ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) : I move, That the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill be now read a second time. This bill validates the uses of Alfred Cox Park, which is a centrally located park in the city of Gisborne that was gifted to the borough of Gisborne in 1944 under a deed of trust. The uses currently are contrary to the Reserves Act 1977. Every Saturday morning a flea market is held in the grounds, and an excellent i-site has been built, at considerable expense, as part of the Gisborne Visitor Information Centre, which is an important part of Gisborne’s tourism.

Alfred Cox Park was classified as a recreation reserve in 1985, but in 1966 the council had allowed the public relations office to be replaced by the visitor information centre that I have just mentioned. Prior to 1990, part of the land was also being used for the flea market. Both of these uses, according to legal opinions obtained by the council and scrutinised by parliamentary counsel, are contrary to the Reserves Act 1977. So the Gisborne District Council is promoting this local bill, which was accepted by the Clerk of the House in June 2005 after several false starts. My predecessor, Janet Mackey MP, promoted the bill originally, and as the newly elected electorate MP I am delighted to continue its progress through this House on behalf of the Gisborne District Council.

I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for the time and effort it put into the scrutiny of this bill, and I thank the officials, who came up with good solutions to some of the legal problems that were raised during the select committee process. The committee received several submissions on the bill. The submission from the council outlined the history of the park and the activities that have taken place. It referred to the establishment of the public relations office and its subsequent replacement with the visitor information centre. The council had consulted with the two current users of the reserve and also with members of the family of Alfred Cox.

Two differing legal opinions were obtained. The solicitors for Tourism Eastland, which operates the visitor information centre, felt that the centre actually met the description in the deed of trust, which refers to “buildings for the entertainment, convenience, or amusement of the public, or other buildings of a civic nature”. I have some sympathy with their view that a visitor information centre that disseminates information widely to the public and displays objects from a museum fits the description in the deed. The council outlined in its submission the considerable efforts it had made—quite unsuccessfully—to relocate the flea market, and referred to the petition to the council from 72 signatories who supported the continued existence of the flea market. That was followed by another petition from local people in the neighbourhood who were concerned about the undesirable effects of the flea market. However, anyone who attends the flea market knows that it is extremely well attended and that many, many Gisborne citizens go there on a regular basis to get fruit and vegetables.

A submission from a Dr Helen Papanui supported the intent of the bill, supported the use of the land by the flea market as a tourism attraction that may fit the terms of the deed of trust and as a meeting place for locals, and agreed that the information centre was important for tourism in the district. Note that it is not information from the museum that is displayed in the centre but Department of Conservation information, perhaps fulfilling the public entertainment criterion. Overall there was support for the two uses of the park, and there was definite support for the desire to ensure that the activities continue in the interests of the residents of Gisborne. The council sought, then, to come within the terms of the law in order to protect the continuation of those two activities in the park.

The select committee made a couple of changes to the bill on advice from officials. Their reasoning was that in order to validate the use of the park by the visitor information centre as well as the flea market, the bill needed to apply to the Reserves Act in general and in whole, not just—as the council had suggested—to the specific part that related just to the flea market. In fact, the Department of Internal Affairs suggested that it was unclear whether the bill as drafted originally would actually validate the presence of the visitor information centre. In addition, the officials suggested a change to clause 5 to allow validated uses to flow through to the provisions dealing with leases and licences in the future, so that the council could continue to lease the land out in accordance with the current activities.

The Gisborne District Council representatives did not agree with those suggestions from the parliamentary officials. They told me that in their opinion the fundamental objective of the amending legislation was to validate use, not to provide a designation, and they felt that our officials were focusing on the designation of the reserve. They also said the officials had failed to appreciate that the action in 1998 of redesignating a part of the recreation reserve as a local purpose reserve was unlawful. Therefore, as an action that is unlawful cannot be deemed to be lawful, the designation did not actually take place. It is all very complicated, and if one is not a lawyer it is very difficult to find one’s way through all this. However, the important thing is that the select committee has followed the advice of its officials, and the Gisborne District Council, whilst telling me it did not necessarily agree with that, felt overall that it wanted the bill to proceed in order to put the validation process in place and to put an end to what has been a rather lengthy process through this House.

I am delighted, as the electorate MP, to stand in the House today and speak on the return of this bill to the House for its second reading. I have to express disappointment. I had hoped to progress this bill right through all stages today and had sought and obtained consent for that from almost all parties in this House. However, because we have to seek leave, we need only one member to disagree. Therefore, knowing that someone was going to disagree, I have not sought that leave from the House. Instead we will see this bill go through the normal processes and take a little bit longer. I say to the Gisborne District Council that the bill is in safe hands in this House and that we will progress the bill through the normal processes of the Committee stage and third reading as quickly as we are able to do so. I commend this bill to the House.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am very pleased to take a call on behalf of the Government on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill, which of course was introduced by my mother. I thank the member Anne Tolley, who has just taken her seat, for her stewardship of the bill through the House currently. I agree that it is disappointing we cannot get the bill through all stages in the House tonight, and I assure the Gisborne District Council that it was not the Labour Party that had any opposition to that.

The bill has been a very long time coming around, and the reasons for that are many and varied. The council worked very hard on getting its bill prepared. When it had finally managed to get it completed it brought it to the House and submitted it to the Clerk, but it was told that the rules had changed so it then needed to go back and rewrite the bill. But, here we are!

I thank the select committee for its work on this bill. I know that there was a little bit of consternation within the council that some of the changes made might not be necessary, and that the council felt that validating legislation was not needed to correct the area of reclassification, but from my reading of the situation I believe the select committee has taken good advice, and I am sure the Gisborne District Council and the users of Alfred Cox Park will be well served by this bill.

Alfred Cox Park is a reserve under the Reserves Act of 1977, and it was classified as a recreation reserve in 1985. When the area where the park is now was gifted to the council by Mr Cox, it was stated that only buildings for the entertainment, convenience, and amusement of the public, or other buildings of a civic nature, should be erected on the land. I know that when lawyers become involved, matters become very complicated, but I can assure members that the buildings and the activities carried out on that land are very much of a community nature.

It is true that we have a visitor information centre and that commercial activities are carried out on that site, but those commercial activities are fundamental to the people of Gisborne and to our community. In that respect, I urge members to see that even though there may be some financial transactions involved in shopping at flea markets, playing mini putt, and catching a bus on holidays, those are very much part of the lifestyle of “Gisbornites”, and I ask members to respect that accordingly.

It is very amusing—I used to get the bus to university and back, and I would be picked up and dropped off at Alfred Cox Park, eight to 10 times a year. I never realised that I was aiding and abetting a criminal activity—and doing so repeatedly. I did not know that when my parents took me to play mini golf as a child—with my father hoping I would be the next Tiger Woods, and being inevitably disappointed—that again I was aiding and abetting a criminal activity. I am pleased that Ron Mark’s bill in relation to the age of criminal responsibility was not enacted at that time, because at the age of 10 I could have been facing some long time in a minimum security penitentiary for recidivist offending by carrying out financial transactions against the law. I am just pleased that Mr Mark was not around at that time.

In all seriousness, though, it seems as if this is a trivial bill, but it is not. It goes to the heart of many of the things we do in Gisborne that are important to us. As members know, flea markets in most areas, but especially in provincial areas, are an incredibly important part of our community. We all go down to the flea market and buy our veggies, and we meet people there whom we only ever see at the market. That is important, and no one ever intended that that market would be contrary to the law.

The visitor information centre is also an important part of our community, not just because it brings in tourists and provides economic development in an area that relies very heavily on tourism but also because of many of the other activities that go on there to build up our regional identity in Gisborne and the East Coast. It is impossible to move that information centre, and I doubt very much we would be able to find any land now within the Gisborne district that would be appropriate for an information centre, even if we did decide to make the monumental decision to shift a huge centre like that.

This park has been part of our community for a long time, and part of my life for a long time. I played mini golf there many, many times as a child. I have been to flea markets—the Labour Party has had flea market stalls there for as long as I can remember. I ask members to vote accordingly and to support the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill 2005. Let us hope that we can get the bill through the House in a speedy fashion.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : In noting Moana Mackey’s comments about Gisborne, I recall my time living at Te Araroa. At the time Gisborne, which was 100 kilometres away, was the closest place to get a haircut—I had to go down to Gisborne to get my hair cut. I also note that the bill was initially introduced by Janet Mackey and I take the opportunity, if she is listening, to ask whether she has managed to hold on to her sunglasses in the absence of the careful attention of her former New Zealand First colleagues. Janet will know the story behind that one!

New Zealand First’s position is that this bill simply represents a common-sense solution to one of those legal conundrums we get ourselves into from time to time, not because of any malice or ill attention—indeed, in the absence of such—but simply because of the way the statute is expressed, or because of conflicts between different statutes. We find ourselves having to put up statute amendment bills, for example, for the very same reason. This bill seems to me to be a common-sense solution to one of those conundrums.

It is to be noted that the committee, on which I have to note there was no New Zealand First representation, has made some changes to the legislation, as Anne Tolley pointed out. The committee believes that those changes are needed to prevent any confusion regarding the bill’s effects and purposes. The promoter of the bill, the Gisborne District Council, does not consider the changes necessary, but having not been there to listen to the arguments from the law drafters, New Zealand First has confidence in the very good members of this committee and its officials. I personally have confidence in the deputy chairman—his having been a county clerk for, I believe, 18 years in Hokianga, means that he has some understanding of local government.

So New Zealand First will be voting for this bill. We note there were only two submissions, and one oral presentation that lasted 10 minutes. Consideration took only 43 minutes so we do not believe we should be spending huge amounts of valuable House time on this bill, and we wish to express our disappointment that it could not go through all its stages here today. Certainly, the fact that it was not able to do so was not due to any opposition from New Zealand First. New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) : I will take just a very brief call on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. I acknowledge Anne Tolley for her caretaking of the bill as the local member and, of course, I acknowledge the previous member, Janet Mackey, for her efforts in bringing the bill before the House.

This is one of those bills whereby local communities want to make a local decision, and this local community has done so. Wide support was presented to us from the Gisborne community, as has been outlined by Anne Tolley and my colleague Moana Mackey. On those grounds, the committee took the view of being permissive rather than restrictive in what it wanted to achieve for the Gisborne District Council, and I believe that the bill as it stands at its second reading certainly achieves that.

I have to endorse the disappointment being expressed about the delay in putting this bill through all its stages on this particular members’ day. That is most unfortunate, because it is the kind of thing that makes delays costly in some respects to local people, in more ways than one, and more time-wasting than necessary for something where a local decision has been made. There was a requirement for Parliament also to have a say, which can be irksome in itself but which can also expedite things very quickly. I believe this bill has indicated to the local people that we would really like them to proceed in the way they wish to, regarding Alfred Cox Park and its uses, and some of the amenities the community has become quite attached to.

In conclusion, I wish that this legislation may be speeded further, on the next members’ day, so that it can be expedited very quickly. I support the bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : Briefly, on behalf of the Green Party, I offer our support also for the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. As always, where local people want something to happen, we are right behind it. We take a particular interest in this bill in relation to the fact that the park is where Gisborne people have their flea market every weekend. We know that the place is a great source of cheap produce and other goods for anybody, but particularly for low-income people. Knowing the socio-economic demographic of much of the Gisborne district, I think it is really important that we are supporting those people’s rights to be able to buy goods locally and more cheaply than they might be able to access elsewhere. It would be somewhat ridiculous if we denied local people the ability to do that.

We are pleased to support this bill. Like others in this House, such as the bill’s sponsor, Anne Tolley, I also wish that we were seeing this bill through its third reading today. It is ridiculous that we are not, because it is a very simple matter. But I am sure it will go through very quickly on the next members’ day.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to add our support to the second reading of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill and to commend both the local MPs who have worked to see it pass.

The legislation is not controversial. It reflects what local people want and also, I suspect, what Alfred Cox himself would have wanted. I know very little about Alfred Cox, but he obviously had a great community spirit and wanted to see land set aside for people to enjoy. I think that even though flea markets include commercial transactions, there is a lot more to them than the chance to buy some veggies. Going to a flea market is a social occasion, and I think it still very much reflects the intention of the donor, Mr Cox. I also think the use of the park for the visitor information centre again provides an opportunity to promote recreation in the area. Again, I believe that is very much in keeping with Mr Cox’s intentions.

I do share the disappointment that the bill cannot proceed through all its remaining stages. There seems to be no reason for it not to, so the United Future members share that disappointment. We look forward to another members’ day, and we continue to support this bill.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Quite clearly, the Māori Party seems to be the problem in terms of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill.

Anyone in the know will tell members what is happening at Alfred Cox Park. At the top of the list is the international half-pipe vertical ramp, which will leave any young skateboarder breathless. If one goes down there any day, one is likely to run into young Luka Peta, who is entered in the Guinness Book of Records as the world’s youngest skateboarder, and who can reputedly drop in—skate down—off anything in the park. Early Saturday morning the place is abuzz. The flea market is swarming with all types of produce and people. The vibrant diversity is evident in gourmet delicacies, cosmopolitan cultures, and the very best of organic vegetables. Inside the park is a majestic Canadian totem pole, which was gifted to the people of New Zealand in 1969 by the Canadian Government on the occasion of the bicentenary of the landing of Captain James Cook at the Kaiti Beach in 1769. If it is autumn in the park, it is—as described in promotional material—likely to be resplendent with bountiful olive trees. It is a great place to sit and remember how it was that Alfred Cox—a member of the mysteriously named 30,000 Club—came to donate this land to the Gisborne Borough Council in 1944. The 30,000 Club is apparently the same club that commissioned and gifted the iconic bronze statue Pānia of the Reef—my ancestor—which hit the news for all the wrong reasons late last year.

I enjoyed reading the Hansard transcripts of this bill’s first reading. The Hon Maurice Williamson summed it all up with the innocent question: “What would Alfred Cox actually think about this park and the fact that we now are validating the illegal activities that go on there?”. That is a question I want to explore further, for the illegal activities that are being validated here today extend far beyond the constraints of the Reserves Act 1977 and the deed of trust under which the park was originally gifted.

How could it be that this Parliament would let this bill go as far as this without consultation with, and involvement by, the mana whenua, Rongowhakaata? How could it be that, when Labour MP Janet Mackey spoke at the first reading of this bill, she fudged its significance and dared to label it as non-controversial? Is it non-controversial to take tupuna land from the people under the Public Works Act? Is it non-controversial to presume that Rongowhakaata land was idle land and there would be no great shame in using it as a dumping-ground for the town’s rubbish? Is it non-controversial if council records show that the dumping of rubbish began one morning at 8.30, 90 minutes before the matter was taken to a council meeting to receive the token rubber stamp? Auē te mamae, te pōuri. Kei te heke tonu ngā roimata.

[Alas, the pain and stress. Tears continue to be shed.]

There are many other histories, other stories, other tears yet to be shed about what is happening at Alfred Cox Park. There are memories to be shared of the uses of the Waikanae Stream prior to the creation of the Alfred Cox Park, evidence about the fish life, the bird life, the impact of tidal changes. In the debate at the first reading, Labour member Georgina Beyer congratulated Janet Mackey, saying: “This is the kind of thing whereby politicians should listen to what local people desire, aspire, and wish to have in their communities,”. Those were beautiful words; it is a pity they were not taken seriously. Where are the views of Rongowhakaata, and the submissions from the Rongowhakaata Trust? It is Manfeild Park revisited, which I also spoke about here. I really have to ask why no other party in this House has been seeking the truth about how mana whenua fare in this new bill. Why has it failed to register with the Māori caucus of Labour?

Who has the Minister of Māori Affairs consulted in his own electorate in order to hear the views of the electorate? It may well be that Rongowhakaata can accept the designation of their tupuna land being in the name of Mr Alfred Cox. Indeed, some kōrero that we have heard relays the mamae, the pain, of whānau who do want the pride of their memory to be scarred by association with dumped rubbish, while other members of the whānau want their tribal histories acclaimed, to assert place names of significance within their whakapapa. It is the birthright of Rongowhakaata to hold these debates, to discuss the merits of redesignating place names that hold meaning. As the original landowners, Rongowhakaata have a history and an understanding of this area that predates 1944—prior to the 30,000 Club, and before a minigolf course or a visitor information centre was erected on the site. No doubt it is a history which the borough of Gisborne is not fully familiar with. It is probably also a history which does not feature in the promotional paraphernalia of Tourism Eastland.

The Māori Party would love to be able to know more about this history, and to have our hearts and minds stretched by tales shared with the nation by mana whenua. It is not the concept of visitor information or flea markets that have caused us such consternation. As my colleague Hone Harawira said, flea markets are a fabulous site to hold constituency clinics. Indeed, one of my favourite weekend visits is to drop into the Manurewa flea market. We in the Māori Party want to be with the people and walk with the people, in order to ever represent the people in this place and time. If the local politicians had listened to what the local mana whenua desired, aspired, and wished to have in their communities, then the bills put forward by Janet Mackey and Anne Tolley would have looked vastly different. Until last night, the Rongowhakaata Trust—according to our sources—had not received a written briefing, a paper, a report describing this validation bill. It beggars belief. If I was to trawl further through the Hansard records, no doubt I would be able to locate the Native Land (Validation of Titles) Act of 1893, which Moana Jackson has described as validating the acquisition of all unlawfully acquired Māori land. One hundred and thirteen years later, this bill is another attempt to valid the acquisition of land acquired from Rongowhakaata for purposes other than that which the bill describes.

