent process. This was not an even-handed process, and that cuts against the values of New Zealanders. This Government should be ashamed about that.

The Prime Minister says he has been 100 percent vindicated. He has not. He has been 100 percent implicated in this case, because anyone who reads this report will see that officials did not act in some vacuum. They do not go off on a whim on these things. They follow the lead of their Ministers. They followed the lead of the Prime Minister and they followed the lead of Steven Joyce, the Minister for Economic Development. That was what was happening here. Officials have been hung out to dry by this Government in this case, and the reality is that this was driven from the top. This was driven from the Prime Minister. This phrase will become known for many years to come: “the Skycity angle”. That is the phrase that John Key handwrote on a briefing that he got from the Ministry of Tourism: “close off the Skycity angle”. From that moment onwards, officials went down a path where Skycity got preferential treatment, where other bidders were shut out of parts of the process and transparency went out the window.

The Prime Minister tipped the playing field here. The Prime Minister said to wait for Skycity’s bid. The Prime Minister is the person who introduced the idea of the “more pokies for a convention centre” deal. He is donkey deep in this, but he denies it. He said in June 2012: “my office has had no correspondence, no discussions, no involvement” in this matter. Stop the lying, Prime Minister—stop it. Tell the truth to New Zealanders and tell them what actually happened here—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Our Standing Orders are very clear. The deputy leader of the Labour Party cannot make those accusations of the Rt Hon John Key.

Mr SPEAKER: Absolutely right. Would the member please withdraw that comment.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I withdraw that comment. The Prime Minister has to start telling the truth to New Zealanders. The Prime Minister has to start telling the truth to New Zealanders about the involvement of his office. Here is what he also said: “… Skycity will probably get a few more pokie machines … at the margins.”—a few more at the margins. Thirty percent more—30 percent more—pokie machines is what is happening there, and it is New Zealanders who will suffer. It is the terrible addition of problem gambling that will be made worse by this, and the Prime Minister does not care. He has got the deal. He is the one who tipped the playing field in favour of Skycity and away from the other bidders. He is the one who led a non-transparent process. The 4 November dinner, the phrase “the Skycity angle”, and where the Prime Minister intervened are what New Zealanders will come to remember this sorry saga for.

I have no doubt that what we need now is for this process to be halted and started again, so that New Zealanders can rebuild their confidence in the operations of government and we can be proud again of our transparency on the world stage. We will lose from this as a country, because New Zealanders pride themselves on a democracy where everybody gets a fair go. Under this Government, there is no fair go any longer. It is its cronies and it is its mates. It is time for the Prime Minister to front up, tell the truth about this, stop this deal, and give everybody a fair go.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I could hear the bottom of the barrel scraping as the desperate deputy leader of the Labour Party gave that speech. Let us cut to the chase. Labour made scurrilous allegations about the International Convention Centre deal. The Opposition laid a complaint with the Auditor-General, and the Auditor-General concluded that the Opposition got it wrong. If Opposition members had an iota of decency or integrity, today’s speeches in the House would have been apologies from the Labour Party and the Green Party.

I am not going to get into a dissection down to the subparagraphs and sentences of the Deputy Auditor-General’s report. The Television New Zealand headline said it all: “Report clears Govt in SkyCity pokies deal”.

It speaks volumes that every one of the main dailies today gave greater prominence to the resignation of Charles Chauvel from the Labour Party than to the Deputy Auditor-General’s report on Skycity. What does that tell us? Well, remember that Labour members had billed this Auditor-General’s report as their big hit? This was going to be the political game-changer for 2013. Instead, the story is that they have lost one of their best brains.

Charles Chauvel can see the writing on the wall. Labour members are leaderless and they are hopeless. They do not know what they stand for. They have resorted to throwing mud, rather than actually dealing with the challenges facing New Zealand. The fundamental problem for Labour on the issue of the International Convention Centre, and more broadly, is simply one of credibility.

I have got a very simple question for the three Labour speakers who have spoken and for the next Labour member to rise to their feet: why was it OK in 2001 for a Labour Government to do a trade-off deal of 236 pokie machines for a $36 million convention centre in Auckland? Where was Grant Robertson when that deal was done—with his pious comments in the House this afternoon? Where was David Shearer? Where were the other Labour members? Where were the Greens? The Greens were propping up that Government and not only did they not lay a complaint with the Auditor-General but they did not speak an utterance over that arrangement. That reinforces that it is all politics.

But there is a bigger problem for Labour. You see, David Shearer has been in charge for over a year, and New Zealanders have no more idea today than then as to what he stands for. As much as we have got from Mr Shearer is that he believes in hands-on Government. Well, what the heck does that mean, when on all of the critical issues—getting an international convention centre and the jobs from that, growing our oil and gas industry, creating jobs in aquaculture, and creating and expanding irrigation to grow our most important primary industry—Labour has said it is hands-off? All that exposes is that David Shearer’s fundamental line that Labour is going to be a hands-on Government is shallow words for a lack of policy.

There is another problem for Labour’s position on the Auditor-General’s report. Labour members say that if there are any process problems—“process problems” is what the Deputy Auditor-General said—then it is cronyism and corruption. Well, what is happening next? There is another Auditor-General’s report due next week. It is about one of their colleagues, Mr Shane Jones. If the Auditor-General finds that there are “process problems” around the immigration issues and the awarding of citizenship for a certain gentleman, I wonder whether Labour members will be saying that is evidence of “cronyism and corruption”—the words they used today in the House. I suspect that Mr Shearer and Mr Robertson will be singing a very different tune in the House next week.

I want to conclude with the facts. Labour members went out and said the deal was filthy. They said that it stunk. The Auditor-General’s office said it found no evidence to suggest—in fact, it said these words: “nothing substantially wrong took place”. If Labour members want any respect or credibility, they should get to their feet and apologise.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): This is the question, is it not? What does the Labour Party stand for? What does the modern Labour Party stand for? The Labour Party stands against jobs. The Labour Party stands against investment. The Labour Party stands against progress. The Labour Party stands against a convention centre in Auckland. The Labour Party looks a gift-horse in the mouth. But the Labour Mayor of Auckland stands for jobs, investment, growth, and the Skycity convention centre. The Labour Party spokesman for Auckland, the Labour Party mayor, says this is a good idea. He cannot quite bring himself to say that publicly, but that is the code we get from the town hall.

The new hands-on Labour Party over there—this is what it does—keeps its hands off the jobs, it keeps its hands off investment, and it keeps its hands off sensible policy, but it wants its hands on the levers of power. That is what it desperately wants. It wants its hands on the levers of power. The reason I am here, Mr Speaker—and congratulations on your first week in the job—is to keep the dispirited, the deluded, and the bewildered on that side of the House. I am here to keep these people—the dispirited, the deluded, and the bewildered—on that side of the House.

Look how dispirited these turkeys are today, as they look forward to an early Christmas. Look how dispirited they are. The fastest growing branch in the Labour Party is the United Nations branch. It is the fastest growing branch. As the cruise ship goes out of Auckland Harbour you can see the Labour rats jumping into the tide and swimming north towards New York—swimming north towards New York.

Anyway, we will not be losing any members of the ACT Party caucus—we will not be losing any members of the ACT Party caucus. We stand our ground, we stand for progress, we stand for investment, we stand for jobs, and we stand behind John Key and his leadership of this country. Look, Labour members voted three times to get their present leader into the place of leadership, and he is sitting there like a possum caught in the lights of “Hone” Carter’s Holden going up the Brynderwyns. That is how he looks every day. The truth is that Labour is missing in action on the big issues.

The Labour Party has never been more unfit to govern this country in its history. Labour is not serious about getting young people homeownership. What is the result? What has it done? It has promised 10,000 houses—10,000 chicken coops—to be funded by the next finance Minister, a Green member of Parliament who says we should print money to build 10,000 chicken coops for the chickens that follow the Labour Party and Green Party around the traps. What is the result? Tens of thousands of New Zealanders are out of work because the Labour Party believes in pricing young people off the market.

This Labour Party—and I have been around a lot of Labour parties—should hang its head in shame. It does not even have a front-bencher in the House. That is how serious the Labour Party takes these debates. There is not anything about the Labour—

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe it is outside the Standing Orders to refer to the absence of members of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: That is absolutely true. The member will refrain from referring to the absence of any member.

Hon JOHN BANKS: I ask people listening carefully on their crystal sets in the few Labour constituencies that are left across Aotearoa to ask this question: is there anything about the modern Labour Party and its leadership, and is there anything about the Greens—the old fogies and young dudes—that is going to give hope to this country? Is there anything that they believe in, and are prepared to bring to this House, that will give hope to this country? That is why John Key and the National Party coalition—John Key’s National and the ACT Party, sponsored by the people of Epsom—remain well ahead in the polls. We stand against the Labour Party ever getting its hands on the levers of power.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Anyone listening to question time today would have heard desperation from an Opposition whose own rats are leaving the sinking ship. There are some substantial issues happening in New Zealand at the moment, but all David Shearer seems to care about is who had dinner with whom, and all Metiria Turei cares about is who lost sleep over what. The substantial issues in New Zealand that we hear nothing about from the Opposition are about the jobs that are being created. Did Opposition members ask any questions about that? Did they ask any questions about the economic growth that is taking place in New Zealand? Did they ask any questions about the infrastructure that is being built, or the educational success of New Zealand children? No, they did not—no, they did not.

Labour and the Greens are focused on the trivial, they are focused on gutter politics, and they are focused on whining about things that they themselves did 10 years ago. Let me read out a quote for the House, because I think it is quite a good one: “Here in New Zealand it has been pleasing to see continuing investment in the quality of our tourism infrastructure.” and “In Auckland, Sky City has pumped $140 million into its new Convention Centre,”. That, ladies and gentlemen, came from Helen Clark. Helen Clark did exactly the same type of deal that the Labour Party is complaining about now. Grant Robertson wants to use a word, which in this House he cannot use, about John Key. Well, I want to use a word that I am not supposed to use, and that is “hypocrisy”.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Helen Clark did exactly the same thing that Labour members are complaining about right now. But the bottom line is that they made a serious accusation against the Prime Minister of New Zealand, and they were found dead wrong—they were found absolutely wrong. Now it is time for Labour members to get to their feet and for Green members to get to their feet and apologise, because they were found dead wrong. The Deputy Auditor-General said that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with Skycity was influenced by inappropriate considerations. They were wrong, and it is time to apologise.

It is important to talk about what is actually important in this economy, and the convention centre will be hugely beneficial for New Zealand—$90 million in annual economic benefits, 1,000 jobs during construction, 800 jobs once it is up and running. Even the Labour Party Mayor of Auckland, whom Labour is trying to disown over this particular issue, supports the convention centre. The Labour Party does not stand for jobs. The Labour Party does not stand for economic growth. This convention centre that the Labour Party is opposing will be hugely beneficial for Auckland and New Zealand, but it is opposed to it.

The Labour Party should be talking about the big issues in this country, the big issues that National members are focused on. We are focused on growth, we are focused on jobs, and we are focused on infrastructure. When New Zealanders go to the polls next year they will be asking themselves which party cares the most about their children’s future. The Labour Party opposes every pro-jobs policy that this Government has introduced. The Greens are interested just in wrapping New Zealand up in red tape and printing more money.

Well, National has got a good story to tell in those areas. In jobs, 65,000 new jobs have been created in the past 3 years, and more than 13,000 jobs have been created with the 90-day trial. We hear about lay-offs. The Labour Party wants to talk about lay-offs. It wants to talk about Mainzeal Property and Construction and it wants to talk about Solid Energy, but it never wants to hear about the good-news stories—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Tell us about the people who have given up looking for work because there’s no hope under this Government.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: —such as 1,000 new jobs from the Waterview Connection motorway. Listen up, Mr Lees-Galloway; if you listened for a second, you would get some facts into your brain. There are nearly 2,000 jobs from the ultra-fast broadband roll-out, and 1,000 jobs for Wiri Prison.

I heard during question time from the good Minister of Corrections about the global positioning system bracelets that she is introducing. I think, actually, David Shearer would like to have some of those for his own caucus, and there could be a proximity meter next to David Cunliffe’s office so when Labour Party members go next to his office to become the next abstention in their next vote, David Shearer knows all about it.

We are focused on economic growth as well. This economy is growing by 2.5 percent. Labour would love to knock us down, but the good-news story, the facts out there, is that this economy is growing. After-tax wages are up 20 percent since 2008—over twice the rate of inflation. Household disposable income has increased almost one-third in 4 years. We never hear about the good-news stories from the Labour Party, because it does not care. It does not care about jobs, it does not care about growth, and it does not care about infrastructure. Those members need to stand up and say sorry for their accusations. They were found absolutely wrong, and it is time they got to their feet and said so.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a pleasure to take a call in this general debate. Could I recommend this book, the Deputy Auditor-General’s report, to the National Party members? It is worth reading. Instead of just repeating the lies that have been presented to them in their research notes and then reading them out to the House, read this report and hang your heads in shame. This is not what New Zealanders expect of their Government, let alone of their Prime Minister.

I do not mind if the National Party wants to do a lot of legislation that I do not agree with, and I do not mind if it wants to introduce policies that make me feel ill when I look at the impact on people who live in my communities, because that is its right as a democratically elected Government in our country. It was elected to implement what I think are bad policies, but we are not part of the Government. We will be in 18 months’ time. But this is not about bad policies. This is not about a democratically elected Government introducing legislation that is not popular but that it is mandated to do. This is about a shonky, dirty deal, and it is about that far away from being corrupt. And that is what the Deputy Auditor-General says in the report.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: No it’s not.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Sam Lotu-Iiga will not have read it. I know he will not have read it.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Have you read it all?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I absolutely have, and I could quote quite a lot of it. The interesting thing that the National Party has not mentioned in this debate is that, actually, it is obvious from this report that the Skycity team always intended to build a convention centre. That is what it wanted to do. So not only have we got an organisation that wanted to do a convention centre but we have got the Government personally involved, with Ministers having meetings and dinners and saying: “We know you were going to do that. It’s all part of your legitimate business plan. But what we want to do is make it sweeter and easier for you.”

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Rubbish.

Hon RUTH DYSON: It is bribing an organisation to do something that, actually, it was going to do anyway. Sam Lotu-Iiga says it is rubbish—he has just confirmed that he has not read the report. It says in here that in 2009 Skycity told officials that it wanted to build a new convention centre.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What page? Quote the page.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Read the report, lazy member of Parliament, read the report. It says that Skycity wanted—

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like the member to sit down while I give my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I will hear the point of order. [Interruption]

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Excuse me.

Mr SPEAKER: Just get on with the point of order, please.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I take offence to that member calling me lazy, because those who know me know I am not lazy. That member should quote the page of the report she is referring to. If she says she has read the report—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a robust debating chamber. There will always be comments made about members. I do not think that is one that the member should have taken offence at. I am going to ask the member to continue.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member has actually just confirmed how lazy he is, because he wants me to look up the page in the report that I was quoting. You cannot get much lazier than asking a member of another party to look up a report. It is gobsmacking.

Let me raise a few quotes: “Ministry officials were aware that SkyCity had expressed an interest in extending its existing convention centre across Federal Street or developing a new centre on land it owned in Hobson Street. This awareness arose from communications between Auckland-based Ministry officials and SkyCity during April and May 2009.” Skycity wanted to build the convention centre. It needed no Government assistance. It was always going to do it. It was always going to pay for it. What the Prime Minister has done is expose his shonky deal, his need to be snuggling up to business, in a way that is that far away from corruption. It is the worst report I have seen in my time in Parliament as to the behaviour of members of Parliament and Ministers.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Quote the page. Quote the page if you know it.

Hon RUTH DYSON: Lazy personified. John Armstrong, in his comment this morning in the New Zealand Herald, said that the report showed that we are verging on banana republic kind of stuff without the bananas. He said: “In other words, no corruption. Or at least none that could be found.”, and that the process had been “neither transparent nor even-handed … Things got so bad”—he reported, and it is in the report—“that some officials expressed concern to superiors that proper procedures were not being followed.”

On every page of this report we see John Key’s statement that there is nothing to see made a lie of. Every single page has a damning comment. Steven Joyce gets the spin going, and his trained seals in the National Party repeat it. Read the report and hang your heads in shame.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am pleased to speak in the general debate. Thank goodness, I say—thank goodness we have got a Prime Minister who is focused on the big picture: economic development, jobs, and boosting our economy. We are not distracted by the sideshows. We have had a challenging few years. There is no question about that. But that is why the economy must be front and centre stage, and that is why we are determined to continue with the economic growth that we have made strong foundations for over the last 4 years.

We are doing quite well compared with other countries. We are really fortunate. We are moving in a positive direction, and the economy must remain front of mind. We have had clear, consistent messages about our economic programme and the direction we are taking. We are going to get back to surplus, and we are on track to do that. The latest Crown accounts confirm that we are back in the black, and, at the rate we are going, New Zealand is expected to grow faster and more strongly than the euro area, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada.

We are pressing ahead with a wide range of measures to build a more productive and competitive economy. We are working hard on our Business Growth Agenda. We want to attract investment. Basically, more investment means that more jobs will be created for New Zealanders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! Sorry to interrupt the honourable member; it will not affect your time. Can I just advise members that they cannot walk around the Chamber and interject. It is totally out of order and unnecessary.

Dr JACKIE BLUE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government has worked hard to create businesses and make them stronger so they can hire more people and grow, and in turn have more jobs and more growth, and then the economy will strengthen. The plan is working. The economy is growing. Real jobs are being created and confidence is increasing. We are committed to giving businesses the tools to compete successfully globally and to ensuring that the right conditions are in place for businesses to grow.

Yes, there are some really big opportunities, particularly with the rebuild of Christchurch, and we want to ensure that New Zealanders have the skills that are needed in the next few years. We are determined to boost skills and training, and we have recently announced the New Zealand Apprenticeships scheme, which is boosting the number of people in apprenticeships by combining all the apprenticeships and expanding and improving the current system. We are going to be implementing a starting out wage, set at 80 percent of the minimum wage, for eligible 16 to 18-year-olds to encourage employers to take on youth. Also the 90-day trial employment laws are helping our young people get into jobs.

We are funding 12,000 more tertiary places this year, supporting our fees-free Youth Guarantee scheme for 13,000 young people. We are providing new vocational pathways at secondary schools and funding Māori and Pasifika trades training to give young people more options to train and upskill. The recent workforce statistics show that New Zealand’s unemployment rate has fallen to 6.9 percent. It is still not good enough, but it is an improvement. It is also clear from those statistics that more young people are in education, and we are working really hard to make sure our children get a better education and our youth stay in education.

We have a Better Public Services target for early childhood and secondary school education, and a target also for national standards. I want to take the time to congratulate Tony Ryall, because he has basically been incredibly successful with the health target model, and I am sure that is how it has gone now in our public services. Targets do work. They bring all stakeholders together, and sometimes it might be the first conversation the stakeholders have on how to achieve that target. Health targets, such as cancer treatment waiting times, emergency department waiting times, elective operations, and immunisations have been hugely successful. Goodness, who would have believed that we would come from a dire situation 4 years ago of women having to be sent to Australia for radiotherapy, to now achieving the 4-week gold standard? Who would have thought it? That is what we have done, that is what Tony Ryall has done, and that is how targets work.

Who would have thought 4 years ago that, after succeeding with radiation waiting times, we would now turn our attention to chemotherapy waiting times? Who would have thought we would go from a situation where tens of thousands of people were culled from elective waiting lists to a situation now where we have unprecedented levels of elective operations being offered to all New Zealanders? Who would have thought we would go from a situation where people were waiting under fluorescent lights in accident and emergency centres to a situation where we have all the district health boards stepping up and many of them achieving the 6-hour waiting target? That is what targets do and that is what the Better Public Services targets will do. That is what national standards will do, because it puts people’s minds to the issue—how to solve it and how to get there. They figure it out, they have the conversation, and they have respect for each other. That is what it will do.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am wondering whether you could help me a wee bit here, and maybe not make a ruling straight away but come back with maybe a definitive answer with regards to the contempt of the House. Not so long ago I read a tweet. I will not say the other person’s name, but it was a disgraceful display of partiality by the speaker—not good enough, again. “Under Lockwood Smith if we asked straight questions we got straight answers. That’s not the case under David Carter. Disgraceful.” I do not care who said it, but I want the Speaker to be able to go away with regard to examples of contempt and bringing a reflection on the Chair, which is a reflection on us and the Standing Orders. I wonder whether you could, with regards to the use of social media, go away and give us a learned—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just respond to the member?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I have got the matter here, Mr Mallard. It is raising a matter of privilege and I would like to quote to the member. It is Standing Orders 399(2) and 399(1). I quote from Standing Order 399(1) first: “A member may raise a matter of privilege with the Speaker in writing at the earliest opportunity.”, so the member should do that. Standing Order 399(2) says: “In any case a matter of privilege must be raised before the next sitting of the House or, if the matter relates to the proceedings of a select committee, before the commencement of the sitting of the House following the day of the next meeting of the committee concerned.” So the member needs to raise the issue directly by writing to the Speaker at his earliest convenience. Thank you.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think possibly if you had heard this, it would have helped. I think the member was not trying to raise a matter of privilege with you; he was asking whether in fact privilege could be breached by way of social media in the way it can be by way of traditional media. I am sure you do not need a considered ruling to tell a member that it can be.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for your explanation, Mr Mallard.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I rise to ask this House to take time out from the largely Skycity-focused debate today to focus on the most important issue that is actually facing humanity. Last Friday the United Nations Security Council held an informal meeting on climate change. It is a significant event. Slowly but surely the Security Council is moving towards adopting climate change as a security issue for its agenda.

