CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) : I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Good one, because that’s what we’re on.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Indeed! But I believe the legislation is fundamentally flawed in its approach. Before I begin the substantive part of my speech, let me place on record that I consider climate change to be a huge consideration, both globally and nationally, that we have to take account of.

I believe that human activities can have a negative effect on climate change, but I am not a scientist. The extent of my scientific knowledge most recently, I guess, comes from having read Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything, but the scientists I met at GNS Science told me that reading that book is a very, very good start. I am pleased to say that I have read it twice; I found it very, very interesting. It tells us that the climate has been warming since the 14th century, which is when we had the last mini - ice age, so of course global warming is a consideration and a reality.

Human activities during the industrial revolution will have caused a steep increase in the emissions of greenhouse gases, which certainly appears to be having a detrimental effect on the planet. All countries, I feel, must make an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this is something that we in the National Party take very seriously. That is why the new Government has set up a special select committee to review climate change policy. This was in part a response to the record of the Labour Government, which oversaw emissions rising at a rate of—and this is quite a figure—over 1 million tonnes per year.

Climate change policy is something that we as a Government need to put a lot of work into getting right. This bill will not do that. It is not the way to go. First of all, the very nature of the bill runs contrary to what we are trying to achieve with the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, which I have been privileged to spend quite a bit of time being involved with as it goes through its processes. The bill we have before us has the potential to build extra layers of bureaucracy within our regional councils. At the very least, it will give extra work to those regional councils. Very recently, we have seen how well or otherwise they are performing against expectations, and it does not make very good reading. So the consequence of giving the councils extra work would be an increase in the unnecessary delays and costs, which the other bill, the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, is doing its very best to reduce.

What this bill would do in general is make applications for resource consents more onerous, more time consuming, more costly, and significantly more restrictive. Were this legislation to produce better decision-making, there may be a valid argument that it would be worth it. However, I would suggest that it will do nothing of the sort. Instead, it will make decision making more problematic and more time consuming, and it will produce massive inconsistencies throughout the regional councils of the country. We already have the most devolved system of environmental planning in the world. That is why we are having to pull together the activities under the Resource Management Act to try to introduce some efficiencies and consistencies. I am sure that, as well-intentioned as this legislation may be, the Green Party would not seriously want to introduce a bill whose effect would be to allow an ad hoc approach by regional councils to resource consents. That would have a very serious consequence to the economy.

If this bill were passed into law, it would have some very serious and unfortunate consequences—some of them unintended, I am sure. Let me quote from the explanatory note of the bill: “Clause 5 repeals Section 70A of the Resource Management Act 1991 in order to allow regional councils”—here is the bit—“to control discharges to air of greenhouse gases on the basis of their effects on climate change.” If these decisions were left to the discretion of the regional councils and their ideas on the extent to which differing amounts of greenhouse gases have an effect on climate change—and that would put them in a very, very hard decision-making basket—then we would see different regional councils making different decisions, and we would have inconsistency. It would be a mishmash. It would be incoherent, a reprehensible muddle, and a regurgitated dog’s breakfast of outcomes. It would not be pretty.

To ensure that different councils have the expertise to make the judgments—which, by the very nature of this legislation, would be inconsistent throughout New Zealand—more work and more effort is required. The consequences of this bill would be one giant mess—albeit well-intentioned. The issue of climate change surely requires a national rather than a regional approach. National approaches, by definition, provide consistency throughout New Zealand and avoid the sort of scenario whereby a regional council, in acting on its discretion, will not be prevented from developing its own resources and setting low standards, all for the sake of improving its own economic standing. That is one of the problems that can occur, and my good friend and colleague Eric Roy mentioned it during the first reading debate.

Climate change must be dealt with on a national basis. The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill sets up an environmental protection authority that allows a framework for a nationwide approach that will enable national consistency, and that is the kind of approach that is called for here.

Hon Maurice Williamson: That’s right.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I am glad that a Minister sitting with me agrees with that.

The very essence of what the proponents of this bill want to do is made clear in clause 4, the purpose clause. I quote it in its entirety: “The purpose of this Act is to ensure regional councils are able to take into account the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change, including when—(a) considering applications for air discharge consents: (b) developing rules in regional plans.” The second part of that clause, paragraph (b), highlights my argument—and, indeed, the theme of my speech—about the fundamentally flawed nature of the bill, and that is that the bill would enable regional plans to develop rules surrounding climate change issues.

If this was not such a serious issue, one could take it quite light-heartedly, because we are talking about the same regional plans that five out of 85 local authorities still did not have in place in October 2008, and the same regional plans that have taken, on average, an astonishing 8.2 years to devise. I spoke to about 60 planners from councils just last week, and they acknowledged that there are real problems associated with plan development, not least of which is the cost. I cannot imagine how much longer this bill would add to the average number of years for a regional council to devise a plan, but the mind boggles. This would be far beyond the concept in which regional councils would make decisions that take climate change into account based on a national framework, which would be far better.