It is interesting that this week seems to be the week when we are being asked to validate illegal Acts, whether it be the breaching of the Broadcasting Act or the validation of the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. The bill is controversial, it is offensive, and it is culturally arrogant. While the totem pole of Canada stands proudly as a feature of Alfred Cox Park, we in the Māori Party are looking for the carved pou of Rongowhakaata, the taonga that distinguishes the mana whenua, the unique treasures that are landmarks of their rohe.

The Māori Party will not support this bill. We ask the House to return to the question originally posed by Mr Williamson, but to consider anew what Rongowhakaata would actually think about this bill and the fact that we now are validating the illegal activities that go on in Alfred Cox Park. We will never know until we ask, and having asked, can we live with the response? The Māori Party would love to support this bill in its third reading, satisfactory discussions having been held, and having been seen to be held, with Rongowhakaata.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just bring it to the Māori Party’s attention that its local candidate in the last election is actually a member of the Gisborne District Council, which is the promoter of this bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for that.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : I move, That the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee.

We live in a deluge of waste. About a tonne of waste per person goes to landfill every year in this country, and that is about as bad as it gets anywhere in the world. As a nation we are just stupid when it comes to waste. It is not just about the environmental impact, the toxic leachate that dribbles out of landfills, or the methane gas that escapes or flares into conflagration; it is about the waste of waste—the squandering of resources that landfills represent, and the resources wasted during production. It is estimated that about 90 percent of waste is generated pre-consumer, in resources wasted by our single-use mentality, and in the human resources wasted by ignoring the rich job opportunities in reuse and recycling.

It is a bit of an evolutionary intelligence test. Have we clicked on yet to the fundamental reality of life on earth—that we live on a finite planet with limited resources, and that our very existence depends on how we husband those resources? The very existence of waste indicates a failure of our understanding, because there is no waste in nature, only by-products that feed another part of the system. Humans must learn from the wisdom of life itself if we want to develop ways of living that are truly sustainable.

This bill is an attempt to move us in that direction. I do not claim any great wisdom for myself. I inherited the bill from Mike Ward, and I thank him for the valuable work he did. I also thank Lu White and Chris Teo-sherrell, who probably deserve more credit than any of the politicians do. But I most of all want to thank the pioneers of resource recovery in this country, the people who have invested their energy, their money, and their years to prove the economic, social, and environmental benefits of waste minimisation, the people at the Community Business and Environment Centre of Kaitaia; Waiheke Waste Resource Trust; Xtreme Waste, Whāingaroa; the Environmental Education and Resource Sustainability Trust in the Bay of Plenty; Environua Community Trust, Levin; Mana Community Enterprises; Innovative Waste Kaikōura; Hurunui Recyclers; TerraNova, Christchurch; WasteBusters Trust, Canterbury; Waitaki Resource Recovery; Whitehorse Recycling Trust; Ahuriri Resource Trust; Central Otago WasteBusters; Wānaka WasteBusters; the whole community recycling network; the Zero Waste Trust; Envision; the Recycling Operators of New Zealand; and all the others who have given so much.

Because of them, real progress has been made, but they continue to work in a difficult economic environment because landfills are unfairly subsidised by ratepayers. But now we are beginning to run out of space for landfills. Barry Carbon, when he was chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment, said that fewer than 10 potential sites for new landfills had been identified, and that positive action to reduce waste reduction had been needed 10 years ago—10 years ago! Well, we cannot reverse time, but we can take responsibility now.

This bill is a legislative vehicle to address the problem. Members may not agree with all its provisions; I understand that, but if they agree that waste minimisation is desirable, if they agree that economic instruments have a place, and if they agree that businesses need support to identify where waste reductions might be made, then they should vote for this bill.

The bill would establish a national agency to set and monitor targets for waste reduction, approve and monitor extended producer-responsibility programmes, and administer the waste minimisation fund. It would coordinate public education, and provide advice to the Minister. The bill would give territorial authorities more power in respect of waste minimisation. Operating singly or jointly as waste control authorities, territorial authorities would be empowered to enforce the provisions of the bill through by-law making and licensing provisions.

The bill would allow bans to be placed on the landfilling of materials that can be recovered. Let me be clear that any ban could be applied only where adequate recovery capacity already existed. The bill would create a landfill levy on every tonne of waste. That would disincentivise waste generation and provide funding for waste minimisation initiatives. The money would be split between local waste control authorities and the national waste minimisation authority.

The bill would require brand owners to take responsibility for the waste generated throughout the lifecycle of their products. How they did so would be up to them, subject to the approval of the waste minimisation authority, but the idea would be to encourage waste reduction in the design of production and distribution systems. Bearing in mind the waste hierarchy, I say that reusing and recycling is great, but reducing waste has to be the priority.

All organisations under the bill would be required to adopt and implement waste minimisation plans. Those would be phased in over time, to allow plenty of time to develop those plans, and organisations would be assisted with finance and advice by the waste minimisation authority.

Lastly, public organisations would have to consider waste minimisation in their purchasing, and they would have to report on their waste generation each year. Essentially, the bill would provide an economic engine to drive waste minimisation, through the levy. It would provide a body to provide national coordination and leadership, and it would give a mechanism to reduce the production of waste in the first place through the extended producer-responsibility provisions.

Members probably know that local councils, the resource recovery sector, and local community groups have been calling for a number of those things over a number of years. Local councils have statutory responsibility to manage waste, but they have very little power. The recent High Court decision in Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v is a case in point, because the court said that councils do not have the right to levy private waste operators except for the recovery of costs. That means that local councils are prevented from using a levy to disincentivise waste generation or to fund waste minimisation initiatives. Interestingly, the plaintiffs in that case supported the idea of a levy, as long as it was applied consistently on a national basis, and as long as its use was hypothecated for waste minimisation. They clearly said they did not want the money simply going into council coffers to be spent on who knows what. They wanted transparency, and they wanted the money to be tagged for a specific purpose. Well, the bill does that very thing. I understand it will need some amending to align it with any sector agreements that are reached, and I know that Local Government New Zealand and waste industry people are working, negotiating, and talking in order to discuss how such a levy would best work.

I recognise that the bill might be too prescriptive in places, and I am comfortable with the idea of negotiating amendments. I am comfortable with the idea that the bill will go to a select committee and that we will hear from the public, local government, waste sector people, resource recovery people, and the community sector, and as a result of that we will amend the bill. That is what the select committee process is all about. But, in principle, let us recognise that this is a sound approach to reducing our waste deluge. I look forward to engaging actively and widely with other political parties across this House, with the public, and with different sectorial groups, and I look forward to cooperating with all of those players to make this bill as effective, practicable, and achievable as possible.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : The Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill is a garbage bill. It is PC rubbish that deserves to be thrown straight in the trash can. It is about wasting money, wasting paper, wasting energy, and—most important—wasting time.

Let me identify some of the stupid provisions in this bill. Clause 59 requires that every single business and other organisation in New Zealand has a waste management plan. That amounts to 200,000 plans that will have to be produced around New Zealand. Let us take a typical small business. People who have one-employee businesses will be required, under Nandor’s bill, to prepare a waste management plan that determines the methods by which their waste hierarchy will operate within their business. It will require them to identify and separate all their rubbish at source and to determine the fraction that is reusable, recoverable, or recyclable.

That measure is a farce and a joke, and I cannot believe the Labour Government would be so stupid as to back such garbage. Only last week I heard Lianne Dalziel rabbiting on about reducing compliance costs for business. How could requiring 200,000 small businesses not only to write a waste management plan but also to have it approved by their local council do anything other than add to the red tape and bureaucracy we have in New Zealand?

But it gets worse. Let us look at clause 59. It requires that every single product sold in a store must have—and I will read from the clause—an information sheet that is “41 cm by 29 cm” with “a minimum print font size of 24 points” explaining how the product can be recycled, reused, or disposed of. I asked staff at my local supermarket how many products it has. It has 16,000 products. The length of the poster wall at my local supermarket would need to be 6.6 kilometres long to be able to meet the requirements of this bill. It is truly extraordinary and truly wasteful. A 6.6-kilometre poster would be required for that business to be able to meet the requirements of this bill.

Lindsay Tisch: I seek leave and ask for the indulgence of the House for the member who is speaking to have a slight break so he can get his voice back, and to then resume his speech without time being deducted.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The member may rest for a short while.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I thank the members of the House for their indulgence.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I am happy to help the tonsils of the member opposite. I do not find this a laughing matter, as I am sure Nick Smith does not. If Dr Smith had come to the Environment Bay of Plenty Sustainable Business Awards last week, he would have realised that businesses themselves are paying great attention to waste minimisation. In 2002 this Government set up the New Zealand waste strategy, and it is moving really fast on the targets for improving waste recovery and management. The strategy presented a vision for minimising waste and managing it better—that is what we are all hopeful of, as is the member promoting the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill, Nandor Tanczos. The strategy also has a practical programme of both large and small actions, for the medium and long term, for the commitment of all to reaching those targets. The targets also cover five main packaging materials—paper, plastic, aluminium, steel, and glass—by weight of consumption. The strategy has been a bit slow to get off the ground, but it certainly now has the traction the Government intended in order to get local governments to desire more effective and efficient waste management and minimisation. We now have wider public concern about our growing waste stream, and that was part of the movement behind the strategy.

A lot of progress has been made. One example is the new packaging accord to reduce packaging content, and another accord is to improve recycling. There is a very good partnership between the Government and the packaging industry. Action plans have been prepared for those five main packaging materials. Other examples include the development of web-based local waste exchanges to facilitate the exchange or trading of wastes amongst businesses, the establishment of a scheme for tracking used tyres, and the development of a New Zealand standard for the production of organic compost to support the diversion of organic material from landfills. We all take the challenge ahead very seriously. The Government is working in partnership with the industry to develop schemes to look at things like unwanted agricultural containers, silage wrap, and electronic waste. Good progress is being made.

The purpose of this bill, as Labour sees it, and the principles behind it are broadly compatible with Labour’s waste policy, as articulated in the waste strategy, though this bill is concerned only with solid waste, which we find quite interesting. The provisions of the bill cover a number of existing policy elements, such as waste management plans—and I think that is a good thing—and they provide the statutory basis for some new elements that are currently already under consideration by the Government, like waste levies and product stewardship. The bill establishes a centralised agency—and I know that that was wanted when the strategy was first set up—dedicated to minimising the use of material resources and avoiding waste production. This agency would have a coordinating, educational, and facilitation role, as well as being tasked with providing advice to the Minister. The agency would be responsible for setting and monitoring targets. Even though lots of local authorities say they are meeting the targets, we could go a bit faster, as we could in respect of the reduction of waste disposed of in landfills.

The landfill levy is an interesting component of the bill, and I know that it is a little bit contentious. I look forward to the debate at the select committee about how we get an equitable levy. Some councils say they are meeting their targets—are bang on, are ahead—and will not cross-subsidise another authority that is way behind the eight ball. The working group that is advising the ministry on the development of the waste strategy floated the same idea of a levy. In New Zealand this is a really important role for district councils and city councils to have, and it gives territorial authorities more power, which is an interesting aspect that we need to look at. I point out that 82 percent of local authorities already have waste minimisation plans, so great leverage is happening out there in the industry.

One of the things the select committee is certainly interested in looking at is the responses it will get to the bill. The bill is broadly compatible with the plans the Government has in place now, and an enormous amount of work has been undertaken by this Government, local government—who are really buying into it—industry, and lots of voluntary groups in the community. All of those sectors will have views on the bill, and I am sure they will wish those views to be considered. I really look forward to chairing this bill through the Local Government and Environment Committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I thank the House for its indulgence for giving leave for me to resume my speech, given the difficulty I am having with the flu. The point I was making in my speech in response to the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill is that it will do exactly the opposite of what it seeks to achieve in minimising waste. The bill would, frankly, be far better termed the “Waste Maximisation Bill”, and I will refer to some of its specific provisions to explain why I hold that view.

The most cumbersome of the provisions in the bill is the requirement that every business—every organisation in New Zealand—have a waste management plan that must be approved by its local authority. That will amount to over 200,000 waste plans. Even if we were to assume that it would take only a couple of hours to write such a plan—and the bill is very prescriptive about what must be in it—we would be looking at tens of millions of dollars of wasted money and wasted time, in terms of that bureaucracy. There is enough concern in the community right now about the processing of 50,000 resource consents a year through councils under the Resource Management Act, let alone about the processing of the 200,000 waste management plans that would be required. This bill states that if a business does not have a waste plan, then it will be fined $10,000 and banned from operating. I ask the House to reflect on the fact that we are a nation of small businesses, and also on the sort of compliance cost requirement that that will impose.

I also point out the nonsense requirements that are provided for in clause 59 of the bill with regard to consumer information. It requires that at every place of sale an A3-sized poster—41 centimetres by 29 centimetres—be provided on every product sold at that store. The practical effect of that provision for a supermarket with a typical range of goods is a poster sign 6.6 kilometres long. Why would anybody in this House want to vote for a bill that contains such ridiculous provisions? It is a nonsense; it is a waste.

I listened with interest to the weak, politically correct nonsense from the Labour member Steve Chadwick, who said Labour would support the bill. That position contrasts so sharply with Labour’s weasel words about reducing compliance costs for business. This bill will do more to add to the compliance costs of businesses in New Zealand than any other issue before Parliament at this time.

The Labour member also made reference to the Government’s waste plan. The plan is a joke, it has not succeeded, and many of its recommendations have gone nowhere. For the Government to somehow believe that having a strategy will solve a problem says so much about what is wrong with this Government and its left-wing views on how we approach issues of this sort.

I could agree with one area only of Nandor Tanczos’ contribution, and that was in respect of the stupid way in which councils subsidise waste; that is, they use money from rates to subsidise their landfills, thereby providing an incentive for us to produce more waste. I would absolutely support this bill if it had a legal requirement that all waste services be fully costed so that the right economic signals go through the system.

I am also concerned about the bill’s provisions in respect of the waste levy. The bill states that that levy will increase by 50 percent, compounded each year, if the waste minimisation targets are not met. That levy will snowball into huge costs for families and businesses, and I really do wonder where the benefits are.

Every time I go around New Zealand I hear people saying they have had enough of ridiculous red tape, they have had enough of stupid political correctness, and they have had enough of increased bureaucratic requirements. The bill has stupid provisions like a 6.5-kilometre poster board at the local supermarket, and a waste plan that may consist of someone stating: “I have a round tin in the corner of my office. I throw the paper in it. I take it to the tip.” That could amount to the plan that every single small business in New Zealand may have to write, get approved by the council, and ensure is consistent with some bureaucratic, central government waste minimisation strategy.

This bill is garbage, and this House should reject it. There are far more sensible things we can do to ensure that we properly manage waste in this country. The bill will achieve exactly the opposite of what it sets out to achieve. It will waste money, it will waste paper, it will waste energy, and it will waste time. We should not waste further time on it.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : The member who has just resumed his seat, Dr Nick Smith, has made a very valuable contribution. He has certainly highlighted some concerns that New Zealand First shares. Having said that, we are prepared, conditionally—and I emphasise that—to send the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill to the select committee. We are not prepared even to suggest that we will support the bill going any further than the select committee stage, because the member opposite has identified some concerns that we share.

The penalties for the offences, in a range of areas, are horrendous. Clause 32(1) states: “Every Waste Control Authority that contravenes section 21(b)”—whatever that states—“is liable … to a fine of $10,000 and a further fine of $10,000 for each month that the offence continues.” Clause 32(2) states: “Every Waste Control Authority that contravenes section 27(3)(b) or (c)”—whatever that is—is fined $10,000, plus $10,000 for each day that the offence continues. I do not know where these waste control authorities will get that money if not by levying the consumer or increasing the levy on a regular basis. We think a large portion of the bill indicates that bureaucracy is about to go mad. I do not want to be unkind to the member, but we believe that this bill represents, to some reasonable degree, bureaucracy going off the rails.

Having said that, we recognise there is a problem in this country in dealing with waste and in the creation of waste. Only very recently I personally found out that there is a 15,000-tonne stockpile of glass bottles in this country, which is likely to grow to 17,000 tonnes by the end of this year. That is a problem, and for a member just to say that this bill is stupid or ridiculous and to hope to dismiss the problem—as the honourable member did earlier—is not being responsible. One of my colleagues says it is downright irresponsible.

However, New Zealand First members believe that in the first instance this bill should go to a select committee. We believe that the issue is important enough to discuss, so we will support the bill going to a select committee. We want to get to the depth of the problem facing New Zealand when it comes to waste, and we think this is an opportunity to achieve that. We believe that the levy, which is being set at $25 per tonne, is far too high. That equates to 2.5c per kilo, if my mathematics is correct, and that is far too high. I have to say that it seems to New Zealand First to be in large measure just a levy geared around supporting a bureaucracy that is, as I said earlier, somewhat out of control.