It first considered climate change in 2007, but China vetoed any statement back then. Germany reintroduced it in 2011. The council declared then that climate change was a risk multiplier and a potential threat to international peace and security. The meeting last week was only an informal one, again at the insistence of China and Russia, but it is clear that climate change is being upgraded from a matter for the United Nations Environment Programme to research and the framework negotiations to mismanage to one of political and strategic concern for the Security Council. The only real question is whether the council, with delegated authority from member States, can act formally in time to revert what the World Bank calls catastrophic change for humankind. That is what we are in for on our current emission trends—from 3 degrees Celsius to 6. Given what we are witnessing around the planet already with 0.8 degrees Celsius, God help us with anything above 2. Global emissions are meant to peak by 2016 to avoid exceeding 2 degrees Celsius. That is 3 years away, about the time our UN negotiations are meant to deliver a global treaty that will kick into force 5 years later and begin to have an effect 5 years after that. So we are consciously planning for global disaster.

Let this House ask the Prime Minister a few questions arising from the Security Council debate. Does he agree with the British climate change envoy that “the impacts of a changing climate pose a significant and emerging threat to a country’s national security and prosperity,”? Is he concerned by the advice from the German envoy that “rises in global temperature were likely to have catastrophic consequences … [and] humankind would venture into an uncertain future that is much hotter than ever before in its history—so from a scientist’s perspective, climate change is a global risk multiplier,”? Does he agree with Oxfam’s plea to the Security Council to deal with climate change, because “the global food system was already under severe stress as a result of droughts across the US, Africa and Asia.”?

In light of the World Bank’s advice that “cities must take the lead in developing low carbon infrastructure, in terms of transport, urban planning and managing water resources.”, will he instruct Gerry Brownlee to ensure that the rebuild of Christchurch becomes a model of sustainability for the international community, somewhat along the lines of a report I tabled in Parliament 18 months ago? How does he reply to the UN Security-General, who said: “Scientists have long sounded the alarm. Top-ranking military commanders and security experts have now joined the chorus. Yet the political class seems far behind … Too many leaders seem content to keep climate change at arm’s length, and in its policy silo.”?

Will he listen to the Marshall Islands Ambassador, who said that global warming has “threatened our very existence” and that “Our roads are inundated every 14 days. We have to ration water three times a week. People have emergency kits for water. We can no longer use well water because it’s inundated with salt.”? If so, will he direct a policy review on how New Zealand can assist Pacific Island States, including introducing a special annual quota of climate refugees?

Finally, will he call in the ambassadors of Russia and China and ask them to explain their dubious insistence on making Friday’s Security Council meeting an informal one only?

By emaciating our own emissions trading scheme and renouncing any legal obligation to cut emissions in this decade, New Zealand now rivals Canada for the worst climate change policy in the world. All other developed countries and many developing countries, including major emerging economies, have more visionary and effective policies. It is time New Zealand got its act together for the sake of our own national security and long-term survival.

ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. That speech and that speaker, Dr Kennedy Graham, are a reflection on the Opposition of Labour and the Greens—in other words, the only growth in the manufacturing industry is the manufacturing of crisis and the scaremongering that continues to go on from the Opposition about all the things that this National Government is doing. This National Government has been working hard for Kiwis. We have been clear and consistent about our economic programme and priorities in the face of continuing global uncertainty. Unlike the tired, plain-smoking-packaging Opposition over there, this National-led Government has a strong plan and a busy agenda. We have to become a more competitive and productive economy to give New Zealand businesses the tools they need to grow and invest and to hire more staff.

So what does that growth look like? Well, 2 percent growth, which is higher than in many other developed countries, and both Treasury’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement show that the economy is growing at an average rate of 2.5 percent a year over the next 3 years. At that rate New Zealand is expected to grow more strongly than the euro area, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Canada. Those members do not like to hear that over there, but that is the truth. That is the fact. It is in a report. You can read it. We are responsibly managing the Government’s finances.

Iain Lees-Galloway: What happened to the last few forecasts?

ALFRED NGARO: That means living within our means, Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. Jacqueline Ireland, the Chief Executive of Colmar Brunton, was asked what are the lessons that we can learn, and that we have learnt, as a Government and as a country. She said this: “… I believe that the recession and its aftermath have forced many businesses to look at their costs and rethink their strategy, and those that have made good decisions are now far stronger, leaner, faster, more productive and more agile.” The economy is also about how we grow the economy in the homes of everyday Kiwis, who are listening to these speeches in the House.

So let us say how we have made those changes. After-tax wages are up by 20 percent since 2008, which is over twice the inflation rate. Households’ disposable income has increased by almost a third in 4 years. We have the lowest mortgage rates—and here we go, for the benefit of Mr David Clark—in 50 years. Tax reforms are encouraging saving and investment. We have increased the minimum wage three times in our term of Government. What about investment? We have a Business Growth Agenda, helping businesses to access the tools they need to compete internationally. Export markets—we are increasing exports to 40 percent of GDP by 2015. Innovation—we are helping businesses access the latest research and development and technology to increase output. Infrastructure—we are ensuring businesses can rely on roads, rail, broadband, and irrigation. What about natural resources? We are responsibly managing our economic opportunities and capital markets, encouraging more investment in New Zealand. When businesses have confidence that our economy is in good shape and in strong hands, they can create real jobs that support families.

Skills—we are helping Kiwis to upskill, train, and find work in New Zealand and in tertiary places. Sir Mark Solomon, the chairman of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, said this just recently. He said: “NZ’s best intergenerational assets are its people and its brand—let’s promote these … through education …” and sustainable resource management. So we are doing this as a Government. We are boosting skills and supporting jobs. There was a great opportunity, particularly with the rebuilding of Christchurch. We have launched five new vocational pathways that are clear signposts to the subjects young people should take to prepare for vocational careers in construction, manufacturing, the primary sector, the service sector, and social services as well. Four thousand places are available in trades academies and service academies, and there are 8,700 Youth Guarantee places. We are revitalising the industry to ensure people have the right skills in the right places.

“Where are the jobs?”, they say. There are 2,000 jobs through the Government’s infrastructure for ultra-fast broadband. There are 1,000 jobs through the roads of national significance. There are 1,500 jobs from the upgrading of the national grid. More jobs are being created. There was the wailing and the gnashing of teeth when the 90-day trial was introduced. We know now that there are 30,000 jobs there from that, and Mr Iain Lees-Galloway knows this. In Australia, it is a 180-day trial. You do not hear that message, but in New Zealand we have been fair, we have been consistent, and that has created 30,000 more jobs. This Government has reform for ordinary Kiwis in New Zealand.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill

Third Reading

TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for this debate to be taken as one part and for the questions to be put separately at the debate’s conclusion. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry?

Kevin Hague: This is a third reading, Mr Speaker.

TIM MACINDOE: I do apologise; I got ahead of myself.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): OK. Thank you. So the member is clear now? OK.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) on behalf of Jacqui Dean (National—Waitaki): I move, That the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be now read a third time. This bill is a local bill sponsored by Waitaki MP Jacqui Dean. Jacqui is very disappointed that she cannot be here today, and wants to thank the submitters, the officials, and the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for all their hard work. She is very pleased that we have got here to the third reading. It has been a very interesting and complex bill, and everyone has worked pretty diligently to get it right.

The purpose of this bill is to revoke the reservation of two pieces of land within the Waitaki District and to clarify the status of the third piece of land. The first two pieces, the Palmerston Showgrounds and Lot 1, DP 345820, are sections and they are straightforward revocations of the Reserves Act status. In the case of the Palmerston Showgrounds section, it will allow the Waitaki District Council to sell the land to the current lessees.

In the case of the lot 1 section, it will allow Waitaki District Council to regularise the sale of the section to the current registered proprietors and allow title to their property to be unencumbered by any notation relating to the Reserves Act.

But it is the third piece of land that is much more controversial, and that is what the committee spent its time on. This piece of land is known as Lookout Point, or Forrester Heights, and the bill is made to correct a historical error. This error was caused by a combination of factors, but was mostly to do with semantics. The committee received and considered 27 submissions and it heard seven submissions orally, and by a majority it recommended that the bill be passed.

I would just like to talk a little bit about Lookout Point. The land was originally purchased by the Government from Ngāi Tahu in 1848 as part of the Kemp purchase, and this land was included in the original subdivision of the town of Ōāmaru. In 1885 the land was set aside as an endowment in aid of funds for the benefit of the then Oamaru Borough Council—now the Waitaki District Council—in accordance with section 38 of the Land Act 1877 Amendment Act of 1884. So it went back a while.

There was an administrative oversight in 1937, and at that stage this piece of land was mistakenly vested to the now Waitaki District Council as a reserve. Reserve status and endowment status are two completely separate concepts, and this might not have been fully appreciated in 1937. So originally it was an endowment and was reserved as an endowment, and then it transferred to become reserve land. This bill will simply address the clerical error made in 1937 by clarifying the status of the land as an endowment.

This background sounds reasonably straightforward now that we have sorted it out, but it actually took a lot of time, energy, and research to make sure that we got it right. I would really like to thank the officials for their painstaking work. I really appreciated the fact that as new information came we requested them to go back and check, double-check, and even triple-check the documents because we wanted to be absolutely sure that we got it right. This confusion has gone back to 1937, it goes right back to 1884, and we wanted to clarify it completely.

It gives us great confidence that everyone—Land Information New Zealand or LINZ, the Department of Conservation, Ngāi Tahu, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office—agrees that our conclusion about the status of the land is correct. That is ticks all round—everybody agrees.

Over the years the issue has divided the community, and there has been a lot of historical study and research undertaken by locals. We really appreciate the work that they have done to get all the facts on the table. However, there was also some confusion by locals about the role of the select committee. Our job was to clarify the existing land status, not to recommend how the council should use the land. That, of course, is the decision of councillors and of the community. We were there to establish the facts. Others must decide what to do with the land, which many hoped would remain a reserve despite the endowment status. So we were very pleased to hear from the Waitaki District Mayor, Alex Familton, that once the status is clarified he will go back to the community to make any decisions about its future. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I am pleased to speak at the third reading of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, and to first of all congratulate Jacqui Dean. It is a shame that she is not here, because she has shown great tenacity with this bill. It was not without some controversy. It has actually had quite a long birth and delivery, but she has stuck with it and has resolved an issue of long standing.

Like the previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, I too would like to thank the officials. The reason for that is that the Local Government and Environment Committee was determined to get to the bottom of the legal status of one particular piece of land that is covered by this bill. This bill actually revokes the status of two pieces of land within the Waitaki District.

Nicky Wagner: Three.

Hon ANNETTE KING: It replaces three, sorry, but it was only one that was controversial, and it was a piece of land called Lookout Point, also known as Forrester Heights.

We were determined to get to the bottom of what had really happened to this piece of land going back to 1884. That is not easy, because it was found that there were records missing. Records that had once been there had now gone. There had been interpretation made on documents over the years. But we were not going to make a decision on this bill until we had looked at all the issues and all the legal documents we could, to ensure we were getting it right. So I want to thank the officials for the way they went back, as the chair of the committee has just said, not once, not twice, but three times to check the records to ensure we were making the right decision with this piece of land.

We supported this bill to go to the select committee, but we did raise concerns about Lookout Point. We said we had to be assured we were making the right decision. It was, as I said, after an extensive search that we found and the committee was satisfied that the status of the land at Lookout Point - Forrester Heights was endowment land. That was really important because if it was not endowment land—if it was reserve land, which it was believed to be—it could not then be sold by the council.

So we needed to know whether it was actually reserve land, which could not be sold, or endowment land, which the council could sell for whatever use it wanted to use it for. We are satisfied, with the work that was done, that this land is endowment land and that it was a genuine mistake that was made, resulting from various meanings and legal uses of the word “reserve”. Being satisfied that this was the case, we support this bill in the third reading.

There were not a lot of submissions on this bill, although a lot of interest, and quite a number of members of this House actually went down to Ōāmaru and visited the site. I know that my colleague Phil Twyford in particular made a special trip down to look at the piece of land and to talk to the locals. Although there were not a lot of submissions, there were two very significant submissions that I want to mention: the submission of Mr Warren Crawford and a second one, from Mr Barry Monks. They actually were concerned about the status of the land and had set about to try to find the records to show that it was reserve land, that it was made a reserve back in the 19th century, and that it could not be sold. Out of their own time and money they had gone to a lot of work and they produced a lot of documents for the select committee that we had not had before, and I think in many ways they helped the officials in their continuing search to ensure we got the right status on this land.

So I do want to commend those two men for the work that they did, particularly Barry Monks, who did a lot of historical research. He worked through and he sifted through what was an incomplete, confusing, and chaotic paper trail about this piece of land. I do not think they are necessarily satisfied with the decision that the select committee has made, but it has been made on the best evidence we have got, and I believe it is the right decision.

There were also issues raised, particularly during the Committee stage, by the Green Party members that they were voting against it because of the process used in terms of the use of the land. They are perfectly entitled to their view, but in our view it is not appropriate to oppose a piece of legislation where we are deciding on the status of land on the grounds that the use of that land was not consulted about correctly, properly, for long enough, or whatever. That is another matter. I do not disagree with the Green Party that in fact the consultation around the use of the land was poor, and even the council when it came to the select committee had to concede that the consultation had not been good. But that is not what this bill is about. I hope the council has learnt that it does need to do good consultation, otherwise it raises all sorts of issues in its community that are unnecessary, and unnecessary angst in its community through a poor process.

So we disregarded, in terms of this bill, the process the council used around consultation on what the land would be used for. Our interest in this bill and this House’s interest in this bill is whether this land is endowment land or reserve land. We believe that it is endowment land. We believe that we have made the right decision. But we also understand the suspicion of the people of Ōāmaru. There was some suspicion from local people who, on the face of it, thought there was some kind of jack-up between property developers and local politicians on what was and is a very valuable piece of land. We understand that, but they need to be reassured that the select committee, I believe, did the very best job it could with the information provided to make a decision that makes sure that this land is able to be used for the benefit of the people of Ōāmaru. We support this bill at the third reading, and I am sure Jacqui Dean will be delighted to see it through.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I am very happy to speak briefly in support of this excellent bill, the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, brought to the House through the good offices of Jacqui Dean, and a wonderful local MP she is. This bill, as we have heard, clarifies the ownership of a number of pieces of land—in particular, Lookout Point, also known as Forrester Heights. At bottom I can fully understand the concerns of some of the local citizens that they would prefer that this park remain a reserve and in public ownership for ever and a day, because I am sure it is a beautiful part of what is a nice town down there in Ōāmaru. But I do think we need to be a little bit careful about that instinct.

I started an exercise when I first came into Parliament to try to work out the amount of land owned by the State. Tallying it up so far, I have got to 46.65 percent of the land mass of New Zealand in State ownership. [Interruption] I cannot give you the square acreage, I am sorry, Mr McClay, but 46 percent is quite a stunning figure. So 33 percent of the land mass of New Zealand is with the Department of Conservation, another 8 percent with Land Information New Zealand, and so on, until you get to 46 percent, but I am sure there is more. So there is no shortage of public ownership of land in New Zealand—in fact, I think we have probably got too much land owned by the State. And all of it, when it is owned by Governments and councils, needs to be maintained and locked up. Here is a proposal to subdivide some of this land and reduce the burden of ratepayers and I think that is very sensible indeed. It is about using some of the land in this country for development and this bill will make this easier. It has sorted out a longstanding historical problem and I congratulate the member Jacqui Dean on bringing this to a successful fruition. Thank you very much.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou ngā mema huri noa i te Whare. I am very pleased to speak at this third reading of the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. Although I was not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee that considered this bill, I am very pleased to be coming in at this third reading, because the Waitaki District is obviously a very important district within Te Tai Tonga, my electorate—the whole of the South Island. It is a very special place, Waitaki. The Waitaha, the very early settlers of Te Wai Pounamu, the moa hunters, my ancestors, Te Maiharoa, the chief, and all of the successive tribal groups roamed those lands and were sustained by those lands and the rivers, so I am very pleased to be able to speak to this bill.

Obviously we are dealing with the history of a particular piece of land. The one in question I would like to speak to relates to the past 150-odd years of the land for which there was a question mark, which this bill has finally corrected in terms of the status of the land at Lookout Point. I also understand it is called Forrester Heights. Someone must have been a fan of The Bold and the Beautiful to call it Forrester Heights. Lookout Point is a very beautiful piece of land. I have travelled to Ōāmaru, obviously, many times and had a chat with some of the locals, and it is an absolutely beautiful piece of land with panoramic views of Ōāmaru, right out to sea, and of the beautiful bay. It is a very pristine and very highly valuable, I would say, piece of land. In regard to the issue around the status of the land and whether it was reserved or endowed, I understand that, through the extensive research and inquiries that were undertaken by the select committee and by officials and through the assistance of submitters also, it did indeed lean toward the land being endowed, or there were mistakes that were made, but it was endowed.

I would like to take a trip back through time and just think of what the children of Ōāmaru were thinking in 1892, or around the early 1890s, when the children of the district went on to Lookout Point and they planted that whole hillside with beautiful trees. Those trees obviously grew and they were a stunning feature of that community. What were those children thinking 120-odd years ago when they planted those trees? Were they thinking that the land where they were planting those trees was going to be sold to developers for development? Or was it a reserve? Well, I think the actions of those children and the great community gesture that it was for them to plant that whole area in beautiful trees show that although a legal technicality or whatever revealed that no, no, the land was not reserved but endowed, in the heart of the community of Ōāmaru that land is definitely reserve in terms of the feeling within that community.

As I mentioned, it is a very, very beautiful site with beautiful views. This bill does clarify the status of that particular piece of land and I commend the local member, Jacqui Dean, for sponsoring this bill and following it through this process whereby all the investigations were made and the status has been determined. We support this bill, but I want to just add some remarks around the use of the land. Obviously that is beyond the scope of this bill and it really is up to the local Waitaki District Council as to what it intends to do with the land. Obviously the intention has been seen through its recent activities: to chop down all the trees, change the district plan without consulting the community and change the status, and even put up “For Sale” signs in terms of properties for sale and sections for sale. So the intention of the Waitaki District Council in recent times has been to market and sell off those prime pieces of real estate.

But in regard to the use of the land, I just want to remark that at the bottom of Lookout Point I have looked very carefully in terms of the actual stability of that land in question. It is clay soil, and there are huge what they call under-runners—they also call them Māori drains. In terms of the stability of the land, it could be unsafe to actually develop on because these are huge under-runners that are there right from the bottom roadside. You do not want to go walking near them, because they could collapse any time. The soil is very porous. Roots that may have been there when the trees were there rotted away and so more water is coming through and making it more unstable. So I would caution in terms of whatever future use may be applied to that land that there be very thorough technical reports conducted, because those large caves at the bottom of that hillside could be very, very dangerous and unsuitable for development. So should the Waitaki District Council want to go ahead and develop the land or sell the land, I think it would want to really investigate its position very, very carefully and fully. It does not want to be subjecting its ratepayers to any potential liability around selling off unsafe pieces of land, or, if it wanted to, developing that area with amenities and infrastructure or roading and the like, only to find that actually the land is unsuitable for development. That would be my only comment, which is beyond the scope of this bill but I think is very relevant in terms of now that the land has been classified as endowed, as able to be sold, the Waitaki District Council should look very carefully into that particular issue.

Just in terms of some concluding remarks, I too would like to acknowledge some of the submitters—in particular, Barry Monks, who devoted a lot of time and conducted extensive research into the history. Obviously he is passionate about Waitaki. He is a real heartland man, old Barry Monks is. He actually was our candidate, and a very capable candidate too, in Waitaki. I am very proud of Barry and the work that he did in terms of researching this bill, and really representing and advocating for the retention of that land as a reserve. Unfortunately, his efforts were not able to be captured in the bill in its final form, but I do acknowledge Barry for the work that he did undertake.

Likewise I do want to acknowledge Mr Warren Crawford, whom I met in Ōāmaru and who showed me around Lookout Point. He, again, was very passionate about the area. He farmed Lookout Point, so he had stock grazing on that particular land in question over many years, and, again, he was very passionate about retaining the reserve status of that land and making sure that it was held as an asset in their community that would not be sold.