Having said that, I believe that this is the first bill to come before the House that has actually touched on the issue of controlling waste.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Makes more waste.

PETER BROWN: The member said that it makes more waste. This is the first opportunity New Zealanders will have to come before Parliament, by way of making submissions to the select committee, to outline their concerns on how the problem should be addressed. New Zealand First’s position is that to simply dismiss this bill and throw it in the wastepaper basket right from the onset—which is what the Hon Nick Smith has indicated he thinks should happen with it—would be the wrong approach. We should be prepared to say that there is an issue out there when it comes to the handling and disposal of waste. This bill is a vehicle for identifying the depth of the problem and is a methodology of how to handle it.

However—and I want to emphasise this—New Zealand First thinks this bill is over the top. It is very complex legislation; it is far more complex than the average member’s bill that comes before the House. We believe that the select committee will have quite a task in slimming it down and making it workable and practical, but that is the task that New Zealand First believes that Parliament has to come to grips with. We have to acknowledge that there are concerns about waste in New Zealand, and this bill is a vehicle to address the issue in the first instance.

New Zealand First members debated this bill at some length. We came to the conclusion that it is worth supporting the bill going to a select committee, but we have strong reservations in a number of areas, which I have endeavoured to illustrate in my contribution this evening. New Zealand First will support this bill going to a select committee, but we cannot guarantee to support it any farther than that.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. From the Māori Party perspective, our responsibilities to care for our ūkaipō, our tūrangawaewae, takiwā, and rohe are central in expressing the authority that whānau, hapū, and iwi have over our ancestral land, our resources, and well-being. Within this we exercise the responsibility we have towards the environment, certainly on behalf of those who will benefit from the legacy of this care, but we do so also out of respect to Papatūanuku—Mother Earth. This sort of thinking has been passed down from generation to generation. We inherit the land from those ancestral links. In our world view, waste disposal can reduce or destroy the life-supporting capacity of soils. It damages the mauri and tramples over the life essence of the land, and we must do what we can to protect the environment and improve our capacity to live sustainably.

To this end the Māori Party supports this bill and commends Nandor and others whom he mentioned earlier for their initiative in bringing forward strategies to ensure a dramatic reduction in waste disposal by homes, businesses, and public organisations. We are pleased to endorse the approach of making producers responsible and of encouraging the design of environment-friendly products, and we endorse the ultimate aim of a minimal waste society. Tangata whenua have always been concerned about the release of pollutants, such as sewage discharges, construction and demolition wastes, and hazardous wastes, into the environment. We have an intense interest in the issue of discharges on to land and in the effects those discharges have on the mauri of water, wāhi tapu, and taonga, such as food and weaving resources.

Indeed, so strong is our disgust of the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills, clean fills, and incinerators that our people often talk about it by asking: “Are you happy to treat your mother in that way?”. We teach our babies not to trample on Papatūanuku—Mother Earth—and to pick up their litter. That is a responsibility we can all take on to ensure the well-being and future health of the environment.

It makes one wonder why it has taken so long for such a sound and sensible idea to make it to this Chamber. It is all very well to have the New Zealand waste strategy, but it is a waste of words if it lacks teeth. More weasel words are found in the packaging accord, where people can choose whether they want to reuse, repair, or recycle materials—or to just keep on going to the landfill. Well, we need to get real. This bill will help to put incentives in all the right places, so that producers and users—not just the wider community—get real and pay the costs of the waste they produce. Having a landfill levy and other economic instruments such as a refundable container deposit are simple ideas that could help reduce our waste by as much as 85 percent—that would be a good idea for the GDP and even better for the genuine progress index.

The Māori Party is astounded that good ideas like these, and their economic benefits and health and well-being outcomes, have been simply considered so trivial to this Government. This House must recall with shame the 30 years of neglect associated with the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant at Paritutu in New Plymouth, which is one of the largest historical polluters in New Zealand. The Māori Party repeatedly asked the Government to take seriously the health problems that have resulted from dioxin contamination, including birth defects, behavioural problems, diabetes, and the strong association between the exposure to dioxin and cancer risk. Then, just a few months ago, the UN special rapporteur Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen referred to the situation in my electorate of Waiariki, urging: “The Crown must take an active interest in supervising the compliance of the paper company in cleaning up the waste site at Kawerau and the waste disposal build-up at Maketu.”

Again, those are not new issues. The Kaituna claim, which was first lodged back in 1978, was another one. The Motunui Waitara report of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1993 dealt with the discharge of effluent on to shellfish-gathering beds that were of significance to the Te Ātiawa people. In a lot of the reference to Gisborne earlier, we are aware of the ongoing anger of tangata whenua about the offensive discharge of sewage, domestic and industrial waste water, and solids from an outfall pipe flowing into the Poverty Bay area, which is a problem that dates back to 1964.

Mana whenua have consistently presented their objections about environmental abuse, the contamination, and the waste disposal build-up. The ideas are not new, but it took an expert from overseas to point it out—then he was treated with a barrage of abuse for telling us how it is. We in the Māori Party are extremely pleased to support the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill in order to reduce the production of wastes at source, to minimise wastes in production, packaging, and transport, and to encourage all New Zealanders to take responsibility for Aotearoa now—before it is too late.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : When I discovered that Nandor Tanczos’ Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill had been drawn from the ballot I was pleased, because I think everyone in this House would like to see waste in this country minimised. Like other nations, we have made great efforts as a nation in recent years to get rid of waste, to clean up our act, and to clean up our rivers, lakes, and streams. Indeed, in this Parliament, as part of our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-led Government, we are addressing issues specifically around water quality and agrarian runoffs. So United Future as a party is strongly committed to the minimisation of waste.

In his usual helpful way, Nandor was good enough to send me a memo that set out the provisions of this bill. He made seven points, so I read through them one by one. The first one proposed the establishment of an energy efficiency and conservation authority dedicated to facilitating the move to a less wasteful society. I wrote alongside that “No”. New Zealand needs that like it needs a hole in the head. We already have too much bureaucracy in this country, and United Future is not interested in creating another bureaucracy to tell people how to run their lives. The other note I made was that that was like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The second point proposed that each of the territorial authorities would establish by law a waste control authority. Again I wrote “No”, with much the same thinking—that that was really not a good process. The third point proposed a ban on materials going into landfills. I wrote “No” alongside that. We do not get rid of waste by banning it from landfills. If waste exists it needs to be dealt with in an appropriate way. Banning it will not actually solve anything.

The fourth point proposed a landfill levy. I wrote alongside that point a sort of conditional “Yes”. I have no problem at all—and this is exactly the same point that Nick Smith made—in saying to local authorities that they should cost their landfill activities separately and accurately, and recover that cost from their ratepayers on a levy basis so that there is an economic signal that says to people that they are taking up public resources in terms of waste. I am all for that, but this bill does not do just that; it goes a bit further. In any event, it is really the Government’s responsibility to look at the landfill levy proposal. I have said to a couple of people who have raised this issue with me to please make submissions to the Minister of Local Government about that.

The next point proposed extending producer responsibility. Again, at best I give that a question mark. I am not sure whether I like that idea, either. The next point proposed organisational waste minimisation plans—every organisation was to adopt and implement a waste minimisation plan. Yeah, right! Is a family an organisation? Are two people who are flatting together an organisation? Will every business, every charity, and every household in the country have to, by law, put together a waste minimisation plan? Alongside that one I put “Get real.”

The next point proposed public procurement policies. It stated that we should have green procurement policies. I thought that this now was really about politics; it was about the Green brand. Why have green when this bill is in fact bright red? I would describe process in this bill as the Sovietisation of waste management. Really, it is right in that category. This bill is bureaucratic and top-heavy, and it proceeds—as, unfortunately, some of these bills do—on the assumption that somebody knows better than the average New Zealander how to control waste.

I am all for public education around controlling waste. Wellington is a city of recyclers. Everybody does that very, very well, and it has made a huge difference. I mention, incidentally, that I was recently at Auckland University in a debate with Nandor, and people raised the issue that the Auckland City Council will not give the university recycling bins. Why? The council says that the university does not pay any rates. That is madness, and I take this opportunity to say that the Auckland City Council should get real. If we want people to recycle, of course we need to provide them with the relevant bins, and so on and so forth.

I would also like to venture this suggestion to the House. To my knowledge, commercial organisations are putting forward projects and so forth to utilise waste. Waste has a commercial value, and I for one have much more confidence in addressing waste in that manner—recycling it and using it for electricity generation and those kinds of things—than I have in this immense bureaucratic, Soviet-style legislation that United Future will oppose.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : I congratulate my colleague Nandor and all the other Green members who have worked on the waste bill over the years. It has been passed from hand to hand. One of the things Rod Donald was looking forward to was picking it up after the election, when Mike Ward lost his seat. Nandor has done it and we have finally had the bill introduced. I thank colleagues in the House who are supporting this bill going to a select committee. Although they recognise that some things in the bill are debatable and some things will need to be changed, they are prepared to have that debate and work constructively on it at the select committee rather than just trash it for political reasons. I thank the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Māori Party for their support for us having that debate in a democratic way, which is what Parliament is about.

This is actually a very overdue bill. It reminds me of when, 30 years ago, I set up the first local authority recycling scheme to actually make a profit for a council. That was in Devonport in 1976. I thought naively at the time that once it had been demonstrated that a local authority recycling scheme could make a profit for a council and a community, one would not have to do anything more—that everyone else would pick it up and run with it. Well, nobody ever really did to the same extent, but a lot of non-governmental organisations, private groups, and charities around the country, such as Xtreme Waste and the others that Nandor mentioned, are now doing a superb job in a difficult regulatory and legislative environment.

In Devonport we managed to keep two-thirds of waste out of the landfill and re-route it into paper recycling, steel recycling, aluminium recycling, tin can recycling, and, with the organic waste, compost making. It was highly supported by the public, partly because it kept the local tip open for years when it otherwise would have been closed and people would have had to drive their waste to Rosedale Road, which was a lot further.

We learnt a lot of things from that project. We learnt that design is the key to minimising waste. Once somebody has made a product that has five different incompatible materials in it, there is nothing we can do to reuse or recycle it. Therefore, we need extended producer responsibility to make sure that products are designed to be reused and recycled. We learnt that the community—contrary to what everybody told us—was very keen to cooperate with a scheme like this, but there needs to be a system to cooperate with. People cannot recycle their waste if nobody is providing a recycling system. We learnt that there are jobs, profitability, and money in recycling industries but that they need certain economies of scale in order to work. Therefore, there need to be incentives for people to use them. We have learnt over the years, I believe, that volunteerism on its own is not enough, and that there need to be incentives and some level of compulsion.

I am surprised that National, which in the past has advocated a waste authority and which advocates market mechanisms, is opposed to the market mechanism of a waste levy, just as it is opposed to the market mechanism of a carbon charge. Apparently it wants the careful to have to subsidise the waste of the careless. It reminds me of the debate that occurred when I introduced the Energy Efficiency Bill. National said it was Stalinist to set minimum energy performance standards for products. Well, we have had huge changes in energy efficiency in New Zealand as a result of those minimum energy performance standards. Consumers are much better off because they are getting quality goods, and the number of petajoules saved is very substantial compared with the cost.

The Business Council for Sustainable Development told me a while back that it strongly supports the levy powers and is keen to see the bill proceed, though it does not agree with every part of it. The select committee will undoubtedly get rid of some of the more draconian details, and we are open to working with colleagues on that. There is no doubt at all that this bill can take us forward environmentally and economically. I commend it to the House.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I am very pleased to see this bill come before Parliament, because it deals with an increasingly important issue—the management and reduction of waste. We need to be talking about this issue because there is no doubt that the increasing amount of waste is threatening the health of our people and the health of our environment. Being wasteful is costly, too. By its very nature, waste is the result of using resources inefficiently. Individually and as a nation we cannot afford to waste our resources.

National has no argument with the intention of this bill, which is to protect the environment by minimising the amount of material resources used and the amount of solid waste disposed of, but we do not support the methods proposed in the bill. In fact, we believe they are wasteful in themselves. We do not like the mandatory nature of the bill, its heavy-handed, over-the-top rules, and the complex and expensive bureaucratic framework it proposes to create. We believe there has to be a better and a simpler way.

This bill proposes two very thick layers of bureaucracy—a central government - controlled waste minimisation authority, and then local waste control authorities as part of each local territorial authority. This is really only a supercharged version of the structure that already exists. At the moment, the Ministry for the Environment manages the present waste strategy centrally, and territorial authorities are responsible for waste management locally. Why do we think that merely by changing their names we will have any better results?

People working on the ground in waste management currently—in recycling and in resource recovery—are already saying that the present administration is overcooked, that there are too many different people and too many different organisations, and that the processes are too laborious. They already feel that any possible effectiveness or efficiency has been micro-managed out of the system. They point to other places where simpler structures have been more effective. They talk of the Waste and Resources Action Project in the UK and of the very effective systems employed in British Columbia. They say that complexity and bureaucracy is already stifling progress in waste minimisation in New Zealand, and they are convinced that if we can just set the right incentives in place and stand back, the market will take care of it.

At present when we are dealing with waste we reward the wrong behaviours. Dumping is subsidised, while recycling and resource recovery have to stand on their own two feet. If people were to feel the real costs of their waste disposal behaviour they would soon change. The true, total, and transparent costs of managing wastes would be a powerful deterrent for individuals and businesses—and to do that would be fair, straightforward, and simple. Complex rules, hundreds of bureaucrats, and layers of administration just cost money and create uncertainty.

This bill requires businesses and all organisations to produce waste minimisation plans, which have to be approved by local government. But plans, however laudable, are just bits of paper that mean nothing in themselves. Let us get people actively doing the right thing, rather than just shuffling papers. The key to getting real change in behaviour is to reward people for reducing their waste streams. If it costs us real money to dispose of waste, whether as an individual or a business, we will think twice before we accept bulky packaging or unnecessary products, and when we are ready to part with something, we will be much more likely to recycle, reuse, or find a way to recover value from the item.

In summary, the bill is good in concept but bad in process. The structure it creates is bureaucratic and expensive, dictatorial and heavy-handed, and there is no guarantee that it will work. I say to Nandor Tanczos that I am sorry but, as much as National supports the principle of protecting the environment by the wise use of resources and the minimisation of waste, we cannot support the wasteful methods he is suggesting.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) : I rise to support the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill going to a select committee. I think waste minimisation is an incredibly serious issue, and I am very grateful that it has come forward in a member’s bill to be discussed. I feel very sad about both of the speeches from the National Party, because it is not good enough to say there is an issue, then reject the opportunity to discuss it at a select committee. There are some issues inside the bill that I would love to tease out and go through, and I will talk about some of them there.

Waste minimisation is an area where we as a Government have been working. I just heard Nicky Wagner say that it was quite important to use a good example from British Columbia. That is something that should be discussed at a select committee. We can have a look and analyse whether there are simpler ways of doing it. I think this is a serious issue, and we have the opportunity to do that. That is why Labour members are supporting the bill going to a select committee.

Waste is an issue on which the Government has been doing some work. Yes, I accept that the strategy was voluntary. For me, that is the style in which I used to work—that is, we start, we gather momentum, and we move onwards. I think the momentum is gathering, and work was being done. It will be found, if the Ministry for the Environment becomes involved, that quite a lot of work is being done on product stewardship. We have been teasing out the ideas contained in this particular bill. Progress has been made. There are some simple things about agricultural and farm waste—be they some of the poisons in farm sheds, or be they things like plastic silage wrap, which is being collected. Work has been done on electronic waste, and it is growing. The people from Vodafone and HP New Zealand have done some tremendous work.

Work is being done on packaging. I want to tell members something about that, because people spend a lot of time saying packaging is just stupid and nothing has happened. Let me give an example of something that came out of design. The packaging accord people always have a prize-giving at the end of the year. About 2 or 3 years ago a young man, who worked for Cadbury’s, designed something to reduce by a third the amount of packaging around chocolate Easter eggs. Three trucks could be filled instead of four, or two trucks instead of three—with less petrol being used—to get the goods from Dunedin to the markets in Auckland. It was really excellent work. That is clever design. That is the idea around waste minimisation. The packaging accord was going out of its way to promote that work.

These are all encouraging moves, but we need to move further. We need to offer a few more rewards and incentives. I heard Nandor Tanczos ask whether we accept that waste minimisation is a problem. Yes, we do. Do we accept that economic instruments have their place? Yes, we do. Do we accept that businesses need support? Yes, we do. He also asked whether we have been working on that. I recognise that some industries ride on the coat-tails of others. I got involved in the used oil negotiations—I will never forget it—and then the glass negotiations, and they were horrendous. We had business people running those negotiations, not bureaucrats, not politicians. We had people from industry—such as the man in charge of Griffin’s—running those things and trying to do some work to get through negotiations about how we manage glass. There was a history there of fairness in business procedures that was causing some of the blockages. But let me make the point that we have to have a furnace for glass in the South Island, and I draw people’s attention to that issue. If we are taking all our glass from Invercargill to Auckland, that is a waste of energy. So, again, we have to be clever in how we design the process.

I have a bit of a problem with having a national agency, and I need to work my way through that. I really want to listen. I know that it was put up by the working committee in 2001, but there was a feeling of central versus local, and it was also about industry collaboration somehow fitting in there. A lot of people wanted to do things, and they were almost didactic in their wanting to do that, versus bringing others along. I know that my philosophy was playing a part there.

I want to say also, in respect of waste minimisation plans, that people should go on the web and have a look at Govt3. I will give a simple example: Cabinet took its recommendations on board, and all our Cabinet papers are now printed on both sides. It drives Trevor Mallard mad because he cannot read them as easily while riding his bicycle, but it has cut paper usage by half. That is from the Govt3 waste minimisation plans.

We have a problem. National gives us no way through to solving that problem. It is not enough to say there is a problem and we will do nothing about it. We have a problem, and this bill is a chance to put that problem on the agenda and find some solutions.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : I want to begin by thanking members for all of their contributions during this debate. I want to echo the words of my co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons when she acknowledged particularly those parties that have indicated their support for this bill to go to select committee, because—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave for the member to finish his right of reply so that the bill can be wrapped up.

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

Gordon Copeland: I am sorry but I could not quite hear what the member said.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I am seeking leave for Nandor Tanczos to be able to finish his right of reply and for the vote to be held prior to the rising of the House for the dinner break.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is not.

NANDOR TANCZOS: Waste is an issue that needs to be taken seriously, and I appreciate the comments made by all the members who said that this bill should go to a select committee. The bill has things in it that perhaps need to be addressed, but let us get it to a select committee, discuss it, and give the public an opportunity to have their say on it. I think that that is an important consideration.

I thank Steve Chadwick for her comments. Her contribution was a very useful one. She said the Government is making progress and that the bill is a convenient legislative vehicle by which these matters can be taken to a select committee so a start can be made on working them through. She said the bill is broadly compatible with where the Government wants to go, and that a significant amount of work has been done. I appreciated those comments.

I also appreciated the comments made by Marian Hobbs, who I think hit the nail on the head when she said that these are the big issues that need to be discussed. So let us get them to the select committee where they can be discussed and worked through, because I do agree that there are issues that need to be teased out and worked through.

I want to thank Te Ururoa Flavell for the comments he made, and the Māori Party for its support. Again, Mr Flavell pointed out the importance of the issues for tangata whenua all over the country. I have had discussions with people from Ngāti Wai, who are having real trouble getting some recycling happening around Whangarei and are facing resistance from the council there. Hopefully, this bill will help work some of those issues through. He pointed out the inadequacy of the voluntary measures and the need to have some teeth—which, of course, is what this bill intends—and the contribution this will make towards the genuine progress indicators.

Peter Brown pointed out in his comments that he had some serious reservations about part of the bill, and I acknowledge that. But I thank New Zealand First for supporting the bill going to the select committee to allow us to work some of these things through.

I was disappointed to hear that United Future will not be supporting the bill. Although I did provide a summary of the bill, I am not sure Gordon Copeland fully understood all of its provisions. For example, he was concerned about the things that were banned to landfill. His opposition was that he wanted waste to be dealt with appropriately and did not think that bans were the way to do that. The point is—and I tried to emphasise this in my first speech—that this would happen only where there was capacity to deal with materials in another way. For example, it is totally inappropriate that organic waste should go to landfill. In most cases, that waste is the main source of toxic leachate and methane gas out of landfills. So if there is a capacity to deal with organic waste outside of landfill, let us make sure that that waste does not go to landfill. To me that seems pretty obvious.

I refer to the issues around extended producer responsibility. Jeanette Fitzsimons made the point about why it is so important that we actually provide a basis to design waste out of the system and that producers when they are designing their products actually take account of the effect of their products when it comes to recycling, disassembly, and the like. So it seems to me unfortunate that United Future took the position it did.

I want to refer to the UMR Insight Ltd poll published by the Business Council for Sustainable Development, which pointed out that 49 percent of voters with a current voting preference say they would be more likely to be attracted to a party that places an emphasis on preserving New Zealand’s quality of life. Peter Nielson has said that the message to smart policymakers is that voter support can be driven to parties that propose to do more about waste reduction. Fourteen percent of voters say that this would make them much more likely to switch their vote.

In that light it is interesting to consider the words of Nick Smith to the National Party lower North Island regional conference, where he talked about National’s need to communicate to New Zealanders a commitment to protecting the environment. He criticised the Government in a number of ways, including its position on waste, but then decided to oppose this bill without demonstrating any solutions on how we are to address this problem. It just demonstrates that for all Nick Smith’s fine environmental words, the reality is that National is determined to do absolutely nothing about it.

If National wants to be taken seriously on the issue of environment, then it has to put up some solutions and understand that MMP changes the way things work. One can support legislation going to a select committee, and move amendments both there and in the Committee of the whole House to change the way a bill works. I thank all members, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to see that this bill will be going to the select committee. Let us work it out there.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I move, That the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. In seeking support for this bill to be referred for consideration by a select committee—and I will move at the appropriate time that it be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee—can I emphasise that the bill is not about protecting developers and business magnates but about reducing frivolous and vexatious claims that have absolutely no place whatsoever in our judicial system, let alone in the Environment Court. The bill merely reinstates the provision that was removed in 2003 that allowed the Environment Court to make an order requiring a party to give security for costs. Such an order is available under other jurisdictions, and I suggest that the Environment Court should be no different.

The Resource Management Act Amendment Bill 2003, which removed this provision, was intended to “directly improve the efficiency of the Environment Court”. My question is, how does allowing frivolous and vexatious claims actually improve the efficiency of the Environment Court? It does not. Allowing courts to order security for costs would discourage frivolous and vexatious claims, thereby actually encouraging that elusive efficiency so often touted as an important requisite of resource management proceedings.

The honourable member Sue Bradford yesterday referred to a bill that had not had the public scrutiny it deserves. Well, to be consistent, neither did the 2003 amendment bill that removed the power of the Environment Court to order security for costs. At that time there was much criticism of the process, and the power to scrutinise the bill was denied—we should not let that happen again. All I am asking for now is that members be given the opportunity to scrutinise the bill. To coin a phrase, I could ask that there be one law for all bills. If the select committee decides it is not an issue, then so be it. But if it decides that the bill is in the interests of justice for all, then no one is the loser by supporting it going to the select committee.

History can be a great teacher. Three years ago the then Minister for the Environment, who was obviously concerned about the problems with the Resource Management Act, actually said: “I intend to work … to achieve positive outcomes, such as reducing even further the backlog at the Environment Court, and removing unnecessary impediments to major roading and energy proposals.” What has happened since then? For 3 long years, nothing has happened. Auckland is still in the dark, and we still have major roading problems and major energy problems. Three years ago there were energy stations that needed to be built. Three years ago there were roads that needed to be built. Three years later those same roads and those same energy stations still need to be built. And the Resource Management Act still needs fixing.

This bill is not the panacea of all Resource Management Act ills by any means, but it is a start. How often do we hear that the Resource Management Act needs reforming, and that it is the handbrake to progress? Only yesterday Transpower referred to Resource Management Act delays being the cause of transmission lines to Auckland not being upgraded. This bill is simply one measure to reduce vexatious and frivolous claims that can delay proceedings and progress unnecessarily. More important, it imposes a discipline on appeal proceedings and makes groups, whether they be residents’ associations, incorporated societies, or otherwise, focus on the merits of the case. If a claim is spurious, then claimants may be ordered to put their money where their mouth is. If their claim is reasonable, then they will have nothing to fear from this amendment.

A person may have a personal vendetta against a neighbour who wants to erect a double garage. The garage deviates slightly from the rules and resource consent is required. For no good reason whatsoever except to be a nuisance, the neighbour objects to the application. The neighbour delays the process and increases the costs for what should have been a simple matter. Is it fair that one aggrieved person can totally stymie a process without any come-back whatsoever on that person? It is only fair that such people—if the court so decides—are required to put their money where their mouth is. That is fair, that is justice, and that is common sense.

It is interesting to note that when the original provision allowing security for costs was removed from the Resource Management Act, there were concerns. Three years ago, United Future stated: “One part of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) that United Future is particularly unhappy with is the removal of the power of the Environment Court to require security for costs from individuals or groups it considers vexatious. This is not a power the Environment Court has used often. In fact, in its entire history it has only required security for costs from objectors approximately seven times.” I understand that that figure now, 3 years later, is still only eight times—although one of those parties against which security for costs was ordered was the Hawke’s Bay branch of the Green Party.

I also note that when the amendment legislation removing the provision for ordering security for costs was passed 3 years ago, New Zealand First voted against that amendment. It is pleasing to note that that is still New Zealand First’s policy, I understand—because it is posted on its current website—that “… vexatious litigants will be able to be identified and treated as such.” I therefore seek New Zealand First’s support for this bill. In fact, throughout the various readings of the 2003 bill that removed the ability of the Environment Court to order security for costs, there was not one mention—not one—from any speaker on either side of the House extolling the virtues of that amendment. National and other parties objected to it at the time, but the Government did not mention it once. Not even the Minister made any mention of it, at all. No one overtly supported that amendment.

An order for security for costs is not made lightly in any jurisdiction and, as I have stated, it has been made in the Environment Court eight times in total and only once in the last 3 years. Case law provides the precedents. The rules, which are well established, illustrate a very rigorous and robust test is needed before such an order is made. Those rules will not change, nor will they be diminished by this bill.

The majority of applications for security for costs have in fact been declined, but there are some instances where such an order is justified. Factors taken into account before making such an order include the merits of the case, the means of others who may be able to assist, the conduct of the parties, whether the application is oppressive, the public interest—“regard is to be had for the public interest aspect of the litigation brought by a plaintiff”—and whether there are grounds for thinking the defendant is using the application oppressively to prevent the applicant’s case coming before the court. Those factors will not be affected by this amendment. It is important to note that an order for security for costs is not designed to deprive a party from its right to bring or defend a claim, and that overall balance is to be maintained in the interests of justice.

This bill is not about depriving anyone of a say in court, whatever that person’s circumstances may be. It is not about who has money and who does not; it is about justice, and justice only. But it is injustice to remove proper safeguards without any recourse, and that is exactly what has happened here. By reinstating the court’s ability to order security for costs, this bill is merely restoring the safeguard against frivolous and irresponsible appeals, whether by residents’ associations, concerned citizens, or even trade competitors. It is a backstop.

Supporting this bill through its first reading would allow the select committee to scrutinise it properly—to hear submissions and examples of where progress has been stymied unreasonably and with no recourse, where innocent property owners have been lumbered with a costly and lengthy procedure, and where, indeed, orders for security for costs have been declined. I repeat that this bill is not about developers. It is not about building magnates. It is not about denying or reducing the rights of the public to bring evidence to hearings, as has been suggested. Some arguers even start from the premise that the community is right and the developer is wrong. That may sometimes be the case, but reinstating the Environment Court’s ability to order security for costs will not detract from that.

This bill will not protect developers and builders any more than it will protect ordinary individuals. This bill is not about denying families the right to object. It does not take away the right to object—to have a say. It does not allow applicants to ride roughshod over communities or individuals. This is a natural justice issue. It is about preventing the unjustified stymying of our legal process with no possibility of recourse. I seek the support of the House in allowing this bill to be properly scrutinised at select committee level.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : Labour will not support this bill, for very good reasons. The bill sets out basically to turn on its head the fundamental tenet of the Resource Management Act—which Parliament considered very recently, in 2003—to not curb the right to challenge legitimately a resource management decision made by a local authority. The member asserts that this bill aims to prevent frivolous and vexatious claims from holding up the resource consent process, by empowering the Environment Court to require any party to provide security for costs. While I do not condone behaviour that sets out simply to hold up the process, allowing frivolous and vexatious objections to be weeded out by the threat of costs made against an objector is simply, in our view, choosing the wrong time, place, and incentive.

For clear and deliberate reasons the Resource Management Act explicitly does not allow the Environment Court to have the power to order a party to give security of costs. When the Act was enacted in 1991 it contained nothing that expressly indicated either way whether security of costs could be sought by appeal authorities. That was back in 1991. Because the Act was silent on this issue, after due consideration a member’s bill sponsored by Sandra Lee was incorporated into the amendments in 2003. The matter was then clarified, just 3 years ago, once and for all. The act was amended to state simply that the Environment Court did not have that power.

Why was this? The notion behind that 2003 amendment was simple, and it was the very same issue facing us today. To allow an order for security of costs runs a serious risk that legitimate claimants will be bullied out of the courtroom by those with deeper pockets. We all know of small community groups that are appealing decisions and that, if costs were awarded against them, could never afford to take on such appeals.

I want to draw members’ attention to what the Resource Management Act really enables in respect of preventing vexatious objectors from stifling progress—and we do worry about that. This topic was canvassed in 2004 during the debate on the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005—and it may be that the member did not hear the debate. In relation to frivolous and vexatious objectors, changes were made to give strike-out powers to decision-making authorities when considering and hearing submissions based on plans, policy statements, and resource consents. This measure takes effect in August 2007. The date was set to align very neatly with the current accreditation requirements for hearing panels, and the training of hearings commissioners is under way right now and will continue until August. This provision will enable frivolous and vexatious submissions or parts thereof to be struck out where the submitter discloses no reasonable or relevant case and where a submission would be an abuse of the hearing process. That measure will be in place from August.

I acknowledge that, come August, a council may be reluctant to use the new 2005 amendment Act strike-out powers, irrespective of how frivolous, vexatious, irrelevant, or abusive of the hearing process submitters may be, if it is wary of costs emerging on the matter of appellant jurisdiction. A council may avoid exercising such a power when the Environment Court has the power to strike out in any case, as that would save it from being involved in one extra case concerning appellant jurisdiction. However, it is difficult to see how the member’s bill, if it were enacted, would ever prevent parties from stalling the decision-making process further than what is possible now, and what will be possible under the 2005 amendments, if the motivation is simply to stall a court hearing. Delays can be created by an objector pulling out the case when it actually begins—that is, it is the lodging of the appeal in the first place that potentially causes the delay. That is one tactic.

Even that tactic has considerably less success now that we have provided additional funding to the Environment Court to significantly reduce the time taken to hear appeals. Delays in appeals to the Environment Court have more than halved since 2001. Cases that are not complex are likely to get a hearing date within 6 months as part of a case-track system now implemented by the court. Equally, the bill will not prevent the possibility of getting round the problem by, say, forming an incorporated society simply for the sake of taking an appeal and dissolving it when costs are awarded.

The question comes down to an issue of access to justice—and we are proud of that principle—and whether having the barrier of security for costs would really deter genuine interests from appealing. The bill will potentially save the time of the court only in instances where spurious claims are made. However, the court already has the power to strike out submissions once proceedings begin. I firmly believe that councils, like the Environment Court now, will have all the necessary tools to deal with frivolous and vexatious appellants. I believe that the bill will not serve natural justice, particularly for those who already face significant financial barriers compared with appeal respondents. I therefore do not support this bill.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : New Zealand First will not support the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill, either. My memory goes back to an intellectual young man in the National Party called Simon Upton, for whom I did heaps of work in the Raglan electorate years ago. I remember him talking about this issue a lot in those days, and so it came to pass. The idea behind the Resource Management Act was to allow local people to make decisions for other local people, and that has proved to be the case.

It is true that at times the legislation is a problem for people with large developments in mind who propose changes of land use and that sort of thing. That is true. Just east of Hamilton East, where I reside, is the site of a proposed power line, which has been updated to 400 kilowatts or some such measurement—I do not know what it is called—to feed Auckland. People are protesting about that. We do not believe that people should be constrained in any way because they do not have the money to come up against not only private people with money but, in many cases, Government corporations, State-owned enterprises, or other bodies of that nature. Fonterra, which operates in the rural environment, comes to mind also. It is important, as the previous speaker said, not only that justice is done but that justice is affordable for everyone. We cannot have justice just for those who can afford it.

We have in this day and age many, many more corporates of a size that could not even be contemplated back when the Resource Management Act was brought into being. Therefore, it is important that local people—individuals—have the ability to speak out against these big institutions. Also, something that would be sad and that we do not want to see is a return to the days when people took other actions outside of a court—like laying down on railway tracks or in front of bulldozers, or chaining themselves to trees.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s pathetic.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Well, that is what people did, and the National Party wants to go back to those days. We in New Zealand First would sooner retain a situation whereby people can go about legitimate protest in a proper way and have it resolved lawfully in a court rather than have to resort to acts of physical intervention. So New Zealand First will not support this bill even going to a select committee.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s a disgrace.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: No, it is not. It is very good; it is responsible.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : First, I offer my congratulations to Kate Wilkinson on having a bill drawn from the ballot. I was fortunate enough in the last Parliament to have two of my bills drawn and I know what a thrill it is.