Just to conclude, Lookout Point, as I have mentioned, is a spectacular piece of land. I would hope that some more trees will be planted there. Obviously they have all been hacked down and it has created a bit of unsafe terrain that probably is not conducive to further development. We shall see. But it would be nice to see that the council will listen and consult with its community before it actually does anything further, now that the land has endowed status. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you. I am pleased to take a short call on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. In starting I would like to take issue with the comments of Paul Goldsmith. Coming from the urban jungle of central Auckland as he does, he may not be aware of the significance of the Crown’s public landholdings, the lands held by the Department of Conservation and Land Information New Zealand; nor may he be aware of the location of those lands. A lot of our conservation lands are in our mountainous areas, our alpine areas, in Fiordland. They are remote from our major population centres. When you talk about Land Information New Zealand lands, they are often pastoral leases. They may certainly be found in the hinterland of Ōāmaru, in the Mackenzie Basin, and in the South Island high country, but they are not immediately adjacent to the Ōāmaru town. That is why this land at Lookout Point is significant, because it is public land in the coastal area.

We do not have a lot of coastal land that is protected and to which the public can have access, except of course in Auckland where there has been very foresightful work over many years by the Auckland Regional Council to establish its network of regional coastal parks. But certainly many in the community in Ōāmaru, as the Local Government and Environment Committee heard through submissions and the hearings, very much value Lookout Point because of its sweeping views over the town, and because it is such a lovely place to walk, to enjoy some quiet contemplation, and just to enjoy that space. That is why they are concerned at the proposals by the Waitaki District Council to alienate that land, through the proposed Forrester Heights subdivision. That is why the Green Party will be voting against this bill.

We certainly acknowledge the able chairing of the select committee by Nicky Wagner and a lot of work by Jacqui Dean in bringing the bill to the House. It was certainly an interesting and detailed look at the history of this particular area of land. A lot of the information that the select committee considered was, as other members have referred to, available very much thanks to the research that was put in by members of the community like Mr Monks, Helen Stead, Mr Crawford, and others in showing the select committee some of the history of the area and bringing us photographs to show how the land was used in the past. So I would like to thank them for their huge contribution to the lawmaking process, and also acknowledge the work of departmental officials and the very thorough research they did.

The Green Party supports some clauses in the bill, but in the Committee stage I put up Supplementary Order Paper 150 to seek to change clause 7, which is the clause that we object to—that Supplementary Order Paper failed—because clause 7 deals with Lookout Point and it will effectively legitimise a very poor process that the council used to initiate the Forrester Heights subdivision. It did it through a resource consent process that was not notified, so there was no opportunity for the community to make submissions on that. It was a development that was being initiated by the council, but there were no external commissioners, so it is no wonder that a number of people in the community feel very aggrieved by this bill, because of the process that the council used, which lacked consultation; it did not go through a proper long-term plan consultation process either. At the select committee we were encouraged by the fact that Mayor Familton said that the council would consider the whole issue of the subdivision again, but the resource consent has not been withdrawn so the council still has the legal power to proceed with the subdivision. But certainly if the bill is passed—which, given the numbers, it probably will be—I do hope the council takes the very good and wise advice of Rino Tirikatene in highlighting the potential natural hazard issues with those under-runners and the very significant risk of land collapse and erosion. That was very wise counsel, and the Waitaki District Council would do well to heed it.

In terms of the poor consultation process it is interesting that National members are supporting the bill, when yesterday in this House we were debating the Environment Canterbury legislation and the way in which that has completely cut across basic democratic process, with no ability for Cantabrians to vote for their elected councillors. This issue of principle—the need to have a good process, the need to involve the community, to consult well—is the reason why we are opposing the bill.

The bill also highlights our very shabby treatment of heritage in New Zealand. The Waitaki District Council wants to sell off Lookout Point to raise funds so that it can restore the Ōāmaru Opera House. We know that Ōāmaru, like Invercargill, has a really distinctive precinct of heritage buildings. In Ōāmaru those white stone buildings, and their very good condition, define the town’s character. They attract visitors from around New Zealand and around the world because they are preserved in a very good state and are protected. But to repair the Ōāmaru Opera House more funds are needed, and it is really disappointing that those funds cannot be found through better provision for heritage nationally, through more generous grant schemes for that, and that the council feels that it has to sell off another public asset, Lookout Point, to fund that. The council should not be being put in that position.

In concluding, I would again like to thank the submitters for the large amount of time and energy they put into presenting their submissions and for the very interesting and thorough way in which they discussed the history of the area and encouraged select committee members to better understand and appreciate that history. I think the issue has been thoroughly considered, both by the select committee and by this House. I think the second reading debate runs to some 20 pages, so it is a local bill that has been very thoroughly considered. We will be opposing it for the reasons I have outlined: the poor consultation process. Thank you.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): This is a piece of legislation that has been around before the House for a very, very long time. The Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill has been endlessly tracked over at the Local Government and Environment Committee. In the submissions and at the first and second readings it has been all exhaustively discussed. Much has been said, latterly by the member who has just resumed her seat. I would point out to her that she thinks that one of our members is unaware of what goes on in an urban jungle. I would put to you that the Greens do not know what is going on in the real world, because they do not have electorates of their own that they are responsible for, and they talk only to people who think the way they do. But that is an aside.

I would like to congratulate Jacqui Dean on being such an outstanding local member of Parliament. I would also like to congratulate the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Nicky Wagner, who has done an excellent job in guiding this through the select committee. It has been a lengthy process—a very lengthy process, indeed—and I am very pleased to see it go through its third reading. I do commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. Our party will certainly be opposing this bill for some of the reasons given by the speaker from the Greens, Eugenie Sage, but also for a number of other reasons.

We have no issue with the two pieces of land, the Palmerston Showgrounds and the other section, in terms of formalising those longstanding relationships with the occupants and transferring the title so that it cleans up what has been an anomaly on those two properties for a very long time, but we do have issue with the land at Forrester Heights and Lookout Point. Just because there is some doubt about the true status of this land, whether it was reserve land or reserved for endowment land, does not mean that this land should actually be taken away from public ownership and turned into a subdivision. It does not mean that this generation has the right to take land that has been there since 1884 and then—

Hon Tariana Turia: It was there a long time before that.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: —and before that, but in terms of having any status whatsoever since 1884 in the borough of Ōāmaru, and having gone through all those generations of people as a lovely hillside behind the town, looking out over the historic Ōāmaru central area—to suddenly cash it up, subdivide it up, and turn it into housing. It would be a great shame if this was the case throughout New Zealand. Most local authorities in New Zealand are charged with protecting the land, protecting our reserves, and protecting what we own for future generations, not trying to carve it up and sell it off as fast as they can for housing.

In this particular instance we were not convinced by all the information. There was a lot of conflicting information. The officials, as we heard, did a good job, but there was still an awful lot of doubt and questionable interpretation of what happened in 1937, and it refers to the fact that there were, perhaps, some errors in perception then when the land was gazetted. But the mere fact that at the time it was gazetted those terms showed that there was an intent in some way or other for the land to be given a public status, the fact that since 1937—and we are now in 2013; we are 80-odd years on—nothing has happened to that land, apart from it being accessible by the public to walk across and for people to go up to the lookout and look out across Ōāmaru, and the fact that quite a number of generations over seven or eight decades have deemed fit to leave it as public land and leave it in the rightful occupancy of the public mean that we should honour that commitment from not just this current Waitaki District Council but the former Ōāmaru Borough Council, which saw fit to have that land with that particular status.

We ourselves have also spoken with many of the locals in Ōāmaru, and one of our MPs—he was a former Christchurch city councillor—Denis O’Rourke, visited Ōāmaru and spoke extensively with some of the locals there. There is certainly a divide in the community of Ōāmaru as to this land being removed from public ownership and potentially being sold for a subdivision. There is sufficient concern in the Ōāmaru area, and from a significant number of people in that area, that this should certainly go to wider consultation. Perhaps the correct process would have been that if there was a certain element of doubt about the reserve status of this land or the endowment status of this land, the Waitaki District Council should have moved, actually, to revoke it and have it under consultation to be taken out of public land ownership. If that was the case, and the council put the cart before the horse instead of the horse before the cart and gave the public of Ōāmaru an opportunity to have, perhaps, a referendum on it and have some input into the status of this land before it actually made any decision either way to have the status on it revoked, perhaps if it had done that and had had buy-in from the whole of the community and had full support of the whole community, we would be a bit clearer in this House as to whether the right thing is being done here. But because there is doubt, and because there are many in the community—and we heard the likes of Barry Monks, and we heard the likes of Warren Crawford, but there were many, many other Barry Monks and Warren Crawfords and Mr and Mrs Monks and Mrs Crawfords and others in Ōāmaru—who similarly have a view that the wrong thing is being done here, the wrong thing is being done here, and we are basically allowing what is a somewhat uncertain process to be sanctioned by this House.

New Zealand First does not approve of the sale of assets. We do not approve of the sale of land owned by the public unless there is an incredibly good reason for that to occur. In this case we do not believe there is a good reason for this to occur. We do not believe there is a good reason to change the status of this land and have it made into a housing division to blight the background to the Ōāmaru township, to change the whole perspective of the Ōāmaru historical heritage township there, and for the backdrop—instead of being open land and pristine, untouched land—to be housing in the future. We do not believe that that is the right process, and therefore New Zealand First will be voting against this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Ah! Mr Gilmore. Welcome back, Mr Gilmore.

AARON GILMORE (National): It gives me enormous pleasure to stand and speak after Andrew Williams, the member I have just heard. It brings me to some questions people are asking me about why I came back to Parliament. New Zealand First and the Greens, which stand for nothing, create nothing, and make no progress, are the reason why I decided to come back to Parliament and make New Zealand a better place.

As a Waitaki District Council ratepayer, actually, I think it is an important thing to empower locals to make local decisions about local assets. That is what this Government, under John Key, believes in, and that is what I think this bill, the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, brings. That is why the great member Jacqui Dean has brought this bill to the House: to empower local people to make local decisions about local assets. It is absolute scaremongering to worry about all the other things that the two other members from those parties have spoken about. I commend this bill to the House. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! We have all had a bit of fun at Aaron’s expense.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I want to just commend those words of wisdom in that last comment that you made. I noticed during the contribution of the last speaker that Aaron Gilmore has been away. I have just realised that he has not made a speech for the last 12 months. It has been rather a long time between drinks, and it is good to have Aaron Gilmore back in the House, because he provides so much entertainment for members on this side of the House. It makes the day a lot more fun. I too would like to—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Bring back Quinn.

PHIL TWYFORD: I would like to bring back—I am not prepared to support the comment by Trevor Mallard suggesting that we bring Paul Quinn back to the House. I think that goes a little far.

I too wanted to respond to contributions made by Green and New Zealand First colleagues. This is now the third time that we have had the pleasure of debating Jacqui Dean’s Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill. It has been a very enjoyable experience, and now we are all much more familiar with Lookout Point than we used to be.

Hon David Parker: Forrester Heights.

PHIL TWYFORD: Forrester Heights, as David Parker points out, is the more authentic description for that little bit of land. The Local Government and Environment Committee went on a bit of a journey, and it considered submissions from a number of people, including Barry Monks, Warren Crawford, and other concerned citizens of Ōāmaru—good men who care about their community and care about public land in Ōāmaru, and who had done a lot of historical sleuthing of the documents to try to establish that, in fact, this bit of land that we are talking about was reserve land and not reserved for endowment.

But to the best of the select committee’s ability, based on the best advice of officials who brought historical evidence to the select committee, it was established that, in fact, Forrester Heights, the land in question, was not reserve land going back to 1884. The confusion arose through administrative error and it was, in fact, endowment land. I challenge any other member of the House in this debate to correct me if I have got that wrong. The land was confirmed, through the earnest inquiries of the select committee, to in fact have been reserved for endowment, and not reserve land.

In my submission, if members of the House accept that the land was not reserve land, then there is no other logical position than to vote for this bill. I listened to the member Eugenie Sage—an excellent member of this House—saying that the Greens were opposing this bill because of inadequate consultation by Waitaki District Council. That is completely illogical. That may be a really valid criticism of Waitaki District Council, but it is a criticism to be made in the debating chamber of Waitaki District Council. That is its decision to make. If we stand for the rights of local communities and local councils to control their affairs, as we have in numerous debates in this House over the last few years, then it makes no sense at all to my mind for the Greens and for New Zealand First to stand up in this debate and vote against this local bill because they do not agree with the quality of consultation.

Andrew Williams, who is another member of this House whom I have a great deal of respect for—the lion of the super-city debate—stood up and made some very eloquent criticisms of the desire and intention of the Waitaki District Council to develop Forrester Heights, even though, as far as I am aware, the council does not currently intend to develop that land. It did, but I am not sure it does now.

Hon David Parker: It does. It does.

PHIL TWYFORD: OK. I stand corrected. David Parker has corrected me in that and tells me that it does currently intend to do that. I stand corrected. But even if it is wrong or unwise to develop this precious bit of publicly owned land on a lookout over Ōāmaru Harbour—even if it does that—that is an argument to be made in the debating chamber of Waitaki District Council. That is an issue for the citizens of Ōāmaru. It is between them and their elected councillors, who are responsible for the stewardship of that land. That is not an argument to be brought to this House. Andrew Williams, of all people, has defended the rights of communities as we have debated the many odious local government bills that the National-led Government has brought to this House over the last year. That member stood up for the democratic rights of people on the North Shore and the wider Auckland region, and—

Maggie Barry: Not to mention lemon trees and pōhutukawas.

PHIL TWYFORD: Well, that is interesting. It is good to hear a contribution from the member Maggie Barry, otherwise known on this side of the House as “Poison Ivy”, who, I believe, has broken the well-established Maggie Barry standing order that you must never stand up in this House and speak about something unless you have direct experience of it. I think that, unless Maggie Barry can guarantee to this House that she has personally visited Forrester Heights, she really has no right to stand up—

Maggie Barry: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I answer to that?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No.

PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is my point. I really wanted to address my criticisms to colleagues in the Greens and New Zealand First because I do not believe that they make an argument that has any validity or any logic behind it.

This is a local bill. Its purpose is simply to clarify the legal status and the provenance of decade after decade after decade of confusion, rancour, and dispute about the status of this land, and that is perfectly understandable. Having visited Forrester Heights and having stood on that land and looked over Ōāmaru Harbour, I understand why many of the citizens in that town, that lovely town, are concerned and want to see that land protected as open space and public space for future generations. That is something, as Andrew Williams was saying, that people in communities all over New Zealand feel passionately: that public land, especially land that has reserve status, should be held and protected for future generations. But the harsh fact of this land’s history is that it was never deemed reserve land, to the best of the select committee’s knowledge. It was deemed reserved for endowment, and the historical detective work done by officials showed that, I understand, at the select committee fairly conclusively.

Labour is supporting this bill. Whether or not this land is developed is a matter properly to be considered by the Waitaki District Council. It is a matter between it and the people of Ōāmaru.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I wish to commend the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill to the House. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call. The Hon—

Darien Fenton: No.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It is not a split call? My apologies. The Hon David Parker—10 minutes.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I am not sure I will take all of that time, but maybe I will. I rise to follow on from the comments from Phil Twyford, whose contribution I agree with. I was the local member of Parliament way back when for when this part of New Zealand was in the Otago electorate, and I was approached by the council, which wanted to have the proper status of the Forrester Heights land resolved. I lost an election in 2005 and Jacqui Dean was appointed.

Hon Simon Bridges: Elected!

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I am sorry; she was elected—you are quite right—as I was through the list process, and I became the Minister for Land Information.

Hon Simon Bridges: No, you were appointed.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I was appointed as Minister for Land Information—that is quite right—having been elected to Parliament. At the time the question as to the proper status of the Forrester Heights land was contentious. It was in my political interests locally to actually back the people who said that this land was reserve status land rather than endowment land. But my duty as the Minister for Land Information was to inquire as to what the proper status of the land was. The Department of Conservation is the authority to whom Land Information New Zealand goes for advice as to the proper status of land, and the Department of Conservation concluded that the land was endowment land, not reserve land.

I had been provided information by local constituents that suggested otherwise, so I took that information back to the Department of Conservation and said: “Please check again.” It then came back and said that this was endowment land, not reserve land, so it was included in the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill, which corrects errors of that kind. That legislation was not advanced on the Order Paper for a number of years by the incoming Government after the 2008 election, and Jacqui Dean then sought to bring this forward by way of local bill to have the matter settled in a local bill rather than through the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill.

By that time still further information had turned up, the most interesting piece of which was a photocopy of a record that was turned up by Barry Monks, which he obtained from the museum in Ōāmaru. It appeared to show that the land was, indeed, reserve land rather than endowment land. There was a little bit of suggestion of skulduggery around that, because when he went back to get further copies of the document concerned, it had been cut out of the archives. So you can imagine why on that basis there was some suspicion on the part of the people who believe most vehemently that this is reserve land rather than endowment land, and that there was some sort of dirty trick under way to hide the fact that this land was truly reserve land.

As a consequence, when this matter came to the Local Government and Environment Committee, evidence was presented to the select committee from very well-meaning people, including Barry Monks and Warren Crawford amongst others in Ōāmaru, who said that they were absolutely convinced that this was reserve land, not endowment land. The job of the select committee was not to plan the future of that land if it was endowment land. The job of the select committee was to decide what the land’s proper status was—whether it was reserve land or endowment land. Tempting though it is to actually take the next step down and actually make the planning decision as to what should happen with the land, that is actually not the role of this Parliament in that regard. It is, actually, to find out what the true status of that land is. Accordingly, at the select committee, again, the Labour Party members on that select committee, who included Annette King, were not motivated by a desire to find this to be endowment land. If anything, they were motivated by a desire to prove that this was reserve land. But the advice that they received in the end was that it was endowment land, not reserve land. As a consequence, they quite properly said that their duty to this Parliament was to report back that upon inquiry, they had concluded on the balance of all of the evidence and the advice from officials that it was endowment land. So that is the advice that this Parliament has received.

Having gone into it so thoroughly, in the end someone has to make a decision. On the balance of the evidence, the select committee, ably chaired by Mr Auchinvole, concluded that it was endowment land, and that is where it ends. That is what this bill says: it is endowment land. And the question as to whether it should be developed is a different question for the council under its legislation. That in turn has public processes. The long-term council community plan includes the right of public participation to turn up and say: “This land should not be subdivided.” People have done that, and their elected representatives have said no, they disagree, and that they think it should be developed.

I personally disagree with that. I actually do not think this land should be developed. I would prefer Forrester Heights land to be undeveloped, but my opinion on that is irrelevant. These decisions are delegated to the local council, and if we start reversing that position and think all these decisions should be taken in Parliament, then we might as well not have local government. For those reasons, with sadness, I regret this. I had Warren Crawford even just 2 weeks ago, when I saw him when I was down in Ōāmaru, talking about the terrible things that are happening with Summit Wool Spinners down there. He was, again, saying: “Look, disagree—disagree.” That is his right to disagree, and Barry Monks is still not convinced either, but the select committee was. And that is the basis upon which we as a Parliament have to make a decision. The evidence is that this is endowment land, not reserve land, and that is why the Labour Party is supporting this bill.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): From Play School to the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill, Jacqui Dean is a hard-working MP. I congratulate her on that—a local MP working hard for local people. It is a very good local bill. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Waitaki District Council Reserves and Other Land Empowering Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 98

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 22

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill

Instruction to Committee

LOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for this debate to be taken as one part and for the questions to be put separately at the debate’s conclusion.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave has been sought for that purpose—that the debate be taken as one question and then the votes be taken separately. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

In Committee

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. It is traditional when we are in Committee for the member in charge of the bill, or some other member—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, we have not started yet, and I was going to attend to that. We need a member to take the chair, please. Mr Auchinvole? Thank you.

Clauses 1 and 2, Parts 1 to 3, and schedules 1 and 2

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking an assurance from the member in the chair that he is there with the consent of the member in charge of the bill, because that is required. It is not a case of Ministers being able to fill in for any other Minister. I think you do need the consent.

LOUISE UPSTON (Senior Whip—National): I have an assurance that the member in charge of the bill has given permission for Mr Auchinvole to sit in the chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): He did chair the select committee process. We will take the whip’s word for that.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Māori Party—Te Tai Hauāuru): I rise to respond to the specific clause, clause 5(2)(a) in Part 2 of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, that deals with the process for obtaining authorisation to proceed with the transfer. This is an important part, in that it states that the council will have complied with due process if it has “consulted on the proposed transfer with ... every iwi authority in relation to each iwi whose rohe comes, wholly or in part, within the scheme distribution area.” As the local member, I am obliged to inform the Committee that the local iwi are absolutely opposed to this bill.

There are two very strong statements of objection that I wish the Committee to consider, before I even proceed with the range of arguments iwi have eloquently and consistently put before the Local Government and Environment Committee and, therefore, the wider Parliament. Ngā Parinui, Te Tumu Whakarae o Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui Trust, forcefully put the case, saying “Water is a fundamental cornerstone for iwi and one that must be worked through together with iwi. There has been no meaningful engagement about this Bill with iwi and for that reason the Bill should be rejected.”

This lack of meaningful engagement is a key theme that has been reiterated through other submissions, including those from Ngā Hapū o Ngā Ruahine and the Taranaki Iwi Trust. A particular objection is the fact that Taranaki iwi were not consulted, engaged, or involved in the development of this bill The submissions describe the process as unacceptable, that mana w’enua were not involved in the decision that led to the development of the bill or in the crafting of the bill itself. The offence taken is blatantly apparent. As a supposed Treaty partner—and we talk a great deal about Treaty partnerships here in this Chamber—they should have been informed and given an opportunity to fully understand the decision before the introduction of the bill to the Parliament, given the significance that we understand of iwi in terms of their relationship with water.