In rising to speak on this bill I need to go back and look at a little bit of history in relation to the Resource Management Act. When United Future arrived in this Parliament in 2002 we gave a clear commitment to this House that we would support all initiatives to remove any obstacles to reasonable development in the important provision of vital infrastructure caused by the Resource Management Act. We said we would not hold the Government to ransom as the Greens, ACT, and the National Party had done by not being willing to support the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), which had been sitting on the Order Paper for years, simply because it did not contain everything we wanted or because it contained some things we did not like. We considered that the urgent need was to speed the provision of new roads, power generation, and other basic infrastructure projects. That was so important that even though we had some reservations about the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2), we would support it so we could move the process forward.

History shows, of course, that we then went on to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3). One of things we did criticise when dealing with the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) was that it would remove the power of the court to require security for costs. However, by the time we got to the No. 3 bill the situation had changed dramatically. There was a backlog of 2 to 3 years of appeals to the Environment Court. Therefore, the security of costs thing was quite important because vexatious people could delay and hold up a project for literally 3 years. Through the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3), which was introduced in 2004 and passed in 2005, that situation was changed dramatically. We were delighted, during the select committee stage of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 3), to hear submitters from both the business sector and environmental groups commenting on how much better the Resource Management Act process had become compared with the process that applied when we came into Parliament in 2002. In those 2 short years, because of our initiative to support the Government in making a meaningful common-sense advance in the Resource Management Act, we had improved the situation dramatically.

Today, there is not a 2 or 3 year delay in going to the Environment Court. The whole process has been sped up, the backlog has been removed, and therefore today there is no need to have such a draconian power as requiring the court to have security of costs before people could object, on legitimate grounds, to a project that they may, as Doug Woolerton pointed out, have very, very deep convictions about—the sort of convictions that saw Sonja Davies, for example, chain herself to the railway lines.

Therefore, because of the positive achievements that were accomplished by United Future working with the previous Government, we no longer consider it necessary to award the courts the power they had prior to 2003. This bill, in reality, is more of a political stunt than any real, useful amendment. We are saddened to see the National Party continuing to live in the past as far as the Resource Management Act is concerned, continually regurgitating its tired old stories about delays and road blocks caused by the Resource Management Act. The fact of the matter is that the resource management law was introduced by a National Government, and if in the 1990s it had bothered to use its energy in a responsible way it could have fixed these things long since. I repeat that it actually took the arrival of United Future in this House in 2002 to break the logjam, to break the deadlock, and to enable this process to move forward.

We are now in 2006. We have moved on from 2002 and from 2004. Our party has a policy of continuing to cooperate with the Government in making incremental improvements to the Resource Management Act process, and that needs to go on. We are not saying that it is perfect and we are not saying that we have got to the end of the journey, but we are well down the road from where we were in 2002, and this bill adds nothing to that process.

I want to say in the House tonight that the progress we have made during the last 3 years is in no small measure thanks to the tireless work of my former colleague Larry Baldock, who worked with both Marian Hobbs and then with David Benson-Pope to really crack the long delays the Resource Management Act process had been bedevilled with right through the 1990s all the way through until 2004, when we began to seriously address and fix the problems. This bill is a good bill but it is about 3 years out of date and we will not be supporting its going to a select committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : The reform of the Resource Management Act is one of the most significant and important legislative issues facing this nation of ours. The Act is holding back and delaying the building of new roads; it is preventing the timely construction of new electricity infrastructure; and it is also driving up the cost of subdivisions, which reflects directly on the price of homes, and therefore affects New Zealanders who long to own their own homes. I find it extraordinary that in this House when a good new member like Kate Wilkinson, who has a great legal background, comes with a very simple proposition that will make a material difference to that Act, the tired parties in Government will not even support that bill going to a select committee.

I want to rebut a number of points that have been made. I cannot believe the claims made by United Future that suddenly the Resource Management Act has all been fixed—that there is no problem. I say to Mr Copeland that I have heard some fantasies in this House, but that one would have to be in the fairytale class. Keith Turner of Meridian Energy said only in the last few days that New Zealand would not be able to address its electricity problems unless there was reform of the Resource Management Act. Just today I was at a seminar about the Act in relation to roads. I spoke with the members of a frustrated community that applied for resource consent for a roading project on the Kapiti coast in 1997—and it is still not resolved.

Every single day we see bad examples. Can I tell members how bad it has got? Tonight’s news featured a gentleman in Queenstown, who was so frustrated at trying to get a resource consent for a sign he decided to mow his sign message into his paddock. He has received a notice today, stating that he will be prosecuted for not getting a resource consent for mowing his own lawn. That is exactly what has happened today, yet Government members say that the Resource Management Act does not need reform; we on this side of the House say that it does.

I have been fascinated by the arguments, effectively from Government members, that they do not trust our judges to apply common sense. All Kate Wilkinson’s bill will do is allow a judge to provide for security of costs if he or she thinks that is warranted. Why is it that we allow security of costs in the High Court? We allow it in the High Court, we allow it in the District Court, and we allow it in the Employment Court. What is it about our Environment Court judges that members of Labour, United Future, and New Zealand First do not trust? If there were any environment in which one might be concerned, one might expect it in the Employment Court but, even there, there is the provision that security of costs can be allowed.

The naivety of parties in the Government amazes me. To get around the Resource Management Act, all one needs to do is to form oneself into an incorporated society and to object all the way through the resource consent process, imposing huge costs on the community and on others, and knowing that that limited liability incorporated society will never be held to account for the costs imposed on those others. I reflect on the tragedy for the Whangamata Marina Society, which went through a resource consent process lasting 13 years. There are vexatious and frivolous objectors under the Resource Management Act every day of the week, and this bill from Kate Wilkinson will provide a small but effective measure that says to the courts that if they believe somebody is acting frivolously or vexatiously, they have to provide a security for costs. That is all it means—a person has to put up 10 grand so that at the end of the hearing, if there is a costs award, there is some means to reinforce it.

I am bitterly disappointed that this Parliament does not see fit to improve that situation, for those who want to transform the New Zealand economy, by allowing that sort of minor but important amendment to the Resource Management Act. I know, indeed, that this country will not have roads where people can drive without being congested, will not have security for people about their electricity supply, and will not have subdivision costs that make it affordable for the average family to own their home, while this Parliament refuses to reform that Resource Management Act.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa. The Māori Party is speaking to the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill as informed by our understanding of “CIR”. That is not “citizens initiated referendum”, although that certainly would not be such a bad idea; the initials stand for “cultural impact reporting”, as defined under schedule 4 of the Resource Management Act 1991. In that provision the requirements for assessing environmental effects are set out. Cultural impact reporting looks at the spiritual, cultural, or other special values for present and future generations. This bill, in effect, adds a new layer of costs to an already expensive process—the process of taking a case against a company. The bill will require claimants to sign that they can put up the money before the case can go to court. The money is not small change. If we are seriously committed to due process in order to ensure that all people receive a fair hearing in front of the law, then the cultural impact assessment provision in this bill does nothing to enhance that right.

Section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991 states that: “The relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.”, is a matter of national importance that councils must recognise and provide for. It is a matter of national importance that, with this amendment bill, would never see the light of day through prohibitive costs. It is these matters of national importance, natural justice, and environmental equity that demand we oppose this bill.

Two other factors have emerged relating to the cultural impact assessment provision. The first is the issue of relevance. The purpose of the bill is to limit vexatious and frivolous objections to applications for development. Yet in a search of the environmental rulings between 1998 and 2003 we have unearthed only two instances that could be defined as vexatious and frivolous. We did not think that could be right, so we approached the Ministry for the Environment. We were told quite clearly that the ministry has not undertaken any assessment, let alone a cultural impact assessment, of how many cases could fall into the vexatious and frivolous category. The response was that, at best, estimates could be only anecdotal.

The issue of relevance being discounted, we then turned to the issue of necessity. We found that the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 actually makes this new bill redundant. There is a section in that Act that will prevent such cases getting to court by the direct intervention of local bodies. This will come into force in August 2007. Section 41C of the principal Act is amended by the addition of specific subsections, including section 41C(7)(a), which directs that a submission can be struck out if the submission, or part of it, is frivolous or vexatious.

The costs of litigation are already impacting adversely upon a group of people who are already overrepresented amongst communities where poverty is endemic. Security for costs can be understood as yet another clever construct of the Crown to constrain tangata whenua from their right to challenge developments. For this bill to be sitting alongside other local government situations in which Māori have been prevented from doing their own developments is, at the very least, a case of déjà vu, or, worse yet, another instance of racism. Putting it another way, we wonder whether the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill is actually the real frivolous and vexatious legislation. The Māori Party will not support this bill.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : I think it might be helpful to the House and, in fact, to the proposer of the Resource Management (Security for Costs) Amendment Bill—who is a new member—if I gave a little of the history behind this provision in the Resource Management Act. When the Resource Management Act was passed in 1991, there was no provision in it for a judge of the Environment Court to award security for costs. That provision came in quite some years later—I think it was 1996—when another amendment gave the judges the powers of a district court. It was actually not foreseen at the time that this would involve the power to award security of costs, but that is, in fact, what happened.

Then, later in that term of Parliament—before 1999—Sandra Lee introduced a bill to remove the power of the Environment Court to award costs against public interest groups who were representing some aspect of the public interest. That came to the Local Government and Environment Committee—which I chaired in the following term—and we considered it quite carefully and heard submissions on it. What we heard from various people who had experience of submitting on the Resource Management Act was that they did not oppose the power of the court to award costs against those who had abused court process or who had been vexatious. The difficulty they were finding was that with the new power of the court to award security for costs, developers and large applicants with deep pockets were threatening objectors that if they proceeded to court, they would hit them with security for costs. The fact that the judges would award security of costs only rarely, and in cases where there was a real risk to the applicant, did not prevent applicants from deterring genuine and worthwhile objectors from pursuing their cases out of fear, because they knew the objectors simply could not find the $30,000 to put up for security. So people who were legitimate parts of the process were prevented from taking part.

When we got that evidence in the select committee, we said we would not proceed with the bill that Sandra Lee originally introduced because we did not think that representing some aspect of the national interest should automatically bar people or groups from having costs awarded against them, if they abused the process and ran a bad case, but we also did not think it was a good thing that people be deterred from participating at all by stand-over tactics from people saying that if other people or groups participated, they would seek an order for security costs.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: From judges.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: I tell the member to hang on. It was not the judges who were doing it, but most people do not understand that if the power is there it does not mean that the judge will not use it against them. So they were pulling out before even testing whether or not the applicants could get their way. So the select committee went back to the previous status quo, which had worked perfectly well for 6 years, where the court did not have the power to award security for costs. That was what we did in preference to taking out the power to award costs in the event of bad behaviour. That was the trade-off that we did. It was not accepted by everyone on the committee, but it was pretty widely accepted.

So this bill is now attempting to restore a power to the court that was given to it inadvertently in the first place quite some years after the Act had been running perfectly fine without it. We reintroduced the risk that small, local groups, who had come together to try to protect some aspect of their environment against a developer or an applicant that generally had much deeper pockets than they had, and who were frantically running cake stalls to raise the money to run a good case, were frightened off participating in the process at all because of stand-over tactics saying that if they took part at all, the developer would seek security for costs and the group would have to put up $30,000 at the beginning, which they would not have.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Only if the judge says so.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Of course, it would only happen if the judge said so, but local groups who have not participated in the process before do not understand that, and they are genuinely deterred from participating.

The Resource Management Act is about two things. It is about protection of the environment, and it is about democracy. It is about the right of people in communities to have a say, and this legislation would be a serious impact on the right of people, communities, local groups, hapū, and the rest from getting involved in the process. The Greens will be opposing it.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : It is a pleasure to take a call to speak on very important legislation—an important bill that my colleague Kate Wilkinson has introduced. National is concerned about the impacts of the Resource Management Act. My colleague Dr Nick Smith today sought to table recommendations on the Resource Management Act during question time on the seriousness and the importance of this legislation in relation to the development and progress we try to achieve for our economic growth in the country.

Kate Wilkinson, as a lawyer experienced in these matters, has determined that security of costs are available through the District Courts, the High Court, and the Employment Court, but not the Environment Court. So one needs to ask why we have an exemption for the Environment Court when other courts allow for security of costs. Kate Wilkinson has come forward with a solution, which, actually, is fair. It is fair and equitable for developers, for those people who seek a resource consent through the Resource Management Act, and it stops those people who, for frivolous and vexatious reasons, will try to deny progress and will use any tactics necessary because the situation is not to their liking.

There are numerous examples where vexatious and frivolous objections have taken place. It is well-known, and has been mentioned many times in this House, that it takes longer, sometimes, to get a resource consent to build a road than it does to construct a road. Why would that be? It is because so many people, at the eleventh hour, decide they want to object to a process taking place.

My colleague Dr Smith and I were involved with the Whitianga waterways project where special legislation was passed. It is a huge development—a multimillion-dollar development over 20 years—where the developers had spent in excess of $5 million on resource consents and where everybody had agreed and it had gone through the court. Local iwi were supportive of it, yet at the eleventh hour someone objected—in fact, two iwi who did not even live in the area objected. Special legislation was passed. The hold-up of a multi-million dollar development, which that community actually wanted at the time—and which local iwi, in particular, certainly wanted—was an exercise in futility. It took people like Dr Smith and the National Party to put pressure on the Government at that time to pass legislation that affected that huge development in that region.

In a newsletter that went out to its clients on 23 May 2001, Chapman Tripp stated under “Security for Costs”: “The Select Committee Report recommends that the Environment Court’s power to award security for costs be taken away.” That is where it all started. “Currently, the resource consent applicants can ask the Court to require appellants to provide security so that if the appeal is not successful, and is found to be of sufficiently low merit as to warrant an award of costs against the appellant, the court is sure that the appellant is able to pay those costs.”

This is important legislation that my colleague Kate Wilkinson is promoting. It is worthy and has the merit to go to the select committee so the committee can determine the merits of it and we can call for submissions on this very important bill. We know that the infrastructural challenges facing New Zealand—be they in energy, or be they in roading—are held up in many cases by the Resource Management Act. We support the Resource Management Act, but we want legislation that is fair and equitable to maintain those high environmental standards, and at the same time make sure people cannot come in and stop something just for the sake of stopping it, when there is no due reason or cause for them to do so. National supports this legislation and we trust that other parties in this Parliament will allow it to go through to the select committee.

SHANE JONES (Labour) : Firstly, congratulations to Kate Wilkinson on having had the opportunity to introduce this bill coming out of the ballot system, given that we both arrived in Parliament at the same time. But I stand, based on a long body of experience on both sides of this debate in resource management, to assure her that I do not support this bill, having said that I congratulate her on having seized the opportunity. No. 1, the bill as proposed will do a great deal of damage to the Māori constituency. It will disempower, prevent, and further marginalise. Their opportunities will be reduced to speak about those values and interests in the environment that are so easily, or very often, overlooked and forgotten by rapacious developers as they pursue profit at the expense of the environment—in particular, mahinga kai, urupā, and other features of significance to the tangata whenua. We may well see come to pass a cheque-book type of environmentalism, corporatising the environment, so that it becomes the plaything only of those who have deep pockets, of those who have the opportunity to hire the flashest lawyers, I fear that this could mean that opportunities are denied to Māori communities. This is not good, either for the environment or for the involvement of hapū, iwi, and tangata whenua in the future.

Now, of course, Nick Smith and others are very supportive of this. Purposely they exaggerate the nature of the problem. The problem is actually being addressed come August 2007, when new statutory powers will be available to strike out frivolous, mischievous, and vexatious issues—and I am not entirely sure why Nick Smith complains about such issues, because we put up with that sort of thing every day from him during question time. However, I agree that the opportunity that exists for people to raise such issues is very, very frustrating and can be cumbersome. It should come to an end as a consequence of the amendments that have already been dealt with.

There is a great deal of rhetoric behind this issue—not necessarily from Kate Wilkinson; I found her delivery to be very lawyer-like, stripped of rhetoric, and dealing with the problem, but unfortunately coming up with the wrong remedy. I get the sense that Nick Smith and others are harking back to the National Development Act. They actually would prefer the Resource Management Act to be put to the side, and for developments to be approved from a national agency with minimal or no opportunity for public or community participation. That would lead to a simple reversion back to the days of Muldoon. The Resource Management Act is an evolving piece of legislation, and as one of the four members of the core group who worked with Sir Geoffrey Palmer in 1989-90, actually developing the Resource Management Act, which was then taken forward by Simon Upton, I say that it has to be amended as it goes.

But there should be balance and opportunity for participation. Most important, communities should not be dislocated or locked out from an opportunity to influence the final shape and form of their community when a life-changing development comes to town. Members may very well ask why security of costs options are not being enjoyed by the Environment Court. The Environment Court as an institution is in a class of its own. It cannot be compared with the activities of the District Court or various other fora of the legal system. That is why I cannot support this bill, because it is disempowering and leaves far too much influence and potential for marginalisation on the basis of the depth of the pocket and the cheque-book flourishing of developers. There is nothing wrong with development, provided that it does not undermine the sustainability of the resources surrounding the development. However, for those reasons, I say to Kate Wilkinson that it was a nice try, but I do not support this bill.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I came to Parliament believing in justice—justice for everybody—and not in denying justice to anyone, as the opponents to this bill are suggesting. Justice in any court requires the reduction of vexatious and frivolous claims. That is not just in relation to the Environment Court; it also applies to the District Court and High Court. The other courts have provision for security for costs to reduce vexatious and frivolous claims, as has already been mentioned. Why does the Environment Court not have that provision?