I want to expand on this point: how the Treaty applies to this bill, which affects a rural water supply scheme. It is all about location. This scheme is located right within the Taranaki iwi area of interest. This is a consortium of eight iwi in Taranaki who exercise mana w’enua and mana moana within that rohe. These iwi have been kaitiaki of the w’enua and the moana for generations, and with that comes inherent responsibilities to preserve and protect their w’enua, moana, and taonga. This is an inherited responsibility, a relationship that will endure for generations to come. Notwithstanding the cultural and spiritual association with water that the iwi throughout this tribal territory carry, we are also talking about iwi who are engaged right now in settlement negotiations and who, therefore, rightfully expect to be involved in the decision-making process around the transfer of Crown assets out of Crown ownership. I want to put before the Committee the unparalleled experience that Taranaki iwi have had with the Crown. The submission from Liana Poutū, the General Manager of Taranaki Iwi Trust, says it all. It states: “Taranaki Iwi suffered some of the most serious breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, at the hands of the Crown. It is unconscionable that while the Crown are engaging in a process to redress these serious grievances, on the other hand they continue to perpetuate the unfair and unjust treatment of our people.”

Turning to Part 2 and clause 8(1)(e), there is another part of the bill in clause 8 that requires the company to “prepare a protocol that provides for appropriate consultation by the company with every iwi authority in relation to each iwi whose rohe, wholly or in part, comes within the scheme distribution area.” Under usual circumstances, we would support any protocol that sets out to provide for consultation with iwi, but, as I have already explained, these were not usual circumstances. On 13 March 2012 representatives of Taranaki iwi Ngā Ruahine Rangi, Ngāti Ruanui, and Ngā Rauru met with the Hon Chester Borrows and the company to reinforce their concerns. The four South Taranaki iwi—

Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s not that honourable on this one.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: —told the company that they were opposed—sorry?

Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s not that honourable in this case.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The four South Taranaki iwi told the company that they were opposed to the bill and that the transfer of land from the South Taranaki District Council—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! If the member wishes to continue, she needs to call.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call the Hon Tariana Turia.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: —while the trust is in Treaty settlement negotiations with the Crown is unacceptable, yet still the bill progressed to its first reading.

For my own part, I took up this issue with the district council and the local member some 6 months prior, in September 2011. I urged the council to initiate adequate and comprehensive consultation and engagement with the affected w’ānau, hapū, and iwi. I explained further that although the iwi would acknowledge particular impacts for Orimupiko Marae and Ōeo Marae, the wider iwi interests also would impact on the proposed infrastructural developments. I asked the question of whether these impacts result in the diminution of tangata w’enua rights. In February 2012, after sustained advocacy from the Māori Party and from iwi, the bill was deferred. I was assured this was to allow the company time to resolve issues with the iwi, yet still the bill came back to the Parliament in March last year. I said at that point that I was standing by the iwi and I was voting against this bill, which works against our principles of rangatiratanga. Nothing has changed to give the Māori Party any confidence that the concerns iwi have raised regarding the lack of proper consultation, the privatisation of water infrastructure, or future impacts on land value and access to water have been taken into account.

There is a word that begins with “r” that could describe the situation. It is at the very least institutionalised discrimination that seemingly means that Taranaki iwi have no say about what happens in their rohe. Ngāti Ruanui outlined in their submission that there has been over 10 years of missed opportunity, where meaningful discussion could have been had with the iwi of South Taranaki, and the council failed in this duty to consult with the iwi. It is too easy to dismiss this bill as being about a single water scheme in a rural location affecting a few, but I remind the Committee that in 1865 some 1.2 million acres of Taranaki land was proclaimed and confiscated under the New Zealand Settlements Act. The Crown redress to Ngāti Ruanui accounts to a few cents in the dollar for each acre that has been taken. It was a gesture of enormous good faith that this sum was accepted by that iwi, to move forward for the betterment of the nation as a whole. This bill, in creating an opportunity to allow private ownership and remove the Treaty partnership between the Crown and iwi, does not exist in a vacuum.

For those who uphold the responsibilities of kaitiakitanga, the water at the centre of this bill requires careful protection and guardianship. Lest we forget, as in the Supreme Court case happening just across the road, the management of water resources is fundamental to iwi. Parliament must not act today in a way that undermines the Treaty relationship and adversely impacts on the water legislative landscape before the collective tribal discussions can be held at Maunga Taranaki and the precious water resource that flows from it. The Māori Party wishes to register its objection to this bill, and will continue to stand alongside the iwi of Taranaki in opposing this legislation.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): The South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, like many things, is about money. It is as simple as that. On one hand you have the South Taranaki District Council looking down the barrel of significant costs to its ratepayers to upgrade a water system and looking, perhaps a little late, at a comprehensive system of water delivery to its ratepayers through its district. I applaud the council for the planning, but it has now discovered a deal that was made some time ago with the people who have controlled this Cold Creek rural water supply scheme, a deal that was supposed to transfer ownership to them, that is actually not the best solution for all ratepayers across the district.

The tension, I guess, has meant that the only way of resolution is through the passage of this piece of legislation. I am not sure that it is the right solution to what is a big issue. The control and the cost of water is an issue at the forefront of many, many rural districts and, indeed, the whole agricultural sector. I guess it comes down to a fear of farmers on the one hand about relinquishing ownership of this scheme—a scheme that was built up with a taxpayers’ money subsidy and the farmers’ contribution, to be fair to them; it was built up to deliver them water in the South Taranaki District at a relatively low cost, and they want to keep that cost low. That is a fair expectation. They sat down with the council and negotiated the transfer. But, in fact, the Labour Government stepped in—and I think we are very proud of that—to say that we will not allow the transfer into private hands of water schemes that are basically there for ratepayers, for public reticulation. That is a core part not only of the New Zealand lifestyle but of the expectations of anyone living anywhere in the world. The fact that we have got water, and have often taken it for granted, in rural areas does not mean to say that we should not move—and the previous Labour Government recognised this—to secure supply and ensure we have a standard of water that is safe for drinking in the long term, and not just in the short term.

So a number of changes happened when Labour came in that prevented what was, in principle, an agreement here to transfer this water supply from the council, basically, into the hands of the farmers. And I think that was fair enough. I think we have to give the councils an opportunity to make sure that a tool like this scheme does not go from their tool box when they have a legal obligation to ensure supply across the district to all ratepayers. I think they have about 13 different components of their water supply system delivering to all the ratepayers, and they want to consolidate them so that the higher standards of water supply—that is, the treatment required and the security required now under law—can be delivered in a more efficient way.

So it is a bit of a dilemma here. We have indicated that we would support this, but the more we look into it, I have to say, the more I have sympathy for the council. The council has astutely, as I say, done some planning, which identifies this scheme here as a core component, particularly for Ōpunake, of a reliable water supply. The farmers also need reliable water. There are peaks and there are troughs in terms of demand, and they have invested in a scheme that stores some of the water, that gives them the supply when they need it, and that at off-peak times can then supply Ōpunake with reliable water when needed.

So it is a complex dilemma, and we here in Parliament, a long way from reality, are trying to sort out a problem. I am not convinced in my reading of this that, actually, we have got it right. I am not sure what will happen if the ownership is, in fact, transferred over to the company. I am not sure what will happen when the council has to meet its obligation to provide high-quality water to all its ratepayers, which is what we expect of our own councils.

There are a number of issues tied up in here. As I say, the complex one is the cost of water, the value of water, and whether those who had the benefit of previous schemes of subsidies from central government—these are the farmers who had the wisdom to take up those subsidies—have the right to have full ownership and control of the scheme. I would suggest not. There is still an element of obligation back to the taxpayers or ratepayers in whatever solution is finally arrived at. There are requirements, regardless of whether it be for the farmers or the council. There are requirements to upgrade, to spend some capital and upgrade the system. I am told it is about $8 million, which is quite a lot of money for a relatively small number of farmers, perhaps, if they were to bring it up to speed, but maybe a lesser cost if spread out across all the ratepayers of the South Taranaki District Council.

I am not wanting to labour this other than to, I guess, work with the local member and say that I am sure he is trying to do his best here, but the issue of water and the transfer into private hands is something that Labour finds very, very sensitive. We do not believe that we have the right to transfer supply to ratepayers or residents or New Zealanders. The supply should not be in the hands of private companies—end of story. End of story. It is one of those things that I think the pioneers of this country fought for, battled for, invested in, and designed so that we can enjoy the benefits of what is a very generous amount of rainfall in most parts of the country—a great supply of water, one that we have probably abused over many years and taken for granted, and that we are just now starting to appreciate, which is why both the council and the farmers who want ownership of the scheme realise that it is important to sort this out.

We are not in any way wanting to undermine the farmers’ viability or just lump a whole lot more cost on to their farming operations, but we do want to make sure that we do not, through precedent or through individual circumstances for this district, do something that we do not intend. The unintended consequences of the passage of this bill, I guess, are one of the things I am concerned about, and I am sure my colleague Andrew Little, as the local representative, will have more to say on that.

I will not go on for too much longer, other than to say that this is important. There are some precedents. The member in the chair, Chester Borrows, knows that. We are not trying to be disruptive or awkward, but I do think we need to make sure that we are doing the right thing here, and maybe he could get up and give us some guarantees on that. Thank you.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I appreciate the opportunity to address a couple of remarks in respect of the last two speakers. I guess in response to comments made by the Hon Tariana Turia, I would like to clarify the situation around discussions and consultation with iwi. It is accepted that the consultation process with iwi was incumbent on the South Taranaki District Council, and the council and the company accept that that consultation did not happen in the way it would if the process started now. So the process of this bill, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, was paused at the request of iwi and at the request of the Māori Party, in order for me to go and have a further discussion with them to explain the situation of what the local people in the area of the Cold Creek catchment wanted to achieve.

It is important to note, too, that when we talk about a company, and a private company here, we are talking about a local group of farmers who in the mid to late 1980s built a water scheme under a Government-funded scheme that was operating at that time. We are talking about a cooperative of local people. They are consumers—most of them are farmers; some of them are not—who draw from this scheme. There is not some other business entity that can be pictured in another way.

I convened a meeting with the iwi concerned and Ngāti Ruanui, who are outside the rohe—this does not fall within their rohe—and we had a discussion at Te Kurī, where all matters were addressed. Albeit the meeting was held in good humour, in good faith, and in everyone’s best interests, we got to the end of it and there had not been an agreement made.

The point that iwi made was this: they have tino rangatiratanga and they, with their partners, the Crown, should have jurisdiction over the allocation of water, which is at a different level from where this is. Their argument is that they should be in the room with the Taranaki Regional Council, which is representing the Crown, deciding on water allocation. Their concern around the Cold Creek scheme is that it is currently, on paper, an asset owned by the South Taranaki District Council, or by the Crown by virtue of the South Taranaki District Council, and so there should have been consultation in respect of that.

They did accept that this is about infrastructure—about pipes, concrete, and pumps. It is not about water, because the allocation of water is not under the jurisdiction of Cold Creek Community Water Supply. In actual fact, that comes under the jurisdiction of the Taranaki Regional Council.

So there is a little bit of divergence there between the facts as have been related by the Hon Tariana Turia and those from someone who was sitting in the room as it happened in reality. She made a very polite allegation of institutional racism. I think, to be fair, it was probably institutional ignorance, bearing in mind that this procedure started back in the late 1990s. We all know, as individuals and collectively, a heck of a lot more now about the aspirations of Māori, views of the Treaty of Waitangi, and how that impacts on our day-to-day business as agents of the Crown than we did then.

And as I said earlier, if this process had been starting now, there would have been a heck of a lot more consultation, I am sure. It is difficult, then, to either go back and undermine the complete process or stop the whole process and do it again from the start. So positions have been drawn, and parties have been listened to—albeit we ended up at a divergent place.

I would now like to address comments made by the Hon Damien O’Connor in respect of the history of the scheme. He outlined that the farmers built the scheme with their contribution on a dollar for dollar subsidy from the State via central government, not local government. It was taxpayers, as opposed to ratepayers, who were subsidising this scheme. The criteria for gaining approval for the scheme was that production had to be enhanced. It has, and it has been enhanced many times over. As a result of that, the South Taranaki District Council—and its previous iterations as Egmont Plains and Waimate Plains and the rest of it—has received a substantial increase in rate take, as have the citizens of New Zealand, who have received a substantial increase in tax take as a result of the building of that scheme.

I do want to make the point again, though, that this is about pipes and concrete. It is about infrastructure; it is not about stream beds or creek beds, and it is not about water. It is about a water supply conduit.

Another point that the honourable member made was that people can take water for granted. I can assure him that the farmers who took out huge loans to make their contribution to the construction of this water scheme in the first place—bearing in mind that mid-1980s was a time when people were paying huge interest rates of about 18 percent a year and punitive rates for late payment etc. of well over 20 percent—were not taking their contribution to this lightly. Having gone through the pain of that, and then administering this scheme for about 15 years now—running the whole scheme with absolutely no cost to the ratepayer or to the local council—those farmers and the people who are drawing from this scheme do not take their ability to obtain this water cheaply or lightly or take it for granted in any way whatsoever.

The reason why this scheme falls under the legislation that was introduced by the Labour Party, which would normally prevent it from being vested in the people who built it, the local community—in fact, the lowest-level community ownership you could possibly have—is the quality of the water; it is potable water. There is an adjacent scheme at Awanui that is not potable water, and there was absolutely no difficulty in floating that off to the people who had done exactly what the Cold Creek people had done in building their own scheme. It is important to make that particularly clear.

I will just address the point made by the Hon Damien O’Connor in respect of security of supply to the people of Ōpunake. That was previously a concern and is not a concern now. The reason for that is that Ōpunake’s water scheme has been upgraded. It became a problem prior to that upgrading, because when there was high rainfall on the mountain the Ōpunake water supply was tainted and they needed to draw water off in another supply. The people from Cold Creek allowed for a branch to be taken off their line, for a clean water supply to the people of Ōpunake. That is not required any more, but if it was required, then this bill and the agreement between Cold Creek’s water company and the South Taranaki District Council was that they will always make that water available. How that is done is that there is about a 2-metre gap between the two schemes, and a pipe fit for purpose is bolted between the two schemes and the water supply is flowed through to Ōpunake in that way.

The members of the scheme have said to the council that if it wanted to build reservoirs in Ōpunake to draw water off the scheme—say, at night when it is not being used for stock and not being used for domestic use—then, providing it could get a water right from the Taranaki Regional Council to do that, the farmers were only too happy for that to be done. There is a question, then, about whether the capacity to take to that level was available, but in the end the council has decided that the assurances it has been given in this bill, and the assurances it has been given from the members, are that it does not need to do that and it is happy with the bill as it is.

This bill is promoted by the South Taranaki District Council. I anticipate the speech to be given by Andrew Little shortly, who is not the local member or even a local member; I will just reassure the Hon Damien O’Connor of that. He will get up and talk about a meeting we had with the South Taranaki District Council that was reported back to him—because he was not present—as bullying on behalf of the honourable member Shane Ardern and me, also an honourable member. I can tell him and reassure those listening or anybody interested that I was in the room and that situation did not occur. There was the situation where a member of the Labour Party—and a staunch supporter of the Labour Party locally, who happens to be a member of the council—was not happy with some of the words that were said. But having known Mr Ballantyne for many, many years, I can assure Mr Little that he was never bullied. Thank you.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. I think that, with all due respect to the Hon Chester Borrows, his account is a somewhat sweetened account—a sugar-coated account—of what happened, and notwithstanding the Labour Party’s support for this bill, I think it is important for the record to show how we got here, and that the residual concerns for the Labour Party are questions of process. If there is one thing that has come to define and mark this Government, it is its lack of respect for due process.

We know from the previous speakers, and indeed from Mr Borrows himself, that the background to this scheme is that it was funded through a scheme in place at the time. There was a dollar for dollar or 50 percent public subsidy for the scheme. During the process of the local authority amalgamations and changes in the late 1980s, it became the responsibility and the property of the South Taranaki District Council, inherited from the old Egmont County Council. The fact that there was a 50 percent subsidy from the Government of the day reflected the two sets of interests: that the farmers who were part of the scheme would get value from having a water supply to supply their farms and the troughs and the people who live there, and also that there was a community benefit in having good viable farms at a time when, frankly, it was the beginning of the renaissance of dairy farming. Taranaki has been a stronghold in dairy farming for many years, even before this time, so it occupied a very important place, but the scheme remained in public hands, notwithstanding the fact that the Government provided 50 percent of the cost because it reflected the sets of interests.

The other public contribution was, of course, that in the early life of the scheme, much of the maintenance was undertaken by the local council at its expense, with no pass-on of costs to the farmers who were subscribers to it. The council looked after the operation, the treatment plant, and the head works, so over a period of time that was a considerable expense. Then there was a move on to effectively privatising—for the local authority to divest its interest in it. It is interesting that at that meeting—and I have the minutes of that meeting, and although Mr Borrows says there was no bullying, the minutes are pretty clear about what was said and who said it and when—the chief executive of the South Taranaki District Council is quoted as saying when there was some resistance to the idea of privatising it, and he himself was expressing some reservations: “The council has not changed tack. The decision on the books”—which was about divestment—“is still to investigate divestment via a local bill, but there is now a stronger view that it is a strategic asset.” and therefore the council should retain it.

Mr Borrows was at the crucial meeting on 15 August 2011, as was another member of this House, Shane Ardern. Both are good members, but they were at a meeting to push through and influence the council to bring about this divestment. Here is the point: they said that if the council did not agree, then it would come to Parliament. Mr Shane Ardern is quoted as saying: “If Cold Creek community failed in their divestment request, then there would be some legislative programme through Parliament that would bring about the kind of ownership it desired.” He went on to say that if the council did not proceed with divestment, then the members of the scheme would take legal action, which would cost a lot of money and headache for both parties. So the threat was there, and that is what the concern is.

That has led to an issue. One of the things that the bill provides for is that there is to be a referendum on divestment of the scheme, and the question is whether it should be just for those who are subscribers to the scheme, or for the wider community. Andrew Williams of New Zealand First has Supplementary Order Paper 179 calling for a broader referendum base, and we support that referendum. We support the bill, but we support that referendum because we think that that is what is needed to repair the due process, or the process that has not been followed. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I will take a call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. New Zealand First has looked at this long and hard, and we sympathise with the situation of those in the Cold Creek rural water supply area. We know that this has a very long history. We are aware of the concerns of the district there in terms of ensuring that this ongoing resource is maintained for, particularly, the farming people in the area, while at the same time making sure that the resource does not reduce in terms of its longevity and the status of it and in terms of maintaining the asset. Therefore there were some difficulties for the South Taranaki District Council in terms of that, and on behalf of the ratepayers, in ensuring that it was able to continue to cover the funding for, and the funding requirements for the ongoing maintenance and upgrades of, this particular resource.

However, there are always these sorts of situations all around New Zealand. We hear so often, particularly in small, provincial, rural communities, of the difficulties of both water and waste water and of the provision of good quality services in both those areas of water and waste water, and this one is no different. However, one area of concern that we have had in the backs of our minds for some considerable time is the fact that over a number of decades there has been taxpayer funding going into this scheme, a subsidy support to the users. There has also been support from the former Egmont County Council, which subsequently became the South Taranaki District Council, in terms of public ratepayer money too, to provide a level of maintenance and also administrative support for the officers and the staff of the council to oversee the scheme and provide some technical and other support for it. So it has been very much a joint venture situation, with public input and with private landowner input into the whole scheme.

With the suggestion of transferring it completely into a private company, it does raise the question of whether the ratepayers and the taxpayers in the area have been adequately consulted with to ensure that they are actually comfortable with the situation—and they might be. What we are saying, and what my Supplementary Order Paper 179 is suggesting, is that it would perhaps be prudent and wise that rather than do something like this and get the backs up of an area of the community—and the Hon Tariana Turia said that perhaps the council could work through the issues with consultation with iwi and Māori and other interest groups—perhaps if there was a consultation process through some sort of a referendum process, which our Supplementary Order Paper suggests, the whole thing could actually be put to rest in a far better manner and in the interests of the whole community. Those who are affected in particular by this scheme, we are confident, could probably put up a good case to the rest of the district to say that they wish to do this—they wish to take over this particular asset—and they wish, therefore, to provide the ongoing maintenance to perhaps provide some relief to the ratepayers of the South Taranaki District. If they put up a sufficiently good argument and can convince the wider district that this was in the district’s best interests, and if they had the majority support of the locals, then it would be fair sailing and would not receive, perhaps, a level of resentment from some parts of the community.