Vexatious and frivolous claims must be discouraged. The test, of course, is rigorous and robust—we have said that—to discourage frivolous objectors from stymying the due process of law without any comeback or form of redress. That is justice, and that is what this bill is about.

Opponents of this bill have been trumpeting some alternatives—for example, that the courts will have the power in 2007 to strike out an objector’s claim. But that might not necessarily be what the objector wants. The objector might just want to provide some security for costs in order to buy time to put forward a lucid argument, and striking out the claim would deny them that right to justice.

I refer now to flip-flop No. 1. In the Hansard reporting of this matter in 2002, New Zealand First’s Dail Jones, I thought, summed up the situation rather well. He said: “One of the major areas of complaint I have with this bill, which I am sure will lead to its downfall as a whole, is the removal of security for costs.”

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Who said that?

KATE WILKINSON: Mr Jones from New Zealand First said that. That was flip-flop No. 1.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The baubles of office.

KATE WILKINSON: Exactly! And he continued: “As a lawyer, I would think that surely this would still have been a matter to be left to the discretion of the judge involved.” He went on: “The main criticism we make of judges in this House … is that they tend to be too soft. That tends to be the attitude judges take, because as lawyers we are trained to give the individual all the protection we possibly can, under our system.” He continued: “I have never known anyone to complain that security for costs has ever been too high. But we remove security for costs, whether it is $500, $1,000, or $1,500, we put nothing in its place, and now the same old people who delayed things prior to 1996 are really going to have a field day.” He concluded: “New Zealand First cannot support this legislation.” How right he was. New Zealand First was then in favour of security for costs; now it is not.

Flip-flop No. 2 came from United Future. United Future was then “particularly unhappy with the removal of the power of the Environment Court to require security for costs from individuals or groups it considers vexatious.” United Future was right, also. Then that party was in favour of security for costs; now it is not. That is flip-flop No. 2.

A National member said at the time: “We have provisions in this bill that this Parliament will live to regret. There are provisions that ban the court from providing security for costs. That was an Alliance policy … I do not know why United Future—let alone Labour—now sees an obligation to follow through on a policy that effectively allows people to object without any responsibility for those actions.” That member was my colleague Nick Smith, and how right he was. What is wrong with asking people to put their money where their mouth is? What is wrong with trying to remove one of the handbrakes to progress? What is wrong with trying to reduce personal vendettas and frivolous and vexatious costs?

We have heard that the courts still have the power to award costs, but incorporated societies have limited liability. There is no person who would be personally liable for those costs. There is no discipline, and so that is absolutely meaningless. The security for costs order has been used infrequently and with extreme caution—only on eight occasions. The courts are reluctant to make the order, because they want to ensure that natural justice is done and that due and proper regard is had for individuals. But we need the safeguard against vexatious and frivolous proceedings in our judicial process. We also need adequate protection from those objectors.

Supporting this bill would allow the select committee to scrutinise the legislation properly. There are stand-over tactics, and we need to avoid the ability of such tactics, by frivolous and vexatious objectors, to pervert the course of justice, when those objectors know they cannot be touched. I urge support for this bill.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I move, That the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This is indeed a red-letter day for Rotorua, whose people are all listening at home. We hit the double when the Rotorua bill in my name was drawn from the ballot only 2 weeks after Jacqui Dean’s bill. I supported that bill—even though it is more parochial, being in respect of only Wānaka and Tauranga—as it was the only mechanism that I could work with to get Rotorua the right to trade at Easter, and we are now in an MMP environment. At a future point I will move that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee.

I note that chambers of commerce around the country, in areas like Cambridge, are also asking to be counted in with other districts such as Napier, and things then start to get messy on the mechanism of Jacqui Dean’s bill. That bill was voted through to the select committee by 73 votes to 41. I hope the same support will be given to this member’s bill. It is only democratic that bills reflecting local community interests are supported through to a select committee, so that submissions are heard.

The history of Easter trading, though, is unbelievable. It goes back to 1977, so it is now almost 30 years old. The anomalous schedule of exemptions that makes us shudder in Rotorua was established by the Shop Trading Hours Commission back then. In 1990 the Act revoked individual business exemptions but retained these absurd geographic area exemptions. Rotorua was simply left off the list—an act of omission, not commission—overlooked, and then the mechanism to get it back on to the schedule of exemptions was no longer there. We had no other choice.

This is the Rotorua District Council’s second attempt in 6 years at a bill. In 2001, as a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed electorate MP, I introduced the first bill, which lost in 2002—and I understand losing a bill—by eight votes. It was unbelievable—63 votes to 55. Timing is the art of the possible, and everything in politics can find the right sense of timing and place. In 2003 the then Minister of Labour, Margaret Wilson—during another frustrated attempt of mine—established the Shop Trading Hours Working Group, with the New Zealand Retailers Association, the Consumers Institute, Local Government New Zealand, and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. Those organisations recommended two options: to remove Easter Sunday trading as a restricted day—that was the majority view of the committee—or to empower local authorities to exempt shops from trading exemptions. The last movement on Easter trading occurred with Rodney Hide’s bill, which was a carry-over of Patricia Schnauer’s bill, in 2001. This movement permitted garden centres to open on Easter Sunday. That Act contained protections for workers that ensured that they could not be compelled to work unless both employer and employee agreed—that was a Green amendment. That was the last bit of movement.

Rotorua conducted an Easter Sunday electorate survey in July of 2005. Fifty-eight businesses responded, and 83 percent of those businesses wanted a law change. Seventy-six percent supported a law change for Easter Sunday only. Seventy-one percent told me to resubmit another bill post-election, so here we go again. There was only a 20 percent increase from a previous chamber of commerce survey in 2001, when only 56 percent of people wanted Easter Sunday trading, and only 20 percent were in favour of trading on Good Friday.

The value and economic benefits to Rotorua, as an iconic tourism town, are known. We actually earn $463 million every year in direct value from tourism. One in six of our locals is directly employed by tourism. It is a great opportunity for us. Retailers are proactive supporters of tourism. We have been only too aware of the risks to retailers who open on Easter Sunday, and this was graphically evident in 2005, when 87 retailers were visited by the Department of Labour, and 10 of the 54 retailers who had opened their shops in support of the Jambalaya Festival were summonsed to court. They were dismissed without charge. What a ridiculous waste of court time! That incident increased the anger and frustration of those who experienced the reality of this ongoing nonsense.

One can gamble on Easter Sunday. There is no restriction on selling alcohol in cafes on Easter Sunday. Petrol stations with shops can trade. Airport cafes with shops can stay open. Taupō, right next door to us, can trade, but Rotorua cannot—it just gets sillier.

So what does the bill do? It allows the district councils to adopt the special consultative procedure in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002 in order to ask their communities, anywhere in New Zealand, whether they want to trade. The bill does not compel any shop to open on Easter Sunday, and it does not compel any worker to work on Easter Sunday, unless both the employer and the employee agree. The bill passes the New Zealand Bill of Rights vetting. The National Distribution Union, the Retailers Association, chambers of commerce, and Local Government New Zealand support the bill being jointly considered by the Commerce Committee along with Jacqui Dean’s bill.

At the moment we are running a petition in our region. It is supported by the local newspaper—the Daily Post—the district council, Retail Rotorua, my electorate office, and the chamber of commerce. Such unlikely partners have never worked together on any other issue in our city. The petition closes at the end of this week, so it will be beautiful timing to refer it to the Commerce Committee. Responses are incredibly positive, from the West End supermarket to McDonald’s. They are saying: “Give us the petition. We are glad to fill it in.” I do hope tonight that this will be the end of Rotorua’s crusade to correct the anomaly that beset us in 1990. I appeal to sensible members of the House to support the bill going to the Commerce Committee. Then that committee can consider both bills together, and it may come up with something better.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : The good news is that Rotorua’s crusade was won a couple of weeks ago, when my Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill was read a first time and sent to the Commerce Committee.

I rise to support Steve Chadwick’s bill, which is called—it has a long name—the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill 2006. Anomalies do exist in the current Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act. Queenstown can trade happily over Easter, whereas Wānaka cannot. Taupō can trade happily over Easter, whereas Rotorua cannot. In fact, a number of towns and cities throughout New Zealand do trade, against the law, over Easter, and it is that anomaly that Steve Chadwick’s bill—and, indeed, my bill—seeks to overcome.

I have to say that the anomaly has stuck in the craw of many, many busy tourist towns in New Zealand, with the current law, as it stands, being patently unfair to some towns and to the advantage of others. Wānaka, like Queenstown, is a busy tourist town, particularly over Easter. Every second year the Warbirds over Wānaka International Air Show and the Race to the Sky bring up to 100,000 visitors to the district, all of whom want to holiday and many of whom want to shop. Every year the Department of Labour brings prosecutions against many of those retailers—in fact, some schedule it in their calendar. It has become a Groundhog Day situation for many retailers throughout New Zealand, where it appears that nothing seems to change.

Both Easter shop trading bills—both Steve Chadwick’s, which is under discussion today, and mine—seek to provide a level playing field for retailers all over New Zealand. I want to talk about the features of my bill, just as a reminder. My bill would allow retailers to have the choice as to whether they open. The bill that I have proposed, which has been sent to the Commerce Committee, applies to Good Friday and Easter Sunday. I note here that a spokesman from the Catholic Church has indicated that it has no problem with shops remaining open over Easter. In fact, I note that most shops in Rome trade happily over the Easter festival.

My bill does not, in any way, cut across or diminish provisions in the Holidays Act or, indeed, the Employment Relations Act, and I note that those are the worker protections that are included in the bill that I proposed. I refer to the advice I received from Ministry of Justice officials regarding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They advised that section 47 of the Holidays Act 2003 states that employees may be required to work on public holidays when they have agreed in their employment agreement to work on public holidays and the public holiday falls on a day on which those employees would normally work. If employees do not wish to work on Good Friday and/or Easter Sunday, they cannot be required to work unless they have agreed in their employment agreement to do so—and I would imagine that Steve Chadwick has been provided with the same advice on her bill.

My bill does not cut across any lease provisions that may be in existence. Most important, the bill I have proposed provides for an opt-in mechanism, whereby towns and cities—if they want to be—can be added to the schedule of the bill by way of an amendment, which some would say is an elegantly simple process. I am pleased that that bill has passed its first reading and now sits with the Commerce Committee, and I hope that Steve Chadwick’s bill will join mine for consideration by that committee.

When my bill was sent to the select committee I wrote to the chambers of commerce around New Zealand, retailer associations, Business New Zealand, various retailers, and individual business owners. I have also written to every local authority in New Zealand. I believe that if this bill is to finally succeed, it must be driven by the retail sector. I believe we have a changing environment here in Parliament and I anticipate good support for this bill, but if we really want change, then it must be driven by people in the retail sector. So I am lobbying those people hard in order to get their indications of support.

I am receiving a huge amount of mail in support of the bill, and also a number of suggested amendments. Many of those amendments are from people in areas with high visitor numbers who would like their towns and cities to be added to the schedule of my bill. They want to be part of the opt-in process. I am also very happy for any of those amendments to be discussed by the Commerce Committee. I am aware that some chambers of commerce are suggesting that picking towns, opting in, and devolving to local government is not the way to go, and they would like to see the law changed for all New Zealand. I am very happy for that option to be discussed by the select committee. So members can imagine my joy when Steve Chadwick’s bill was drawn from the ballot several weeks after mine. Steve Chadwick’s bill has a similar aim to mine. As I have said, we have agreed to support each other’s bill should it be drawn, so I do support this bill. We want to achieve the same aim, but we want to achieve it in different ways.

Steve Chadwick’s bill seeks to allow shops to open on Easter Sunday only. The responsibility for giving effect to this bill is devolved to local authorities, and that is where I have a problem with the way this bill proposes to proceed. I believe that by devolving responsibility to local government, the bill will, arguably, trigger a special consultative process under the Local Government Act 2002. That process would add 6 months, 7 months, 8 months, or more on to the time local authorities take to deal with this process. I have sought advice from one small local authority, which advised me that it would add more than $20,000 in costs to its ratepayers. That local authority may have no desire to have the ability to trade over Easter. I imagine, and I am pretty sure, that this would be a compulsory process for local authorities. So, for example, in the Waitaki district and, maybe, in the Grey district, there may be no call for shops to trade over Easter, yet the local authorities would incur the cost, time, and angst of that consultation process. I have huge reservations about that process. I believe that that is an unnecessarily cumbersome process and my biggest fear is that it will not be settled before next Easter.

I would be open to the select committee establishing an appeal authority where, for example, cities or towns could apply in the future for an exemption to the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act, as was the case pre-1999. I think that I am in favour of this bill, and I am open to the select committee having a good discussion on it, because I believe that we must put this matter to bed, once and for all.

For most towns in New Zealand with a significant visitor industry, like Wānaka and Rotorua, Easter trading provides a boost to the town’s income and a service to the thousands upon thousands of visitors who are there for the full range of visitor experiences. I believe that the time has come for us to put right the anomalies in the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act, and to recognise that tourism is, in fact, a 365-day-a-year industry and that it is one of New Zealand’s largest contributors to gross domestic product and to goods and services tax. Now is the time, finally, to let tourist towns with a significant visitor industry go about their business without unfair, archaic, and unnecessary regulation. I urge members to send this Easter Sunday shop trading bill—however imperfect—to the select committee.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : It was good to hear the member who has just resumed her seat spend at least some of her time talking about this bill rather than her own bill, which came before the House a few weeks back and which New Zealand First was pleased to support. We are much more comfortable with this bill than with hers, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, this bill can apply to the whole of the country. The previous speaker’s bill applied basically to Tauranga and Wānaka—

Jacqui Dean: Why didn’t you listen to what I was saying?

PETER BROWN: —and she could add other towns and cities on to the list. I know the member could add to that list. Second—and this is important—New Zealanders are warmly disposed towards Easter Sunday trading, but they are not as warmly disposed towards Good Friday trading. If the member does not believe that, she should go out and ask members of the public, but I know people are quite warmly disposed towards Easter Sunday trading. I do not agree with the member that it will take 6 months or be very complicated to implement this bill. I think it could be done very, very rapidly. Another area of difference that I think should be highlighted is that this bill refers to the areas of territorial authorities that actually exist, whereas that honourable member’s bill revolved around where post offices were sited. A post office can be moved relatively easily overnight, which would mean that the trading areas would keep shifting.

I come from Tauranga, and I know that Tauranga will accept this bill warmly and very quickly. Tauranga has been absolutely brassed off—and that is putting it as politely as I can—to see cruise ships come in, and taxis and minibuses pick up all the passengers and take them out of Tauranga, through Rotorua, to trade in Taupō. That is absolutely daft. This bill allows that situation to be corrected very, very quickly, to my mind.

New Zealand First has carried out a number of surveys on the proposal that shops trade on Easter Sunday; some were informal and some were more formal. Every survey we have taken has shown huge support for trading on Easter Sunday. We have involved ourselves in discussions with church people, and with people from all walks of life, in fact, but we were very pleased with the response we received from church people. That was principally in Tauranga but also in other areas of New Zealand. People are very keen to see Easter Sunday trading introduced.

New Zealand First will, without a doubt, support this bill. We support the earlier bill. We hope that the two bills can be combined together and an appropriate degree of common sense will be applied, so that this House is not ultimately faced with deciding between Bill A, Bill B, and what have you, at the end of the day.

This is an issue that has gone on for far too long in this House. The honourable member who just resumed her seat made reference to the retailers who are driving this proposal. I do not think there are any problems with regard to retailers. They will accept this type of legislation very, very quickly—overnight. I do not think there is any problem with regard to the public. The problem for this sort of legislation is the members of this House. Some of the members of this House have adopted a totally head in the sand attitude toward this sort of legislation, and it pleases me no end to know that many, many members will now support this bill going to the select committee. New Zealand First has tried for many years to get this sort of legislation before the House. I forget the number of attempts we have made, only to fail at the last minute or right in a last-ditch effort.

We are absolutely delighted that this bill is here. The decision will be made by local authorities, after consultation with their local communities. We wish the bill every success and we will most certainly support it.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : For the second time this year we find ourselves debating yet another attempt to reform the ramshackle laws relating to Easter trading. I have to acknowledge that Steve Chadwick’s bill, which we are dealing with tonight, is the best attempt yet to remove some of the inconsistencies in this area, but the Green Party will still oppose this bill and the value system it privileges.

Steve Chadwick’s bill is fairer than Jacqui Dean’s is. We appreciate the fact that it does not include Good Friday as a shopping day, and that there will be some protections for workers so that they cannot be compelled to work on Easter Sunday unless both employer and employee agree. However, those are still not good enough reasons to endorse the bill.

There is a lot of rhetoric in the debating chamber about freedom of choice, but, in fact, when we start to think about the wide-reaching effects of this legislation it pays to ask whose freedom of choice we are really serving. For example, exactly how many business owners want this freedom of choice to open for business on one of the 3½ remaining days of the year when they do not have to open? How many of their staff really want the freedom to be able to work on Easter Sunday? Low-wage workers desperate for money to pay the bills will find themselves behind the counter through the economic imperative, without the protection—in those localities that mandate this legislation—of a day off, which they may badly need.

At the moment, most workers—and business owners and managers, for that matter—can relax in the knowledge that on Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and the morning of Anzac Day they do not have to go to work. Perhaps they would just like a chance to rest and recuperate. Perhaps they would like time to do things with the family. If they are Christian and it is one of the holy days, they might even like to go to church. Those are 3½ precious days that are not defined by the everyday buying and selling that seem to characterise every other moment of our lives. I commend the recent statement from the Anglican archbishops on this matter. Headed “Hamsters or Humans?”, it states, among other things: “Are we simply consumers running like hamsters on a wheel in the marketplace or is there more to us than this? What we require is legislation which represents the interests of all people, not simply the economically and commercially powerful.” Good on the archbishops!

Is this legislation before us tonight truly representative of the popular will of the majority of ordinary New Zealanders? I doubt it. It is time this House was reminded that economic decisions have human consequences and moral content, and that they do actually hurt or help people. They strengthen or weaken our family life and advance or diminish the quality of justice in this country. Every economic decision we collectively make must be judged in this light: does it protect or undermine the dignity of being fully human? As politicians we tend to trade in the positive generalities of concepts like families and children. We all jockey to position ourselves as the political party that best represents the interests of families. This is the obviously rhetorical stuff of politics. Today this House is being asked to look beyond the rhetoric in order to make a specific judgment on an economic issue that will directly affect the quality of life of families.

Some have argued that the bill will make some families materially richer. For a few it no doubt will, and I certainly do not want to downplay the necessity and benefit of a vibrant economy. However, we have already set aside 361½ days of the year to do this. Only 3½ days remain when this is not necessarily the case. We have only 3½ days to re-imagine ourselves differently, without the all-pervasive presence of market forces. If we allow trading on Easter Sunday, as this bill before the House ultimately proposes, why stop there? Good Friday is no more holy in a Christian sense than Easter Sunday. Why close shops for only half of Anzac Day? What is the logic of sanctifying one part of the day but not the other? As for Christmas Day, why let the shopping suddenly stop? Why close on Christmas Day, when the music of commerce is reaching its crescendo?

We say that other values in life are more important than buying, selling, and making money; values that the Green Party believes are of more consequence to the quality of our lives than promoting the freedom to shop.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora, Madam Speaker; kia ora tātou te Whare. The rising of the Mātāriki in the north-eastern sky in June is significant to many people in the South Pacific. For Māori, the Mātāriki marks the turning point of the seasons—a time to reflect on the year gone by and to plan for the days ahead. Mātāriki is a time to celebrate a new dawn, to embrace new growth, to practise and express our spiritual beliefs and values, and, for Māori people from throughout this great nation of ours, to switch to the Māori roll.

The Māori Party knows the importance of Mātāriki to Māori throughout Aotearoa, and it is with that knowledge that we come to the second saga of the Easter trading series—indeed, to a second and separate bill on Easter trading itself. That appreciation helps us to understand the importance of honouring Easter’s Christian traditions for Māori and other New Zealanders. I raise here the objections from the Anglican archbishops of Aotearoa, who say that the Easter trading bills are ill-conceived and will strip away family freedoms and workers’ rights. Māori, regardless of iwi, regardless of birthplace, and regardless of occupation, still cling to many traditional spiritual practices, and after many years of dawn karakia, openings, blessings, and tangihanga, I know that our desire to worship and share spiritual practices with one another remains one of the features that still binds us as a people today.

The Māori Party is aware of the historical, spiritual, and religious significance of Easter, but we are not unaware of the economic realities facing our people, either. We stand by our responsibility to raise the status of those most in need in Aotearoa. I raise again the ugly reality of poverty in Aotearoa, and I point also to the cold, hard fact of 230,000 children living in poverty at a time of conspicuous wealth and at a time when political parties can blithely break the law then seek absolution for their crimes, not through the payment of penance but by the passing of dodgy legislation. People in Taupō and Queenstown have the opportunity to bring more money into their household by being able to work through Easter, but others in Rotorua and Wānaka are denied that opportunity. It is because of those anomalies that the Māori Party is happy to support this bill at its first reading.

Speaking of anomalies and looking at some of the geographical exemptions carried over in the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act of 1990, I must say it is apparent how silly the application of the law has been. For example, in Richmond Court in Thames, a shop can trade on Easter Sunday as long as Easter Sunday falls in March. In Mariners Mall in Picton, a shop can open only if a cruise ship is in port. In one of the more bizarre twists, in the Carnegie Centre in Dunedin, a shop can sell toys and books on an Easter Sunday only while performances are happening on the mezzanine floor. The law is crazy, it benefits some and denies others, and it simply does not make sense. Too much legislation being passed through this House fits those criteria. The Māori Party wants to see laws made simple, clear, and equitable.

To be honest, I am not overly fussed about new laws that jeopardise quality family time. Sundays, for me, are precious moments at home, soaking up the sun—even in the winter the weather is always fine in the far north—resting the soul, talking to the kids, catching up with the whānau, and stacking up the “zzzs”. So I am not happy at the thought that sometime down the track my moko will say to me on a Sunday: “Sorry, papa, but I’ve got to go to work.” It would be nice, though, if he had the choice—if he could say: “Hey, paps, they wanted me to work but I said no and they were sweet about it.”

Stevie Chadwick has promised to protect workers’ rights in her bill. Although I am naturally suspicious about people who are promising to look after the workers, I will take her at her word and will watch this bill as it goes through the select committee, to ensure that those rights are indeed protected in legislation. So, as we look forward to the Mātāriki, the Māori Party will support the first reading of this bill, and will listen carefully to the submissions made by those who also have the interests of the family at heart, to ensure that in advancing our economic situation we do not take our society backwards. Kia ora koutou katoa.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me begin by saying that the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill in the name of Steve Chadwick will be a conscience vote for United Future, so the remarks that I will be sharing with the House tonight are according to my conscience, and they are mine alone.

This bill, once again, has led me to search my conscience as to my convictions about what it really means to be a human being. Humanity, I believe, is born to be free. Women and men are not slaves, and work is not the sole, or indeed necessarily the most important, end of our lives. We are not designed to be slaves in the sense of slavery, nor are we built to be slaves to the economy. Indeed, the Greek root of the word “economy”, or “economics”, relates to the management of the household and therefore of the family. If we go from that Greek root of the word, we realise economics and the economy therefore exist to serve families—exist to serve the needs of human beings—and not the other way around.

My second conviction coalesces strongly with the first—namely, the ability of families to spend time together. We know the purpose of having holidays, when we think of it, is to set time aside to be together and to be families. What do I mean by that? I mean mums and dads with their children, I mean grandparents with their children and grandchildren, and I mean the ability to have uncles and aunts and other family members together on important holiday occasions. It is the opportunity, for example, to bring an elderly member of the family—a parent or grandparent—home from a retirement home, to spend an afternoon or a day with his or her family. Those are the moments that give us joy in living, and New Zealand now has only 3½ days on which that remains possible for many, many families.

New Zealanders now rank in the OECD as second only to the Japanese in working the longest hours. We are already a work-saturated society, and I for one believe that we already have the work-life balance wrong. I believe that this bill will simply make that situation worse. I am not prepared to see those precious 3½ days further eroded. It is bad enough, when we get together as a family, and someone is not there. Every one of us in this House has had the experience of asking: “Where’s Jim today?” or “Where’s Mary today?”, and being told they are working. That is acceptable when they happen to be working in a hospital, in a restaurant, in a pharmacy, or even in a service station—because people need gasoline—or working for any of the essential services: the police force, or the fire service. Those essential services are necessary 365 days a year. There is no argument with that. But I want to ask people to examine their own consciences as to whether it is necessary for them to shop 365 days a year. It is not, for me. I like to have a day when we can get as many members of the family together as possible. I simply see this proposal as the thin edge of the wedge.

One of the logics advanced in this House is that we already allow trading in some towns on those days, so we should give everybody that opportunity. I bring it to the attention of the House that it is possible to look at it the other way around. The fact is that we have only 3½ trading-free days. By the way, one of those is Anzac Day, and that is not a day on which families can get together, because all the shops are open at lunchtime. Last year in Lower Hutt, for example, all the big shops had sales starting the moment the half-day observed for Anzac Day ended. Anzac Day, instead of being a day to commemorate our war heroes and those who have gone before us in that cause, and a day for time with our families, has actually become a great selling day for the shops. I regret that. I think that is negative for family life and negative for who we are as human beings.

Quite frankly, I can get by with shopping on 361½ days a year. That is more than enough. I have no desire to buy a car on Easter Sunday; I have no desire to do many things on Easter Sunday. I have a strong desire to see our nation preserve some time when we can get together with our families, when we can relax together, and when we can be together with as many family members as possible. Everything that reduces that opportunity I strongly oppose, and therefore I will be voting against this bill. Thank you.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : I rise to speak in support of the first reading of Steve Chadwick’s Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. The bill enables territorial authorities to decide whether retail shops in their districts may open on Easter Sunday and requires those authorities, before making any such decision, to consult their communities by adopting a special consultative process provided for in Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. I support this bill going to the Commerce Committee, and in doing so I thank Steve and Jacqui for putting two bills of this nature before the committee. I am sure Maryan Street, as part of that committee, will join me in thanking both members for giving us this particular workload. I am sure they can trust us to make sure we get a good result from the two bills.

Tonight I want to support this bill but also to discuss the differences between the two bills, which I think is important. Some differences have been highlighted, and also some confusion. Firstly, Steve Chadwick’s bill relates only to Easter Sunday, whereas Jacqui’s bill relates to Good Friday and Easter Sunday. So my initial thinking is that this bill goes only halfway. The second point is that Steve’s bill puts the responsibility on to local councils, whereas Jacqui’s bill allows legislation in Parliament to take account of the whole issue. My concern with responsibility going to local body level is that, as Jacqui pointed out, it once again puts costs back on to local councils. Jacqui used the example of a $20,000 cost for a council in the South Island. I think that is a concern. We are always hearing in Parliament that we are continuing to put costs back on to local body councils. So I say once again that it is a concern.

I say to Peter Brown that Jacqui’s bill allows for multiple local territorial authorities to come on board.

Peter Brown: Why didn’t you say that at the beginning?

CHRIS TREMAIN: Well, it is pretty clear in the bill that there is that opportunity.

In terms of similarities, both bills seek to allow trading on an Easter weekend. There was some confusion in a New Zealand Herald article today, but both bills do protect employees’ rights as to whether they wish to work on those days. I say to Gordon Copeland that that is something I want talk about. The bills do provide the choice for people to work or not to work, which is the point Gordon raised. Both bills do not specifically compel shops to open. It is that choice that I want to talk about. In terms of my own businesses, being given the choice to open on Good Friday or Easter Sunday I would have no compulsion to open my businesses on those days, and I would certainly allow people who work within my businesses the opportunity to continue to have a holiday. I believe that it is a matter of choice. Gordon talked about mankind being born to be free; I guess by being free there is that choice to allow people to have holidays, which I think is important.

I believe there are anomalies in the current law, as Steve pointed out—specifically that shops in Taupō can open, yet shops in Rotorua, 1 hour up the road, cannot. It is a crazy situation. Garden centres around the country can open regardless, but many other retail shops cannot. That is just silly. New Zealand has a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week trading environment; there is nothing more sure. The tourism industry currently provides approximately $12 billion of New Zealand’s gross domestic product, so I believe that it is important for, in particular, cities like Napier and Rotorua to be able to continue to provide services throughout the Easter period. That will be good. Comments made recently not by the Anglican Church but certainly by the Catholic Church show that the church has no particular issues with this bill, because it is believed that choice will reign.

Both bills will now come before the select committee. Once again, I thank both the ladies who are putting that additional work before us. I am confident we will get to a resolution on this issue, but, in closing, I say that I certainly believe there should be no half measures and that we should not be imposing additional costs on our regional councils, because they have enough costs as it is.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : It is my pleasure to speak to this bill tonight, but I am very sad to have to speak against the bill proposed by my good friend Steve Chadwick. I oppose this bill.

I listened with some interest to the last speaker, who comes from Napier. In 5 minutes he again gave one of his profound speeches for Napier by, firstly, noting simply that the territorial authorities would not approve of this bill—and, of course, they would not—and, secondly, making some inane comment about travel agents in Napier not choosing to open on certain days. Napier has bigger issues to address than trying to stretch the dollar of a few over a few extra days. Napier has large areas of social deprivation, and it is the people there—the young kids—who will be called in to work on the extra day. Of course there is choice, but it is not a real choice.

I speak in this debate as someone who has continually parented for the last 37 years. I started parenting when man first walked on the moon—in fact, in the same month—and my youngest child is now 14. So for the last 37 years, or however long it has been, I have been raising children. In that time I have seen shops close fully on the weekend, whereas today some are trading for 6 or 7 days a week. In that time we have also seen the breakdown of family life. The dollar does not buy more; people just work longer hours to have the same buying power for their family. And we now have two parents working. The effect on the family is that children no longer grow up coming home to one parent who is there and dedicated to their needs. We can beat our chests all day and all night about what causes family breakdown, but if there is not one parent in the house whom children can relate to in downtime, when that parent is not harried by work pressure, then that family will have all the symptoms and signs of family breakdown. There are suburbs in Napier where parents have no choice but to work every hour available to them in low-paying jobs in shops or in cleaning jobs. There are suburbs in Napier where the children do not lack the love of their parents, but their parents lack the time to give them their support, because of the competing demand of earning an income.

I also speak as a member for 6 or 7 years of a board of trustees of a decile 2 secondary school. I know only too well the difficulties a decile 2 school has in engaging with its parent community. Again, it is not because the parents do not want to be engaged; it is because their time is so committed. Many of the parents work for a wage that does not give them the choice that property developers, property speculators, and the like have to govern their lifestyle accordingly. In Napier we see the clashes of the two styles. We see those who are privileged with choice and who want shops to open 7 days a week so that they can go and buy from those who have to work for a menial wage at the expense of their family life; and we see those who do not have a choice whether to work those hours—even though it may be written into the bill that they do—because shops opening for longer hours will put pressure on the 16 and 17-year-olds to work at the expense of their school work, and put pressure on the mums and dads to work the few extra hours so that their children can have the glittering toys that the well-off have.

This is a real debate in the suburbs of our community. It is the pressure of time that is the biggest cost to family life. This bill does nothing to ease the pressure of time. It is absolutely fallacious to say that businesses in Napier will improve because the shops open on a few extra days. There is not an unlimited amount of money going around and waiting to be spent. Every dollar, in the suburbs in Napier that matter, is well committed before parents look to see how many days a week the shops open. Many parents could not spend enough money to feed the kids, even if the supermarket was open on only 3 days a week. An extra day will not help the young kids in Napier who have time on their hands and are on the streets because their parents are working hard to meet the cost of buying a house in Napier, or the cost of paying the exorbitant rent that some landlords charge, because the National Government sold State houses and there was no income-related rent legislation. We do not have the stock. People cannot get a State house.

These are the issues we have to address, rather than increasing our shopping days by a few measly hours. I stand here as someone who asks people to look over the other side of the fence. What this bill proposes may be unimportant in the scale of things, but it is part of the principle of whittling away, for the mighty dollar, what is really our greatest value in this country—our people. What is most important? It is people; it is people; it is people. And we cannot have people without relationships, and relationships are families. Families need to have downtime to spend together—time when they do not need to do anything, so that real relationships can be formed. That is why I speak against this bill, despite the good intentions of my good friend Steve Chadwick.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I want to take a short call on this bill, and I do so because although I did not vote for Jacqui Dean’s bill when it came before the House a few weeks ago, I will be voting for Steve Chadwick’s bill to go to the select committee. I want to explain why I am doing that.

I oppose Easter trading, and I always have. Many small-business people came to talk with me when they heard this bill was coming up and asked me not to vote for it. They felt that when the Warehouse opens they also have to open, otherwise they might lose customers because they would think they had not bothered to open that day. Those people were the only people who came to me about this bill. I support many of the comments made by my colleague Russell Fairbrother, but I feel that in this House there is a will for this bill to proceed and I am facing the reality that it will probably pass. If this bill is to pass, then I want it to be the best bill it can be for all the people who will be affected by it.

With all due respect to Jacqui Dean, she was quite prescriptive in terms of the areas that would or would not be affected, and I thought that could be problematic. It is good that the two bills are going forward side by side, because it will mean we can decide whether the legislation should be district-wide or prescriptive. It may well be that councils will come along and say there is no way they have the political will to say they will open up everything on Easter Sunday. That is very true, but it is a discussion the select committee should have.