We do not want to step in the way of some good local people who have tried to do well by their farms and well by their local people and community there, but we feel that if the wider district is not given the opportunity to at least be part of the transfer process and agree to the transfer process, then we are taking away its legitimate right to have a say on an important local asset. It is a little bit like the previous bill that we had here in the House, with the land down in Ōāmaru. Again, it is along similar lines. If land is going to change, if a public asset is going to change, or if anything of significance is going to change in an area, these are the sorts of things that there needs to be much wider consultation on, rather than it being done just by a council in-house or by this Parliament. It does need to have more public input and the approval of the people.

So, reluctantly, we will not be able to support this bill. We hope that the member Chester Borrows and the National Party might concede to the Supplementary Order Paper to allow a wider referendum, because if that was the case and we were able to secure a wider referendum in the bill, then we would be able to support the bill in total.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): Labour does support this bill, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, although we are going to support Supplementary Order Paper 179 put forward by Andrew Williams. We have thought long and hard about supporting the Supplementary Order Paper, but we believe that it will probably help to resolve some of the anxiety that local people may well have over this bill. His Supplementary Order Paper does require a referendum on the Cold Creek rural water supply to be open to all eligible residents and ratepayers on the South Taranaki District electoral roll. The reason why we will support that, Mr Williams, is the impact that this scheme has on the people of Ōpunake. Although they are not regular users of this scheme, because this scheme is for the purpose of about 162 connections covering 7,620 hectares in South Taranaki, it is also used in emergency situations for water supply into Ōpunake. I know that they—[Interruption] No, we were assured at the Local Government and Environment Committee that in terms of an emergency they would still have access to it. Am I taking it from the Minister for Courts, who is shaking his head and saying “Not any more.”—I mean, because the question was asked, Minister, at the select committee “Would they continue to have access to the water supply for Ōpunake in emergency situations?”, and the answer was “Yes.” Is that the Minister’s understanding?

Hon Chester Borrows: Yes.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Fine. I thought the Minister was disputing my comments then. That is why, Minister—and I think you would see the sense of that—you would enable the people of South Taranaki on the electoral roll to participate in a referendum. That seems fair to us and I cannot see why that would be objected to.

You see, this bill is trying to resolve an issue. I think the key word in this bill is that it establishes a “process”—“a process by which the council may obtain the authority to transfer the Cold Creek Rural Water Supply Scheme to Cold Creek Community Water Supply Limited.” The purpose, as we have heard, is primarily for farming. It has been managed by the company since 2001. It has been an informal arrangement and that informal arrangement has been deemed unsatisfactory. So I can see why the council wants to tidy it up and put in place a process over which it would be able to transfer this to those who use the scheme.

We looked carefully at the bill. We listened carefully to the submissions and we know that there was concern, particularly from the iwi of the area, around consultation, but at the end of the day it seemed to be a logical conclusion to what has been a long-running issue. But, Mr Borrows, we would suggest and recommend to you that you accept the Supplementary Order Paper from Andrew Williams.

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

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a short call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill.

At the first reading the Green Party supported the bill’s referral to select committee, but when we did that we signalled our view about the importance of safeguarding water in public ownership and our concern about any erosion of that. We also signalled that we had quite significant concerns about the very low level of consultation with tangata whenua undertaken by the South Taranaki District Council, and we looked forward to those concerns being allayed by further information from the bill’s sponsor, the Hon Chester Borrows, or by submissions to the select committee. But what we heard at the Local Government and Environment Committee from submitters exacerbated rather than allayed those concerns. That is why the Green Party is opposing the bill, because it enables the privatisation of significant water infrastructure, and because it potentially continues more than a century of injustice to Taranaki iwi.

As the Hon Annette King noted, the bill itself does not privatise the infrastructure, but it provides the mechanism to do that. I think it is worth noting that the scheme itself does not supply water; it is nature that does that. It is thanks to the water cycle, to the rain, to the seepage, and then to the slope of Mount Taranaki and the evaporation that we get the water cycle and that we get the water that the scheme is then able to deliver. It is very generously provided by nature.

We do not support the bill’s divestment of the Cold Creek water supply, because on principle we believe that significant community assets should stay in public ownership and be managed to deliver benefits to the wider community, and not just the users of the scheme. It was never very clear to me through the submission process, nor listening carefully to the bill’s sponsor, what the rationale was for privatisation. Certainly the council had given some commitments some time ago that the scheme could be divested, but the actual rationale for that is still unclear to me. The Hon Annette King talked about tidying up, but just what is it in the way that the scheme has been operated to date that is so problematic?

Labour members in particular will be very aware of the Local Government Act 2002 and the quite explicit provisions in that Act, in section 130, that create a strong barrier to privatisation of water infrastructure. Those provisions were inserted for a reason: to protect these assets in public ownership.

Nor was it clear from submissions as to just what is the exchange of value that would occur if the scheme was privatised. Would Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd be paying for the scheme, or would it be privatised for a peppercorn, the scheme shareholders getting the substantial benefits of the construction of the scheme, which was made possible, as we know, by quite a substantial Crown grant through the Ministry of Works of $1.28 million? That Crown grant paid for half the construction costs. The scheme would not have gone ahead if it had not been for that. Certainly there has been a sizable investment by users of the scheme, both financially and in work to operate the scheme, but it seems to me that it has been very much a partnership between those using it and the council.

As the Department of Internal Affairs noted in its report, there were quite significant amounts of staff time and council resources that were devoted to the scheme in the 1980s. That support was in terms of providing meeting administration support, organising the levies and the contributions, and doing the financial reporting, and it was the county engineer and other staff who managed and supervised the scheme’s construction when it was first built. It was only in 2001 that the water supply company took over the day-to-day operations, but even then it has been the council that has continued to treat the water and has charged out its services for doing that at what the department says were very friendly rates and lower than market rates. So it has been one of partnership.

Mr O’Connor talked about an $8 million cost for doing more works to upgrade the scheme, but it is unclear to me as to why the company would be wanting to take over that potential cost if there were not substantial private benefits from owning the scheme. It is not being run as an irrigation scheme at the moment, but we know that water is the new gold and that there is the potential to do that in a drying climate, and then deliver quite substantial benefits to private users.

That is one reason we are opposing it: the privatisation. The other is the concerns that iwi have raised. The scheme’s privatisation potentially reduces the rental return to Māori land holders who have leases in perpetuity over their land in the scheme area. It is the leaseholders who would own the scheme, not the landowners. So that whole privatisation process may, in fact, reduce the value of the land for those Māori owners, and we have heard concerns from a number of iwi and the Taranaki iwi group about the inadequate consultation and that their interests have not been adequately recognised.

We will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 179, which is in Andrew Williams’ name, because that would ensure that the referendum was open to all of the residents of South Taranaki. That, in our view, is a much more democratic option, and it would help recognise that there was significant public funding involved in the construction of the scheme. Also it is important because when the council talked about the divestment in its long-term plan, it did not do that in enough detail for people to be really aware of what was going on, so the referendum is an option to make sure that the whole of the district community can have their say. That would be a slight improvement to the bill, but because of those concerns about iwi interests and the fact that it would set in train the mechanism to privatise the scheme, the Green Party will be voting against the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members, we move to the vote. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it. The Ayes have it? The Ayes have it. If you want a party vote, you must ask for a party vote. Just voting No does not mean there will be a party vote. Does the member wish to have a party vote?

Eugenie Sage: Yes, please.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will ask the Clerk for a party vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 24

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.

Part 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the name of Andrew Williams to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.

Noes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Could we have clarification that the National Party has confirmation from the Māori Party that that is the correct way it wishes to vote?

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): We have general proxies, I understand, for any Supplementary Order Papers that it has not otherwise advised the National Party about.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): Point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will hear from Andrew Williams.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): You heard the tone of the debate. The Māori Party certainly was not in support of this. If the National Party has not had proper confirmation, it would be wrong that it would vote in that manner without having that proper confirmation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes, well, I hear what the member says. I was certainly here for the whole of this debate so I understand the point the member is making. I have to take the word of the whip. If the whip wants to confer as to the correct position, then I will ask the Government whip to recast his vote. So, does the—no, all right—

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just happen to have had arrive on my email a release by the Māori Party saying it has opposed the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill in Parliament today.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. I know, and as I was—[Interruption] Order! At this stage we are talking about Supplementary Order Paper 179. We are not talking about Part 2—[Interruption] Hang on. We have done Part 1. We are talking about Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the name of Andrew Williams. That is what the vote is about. I have heard the arguments. I was here during the whole debate, so I know what the point is that the member in his first point of order is making. However, I am in the hands of the whips, and the whips have the authority to cast the vote. If it is wrong, the record can be corrected at a later date, but at this stage it is not for me to determine the parties’ votes; it is up to the whips of the parties. So at this stage we have—

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You did raise the fact that you had heard from the whip, but I do not think you have heard from the senior whip. Could the senior whip confirm?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. Look, within parties the authority between whips is up to them and it does not matter who casts that vote. So I am going to declare the vote on the amendment: the Ayes are 56, the Noes are 63; the amendment is not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 24

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.

Part 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 24

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.

Part 3 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 24

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 24

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 24

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 24

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill

First Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I move, That the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that the Local Government and Environment Committee consider the bill.

I have to say I am not overly enthusiastic about bringing retrospective legislation to the House. However, I am a very proud local member, and I have spoken to the Tasman District Council and agreed to sponsor this bill into Parliament where a select committee can give it due consideration.

The purpose of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill is to correct a number of irregularities that occurred when the council set and assessed the rates for the Tasman District Council between 2003 and 2009. The council also wants to address the irregularity with the Ligar Bay and Tata Beach stormwater rates that were set for the 2006-07 financial year. Legislation is now the only way for the council to validate these rates assessments, and thus provide certainty for both the council and ratepayers. The bill proposes to validate the rates set and assessed by the council from 2003 to 2009 and any penalties added to those rates, to treat all rates payments received by the council as having been lawfully paid, and to authorise the council to recover any part of the rates and penalties for those years that remain unpaid. The bill also proposes to validate the stormwater rate for Ligar Bay and Tata Beach for the 2006-07 financial year, as I said.

The origins of the bill lie with a 2006 decision by the council to include the Tata Beach settlement in an urban stormwater drainage area. The decision was challenged by a ratepayer and led eventually to a review by the Office of the Ombudsmen. I am sure that that ratepayer will present to the select committee and put forward some very sound arguments for his position. It was found at the time that the rate was not properly imposed. The council had not complied with the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, because it did not identify the category of rateable land in Ligar Bay and Tata Beach on which the rates were set and assessed. In addition, it failed to include a map showing the location of the Tata Beach drainage area.

The council then reviewed its processes and rationale for including the Tata Beach settlement in this rate and drainage area. It did this through a consultation process with affected ratepayers, where three options were considered. In the end, however, the council determined that the status quo should remain and that the inclusion of Tata Beach in this drainage area should be maintained.

I should say at this point that Ligar Bay and Tata Beach can be found in Golden Bay, about 20 kilometres from Tākaka, which is about an hour’s drive from Nelson. As the name suggests, they both possess stunning, golden sand beaches and are a wonderful place to holiday, should you have that privilege. There is plenty of accommodation, from basic through to de luxe, and I would recommend this area, as I said, to anyone wanting to come down and visit a wonderful electorate.

However, this business with the stormwater drainage area prompted the council to undertake a separate review of its total rates-setting process for 2006. This was subsequently extended out to cover the years of 2002 to 2009, and the review identified additional procedural errors in the way that the rates had been set between 2003 and 2009. Again, the council was found to be in breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 because of the way in which it set and assessed the rates during these years. These included, firstly, a failure to resolve and set and assess rates in accordance with section 23 of the Act, for some years; secondly, resolving to adopt rates before the council had adopted the annual plan and funding impact statement; thirdly, a failure to state the financial year in which the rates applied, that they were payable by instalments, and the date that they were to be paid by, for some of the years; and, fourthly, a failure to resolve to authorise that penalties were to be added to rates not paid by the due date.

The council’s practice of using its annual plan as its source of rates setting, instead of resolving each rate individually, was found to be in breach of the Act. This is because the decision to adopt the annual plan did not also mean that a rate had been adopted. This has raised questions about the validity of the rates and leaves the council open to rating challenges. Validating legislation is now the only way to correct the breaches and give certainty to all parties concerned. The council accepts that it has made a mistake and is now taking steps to correct the situation.

I do hope that the Local Government and Environment Committee will give this bill a good and thorough hearing and allow all parties to present their submissions, but at the same time return it to the House in good time.

Before I end my speech I must say that I have met with a number of ratepayers from Tata Beach and Ligar Bay. They are concerned about the process, and they will no doubt bring to the select committee what sparked this off in the first place. Believe it or not, it was the replacement of a large drainage pipe for a new area of a subdivision that did not affect the main area of Tata Beach, which has been there for some time. They have, as the Ombudsman and others have identified, a legitimate claim on the council for, perhaps, a change. The council has been caught in a situation where it does have to validate these rates.

As I say, I am a reluctant sponsor of retrospective legislation. The main area where we seem to have this in the House is over fisheries legislation. This is not the case here. It is local government. Mistakes do happen from time to time. I know each and every one of the councillors, in good faith, took advice from their staff and of course assumed that they had put in place valid rating claims on the ratepayers. So this is perhaps a long and drawn-out, and quite expensive, process, but it is one that we have to go through none the less.

I commend the bill to the House. I hope that the Local Government and Environment Committee will give all submitters a very fair hearing and make any adjustments necessary to ensure that this piece of legislation protects the ratepayers and the council of Tasman District, as well, but ensures a fair process for all ratepayers, both now and into the future. Thank you.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I rise to speak on this Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill at its first reading. As we have heard, it is a local bill sponsored by Damien O’Connor. National will be supporting this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. As we have heard from Damien O’Connor, the bill will validate rates set by the Tasman District Council for the period from 2003-04 to 2008-09, during which time the council, unfortunately, did not follow correct process in setting rates. The bill will also validate rates and penalties paid over that period, authorise the council to recover any unpaid rates, and ratify the Tata Beach and Ligar Bay stormwater rate, which Damien O’Connor has so clearly articulated to us.

So how did the Tasman District Council get to this position? Well, from 2003-04 to 2008-09 the council passed rates attached to the annual plan, rather than ratifying each rate individually. The council also set rates before it had adopted the annual plan. Both activities breached the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The Act actually provides an avenue for councils to amend incorrectly set rates, but the window of that time has now passed, so this bill has come to Parliament.

Damien O’Connor, the bill’s sponsor, has discussed the concerns of ratepayers and is convinced that the select committee will provide residents with an opportunity to express their views and for any appropriate changes to be made. National also wants to give affected residents the opportunity to engage with the select committee, and is therefore supporting this bill at its first reading.

The Government’s Better Local Government reforms are designed to make local government more efficient, more responsive, and better focused, and that work includes a stream of work to monitor and improve council performance to help prevent future procedural errors such as these. The fact that the bill is coming to Parliament will raise these issues with other councils and underline the importance of correct procedures when setting rates. In relation to the Tasman District Council processes, the bill is needed to validate certain rates set incorrectly. Without validation, the council remains vulnerable to legal challenge from ratepayers over incorrectly set rates, and is unable to recover unpaid rates and penalties.

I can assure Mr O’Connor that the Local Government and Environment Committee looks forward to working on this bill and will give every submission a fair hearing. This is an important bill, and we look forward to that work. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): First of all, can I commend the very good local member for West Coast - Tasman for bringing this bill to the House. He is a member who works very hard in his constituency and is very close to the issues of concern in his electorate, and he has secured himself in the wonderful seat of West Coast - Tasman for as long as he wishes to be there.

But he is reluctant, I have to say, to bring this retrospective legislation to the House. We all understand why. As politicians we do not particularly like retrospective legislation, but every now and then there is a need for us to examine an issue and make a decision on it. That is what is going to happen with this bill, the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill.

I can assure Damien O’Connor that we will give his constituents who appear before the select committee a very good hearing. The Local Government and Environment Committee is very used to such matters, in terms of dealing with local government and giving constituents a good hearing. So, Mr O’Connor, I am sure the chair will give your constituents plenty of time to express their views. Maybe we could even take the select committee over to Ligar Bay or Tata Beach. I think it would probably be very good to go where the locals are and really get amongst the grassroots—the sand, the sun, the beautiful scenery, a bit of kayaking, and so on. Like Damien O’Connor, I am very familiar with this part of New Zealand, and it is a superb area.

But there is a problem. There is a problem that means we need to validate specified rates that cannot otherwise be validated in the Tasman District Council area. We acknowledge that there are issues with the bill, and we will be looking to ensure that any changes we make are ones that are appropriate.

I think if you look at the problem that came to the council’s attention—Damien O’Connor made a good point—the councils themselves, in good faith, believed that they were doing the right thing, but a number of irregularities have occurred in the setting and the assessing of rates in the financial years of 2003-04 to 2008-09 inclusive. Questions have been raised around the validity of those rates. Damien O’Connor did set out what they related to. They were things like a failure to resolve to set and assess rates in accordance with section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act, and that happened for a number of years; resolving to adopt rates before the council had adopted its annual plan and funding impact statement; a failure to state, in accordance with section 24 of the Act, the financial year to which the rates had applied, that the rates were payable by instalments, and the dates by which the specified amounts were to be paid for some of the years; and also a failure to resolve to authorise the penalties that were to be added to the rates that were not paid by the due date. These irregularities can be fixed only by legislation in this Parliament.

This bill will go to the select committee. We will hear the reasons why. I do have to respond to Nicky Wagner, who raised at the end of her speech how Better Local Government is going to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen. Perhaps I could point out that up until around 1992, Tasman was a district council that had a regional council, which dealt with many of the issues that it is having to validate, but it was the former Minister of Local Government who pushed and fought to turn the Tasman District Council into a unitary authority and to abolish the district council—

Hon Damien O’Connor: The regional council.

Hon ANNETTE KING: —the regional council—which has led to a change in the way it operates.

Perhaps we should not be too sure about any local government changes that have been suggested by Nick Smith. I have to say I have some grave doubts about the changes that are coming about by Better Local Government. I would not be surprised if in the future we are not back here passing legislation to fix up yet another Nick Smith mistake, including the removal of the four well-beings, which councils up and down New Zealand oppose.

So we will give the bill a good hearing, and ensure that what needs to be fixed can be fixed.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): National is supporting the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This bill will validate rates set by the Tasman District Council for the period between 2003-04 and 2008-09, during which time the council did not follow correct process in setting rates. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe. Thank you. I am pleased to take a short call on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. I thank the office of the Hon Damien O’Connor for the background information he provided. Certainly one of the intriguing things about being an MP is the quite eclectic mix of local bills that we have to deal with and that are referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I suspect that at the select committee we will learn quite a lot more about how the Tasman District Council manages its stormwater, particularly at Tata Beach and Ligar Bay, and how the council’s rating systems work.

I had a bit of a look at the activity management plan for stormwater on the council’s website. These two quite small settlements have grown up as a series of baches. The baches were close to the beach, and then as they have built up the baches and houses have expanded—of course you have got the national park nearby, and you have got a lot of self-contained pipes and stormwater systems—there has been some observation of flooding issues at Tata Beach. So the council, in endeavouring to address some of these issues and new subdivision development, and to provide the stormwater systems for future growth in the area, has obviously spent money to do this, and the bill is a result of one ratepayer challenging the rates to fund that expenditure.

Both the Hon Damien O’Connor and the Hon Annette King have explained some of the mistakes that the council made in setting the rates, because the whole process of finalising an annual plan and a long-term plan involves a series of quite detailed resolutions. The Tasman District Council got it wrong because it set out that information in the annual plan resolution when it should have been in a separate resolution. There were some issues too around the lack of maps for the Tata Beach urban stormwater drainage area.

It was the challenge by the ratepayer and the Ombudsman reviewing the way the rates were set that led the council to realise that there were quite a number of procedural errors from 2003 onwards. It was interesting to read an article in the Nelson Mail where the council had apparently decided that it would be cheaper to have the matter dealt with by retrospective legislation in this House rather than to engage in sustained litigation with Mr Schmuke and others. Certainly it might be cheaper for the council, but given the cost of parliamentary time it may not be cheaper for this House. But given that the wrong process was used, it is important that that is fixed and that the setting of the rates is validated, which is why the Green Party will support the bill even though it is retrospective.

I would point out that this bill is in sharp contrast to the one we were debating here yesterday, the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Although we now have National members supporting the validation of the rates-setting process, in Canterbury there is no ability for residents to elect councillors who will provide that representation for the taxation that rates represent and to have elected councillors making decisions about the level of rates and the priorities for spending those rates. So we have Canterbury residents generating $84 million in rates each year, but having no elected councillors to represent them in decisions on how those rates should be spent.

Nicky Wagner commented about Better Local Government. When National introduced those savage attacks on local government—including the removal of the four well-beings—the former Minister of Local Government Nick Smith used that cheap, populist trick of attacking rates that councils set and the level of those rates. Yet when you think about rates, if we are paying $6 a day, on average, which is what people pay, for the whole suite of services that councils provide, it is very good value for money. I look forward to the select committee and to understanding and learning a bit more about the services that are being provided in Tata Beach and Ligar Bay in stormwater management and the rates that are being paid to deliver those. Thank you.

AARON GILMORE (National): I stand to support the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I look forward to hearing about it in the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is a good, key part of performing and improving local government in New Zealand. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, and also we congratulate the Hon Damien O’Connor on bringing this to the House to rectify an administrative error by the Tasman District Council in the way it sets its rates and, in particular, the legal clauses that were required for its rating structure to be legal.

This is very much an administrative matter and just puts right things that are required, which were brought to the attention of the council by a particular ratepayer or ratepayers, and, quite rightly, it does have to be rectified in law. However, it does raise the issue of local government, and it is quite a pertinent topic at the present time, particularly under this Government, which has such a low regard for local government and treats local government like a third-class citizen, basically.

Really, this Government would love to do away with local government in its entirety. It has done its best to do that in Auckland by putting 75 percent of local government under council-controlled organisations of non-elected people who are basically invisible and non-accountable to the ratepayers and residents of Auckland. Also, the Auckland councillors can no longer get information from any of those council-controlled organisations. Despite requests for information from those organisations, the councillors of Auckland are denied information in many cases from those very organisations that report to them.

So it is very interesting that the Tasman District Council has been caught out in this manner, but it also highlights the difference between many of our local councils. There are certainly different levels of expertise within local government. Across the approximately 78 local authorities in New Zealand, you go from very large councils—certainly Auckland now, with 1.4 million people—down to very, very small councils for only 3,000 or 4,000 people. Therefore, the level of expertise within each of those councils can vary, and, of course, their ability to provide expertise can, because of their financial resources, also vary greatly.

In that respect, I would just like to pay tribute to Local Government New Zealand, the body that pulls local government together. It has a great team of people under Lawrence Yule and Malcolm Alexander—the president and the chief executive—and they certainly do a good job in terms of supporting the local authorities in New Zealand and all those who provide services to local government in New Zealand to help them through their various requirements.

Certainly in this area it would be very helpful for some of the more senior councils perhaps to play a more leading role in overseeing some of the other, smaller councils in their daily business. Certainly it was our experience, from a North Shore perspective, that we had some very senior staff who used to enjoy spending time with other councils, passing on some valuable insights, valuable experience, and expertise to some of the other, smaller councils around New Zealand. We were delighted that, as the fourth-largest council in New Zealand, we were able to impart some of our knowledge and experience to some of the smaller ones that could not necessarily afford the same level of resource.

In this particular case, the Tasman district is a wonderful district that is well-known to all New Zealanders. It is one of the jewels in the crown of the New Zealand environment, with beautiful areas. I have greatly enjoyed visiting Golden Bay and all through that area, tramping the Heaphy Track and all through the whole of that part, and going into the Tākaka caves. If anyone has not been to the Tākaka caves, I can assure you it is an experience that you should have.

So certainly it is a necessary thing for a very important area of New Zealand—a provincial, effectively rural area of New Zealand that is very important to this country—to have all its ducks in a line and have everything ticked off; its i’s dotted and its t’s crossed. This is also something that probably will be picked up by other councils through New Zealand. No doubt, if this has occurred with Tasman District Council, there may well be other councils that will learn from this experience and be a little bit more mindful in the future to just make sure that their officers and their people who are drawing up their various documents are 100 percent correct in the manner in which they put them out to the public to meet all the legal requirements. So New Zealand First will be supporting this local bill.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I rise to speak in support of the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. The Tasman District Council got itself in a jam and it needs to be got out of it. I hope this bill will highlight to other councils the importance of proper scrutiny when setting their rates. I support this bill. Thank you.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I am somewhat surprised at the debate that has been going on over the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill and the contributions that have been made. I want to pick up one of the points that my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor made at the outset, which was that he introduces this retrospective legislation in the case of the Tasman District Council with reluctance—with reluctance. Yet there does not seem to be much of a frisson of concern in this House for what is actually happening with this bill.

We will support it. I have for the last 5 years been living and working in Nelson. The Nelson electorate boundary incorporates part of the Tasman District Council. I meet with the Mayor of Tasman District on a regular basis—I will be meeting him on Monday—as I meet with the Mayor of Nelson on a regular basis. So I am familiar with some of the players in this. The areas that Damien O’Connor has talked about, of course—Tata Beach and Ligar Bay—are over there in Golden Bay. As other members have attested, of course it is a beautiful part of the country, but nobody loves it more than the people who live there.

I have a concern about this bill, and I urge the Local Government and Environment Committee to treat this issue very seriously. I have a concern that, in fact, the Tasman District Council is wearing the embarrassment of its mistakes and taking what it sees to be the easy way out. Paul Wylie, who was at the time the chief executive officer but is no longer, was quoted in the Nelson Mail as saying that this is the cheaper of the options. Do not fight it out in the courts with the local residents, because that will get too protracted and too expensive; go to Parliament and use the big hammer to beat the little people, and let us make what we did wrong for a number of years right by the stroke of a pen. Why are more members in this House not concerned about that? I think that is serious.

I will support the bill. The member for West Coast - Tasman has brought this bill forward in good faith to help repair a situation that has been affecting constituents in his electorate, but let this be a lesson to every local council in the country. They cannot simply and easily resort to the big hammer of Parliament to correct their bungles. Sometimes they might simply have to pay for them. I wonder whether there are grounds for the Clerk’s Office to consider whether or not, in fact, Parliament should charge more than it does for local bills to come before Parliament. It does charge a sum, and I wonder whether there should be, at times, some disincentive applied.

I raise these points because of the concern I have about retrospective legislation. It was a concern expressed by the sponsor of the bill, and he is doing this, really, to help his constituents and not to relieve the Tasman District Council of embarrassment, because embarrassed it should be—embarrassed it should be. I could refer to other instances when, in fact, the Tasman District Council has treated constituents in the electorate that I work in with some disdain and in a cavalier way. The movement of the Maitai Lodge is one case in point, but that is not what we are discussing tonight.

So this should be a lesson not only to the Tasman District Council but also, as Andrew Williams said previously, to all local bodies around the country to make sure that they have scrutinised the advice they are given. I understand that councillors act in good faith on advice that they are given, but let this be a lesson to all of them. This bill will get support, but I hope the people of Ligar Bay and Tata Beach bring their concerns to the select committee and get a decent hearing there as well. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I would like to rise in support of my colleagues who have spoken previously on this Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, and to endorse it to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I appreciate the opportunity to reply. I would like to just briefly thank the members for their support for the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill. I know the Tasman District Council will be eternally grateful.

We do not like, any of us, spending ratepayers’ money unnecessarily in the courts. There is still, as I have said, a point of contention and some debate. The Local Government and Environment Committee will no doubt hear about that, and I am sure that the collective wisdom of the members will make a judgment, and perhaps make an adjustment as well, to accommodate what have been legitimate grievances against the council, and the council can put its case to the members. So, again, placing faith in the parliamentary process, I am sure the Tasman District Council will be well rewarded. The bill, however, should not have been necessary, and it is a good lesson for all councils around the country.

So, thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the House, and I look forward to the process through the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bill read a first time.

Mana Party vote for the Noes ordered by the Speaker to be recorded in the Journals of the House of Representatives.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Bills

Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill

Second Reading

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I move, That the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill makes technical, but important, amendments to one of the most vital writs of law. This is not something that is done lightly, but the bill did arrive in this House and now returns to this Chamber benefiting from a strong foundation of being rooted in the recommendations of the Law Commission and now benefiting from the feedback of the Justice and Electoral Committee. This is an important piece of legislation. It is relatively small. It is very precise. It is quite legalistic, but it was as a result of speaking to the commissioner. When we asked him at a Justice and Electoral Committee meeting how much of the commission’s revised legislation was adopted by the House, he said that they were totally dependent on members picking up the bills and putting them forward. So I said: “Well, I’ll put one forward.”

The Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill goes back to the Magna Carta, item No. 39—and I have a copy of it here—which says that “No freeman shall be taken and imprisoned, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his equals and by the law of the land.” So it is not a light thing. It ensured that the subjects of the King could not have their freedom interrupted without cause. We have just heard the bill preceding this one that was introduced to the House where, basically, there is a call for justice or for consideration by the people of Golden Bay. I am very pleased to hear that that bill has come forward. It is much along the same lines.

The Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill was the subject of comment from other parties who said that a member’s bill should, in fact, involve arduous time—the night hours being used up, I think, was Kennedy Graham’s comment. He imagined me sweating over this. The reality is that when you look at members’ bills that come forward, I would encourage the members to use the time of Parliament wisely and have assistance with the drafting, because so often when members spend their time in the night hours and do not seek the help of drafting officers, then the jolly things have to be re-engineered at the select committee consideration to make sure that they work properly, or else they disappear altogether.

I was grateful to the Hon Annette King, who spoke after me when I did the first reading of this bill, who said how good it was that Labour benefited from Charles Chauvel’s law firm preparing bills for them, so that they could put them forward. I am not sure quite how many have passed through. I understand Labour said that it had a policy for handling Law Commission bills. I do not think it processed any when it was in Government.

So I am quite proud—I am quite proud of this—that the bill is coming forward. I am grateful to the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, who have introduced some improvements and who considered it very carefully. I think this is a bill that I would recommend and commend to the House, so that it can be enacted and brought into practice forthwith. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill—Mana Party Votes

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): My apologies, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to have it recorded in the Journals of the House that the Mana Party wished to vote in the negative on the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill, which the House was previously dealing with.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You were tasked with that responsibility?

EUGENIE SAGE: Yes, and I did not carry that out.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought that it might be recorded in the Journals that the Mana Party wished to vote. We are not changing the vote. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify through the Green Party member—the way I heard it described, and you accurately and faithfully recorded it, I think the intention was that the Hansard be adjusted, which is possible with the leave of the House. I just wanted to check—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let me try to help the member, because it is a little unusual what we have had happen. I think the member asked that the Journals record that it was the intention of the Mana Party to vote against it, not to change the vote, because the vote had taken place. We cannot actually do that. So that is all that will be recorded in Hansard. Right? Is everybody clear?

Bills

Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. It is interesting to note the comments that were made by the sponsor of this bill, Chris Auchinvole, who has taken credit for the significant amount of work that he has put into it.

I want to remind the House, just in case members have forgotten, that when the Law Commission reported its recommendations on the habeas corpus legislation, it in fact included a draft bill within the report. I think members on this side of the House, having listened to that member’s contribution, would be surprised to know that it was absolutely word-perfect. Word for word it was the bill adopted from the Law Commission’s report, with his name on it. That is actually the only difference. The only value-add that Chris Auchinvole has made to this bill is the addition of the words Chris Auchinvole. There has been nothing else of any substance or value offered to him. [Interruption] I actually think my colleague here is questioning whether that is adding value, and I think that is a very good point indeed.

But I think that what the member has also failed to do is to reflect on the work that the Justice and Electoral Committee actually did, because he congratulated us on considering his bill in depth, as we were wont to do, as we are always wont to do, but what he has failed to acknowledge are the changes that we actually made. The select committee made a number of changes. I am actually wondering whether the member understands the changes that we made, so perhaps I could take the House through them.

One issue that was contained within the legislation related to time frames. There was some concern about the length of time that was being addressed in the legislation. The committee recommended that subclauses (2) and (3) be removed from clause 5 of the bill, in order to retain the 3-day time frame within which a habeas corpus application must be heard. The bill as introduced would have allowed a judge of the High Court to extend this period, but committee members understand that there is little evidence that the current time frame is problematic. We did receive evidence on this particular matter, and we wondered why it was important to proceed with the particular changes proposed, when in fact the current time frame was not understood to be problematic.

We also noted that extending the time frame would expand the court’s jurisdiction regarding habeas corpus, potentially leaving it to determine matters that might be more appropriately dealt with by another procedure. This could have had the unintended consequence of removing current rights of appeal against successful applications. So our proposed amendment would retain the status quo and protect current rights of appeal.

I am surprised that the member Chris Auchinvole, whose name this bill is in, did not even mention this in his contribution to the second reading debate. After all of the work that we did at the select committee, I would actually have liked him to go through this particular matter and to perhaps express his own personal view as to the nature of the changes that we made. Obviously, he is quite happy with those changes. But he does not seem to understand what they were all about, and I think that is a bit of a shame. What it does tend to say is that the National Government has decided that Law Commission reports that have bills contained within them ought to be given to otherwise unoccupied backbenchers, to put their name on them to go into the ballot for members’ bills, and then ultimately take up the time of the House in respect of members’ bills, but actually let a Minister off the hook for not doing their job.

Who is the Minister who is responsible for the habeas corpus legislation? Who would that be? Could that be the Minister of Justice? Justice. What other roles does the Minister of Justice have? The Minister of Justice might be somewhat preoccupied with other legislation that she is responsible for, so she has in fact asked one of her colleagues to take over this piece of legislation, which the Government could have put through, quite rightly, not using up the time of members’ bills, which are available to members to bring up issues that are actually of passionate concern to them. And we have the habeas corpus legislation from Chris Auchinvole. I do not think that he sounded particularly passionate about this particular issue, and I think that he has actually taken up a space on the members’ agenda, as it were, in order to remove opportunities for other members, who have got lots of pieces of legislation. I know that I have had more than one bill in the ballot of late.

It was interesting that the member said that we did not pursue particular pieces of legislation that were promoted by the Law Commission. I remember I myself had a Law Commission bill in the ballot. It was successful, and the Government was so impressed with my success that it introduced legislation and passed it before the House got to the first reading of my particular bill. But it was legislation that we all agreed with. The point is that I think this member has played a little bit of a game with the House today.

The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended the removal of clause 6. Did I hear Chris Auchinvole speak about the removal of clause 6? As introduced, this clause would have allowed a judge to convene a conference of the parties to a habeas corpus application, and determine how proceedings would advance, including whether appearances would be made by remote means. In effect, the provision restated the High Court’s existing rules regarding the power of judges. We considered this as a select committee, and we discussed this. It was completely unnecessary to have that clause in the bill. In fact, it was potentially confusing. That is why we recommended removing reference to these powers by deleting clause 6.

I think that the member needs to listen up, because he is going to have to go into the chair when we get to the Committee stage, and there is going to be intense questioning from this side of the House as we go through the Committee stage of this bill. So he is going to have to really, really swot up on this detail, because the detail will really matter when we get to the Committee stage. But I do not know that Chris Auchinvole is a details man, because, really, as I said before, the only—the only—thing that he has added to this bill is, in fact, his name.

The select committee also recommended omitting clause 8 of the bill and substituting a new clause to the effect that the provisions of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 apply to habeas corpus proceedings, which, of course, are civil proceedings. Clause 8 as introduced would have inserted a new section enabling a judge to allow habeas corpus applications to be heard by video link or other court-authorised technology. In the meantime, the Courts (Remote Participation) Act actually allows audiovisual links to be used in courts and sets out decision-making criteria for different types of cases.

This Act had not been enacted when the Law Commission recommended this amendment. Chris Auchinvole would have known that, if he had in fact gone through an analysis of the legislation that he had just put his name on. Putting your name on something is not good enough. You should have known that in fact the Courts (Remote Participation) Act had been passed in the meantime and that it dealt with this matter. We as a select committee would not have had to deal with this issue if, in fact, the member had been on the job.

Overall, Labour members, of course, support this legislation. We think it is an important piece of legislation. But I think that that member is going to have to do a little bit of homework before we get to the Committee stage, because we certainly will be making sure that it is worthy of having his name on it when it passes into law.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, in the name of my colleague Chris Auchinvole, is a good bill. The Justice and Electoral Committee—so ably chaired by my friend and former chair of that committee, Tim Macindoe—in its report back has done a good job. I support and commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. As I said at the first reading debate on this bill, we should never trifle with matters as serious and as important as habeas corpus. We know the status and standing of this application to a court. It comes under the court’s inherent jurisdiction, it cannot be interfered with by the Crown, and it is one of the important bulwarks against fascism, tyranny, and despotism. So we tread very carefully when this House is required to formulate some rules and refinements in terms of the way the courts should handle these applications.

When the bill was first read, there were necessarily some issues that stood out immediately. When judges are given the right or the power to exercise discretions over the handling of applications before they have been considered and heard, effectively adding another hurdle before an applicant can make their application, or when a judge has the power to delay or postpone the hearing of an application beyond the 3 days that has been accepted, then we should look very carefully at such provisions in law. It is very pleasing to see at this stage of the passage of the legislation that the Justice and Electoral Committee, after looking at the bill, has made some quite significant and material changes. My colleague the learned Lianne Dalziel—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Ah!

ANDREW LITTLE: —the most learned Lianne Dalziel, who may well now be considered as one of the first applicants under the QC legislation that was passed just before Christmas—or is it Chris Finlayson who is going to get one of those now? Anyway, she has taken us through those important changes. When you look at those changes, when you look at what has been taken out, it is significant, and it is good that the select committee has done its job in that regard.

I want to just draw attention to that important clause, clause 5, the amendment to section 9, which deals with urgency. One of the important things the select committee did was to ensure that it is not just any officer of the court who can decide whether or not an application for habeas corpus will be given urgency. Under the 2001 legislation, an application for habeas corpus had the effect of—I hesitate to use the term, because it is used in the immigration arena most offensively—jumping the queue and pushing out of the way all other applications before the court for consideration. Actually, when it comes to the liberty of the citizen, the liberty of the individual, that is probably justified—almost certainly it is justified—but what the original drafting of the bill would have done is allow not just a judge but a registrar or other officer of the court to decide whether or not that level of urgency should be given. The select committee has come back and has quite rightly said that this is a matter for a judicial officer to consider and to make a decision on.

It is true, and it is one of the complaints under the 2001 legislation and indeed of habeas corpus applications, that, occasionally—occasionally—there are frivolous applications, which put other applications before the court to a disadvantage. So there should be some mechanism to deal with the potentially frivolous applications, particularly when they are applications that have been made before, or, potentially, in other courts. It is right that there should be a mechanism, but a very closely guarded mechanism, for the application to be considered for timetabling and placing before a judge in open court. The select committee has come back and said that it must be a judge who makes that decision. We look to our judges to be independent of the State and to have the power to make that sort of judgment and that sort of decision, so that is the correct thing to do.

In the next area, which is convening teleconferences, it is a good thing that our judicial system has developed and kept pace with technology, and that judges and courts can be convened using the latest technology. The problem with the bill as originally drafted was that this provision was completely superfluous in this bill because it was already provided for in other legislation. But at least with the use of video technology it means that a judge can see that a citizen who has been detained in arguably questionable circumstances can actually be viewed through the technology before consideration is given to releasing that citizen from detention, where the case is made out. That change has been made, and that ties in with the reference to an application proceeding under the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010, which now deals with that.

These are significant changes that have been made to this bill dealing with a very important issue. As I said at the beginning, when it comes to matters like habeas corpus, when it comes to matters of dealing with the inherent jurisdiction of the court, we should always tread lightly. These matters go to the fundamental rights of every citizen, and when this Parliament speaks, when this Parliament acts, the one thing it should be doing in passing any legislation, but particularly legislation that deals with either detention or the possibility of releasing from detention—when this House is dealing with the liberty of the individual, then it is dealing with that most precious of commodities, and we need to take cognisance of that and proceed cautiously, deliberatively, and deliberately.

It is good that we have done that, but I reiterate too the point that Lianne Dalziel also made. When it comes to these matters—the fundamental rights of the citizen—it is a matter for a Minister to bring to this House, not a member in their personal capacity. It is not an appropriate matter for the members’ bill provision. This is a matter that the Crown should speak on and that the Crown should take responsibility for when making these rules for courts to consider the liberty of the individual. It is disappointing that this Government is developing a habit of taking matters of great importance that are matters for the Government of the day, for the executive of the day, and handing them over to individual members to process through the members’ part of the proceedings of this House. That does not augur well for, and it does not send a good signal about, the seriousness with which this Government takes these important matters. When the procedures of legal development or law development or statutory development have involved a body as august and as important as the Law Commission in their development, then the least we can expect is the responsible Minister, in this case the Minister of Justice—and it is not as if she had an exhaustive workload last year in terms of her legislation; she had the alcohol law reform legislation—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: She was busy, though. She was breaching people’s privacy.

ANDREW LITTLE: She had one or two administrative matters on her hands, but the ever-able Paula Rebstock was able to step in and clean up that mess. But it is not as if she is a Minister who was so rushed off her feet with other legislation that she could not have taken this important matter, stamped her imprimatur on it, said as Minister of Justice that she took responsibility for important pieces of legislation dealing with the liberty of the individual and the liberty of the citizen, and herded us and guided us through this piece of legislation. I would like to think that had this been a matter that was dealt with by the Minister of Justice, then it is more likely that a well-formed piece of legislation would have made it through the first reading without the select committee having to tire itself and exhaust itself with its amendments and changes, in order to bring back to this House a better-quality piece of legislation than it was before it went to the select committee.

David Clendon: Mr Speaker—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Let me have a look. I call the honourable member David Clendon.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I had to make sure it was a Green call, Mr Clendon.