Most important, Steve Chadwick’s bill addresses the issue of workers’ rights. When I was at high school and working in a dairy, I was forced to work on Christmas Day. I was told I had to work on Christmas Day or I would be fired. That was fine for me. My mother was really angry with me that I went along to work, but I needed the job. On Christmas morning I worked alongside a single mother who had three kids. She was working on Christmas Day because she had been told the same thing I had been told. I do not know whether that is an isolated case or whether it is widespread practice, but it is a real concern to me—because it does happen.

Clauses in Steve Chadwick’s bill address the issue of workers being made to work on Easter Sunday. Easter Sunday is a very special day for many people, and it might be for those workers. But if they are forced to choose between their religion—their beliefs—and their job, then that is a very difficult decision for people. I think the select committee needs to consider that very, very seriously. If businesses want to open on Easter Sunday, well, more power to them, but they should not have the ability to coerce their workers to work on that day, as well. It may well be that this is more of an issue with bigger employers than it is with smaller ones.

The reason I will vote for this bill to go to the select committee is that I think it will pass through the House and therefore I want it to be as good as it can be. The two bills going through together will mean that more of the issues that are important to the people in my area will be addressed than would be the case if this bill were to be defeated tonight.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I have been pleased to hear the range of issues before the House tonight, and I believe that it is reflective of the debate we have had in the House at previous times. I think that getting the two bills before the Commerce Committee will be of great interest and will give us a more robust bill. As a result of the submission process we may even think of other ideas that we have not had a chance to consider before. I entirely trust the Commerce Committee to come up with something to report back to the House for the Committee stage that will be even better than both our local bill—which, I must say, was drafted by the Rotorua District Council legal division after great consideration of the debate that had gone on at the Rotorua District Council—and Jacqui Dean’s bill.

This has been a very interesting process with both bills being pulled out, because it has shown that we are learning about the MMP environment. We are learning, issue by issue, to work on issues that bring people together instead of taking traditional party lines. It is even interesting to note that my colleagues are not all in agreement with this bill—and I respect their right to hold their individual views. I just think that the issue is the absurdity of the way Easter trading has been crafted since 1977. That issue—and the principle—has caused great frustration and grief in places like Wānaka, Rotorua, and Tauranga, and for the sake of that very principle we want to see it sorted out.

The petition we are running talks about the anomalous schedule of exemptions and the geographic variances. We asked only for Parliament to consider a mechanism to get that sorted. I believe that with these two bills that mechanism can now be sorted.

To Hone Harawira of the Māori Party I say I do believe that Mātāriki probably will be a public holiday in this country one day, and perhaps that will happen on the demise of the Queen’s Birthday holiday. We need to consider these things and be flexible over time. That is the opportunity we have in bringing these issues to the House.

I do not see the necessary support for restrictions on both Good Friday and Easter Sunday. We were very careful about following research and following the surveys that we conducted, which were not hugely subscribed to. It tended to be the business community that responded, because they are the most affected. I always feel that one has the personal right to not go shopping. I do not actually go shopping on Easter Sunday. If anyone wants to, kē te pai—they can go shopping—but I choose to spend the day with my family, just like Gordon Copeland. I do not see that as an erosion of anything, but that is just my personal view.

I was very cognisant of a Green Party amendment that I want to acknowledge came from Rod Donald. It was interesting to hear Sue Bradford say tonight that she was concerned about worker protections. It was Rod Donald’s amendment on garden centres in relation to Rodney Hide’s bill that I saw as quite inspirational. So it is interesting to hear the Greens saying that the workers are not protected adequately by this Rotorua District Council bill.

Everybody at Rotorua is dying to know the result of the count tonight, and I hope we have some good news for them. I trust the Commerce Committee to come back with something even more robust and, what is more, enduring so that we do not have to visit this issue again.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I move, That the Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be considered by the Commerce Committee. This bill should be supported by every party in this House because it is about the basic democratic right of every New Zealander to know what is in the food he or she eats and where it comes from. It is a simple bill based on the simple proposition that consumers have a right to have enough information on a label so that they can make informed choices about the food they buy. Surely, all political parties would support that. It is a simple bill that recognises that people are becoming more and more concerned about what is in their food and where it comes from, and that they want better and more informative food labels. Surely, all political parties would support that. This bill requires mandatory country-of-origin labelling, all GE ingredients in food to be declared on a label, egg cartons to identify whether eggs have been produced from free-range, barn raised, or caged hens, and fish packaging to identify whether fish is wild-caught or farmed. It also establishes a traceability system for foods containing GE ingredients so that they can be traced throughout the food production and distribution system, and it guarantees full public access to Government information on residues of pesticides and other chemicals in our food.

At present, consumers do not have this very basic information. The Greens did a survey a little time ago of 450 items in the supermarket. None of them had GE ingredients declared on the label, there was no indication of where most fresh food items, such as meat, came from, and many of the labels were misleading and confusing. This means, for example, that consumers simply cannot figure out whether a tomato like the one I have here has been grown in New Zealand or imported from Australia, in which case it has been dipped in a highly toxic insecticide called dimethoate. Nor can they figure out whether most garlic, such as that which I have here—on sale in our supermarkets—comes from New Zealand or whether it has been transported 10,000 miles from China, a country where 80 percent of the waterways are polluted and garlic can be contaminated with a virus that could decimate our onion industry. Surely, consumers have a right to know that.

In a world awash with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and avian influenza, surely consumers have a right to know where their meat comes from. Unbeknown to most New Zealanders, thousands of tonnes of pork, beef, lamb, and other meats are imported into New Zealand. Last year 27,000 tonnes of pork alone was imported into New Zealand, but there is no way that consumers—even detectives—can find out where all that meat has ended up because there is no label on any meat in the supermarket to indicate which country the meat has been imported from. Surely, consumers have a right to know that.

Consumer research has demonstrated that consumers want to know where their food comes from, and for a variety of reasons. Some just want to support local producers. Others are concerned about food miles—the huge environmental cost of transporting food from the other side of the world. Others are concerned about the lack of quality control standards in some countries that we import food from.

GE-derived ingredients in our food supply have not undergone safety testing—they go through only a phoney assessment process. Surely, if we do not even require that GE ingredients are safety tested, we should at least require producers to declare on a label whether there are GE-derived ingredients in their food so that consumers can avoid buying that food if they wish. Under our woefully inadequate labelling laws, the vast majority of GE ingredients in food do not have to be declared on a label, so it is actually impossible for consumers to work out which foods do or do not contain GE ingredients. There are about 15 ingredients in the package of rich tomato soup I have here—many of them are likely to be GE derived, but there is nothing on the label to declare that. Proper labelling of GE ingredients would give credit to the majority of food companies in New Zealand that have already eliminated GE-derived ingredients in their food. It would also require the GE industry to stand by its products instead of sneaking GE ingredients into our food without a label.

If we are going to allow hens to be kept in cruel battery cages that violate the basic principles of the Animal Welfare Act, surely we should at least require producers to declare on a label that eggs come from hens that have been kept in cages. Surely, all parties in this House would support the traceability provisions in this bill that would ensure the Government could trace any direct or indirect unforeseen effects on human health or the environment of GE food and help protect our reputation as a quality producer of clean, safe food.

There is overwhelming support amongst consumers for the labelling provisions in this bill. In an independent poll carried out by Consumer Link, 84 percent of respondents said they wanted all GE ingredients in food declared on a label, 81 percent wanted food labels to tell them whether a product is imported, and 71 percent wanted egg cartons to declare whether hens have been kept in battery cages. Only yesterday, SAFE presented to this Parliament a 51,000-signature petition calling for the mandatory labelling of egg cartons. So these are issues that consumers care passionately about.

As well, 21 organisations, including Parents Centres, the SPCA, the Breast Cancer Network, GE-Free New Zealand, Greenpeace, and so forth, have written to me to support this bill. So too have major producer boards such as Horticulture New Zealand—representing all fruit and vegetable growers—and the Pork Industry Board, both of which support the country-of-origin labelling provisions of this bill. There is nothing radical or controversial in this bill. Countries in Europe and many other countries already have such provisions. They already have a requirement that all GE ingredients in food be declared on a label. Most of our trading partners already have country-of-origin labelling.

Nor does this bill impose onerous compliance costs on industry. There are no additional compliance costs in providing in-store labelling of fruit, vegetables, meat, and fish. The country-of-origin provisions for processed food are based on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand standard that is already in effect in Australia and that is not onerous, either. Nor is there any cost in putting a label on an egg carton to state that eggs have come from caged hens. The new requirement to label GE ingredients would apply only to the dozen or so companies in New Zealand that have not removed GE ingredients from their products, and there would be a 2-year phase-in period for those businesses to comply. So nobody can wring their hands and talk about compliance costs, because there are no significant ones. Furthermore, the need for accurate, truthful, and meaningful food labelling is recognised by all major national and international food standard - setting agencies, including the World Health Organization, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, and our own Food Safety Authority, and by our own food laws.

This bill is simply about freedom of choice and personal responsibility. These are things that parties like National and ACT say are their core values, so we assume those parties will support this bill, otherwise they will be seen by the majority of New Zealanders to be utterly hypocritical. If there are segments of this bill that political parties have difficulty with, then let us thrash out those issues in the select committee. I know that some people have expressed concerns about the percentage of labelling of inadvertent contamination of food by GE. Let us discuss those sorts of issues in a select committee. Let us not seize on a couple of little issues to try to justify opposition to a bill like this that should be supported by every party in this House.

We should already have mandatory country-of-origin labelling. We would have it if the Government had not unilaterally pulled out of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand standard on country-of-origin labelling without consulting a single member of this House. It pulled out unilaterally. The Cabinet Minister in question made the decision—a decision that concerned the 80 percent of New Zealand consumers who wanted it. The Government unilaterally rejected our standard without consulting this House. It is profoundly ironic that a Government that supports a Buy New Zealand Made campaign has refused to implement a country-of-origin labelling campaign. Consumers are watching closely to see how political parties vote on this bill. I urge members to support it.

I seek leave to table a letter from Horticulture New Zealand, which supports the country-of-origin labelling provisions of this bill.

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

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to table a letter from the Pork Industry Board supporting the country-of-origin labelling provisions of this bill.

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

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to table a letter from the SPCA strongly supporting my Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill.

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

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to table a letter from the Breast Cancer Network supporting this bill.

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

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to table an email from Parents Centres supporting this bill.

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

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to table a letter from Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics confirming their support for this member’s bill.

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

Darren Hughes: Is this the last one?

SUE KEDGLEY: No, it is not. I said there were 21.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Would the member please just list all the documents.

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to table a press release by Greenpeace supporting the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. I seek leave to table the Pesticide Action Network letter supporting the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. I seek leave to table a letter from Bio-Gro New Zealand strongly supporting the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. I seek leave to table a letter from the president of the New Zealand Natural Medicine Association supporting the provisions of this bill. I seek leave to table a letter from the New Zealand Vegetarian Society strongly supporting the contents of this bill. I seek leave to table a letter from the Herb Federation of New Zealand supporting the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. I seek leave to table a letter from Agrissentials New Zealand Limited supporting the provisions of this bill.

• Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to table a media release by Save Animals From Exploitation supporting this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to table a letter from the Soil and Health Association of New Zealand, publisher of Organic NZ, supporting the contents of this bill.

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

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to table a press release from GE-Free New Zealand supporting this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

SUE KEDGLEY: I seek leave to table a letter from Rural Women New Zealand supporting two of the provisions of my bill. I seek leave to table a letter from the Bio Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association supporting this bill. Finally, I seek leave to table the survey that the Green Party undertook of 453 products in our supermarkets. It showed that none of the GE ingredients in food were declared on labels, that there was no indication of where most fresh items, such as meat, came from, and that many of the labels were misleading or confusing.

• Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Sue Kedgley’s Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. The National Party certainly does promote choice and freedom, and we certainly encourage the right of consumers to know what is in their food. What we do not agree with, however, is the purpose of this bill, which is to require the Government to introduce a comprehensive labelling system in New Zealand. We know that in-depth research around the world clearly shows that consumers want to know whether food is safe, nutritious, and of high quality, and what its cost is.

In actual fact, the origin of where food comes from is possibly quite misleading. Just looking at the number of campylobacter-notified cases for New Zealand between 1996 and 2005, we can see that it went up from 7,600 in 1996 to 13,835 last year. The quality of our food clearly varies tremendously, and really it is the quality we want to know about. I think it is also important to realise that New Zealand has very comprehensive food labelling legislation in action as we speak. I thought it was appropriate and worthwhile to bring the packets from my breakfast this morning, because they do indeed illustrate the fact that since 2002, when we put in—

Hon Mark Burton: You can’t have your breakfast in here.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON:—no, not the breakfast; just the packages—comprehensive labelling in New Zealand, at the cost of about $1 billion to Australia and New Zealand, the requirements for that were very extensive. Just looking at the packaging of the honey I had the other morning, I can see what is required these days. It is mandatory for the manufacturer to state its name and where it comes from, and the manufacturer can also voluntarily display a freephone number—as is done by most manufacturers in New Zealand—so that it can be traced.

Secondly, I can see that extensive ingredient labelling is required in New Zealand. Members should look at the honey carton’s nutrition information—its content in terms of energy, protein, total and saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, and minerals. Over and above that, there is very extensive barcoding information. That is not just in relation to the honey; it is also there for the Vogel’s bread. Mr Klisser, whom I used to know very well, brought that excellent brand in. Again, I say that labelling requirements in New Zealand are extensive. I also have here the excellent muesli with fruit from the Mayor of Auckland, Mr Hubbard.

One of the things that I think is often overlooked by the Greens is the fact that any manufacturer in New Zealand does have the choice to label, if that manufacturer wants to. I absolutely commend New Zealand’s National Heart Foundation for its tick. One can go easily into supermarkets, see the tick, and be reassured that the evidence base behind the nutritious value of the food, and its quality, is substantial. I think that it is indeed one of the great qualities of New Zealand that we have choice, and it is really fortunate that the very onerous requirements of compulsory labelling are not as total as Sue Kedgley would require.

Much to my surprise, Sue sent me a letter from Foodstuffs, which she told me was supportive of her bill. Well, I would like to read a little bit of the letter. It states: “We generally support measures to provide consumers with product information, with the proviso that the information is actually useful to consumers, feasible for food suppliers to provide, and the costs imposed on business are not disproportionate to the usefulness of the information.” The letter goes on to state: “In relation to country of origin, while Pam’s”—one of their labels—“already comply with the Australian country-of-origin labelling, we have never supported a mandatory approach to labelling for processed foods, because we believe statements like ‘Made from local and imported ingredients’, which is required in Australia, are virtually meaningless. On the other hand, we accept that origin labelling for individual ingredients would be hugely complex and expensive to implement. This is compounded by the fact that suppliers frequently change the source of ingredients, for many reasons—for example, seasonal supply—but tend to change product labels only once every 3 to 4 years. The cost of frequent label changes would be prohibitively expensive.”

This bill that Sue Kedgley has brought to the House has some very perplexing parts to it. For instance, in the part relating to GM food and feed, she promotes the thought that packaged food derived from GM food, or containing an ingredient derived from GM food, must be labelled as such—lowering the threshold from 1 percent to 0.5 percent. GM content will either be safe or unsafe. Lowering the threshold from 1 percent to 0.5 percent carries absolutely no virtue whatsoever in terms of whether the food is safe, which is one of the basic requirements that most consumers are concerned about.

I go back to the topic of country-of origin-labelling. I concede that Sue Kedgley also sent me a letter from the Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand, which was signed by Peter Silcock, the chief executive. I do have a degree of sympathy for the thought that fresh food and vegetables and fresh fish, as in Australia, could easily be labelled with the country of origin. I think that Peter Silcock says that in-store point of sale tags are already used throughout the industry to indicate the name of the product and price. His letter states: “Simply adding the country of origin of the product to the tag would be a very simple task and would add no or very minimal cost.” It may be that that part could be explored by this Parliament at a later date.

But I go back, once again, to the fundamental consumer concern about food. Consumers are interested in whether food is safe, whether it is nutritious, and whether it has quality. I remind Ms Kedgley that if she is buying mussels down in Nelson again, she should remember that those mussels, if they are left for a few days, could easily have something like listeriosis or campylobacter in them—whether they are from Nelson, New Zealand, Tasmania, or China. When Ms Kedgley shows us some garlic from China and says that 80 percent of China’s water is not safe, I believe she is making a very incautious statement. Again, if the garlic arrived in New Zealand, we would be concerned that it was safe, and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry controls and biosecurity measures required to ensure that those viruses were knocked off, were indeed in place.

Coming from Port Waikato, an area famous throughout New Zealand and the world for its fresh produce, I know that the traceability requirements of our magnificent fresh onions are absolutely extensive, if they are to be sold successfully in Sainsbury’s, over there in London. But that chain is not so concerned about country-of origin-labelling. It absolutely concedes that country-of-origin labelling should not be made mandatory, and that New Zealand manufacturers should have the choice about whether they adopt it and how they do so.

• Debate interrupted.