DAVID CLENDON: Of course. I am pleased to take a call on this Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. The legislation deals with an issue that is one of the fundamental cornerstones of our democracy, which is, of course, the right of a person not to be detained without due cause and to be brought before an appropriate judicial process sooner rather than later, and so any amendments, any consideration, of these fundamental cornerstone issues of our core democracy ought not to be dealt with lightly or in any significant haste. When this bill was first proposed, we were given some comfort by the fact that it was drawn from a Law Commission report some years previously. I think it was pointed out that it was drawn virtually word for word, in fact, from that Law Commission report, which is not, in itself, a bad thing. The point was made—and I think it is worth recalling that Mr Charles Chauvel, in the first reading of this legislation, did point out—that perhaps it would have been an appropriate change, an appropriate amendment, to be made by way of a Government bill rather than a member’s bill. After all—we had this discussion earlier—members’ days are primarily for allowing Opposition parties and members to put legislation through the House when they do not have the avenue of Government bills being presented.

If I may, in passing, just comment on Mr Chauvel’s imminent department from the House. We regret that genuinely. He has, in my experience, been an extremely thoughtful, well-informed contributor to this House. He will be missed, and we, the Greens, wish him well in his new career. I would also add that given his imminent departure, I suspect that his speech in the first reading of this bill will go down in the record books as his shortest-ever contribution to this House, for reasons of his concern that, in his view, members’ day was being abused in this way.

It is, in a sense, a pleasure for the Greens to be able to support a justice bill coming from the other side of the House. Unfortunately, we seldom find much to enjoy or support when we see justice bills coming from the Government. Democracy and justice seem to be issues that this Government can take rather lightly. We had this conversation last night, of course, in the context of the denial of the people of Canterbury of their right to vote for a period of some 9 years, by the time they get to have a vote. We have seen, for example, a member’s bill from a member of this Government in the last term that denied all prisoners the right to vote by forcing them off the register of voters, which is an appalling misuse of the members’ bills process and a very unfortunate outcome. We could quote at some length a number of other issues where we have seen amendments made to justice, corrections, police, and the courts that have not been desirable and are not helpful. As I say, we are quite pleased to be able to support this Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill.

Going into some of the detail, I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee for the consideration of this bill, but it is clear that the select committee has gone to quite reasonable lengths and given it a very thorough looking over, and appropriate attention has been paid to it. I am just reminded from looking at my notes that when we first had sight of this bill, we generally saw no harm in it and saw some potential good, but I am somewhat concerned about the general reference to the use of video links and other technology. That is simply because in something as fundamental, as cornerstone, as habeas corpus, I just had some reservations about the use of technology that might somehow prevent an individual literally being able to confront his accuser, which is the essence of the habeas corpus writ, of course. We are pleased to note that, in fact, in the deliberations of the select committee, it came to the conclusion that the existing legislation, the remote participation legislation—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! Can I just say to members that it is a longstanding convention of the House that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is necessary to do so, and to do so only in such a way as to not disturb the proceedings. There is continual chatter going on and I am finding it difficult to hear what Mr Clendon has to say. So I ask members, if they do want to have a private conversation, please do it outside the Chamber.

Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s courteous, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Courtesy is contagious.

DAVID CLENDON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is something worth recalling. As I was saying, we were pleased to see that the select committee in doing its work was of a mind that the existing legislation, the Courts (Remote Participation) Act, is adequate to cover the situations that might arise in the context of this, and so there was no necessity to include that. The proposition is that that clause should be deleted from the bill, and we are entirely in support of that.

Another major clause, as has been mentioned already, is clause 5, which clarifies that judges alone should have the right to allow other business to be prioritised ahead of applications for habeas corpus. We think that is appropriate, because this is a significant power that has been given. I have to say, if I may draw on some personal experience here, that I had an unfortunate experience of what I can only describe as incompetence in the administration of a particular court. It was a minor matter, a traffic matter, that took 3 years to resolve, primarily because the administration of the Waitakere District Court some years ago proved itself unable to correctly record my address. That is a very personal and trivial reason, perhaps, but, more profoundly, I do think that it should rest on the shoulders of judges and judges alone to make these decisions that potentially have significant consequences in terms of basic justice and basic democracy. We select our judges carefully. They are given significant responsibility. They are subject to accountability requirements, which is appropriate, but, really, we should leave these significant matters in their very capable care, I think.

There was also an issue around timing—the proposition and the original drafting of the bill—that perhaps there could be an extension of time. This was, again, dropped and I think it indicates that the select committee was quite thoughtful and careful in its work, that it worked its way through the legislation and looked at issues that perhaps, dare I say it, erred on the side of conservatism—to make the fewest changes necessary to achieve the outcomes of this legislation. Going back to the original purpose of it, it is clear that on occasion, albeit habeas corpus is an important matter and applications should always be taken seriously, equally there are other matters before the courts that are of significance and are of importance, and where time is often of the essence. So allowing for this slight amendment, allowing for a judge to make that call that habeas corpus is not the single most important issue to be considered on a given day, is, we think, an appropriate move from there.

So, in summary, then, I think there are, as I said, matters within this bill that ought to be treated seriously. It is a cornerstone issue. The select committee has, I think, done its work very diligently, as well. It has applied sufficient time and thought to it. The amendments that have been made since the original drafting are amendments that we do think have improved the bill, which we supported at its first reading. So, of course, at this point we are happy to continue to support this legislation through its further readings. Kia ora. Thank you.

ALFRED NGARO (National): This Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill is a fine bill and I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call—[Interruption] Order! Have we finished? I call the honourable member Denis O’Rourke.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, as amended is a classic “Dr Dolittle” bill. In the end it does next to nothing to improve the habeas corpus procedure. Chris Auchinvole has clearly not done his homework, and this bill as a result is now to be amended almost out of existence. It has been a substantial waste of time.

Let us have a look at the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendations, which will back up what I say. First of all, it recommends “clarifying clause 5 of the bill to ensure that only a judge would have the power to direct that another matter take precedence over a habeas corpus applications or an appeal …” in respect of one. “As introduced, the bill would allow courts or their judges to make decisions …”, so the recommendation is, of course, that because of the interpretation of the word “court”, only judges should be able to do that. This is hardly worth a bill—hardly worth a bill. It is a matter so minute in its importance that it is barely worth the ink for consideration.

Secondly, the select committee recommends removing subclauses (2) and (3) from clause 5 of the bill to retain the 3-day time frame within which habeas corpus applications must be heard. The bill as introduced would have allowed a judge to extend that period. The select committee found that “there is little evidence that the current time frame is problematic.” In other words, this matter should not have been looked at in the first place.

Thirdly, I note, and the select committee noted, that “extending the time frame could expand the court’s jurisdiction regarding habeas corpus, potentially leading it to determine matters that might be more appropriately dealt with by another procedure. This could have the unintended consequence of removing current rights of appeal”. Again, the select committee recommends instead the status quo, so, again, the bill is found wanting.

Fourthly, the select committee recommended removing clause 6 because “As introduced, this clause would allow a judge to convene a conference of the parties to … determine how proceedings would advance, including whether appearances would be made by remote means. In effect, this provision restates the High Court’s existing rules”. Once again, the bill is actually a complete waste of time and achieves nothing new.

Fifthly, the select committee recommends “omitting clause 8 of the bill and substituting a new clause to the effect that the provisions of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 apply to habeas corpus proceedings”, which, of course, is the case anyway and is precisely why that Act was passed. Chris Auchinvole should have known about the 2010 Act, and, therefore, not included that provision in the bill. It is just a waste of time.

I quote the select committee’s report, which said: “we think that having different requirements for audio-visual links in the principal Act and in the Courts (Remote Participation) Act could lead to confusion”, so this bill is actually counter-productive and is, therefore, a waste of time.

As I have said, we see that the main provisions of the bill are recommended to be removed. Clause 5 has been amended to clarify that a registrar cannot make the decision under section 9(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act. Well, big deal—no real change. Clause 6 is to be removed because it restates the existing High Court Rules. Again, no big deal.

Chris Auchinvole: Are you voting against it?

DENIS O’ROURKE: Yes, we will be voting against it because it is a nonsense bill. Clause 8 is to be removed because the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 has been passed, a fact that Chris Auchinvole did not seem to know, even though he was a member of the Parliament that did it. We are left with nothing much at all. In fact, only clause 7 stands, simply to confirm that the High Court can refuse an application because habeas corpus is not the proper procedure. In fact, it can do that already.

So in the end it is a “do next to nothing” bill by “Dr Dolittle”. Surely, Chris Auchinvole can find a better subject for a member’s bill than this. He has wasted the time of the House with this piece of legislative nonsense. New Zealand First supported the bill’s referral to the select committee. The committee has effectively amended it out of existence. Therefore, New Zealand First will now vote against it as being redundant even before it was drawn from the ballot.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): The Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill is an excellent bill, and I commend my colleague Chris Auchinvole. I commend it to the House.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): For those watching Parliament TV tonight—those who have chosen to watch the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, instead of watching England’s run chase—I just wanted to give you a bit of a match update of where we are at this point of the debate. What we have got here is a match within a match. There is one that is quite serious—a legal argument about habeas corpus—but there is another match. We call it gerrymandering, and I think you could probably call it batting for time with the Government, because it is trying to stretch out what is going on on this members’ day. It is trying to make sure that it can stock its side of the agenda with a lot of meaningless bills, which should not be put through under a members’ bill. I do—

Tim Macindoe: So what is the score at McLean Park?

KRIS FAAFOI: And that is the real story of what is going on here. This bill should not be being debated on this day, a members’ day, because this bill should have been put through as a Government bill and should have been dealt with by the justice Minister. With all due respect to the member in charge of the bill, Chris Auchinvole—a very fine member of this Parliament—essentially, what he has done is take the recommendations from the Law Commission report. It had put a draft bill in the report. He has pushed Ctrl-C, he has pushed Ctrl-V, and then put this bill into the member’s ballot, and this is what we have got in front of us here today.

This bill should not be taking up the time of this House, and I think maybe some members on that side of the House realise that. Alfred Ngaro and Scott Simpson took all of about 10 seconds to debate this bill, and that is the level of respect, maybe, that they have for this bill and the time that it is taking up in this House. Earlier in his contribution, or it may have been by way of an interjection, Mr Auchinvole was asked why he did not got into more detail about this bill, and his reply was: “Time constraints.” I will probably ask those who may be recording this debate at home to go and check just how much time Mr Auchinvole took up during his contribution to the bill. He had a 10-minute call and took up probably 5 minutes, so there were no time constraints at all preventing him from going into some of the finer details of this bill.

This bill should not be being debated as a member’s bill. The members’ bill process is here for all members of this House to be able to put through issues that they hold dear, whether it be for their own electorate or their portfolio area. On this side of the House we believe that the Government’s ploy is to stack the ballot with bills in the names of National backbench MPs, basically to stop other meaningful bills that could be being put through under a member’s bill from being put through this House—being put through this House. So we do not support the way in which the National Party has used the process of members’ bills to put forward bills of this nature. We have seen other bills put through last year under this same guise, while other, more meaningful bills that have been put forward by other members and have had the luck of being drawn from the ballot have been at the bottom of the Order Paper on these members’ days, and we certainly think that that is a shame.

But looking at some of the details of the bill itself, there are some recommendations that have been made by the Law Commission that I think are worthy. I think it may have been Andrew Little who talked about the benefit of being able to have the provision of permitting pre-hearing conferences by either telephone or video link, or by other technology, authorised by the rules of the court. We think that that could be quite handy in terms of making sure there is swifter justice for people who find themselves in the situation of having a habeas corpus hearing, where it is appropriate, of course. I do note there is some concern from the Green Party about whether or not a videoconference facility, or making use of that technology, is the appropriate thing to do, and I guess that is something that we will continue to debate. But there was also another recommendation by the Law Commission that “… the High Court or a Judge of that Court, should be given the ability to dispense, in appropriate cases, with the rule that habeas corpus applications take precedence over all other business:”. That has come about because there have been quite a few cases of the misuse of the habeas corpus procedures by some applicants in order to get priority over other issues that should have been dealt with.

That deals with a couple of issues around the details of the bill, but I just did want to go back to the nature of way that this bill has been brought to the House. You know, if you are going to use a word that the Hon John Banks might use, it could be described as gerrymandering. We do not believe that this bill should have come to this House in this way. Mr Auchinvole claimed that this bill is worthy of working into the night hours, but on this side of the House we really do wonder whether that is certainly the case. We do believe it should have been brought to this House in a much more substantive way by the justice Minister, Judith Collins, but—

Denis O’Rourke: But there’s no substance in it.

KRIS FAAFOI: Well, it could have, if it was put together with a whole lot of other things, which should have been the way that this bill entered the House—as a Statutes Amendment Bill. But it was not brought to the House in that fashion, and you do have to wonder about the way in which the justice Minister worked last year. There are a number of issues that she certainly was not on top of in the justice portfolio that fell over, and certainly we do not need to mention what happened in terms of ACC.

I would like a member’s bill to be pulled out of the ballot. I have not had that luxury yet in my 2.4 years—

Dr David Clark: Oh, really?

KRIS FAAFOI: No, I have not. I have not had that luxury. So that even more personally guts me to think that this process has been used by the Government to bring this bill to the House in this way. I do note that Labour is supporting this bill, but I just did want to remind people at home, who can now switch over, back to the cricket, of the way in which the Government is using this process to gerrymander the process.

KATRINA SHANKS (National): I think the issues on this bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, have been well debated in this House today. I look forward to making a contribution in further readings. I commend this bill to the House.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is indeed a surprise pleasure for me, actually, to be speaking on the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. It is not a bill I ever anticipated that I would be speaking on, and I feel almost certain too that it is not a bill that Chris Auchinvole came to this House to deliver, but such are the vagaries of political life that Chris Auchinvole has none the less put forward this bill as being his major contribution and major piece of work in this Parliament, and I have found myself speaking on his work in this regard.

I want to just start my contribution by reminding people about what the purpose of this bill is. What the bill describes its purpose as is that the procedure for dealing with habeas corpus applications has been misused, whereby some applications that should have been dealt with by other means have obtained priority hearings. Oh, the irony! Oh, the irony! In fact, this bill, which is designed to stop processes being misused when they can be done by other means, is itself guilty of that. This bill has been used in exactly that way. This bill ought to be a Government bill. It ought to have been debated on any of those days that we get all of the time in this Parliament to debate the Government’s business. That is where this bill belongs, but instead we are taking up precious time on a members’ day, which—I will just remind members of the public listening—happen only on every second sitting Wednesday of the House. They do not happen very frequently at all. Yet this business, which ought to be the Government’s business, has landed on a members’ day. So, in fact, the bill is guilty of doing the same thing. This bill is being used for the very purpose that it actually says it is going to stop in a different regard. I think that is hugely ironic.

I have been very disappointed by the contributions from the Government members. As I said, this ought to have been a very simple piece of Government legislation, but here they are, taking up time on a members’ day—members whom I actually have a great deal of respect for, and Chris Auchinvole is one of those. I have a great deal of respect for that member, and I think it is a great shame he has been put in the position by his party of actually playing this game and having an insignificant bill brought before the House in his name. I know he is better than that. I know he is better than that. Then there is Alfred Ngaro, whom I had expected to gain some respect for. I have heard quite a lot about his background from my colleagues. I had expected that I would gain respect for him in his time in the House. But we hardly ever hear from Alfred Ngaro in this House, and when we do it is the 10-second contribution that he got up on his feet to give before. I think his community did not send him here to this place to give that sort of lack of regard to his role here as a member of Parliament by giving that sort of lack of contribution in the House. I think it is very disappointing.

What is the Government really trying to hide here? What is it trying to do? What it is trying to do—let us make it loud and clear—is stop New Zealanders from seeing and hearing debated all the fantastic Labour policy that has been translated into members’ bills. The only opportunity as the Opposition that we have to actually put our ideas forward for debate in this Parliament is through members’ bills. That Government is so frightened of the public hearing our fantastic plan and policy, where it has none, that it has started putting these insignificant bills into the ballot to try to crowd ours out. That is what this is all about. It knows that it would be exposed as having absolutely no plan—absolutely no plan. Does this bill not exhibit exactly that? And the Government does not want the public to see that Labour has a very detailed plan, some of which is actually described in some of our members’ bills.

I think it is wrong that the Government is using members’ day in this way. I have been fortunate enough—it has taken 6 years, but I have been fortunate enough after 6 long years—to have two members’ bills drawn out within 12 months of each other—two of them. I wish that that would happen for all of my colleagues’ bills as well, but it makes it much more difficult when National Party MPs are using bills in this way.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I just rise to join my colleague David Clendon in expressing the Green Party’s support for the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill at its second reading. On following the discussion tonight, quite closely and with interest, I just want to say in passing that I am stumbling with the logic of our good colleague Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First in his exposition this evening. He essentially excoriated the intrinsic merits of the bill, which we are not disposed to do and I do not think any other party is, but New Zealand First was wont to do tonight. That is all well and good. It is one thing to oppose a bill. It is one thing even to change a party’s position from first reading to second reading; we do it, and other parties do it. But that is usually done on the basis of logic, and I will—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: That is quite OK, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your concern. I will be interested to discuss it out of the Chamber, perhaps, with the speaker.

Let me just follow the logic. I do not wish to spend too much time on this, but, very quickly, in the first reading New Zealand First, in the form of Mr O’Rourke, said the following with regard to the priority provisions: “all those are quite important issues …”. With regard to the time extension, he said: “we see no problem there either.” With regard to summary dismissal, he said: “That seems appropriate, as well.” With regard to the non-appeal issue, he said: “That, again, we think is quite appropriate and allows some flexibility for the court to order its business efficiently.” Then, finally, he said: “New Zealand First does approve and support the bill as a whole. We think it is well drafted, [and] is in accordance with the Law Commission’s recommendations,”.

Normally, a party lays down certain conditions. If those conditions are not met in the select committee, then you change your vote. But the criticism advanced tonight, which was to say that the thing was a “next to nothing” bill by “Dr Dolittle” and was “redundant even before it was drawn from the ballot.”, seems to be—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! I have already cautioned the member on my left.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: —fundamentally illogical—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Speaker Arthur, 1984: it is a convention in this place that those in close proximity to each other, especially on the cross benches, do not interject, because of the effect on the microphone.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: That is all I have to say on the matter. It seems fundamentally illogical, and I am more than happy to discuss it after the House so that I can be corrected, perhaps.

Having seen what I take to be a fallacy in New Zealand First’s position, let me convey my own personal fallibility, because in the first reading I said I could see nothing wrong with the bill, and clearly the Justice and Electoral Committee, in its sublime wisdom, did. Two aspects, the time extension and the pre-hearings, were dropped, and the other two provisions were retained, and we respect that. So we will support the bill. Perhaps we have laboured mightily and brought forth a mouse, but it is all in good fun and with good intent, I have no doubt, from Mr Auchinvole.

Andrew Little said this matter is not to be trifled with, and we agree with that. But not trifling with the intrinsic merits of the bill does not preclude us from criticising, as Labour has, especially, and we have, the procedure of introducing these kinds of bills into the members’ ballot. We strongly disagree with that. Lianne Dalziel said she thought that Chris Auchinvole was playing a game with the House. We would not be as mean-spirited as to advance that criticism, but we would share—or at least echo—Lianne Dalziel’s warning that the bill will be subject, no doubt, to intense questioning in the Committee of the whole House, and we will be expecting replies, perhaps in Latin, from the author of the bill.

Perhaps in light of the criticism of the procedure of putting this kind of bill into the ballot, the author, Chris Auchinvole, could write an op-ed for the nation to read as to why it was the case that it had to go through this procedure, recalling perhaps his moment of inspiration that led to the drafting of the bill. Was it on the road to Damascus? Was it while under the apple tree? Was it while reclining in the bath-tub? Did he leap out and run in full glory, shouting “Eureka!”, through the streets? Or was it perhaps none of the above? And if it was none of the above, do we deserve an apology from him to the House for this?

With what dedication, perseverance, and commitment did Mr Auchinvole steer this through? With what stealth did he introduce it into his caucus and guide it through, into the ballot? Perhaps he could write an op-ed that explains this, because I think it has become an issue of abiding concern to the House, and I do think that it should perhaps be the subject of a Standing Orders review when the time comes.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I want to take a moment to congratulate the member Chris Auchinvole on what must be a most auspicious occasion for him, which is getting his first member’s bill—it is emotional—to the end of its second reading. In fact, I congratulate him so much so that I have invited the member to speak to my electorate in the next month on this topic. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.

Noes 7

New Zealand First 7.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I move, That the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. It is a pleasure to be speaking to the second reading of this bill. Like Mr Auchinvole, for me this bill represents my first bill through this House, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do that. I understand that Mr Auchinvole has gone to do media so he may not hear this speech in its fullness. But before I get too far into this address, I do wish to put on record my thanks to other parties in this Parliament that have come together to support this bill. There have been pledges of support for this bill from the Green Party, from New Zealand First, from the Māori Party, from the Mana Party, from United Future, and from Brendan Horan, and without the support of all of these colleagues this bill could not proceed. I think it is a sign of how the Parliament can come together when there is something that is obviously a sensible thing to do, that we ought to get on and do, and that can just proceed without the need for the Government to be involved, it seems. The Government is on the wrong side of this bill and yet it cannot stop its progress.

The bill has returned from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee with what might be described as only cosmetic changes. Those changes are aimed at clarifying for legal reasons its purpose. The bill is largely as it went into the select committee. It was very well drafted and for that I wish to place on record my thanks to Mr Robertson, its previous sponsor.

Grant Robertson: That will be me, not the Assistant Speaker.

Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes. It has continued to enjoy widespread support; 80 percent in the most recent Stuff poll is indicative of all of the surveys I have seen. The only quantitative survey of the business community that is available did actually survey 1,000 small and medium enterprises, so it could be seen as reasonably authoritative in that sphere. That survey recorded support of 50 percent in favour of the bill, and if you add to that number in favour those who regard it in a neutral way, you get to 87 percent. So there are 87 percent who either feel neutrally about it or support it. There are only 13 percent of that community who for one reason or another are not in favour of the bill passing—and it is fair to say even that has been a muted response. It is the kind of bill that enjoys very widespread support, so that is why it is a pleasure to bring this bill to the House. It is one that has widespread support and that seems to represent common sense. It is little wonder, too, when it gives hard-working Kiwis some well-deserved time with their friends and family. We know that we work very long hours in New Zealand and this bill provides us with the opportunity to have a couple of extra days every 7 years.

The bill addresses an issue that, really, occurs only in those years when Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fall on a weekend. It will amend the Holidays Act 2003 to provide for the transfer of the public holidays for Waitangi Day and Anzac Day if they fall on a weekend. The days of celebration will still be 6 February and 25 April respectively, but there will also be a public holiday on the Monday that follows. The bill came into existence really in response to the situation in 2011 when Kiwis had only nine holidays in a year when they were expecting 11 public holidays. Mr Grant Robertson spotted that anomaly and identified a public mood for change. We know that in those years when we miss those holidays we really do miss those holidays. It is what we already do for Christmas and other public holidays. Christmas is still celebrated on 25 December each year, even when it falls on a weekend. The only difference is that Kiwis know they can count on a holiday being added after Boxing Day. It is time they will get to spend with their friends and families. And it is exactly the same with New Year. When New Year’s Day falls on a weekend, revellers do not hold off their celebrations. Instead they count on subsequent and additional days of recreation.

It is also what they do in Australia, by the way. We know that in Australia Anzac Day is already Mondayised in seven of its eight territories. In Western Australia, in Victoria, in Australian Capital Territory, in New South Wales, in South Australia, in Queensland, and in Northern Territory they Mondayise Anzac Day, and, anecdotally, the experience is that they get increased turnouts at the Dawn Parades. It stands to reason. You can imagine that on a Sunday morning, if you have got small children and you know you have got school the next day, it is easier not to go to those kinds of commemorations. But when you know that you have got the next day to spend with friends and family relaxing, it makes sense to take your family along. You might even travel to be with your family to commemorate the important occasion of Anzac Day. I think Anzac Day does have a growing significance for New Zealanders as a part of their national identity and as a part of our history, and that is part of what this bill recognises—that growing significance to New Zealand of Anzac Day. The nearest equivalent of Waitangi Day in Australia is Australia Day, and we find that in Australia, again, seven out of eight of its territories already Mondayise that day. It is only New South Wales that does not Mondayise. So the majority of Australians are used to this kind of thing; it is what they do there. It is what we are in fact used to with all our other holidays and it is a little bit of an anomaly that we do not already do this for Anzac Day and Waitangi Day. I guess that when those holidays were originally formed we perhaps did not celebrate them so universally as a country and in such a significant way as we do now. That is why I think the time has come to give these holidays the full recognition that other holidays have.

I have been asked by a lot of people about when this bill will take effect and what it really means for them in terms of when the holidays kick in. For the record, the Anzac Day holiday on 25 April next falls on a Saturday in 2015. That is the first time that we will have the Monday in lieu after this bill passes through to law, and then Waitangi Day the following year. And then it is not until 2020 that Anzac Day falls on a weekend, and again in 2021. Likewise for Waitangi Day, it is 2021 and 2022. So until 2022 we can look forward to an extra 6 days’ holiday as a result of this bill.

It is symbolic, but it also recognises that in those years when we miss the public holidays we really do miss them, and this fixes it. I guess it is a bit like a house that leaks. When it is not raining you do not notice it, but when it is raining you do. Now that it is not raining—this year we did have our full complement of 11 holidays—we are taking the opportunity to repair the roof, to make sure that we fix the situation, so that we do celebrate these holidays fully in those years when they fall on a weekend. The bill, overall, if we look at it in broad perspective, is about giving Kiwis a decent break. Kiwis deserve all of the holidays they get, and this bill ensures they get those 11 public holidays each and every year.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Not many.

Dr DAVID CLARK: “Not many.”, my colleague says—11. It could be more, but 11 is a good start, and that is what this bill achieves.

We also know that there has been a bit of scaremongering. I wish to put on record that the Government’s numbers have been shown to be fairly inadequate.

Grant Robertson: Again.

Dr DAVID CLARK: “Again.”, my colleague comments, and he is right. The figures the Government came up with for the costs did not take into account the self-employed people who are not affected by the changes in public holidays. They ignored the benefits of domestic tourism, which Martin Snedden made a lot of. It is strange that the Minister of Tourism has not come out in support of this bill. The industry is certainly hurting over that, from those whom I have spoken to. Certainly, I had the opportunity to be in the Coromandel over the break, and people up there were unhappy with their electorate MP for the fact that the bill was not being supported. So we see around the country that the benefits were not counted. We also see that the numbers just do not stack up, for a range of other reasons too numerous to mention here.

I want, in closing, to say that the Labour Party is very proud to bring this bill to the House, because it does give the full recognition that other holidays have, and makes sure that hard-working Kiwis get to spend time with friends and family each and every year, not just 5 years out of 7. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you to the members of all parties who have taken part in the deliberations on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill at select committee level. I wish to pay special tribute to the sponsor of this bill, Dr Clark, who has done a fine job at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in bringing it forward. He has just made a speech about some of the reasons and the rationale behind what he is promoting. Unfortunately, the National Party will not be supporting the bill at this juncture of the process, but we do recognise the work that has gone into it and the role that has been taken by members of this House in looking at it through that process.

Mr Clark’s speech talked about the bill being symbolic, and there is an element of symbolism in it, and there is an element of reality as well. As Mr Clark said, over the next years leading up to 2021 and 2022, there are probably 6 days in total that the bill applies to. In essence, it is a symbolic gesture in some ways but, as has also been said, it is an important gesture as well. But it does have a cost on an economy. It does have issues around those special days and the meaning of those special days. For those reasons, the National Party declines to support the bill at this stage, but we recognise the arguments made on either side of the debate and thank the House for its consideration and especially the select committee for its work on this issue. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am very pleased to support the second reading of the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, which will restore to New Zealanders their legislative entitlement to 11 public holidays every year, rather than in 5 of every 7 years. I again congratulate my colleague David Clark on the wonderful job he has done on this, and it was a pleasure to be on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to hear both the submissions on, and his input into, this. As the Government member David Bennett acknowledged, he has done a very good job on that.

Kiwis know a fair deal when they see one, and that is what this bill is. Poll after poll has shown that the public is behind this, because it is a sensible and fair measure. We will always honour Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, but losing a public holiday when it falls on a weekend is not right. It is just not fair. So what this bill does is make sure that because that happens every 7 years, Kiwis do not miss out on their well-earned 11 public holidays every year, as in fact our holidays legislation guarantees. Over the last 20 years there have been more and more demands on working people for flexibility and for longer hours, while at the same time job insecurity and anxiety continue to grow. Today increasing numbers of people are working on weekends and working longer hours, as we have heard tonight—more than ever before. The current situation when Anzac Day and Waitangi Day fall on a Saturday means there is an unfair situation whereby for 2 out of every 7 years the public holiday entitlement, as described in the Holidays Act, is reduced.

During the select committee I heard some of the Government members express concern that this bill will diminish the importance of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. I do not buy that, because 6 February and 25 April will remain as the days that the nation observes those days of special significance. In some cases, Mondayising those days will make it easier for people to participate in events on days like Waitangi Day or Anzac Day, especially in the weekend, if travel is required. As David Clark has said, most Australian states already Mondayise equivalent holidays—their Anzac Day and their national holiday—and there appears to have been no diminution of support for the significance of those days in Australia. In fact, you could say this bill preserves the special nature of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, and there is an increasing recognition of the importance of those days in our history and identity. No one would suggest for a moment that Christmas Day has been diminished in importance by providing for Mondayisation where it falls on a weekend, particularly for those who celebrate its religious significance.

So although the arguments that we have heard have been that this bill will reduce the importance and recognition of these 2 national days, what I find really interesting—and this came out in the select committee process—is that the Government has bizarrely overlooked its own legislation, the Holidays Amendment Act 2010. In that Act the Government legislated for the very thing, the same thing, that Government members have objected to—that is, transferring the observance of a public holiday, including Waitangi and Anzac Day, to another working day. The Government argued then that that change was all about greater choice for employers and employees, and could be made because of the operational needs of the employer or the needs of the employee, but it appears to have changed its mind.

Andrew Little: So the day wasn’t that important?

DARIEN FENTON: It was not that important, and no one can blame us for being puzzled about that when you go back to the original bill in 2010. The example given in the explanatory note said: “if Waitangi Day falls on a Wednesday, an employer and a group of employees who work Monday to Friday may agree to observe Waitangi Day on the Friday.” That was given as an example in the bill, and another example was Anzac Day. How bizarre that we had these objections from the Government, when its own legislation in 2010 actually provided for Anzac Day and Waitangi Day not to be given the significance that it would like to claim they have. So this Government has already legislated for that in the workplace. This bill, of course, does not do that. It does not transfer the day. It recognises those days on the days they fall, and it does it in the way that Christmas Day and Boxing Day have full recognition where they fall on a weekend.

The next argument we heard during the select committee process was about cost. There were businesses that supported the bill. There were polls among businesses, but the Government did a pretty good job in financial scaremongering. The worst figure it came up with was a cost of 13c per worker per day, yet its own advisers admitted that that is likely to be overstated. It quoted figures deliberately excluding the 208,000 self-employed people who are not affected by changes to public holidays. Actually, they do not get public holidays, and that is another issue that we would like to talk about some time. The Government also ignored the increased benefits to domestic tourism and the ability of flexible businesses to absorb and adapt to change. Most businesses already budget for 11 public holidays a year and should be able to absorb what is a very small additional cost over a 7-year period.

The Tourism Industry Association made a fantastic submission. It was wonderful to hear such a progressive organisation. I want to congratulate Martin Snedden and the industry on their submission. They came with a wonderful submission, as I said, because they could see the twin benefits of boosting domestic tourism and giving Kiwis a decent break. I find it amazing that as the Minister of Tourism, John Key does not agree with them. He is letting his industry down. He is not listening to it. It is time he stood beside the thousands of tourism operators who will benefit every year, not 5 years out of 7 years, if Kiwis get the same number of public holidays. This bill will be a win for tourism operators right throughout the country—in the small towns, in the regions, in many of the places that those members over there claim to represent. They should be listening to them. But it is also a win for hard-working Kiwis. John Key is offside on this bill with Parliament, with public opinion, and with the industry he is supposed to support. It is time he gave Kiwis a break and supported the bill.

Unlike the National Government, Labour believes that the economy should work for people and communities. That means it is not always about cost. Progressive businesses understand that time out is important to productivity, and that their workers are not and should not be slaves for the business all of the time. The National Government does not get that. It talks the talk. It talks and talks about work-life balance, but it does not walk the talk. When we come up with something as simple as this bill, and as minor as this bill, it cannot bring itself to support it because that would give workers a break. Its idea of flexibility is all one way. I just want to remind the House what our Holidays Act says. It says its purpose “is to promote balance between work and other aspects of employees’ lives …”. It is to give them time with their families and “the opportunity for rest and recreation”, and it is time to celebrate “public holidays for the observance of days of national, religious, or cultural significance:”. That is what our legislation says. At the moment that is not fully fulfilled. This bill will fulfil that purpose.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): It is a pleasure to rise and take a call as a new member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am privileged to take up the deputy chairman’s role on the committee and join this discussion.

Can I firstly acknowledge the work of David Clark on this Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. He is a hard-working young man, which of course puts him in the distinct minority in the Labour caucus. But none the less he is a hard-working young bloke and has brought an interesting bill before the House.

There has been some discussion this evening about where days fall. I want to reflect back on 25 April 1915, because it was not days that were falling; it was Kiwis and Australians who were falling on the blood-soaked beaches of Gallipoli in the name of freedom, peace, and the democracy that we enjoy in this country and is enjoyed around this world today. Anzac Day is something that is etched into the hearts and minds of every New Zealander. I think everyone in this House would concede that. As a former naval officer, I feel very strongly about the importance of that day in signifying the reverence and the remembrance that Anzac Day has now become. It is a day on which we celebrate our nation and those who have fallen in the name of our nation and, indeed, in the name of world peace. The commemoration of Anzac Day happens on one day and one day alone, and that is 25 April.

Andrew Little: That doesn’t change.

Darien Fenton: Not in the workplace. You changed the law. That party changed the law so that that holiday can be transferred in the workplace.

MIKE SABIN: There are certainly some valid points coming from the other side about work-life balance—something that those Kiwis never had a chance to experience because they are still lying on the shores of Gallipoli.

I want to just focus on Waitangi Day. As the member of Parliament for Northland, obviously this day holds special significance to me, but it actually holds special significance to all New Zealanders. On 6 February 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and there will only ever be one Waitangi Day. The name of this bill is the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. Is it really full recognition? That is the question that I would have. Or is it just another long weekend?

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. The Green Party supports the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, and we support a good work-life balance for all New Zealanders. We believe that this bill will enable workers and their families to enjoy the full entitlement of the Holidays Act to 11 public holidays per year, every year. Under the existing Holidays Act, every 2 out of 7 years those 11 public holidays reduce to 9 days a year because Waitangi Day and Anzac Day are celebrated on specific days. When one of those days falls on a weekend, the holiday is not transferred to a weekday, so people do not get a day off. They do not get their full 11 days. Four of the other 11 public holidays also occur on the day on which they fall. That is what happens currently for Christmas Day, Boxing Day, and New Year’s Day and the day after. When these days fall on weekends, the law allows for them to be transferred to weekdays so that workers get the full entitlement to those days as holidays.

The Greens maintain that the difference in treatment between Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, and Christmas Day and Boxing Day and the days after those 2 days, is an anomaly. We reject the notion put by some submitters—and put by the previous speaker, I might add—that it will cheapen the commemoration of either of those very important holidays. We have not seen any evidence of this happening resulting from the Mondayisation of Christmas Day in particular.

Australia already transfers Anzac Day to the following Monday, so this is another area where it beats New Zealand. It transfers Anzac Day to a Monday when it occurs on a weekend, and the day’s commemorations are still held on 25 April. Even with Mondayisation, Anzac Day events in Australia are extremely well attended.

The Mondayisation of Anzac Day and Waitangi Day might actually increase participation in the events that commemorate these special New Zealand dates. This year, like many of my colleagues in this House, I was at Waitangi over Waitangi Day. It fell midweek; it fell on a Wednesday. I am sure that other members who were there will agree that there was a much lower turnout this year than there has been in the last few years. When I asked locals in Paihia and at Waitangi why that might be, they said it was because the day fell on a Wednesday. They said that they always had a much better attendance when the days fall closer to a weekend, probably because it becomes difficult to tack on another day to make a longer break to ensure that they have time off to justify the trip to this important historic place to participate in the commemoration activities. The local businesses were really noticing the reduced business from the lower turnout, I have to say. Ensuring that Waitangi Day and Anzac Day are transferred to a Monday when they fall on a weekend means that small hospitality businesses, like those in Paihia, will benefit when workers take advantage of having a 3-day weekend. This stance is supported by the Tourism Industry Association of New Zealand, which submitted during the select committee process—

Mike Sabin: Talk about tourism in your own electorate—oh, that’s right. You haven’t got one.

DENISE ROCHE: —which I do not think Mr Sabin was present at. The Tourism Industry Association cited a Mind Your Own Business survey conducted in July last year of mostly small businesses, which showed that only 13 percent of those businesses opposed the Mondayisation of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, and that over 50 percent supported the idea. The Tourism Industry Association said in its submission that the Mondayisation of Anzac Day and Waitangi Day is an opportunity to increase domestic tourism. It said that those economic benefits outweigh the small costs to employers.

The costs are not outrageous. Employers already bear the cost of these public holidays for their staff when Waitangi Day and Anzac Day occur on a weekday, and it will not be onerous. The next time Waitangi Day and Anzac Day occur on a weekend is in 2015 and 2016, and then not again until 2020 and 2021. So employers will certainly have a good lead-in time to prepare for it.

We have this idea that we are a generous people in this country. As well as the “100% Pure New Zealand” myth that we continue to pretend is true, we also think that we are generous, laid-back, and, to quote the Prime Minister’s favourite little word, “relaxed” about things. The reality is a lot different. It is hard to relax when there is no chance to relax. During the select committee process, we heard—and I respectfully acknowledge that Mr Sabin was not present for that one either—from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, who presented well-researched information on what is happening to workers in this country. The truth is that New Zealanders work relatively long hours and our combined minimum annual leave and public holiday provisions are lagging behind many European countries. Workers do need time to have holidays. Over the last three decades we have seen the steady erosion of pay rates and working conditions, especially for low-paid workers. We have created a low-wage economy. We hear countless stories of workers working longer and longer hours simply to make ends meet. In the last few weeks I can point to several articles in the Dominion Post and the New Zealand Herald about the plight of low-paid workers and their inability to make ends meet on 40 hours of low wages.

Aside from keeping people poor, those long hours and low wages have a huge impact on families, on our communities, and on our ability to relax and have a relaxed society. Long hours isolate workers from their families. How can anyone be a good parent when they cannot spend time with any of their kids, because they are working 70 or 80 hours a week? How can anyone volunteer to coach a netball team or deliver Meals on Wheels when there is no spare time to deliver them? It is for this reason that many faith-based organisations and unions are campaigning for a living wage. That living wage has been set at $18.40 per hour for a family with a full-time parent worker and a part-time parent working to provide for their two children, to provide a decent standard of living, and to enable them to participate fully in their communities. Central to this idea is the ability for families to have time off to rest and to relax. Workers need a break. Good working conditions, good wages, and enough time off work to rest create business benefits and reductions in labour costs, and that has been proven.

Ensuring that workers get their full 11 public holidays a year will benefit not only workers but businesses as well. It is good for the economy and for businesses in the tourism sector. We support this bill and we commend it to the House.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a great pleasure to take a call on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the fine work of my colleague Dr David Clark in shepherding through this very important piece of legislation, which is about recognising and genuinely and truly having an opportunity to celebrate these very important days.

I acknowledge the comments made by the member opposite, Mike Sabin, who apparently is to join us—or who may have already joined us—on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which is, I might add, a very important select committee, with a hard-working chair, who has the record for running the shortest select committee meetings I have ever known of; I think we had it down to 4 minutes on one occasion, which only narrowly beat the 7-minute meeting we had the week before. The point is this—

Simon O’Connor: Move on.

ANDREW LITTLE: No, it is a very important committee and it deals with very important legislation, not the least of which is this bill.

The important thing is this. Mr Sabin made this point, and he drew upon the treacherous work that the soldiers of the Anzac undertook when they were sent off to the Dardanelles. They left these shores not really knowing where they were going or why they were going there, many conscripted. Of course, we know that World War I was an important period in the formation of the Labour Party, because it was many people who were opposed to the war and the reasons for it who formed the basis of the union Labour Party. But those men—and they were largely men—who were sent to their deaths in that tragic farrago of a military event did so not because they were fighting for extra work days and not because they were fighting to generate more profit for their employer. When they laid down their lives they did so because they wanted to preserve the freedoms that go with living in democratic and liberal democracies like ours. They fought for a cause that was about life and humanity, and about themselves as parts of communities and families. That is what they were fighting for, as they did in World War II, and as they have done in just about every other war since. It is ultimately about humanity.

If there is any piece of legislation that reflects, is part of, and expresses our humanity, it is the legislation that gives working people the right to take time out from their work—from having to work for others, placing themselves under the submission, the control, and the command of others to earn a wage. It is legislation that allows people to express themselves in their communities as people and as family members. This legislation is about taking the 2 days that define this nation, this fine nation of ours, and saying that we are going to observe them. And in the weeks in which they fall, you will not have to do your regular full working week. You will be able to take time out—as you would do when these days fall on a working day—and properly respect and observe these important days.

That is to apply to Anzac Day, which was part of our nation-building history and which, if it did one thing alone that was important to this nation, forged a sense of solidarity. It was the origins of our identity: we were not just cannon fodder but were a nation that was part of the comity of nations making up the Commonwealth; we stood with our brothers and sisters across the Tasman to assist our colonial fathers in far-flung fields. We forged our identity as a fighting force and as good people, and we learnt the lesson of solidarity. That is what we brought back from it, that is what we learnt from Anzac Day, and that is what we will be able to celebrate when we get to properly observe Anzac Day and actually take a break from our regular working week every year in the week in which Anzac Day falls.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.