This bill would let the councils make the rules themselves. Different people in different regions would be making different rules if this bill progressed. We would need to employ more people to devise the rules and to ensure the required limits on discharges for greenhouse gases. Regional councils do not yet have the required scientific and economic expertise to deal with these issues. Some may, but how can we be sure they all do? I suggest that most regional councils do not have the immediate capability to deal with these scientific aspects. Experts would undoubtedly be required for each regional council if they were all to achieve a modicum of good decision-making. Again, that is a very good reason to support a national approach rather than rely on the varying expertise of regional councils. And when are different so-called experts ever on the same page?

The essence of my feeling is that the absence of a national environmental standard will result in markedly inconsistent decisions being made. This bill would make a lot more sense if there were a national environmental standard to adhere to, but even then it would still be beset by many of the problems I have mentioned thus far. The criticisms of this bill could be endless. We should not allow this bill to become law, as it is a poorer piece of legislation than it is an improving one. Instead of improving, streamlining, and speeding up applications for resources consents, it will, conversely, make it more complicated and cumbersome, for no clear gain.

I do not have an ideological opinion that opposes anything that might increase a time delay for a resource consent. But it is not something that would ever be ideal, particularly in the current economic climate in which job creation and protection is more vital than ever—even though that is ignored by people on the other side of the House. If I could be convinced by a good argument that this measure is necessary, I could be persuaded, but this bill does not even begin to persuade me.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) : I first acknowledge Jeanette Fitzsimons for putting forward this Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. I am delighted to rise to support the bill, because I believe this is very important legislation that we must support. This bill is basically very simple. It allows regional councils to take into account the effects on climate change of greenhouse gas emissions when considering applications for air discharge consents and developing rules for regional plans. There are really only two issues there. The bill repeals sections 70A and 104E of the Resource Management Act. I think that is very important.

Unfortunately, we have just heard a whole lot of garbage from the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole. The member accepted that he is not a scientist and does not know much about this topic; obviously somebody has written his speech for him. I, for one, can say that I am a scientist and know something about this subject. I have personally measured some of these greenhouse gases. I have measured nitrous oxide in the agricultural area, I have measured carbon dioxide. I am very familiar with the topic, so I can say with some authority that I know something about this subject.

The Government really has no policy in a number of areas—and I mean a number of areas. If we look at the forestry sector, the emerging issues in the whole carbon sector, and the biofuel industry, there is nothing there. Also, there is the area of electricity generation. The Government cancelled a whole lot of environmentally friendly plants that had been planned and it has a whole lot of new generation on hold. I am really sad to see that this Government, over time, has changed its stance on this issue.

Let me quote a couple of views from the Prime Minister. In May 2005 he stated on climate change: “This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—”. Then he went on to state, in November 2006: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have. Like most New Zealanders I take the risks caused by climate change seriously. The scientific analysis indicates that the world is getting warmer and if this doesn’t change the results could be catastrophic for our society as well as for our environment.” Then in December 2008, last year, John Key stated: “I believe that human-induced climate change is accurate.” What a somersault, what a flip-flop!

Hon Damien O’Connor: Slow learner.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: It takes time, and it seems that since National members have become the Government, they have not really done anything at all in terms of doing something for climate change issues.

As I said, this bill is a very simple bill. It clearly states that regional councils should “take into account the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change,” when making new rules and also when considering applications for air discharge consents. Clearly, this is a major issue in New Zealand, particularly in agriculture: 50 percent of our gas emissions is from agriculture. Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane are the major issues for us. This Government has really done nothing in this area to ameliorate some of the effects of greenhouse gases on climate change. Similarly, on the whole waste management area, there is nothing there.

On land management and on the crop production system, New Zealand has done quite a bit of work over the years. For example, I have been doing some research myself, including at Massey University, in measuring nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide from various cropping systems and from various land management systems where there are crops and pasture, and in other plant production systems. But this Government has no strategy on how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which is a major issue for us in New Zealand.

Similarly, there is no waste management strategy—particularly anything to do with the recovery or management of waste, with energy efficiency, or with regard to conservation. Again, major savings, if you like, could be made in terms of economic development if some of these issues were to be seriously considered, particularly in the agriculture area. I keep saying that I am an agriculture guy; I have been personally involved in that research. In New Zealand we have a serious issue in controlling emissions from agriculture, and this Government has done nothing in terms of promoting more sustainable agriculture, particularly in the land management area. Nothing has been done.

I am really disappointed that this Government is not taking any of these issues seriously because its members do not believe in climate change. I do not believe that the Prime Minister and his colleagues actually believe in a whole lot of the issues around climate change, so there has been only lip service in this area. Labour certainly had an emissions trading scheme, and I do not believe that this Government is sincere in following the scheme. We are sure that the emissions trading scheme will be one of those useful tools that we have in New Zealand to promote more sustainable transport and agriculture.

We heard recently about the issues in Auckland over transportation. We now have the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, saying that he is concerned with what is happening in Auckland with the Auckland Council. He is another Minister who does not believe in climate change. In October 2008 Rodney Hide, the leader of the ACT Party, was speaking against the emissions trading scheme. He stated: “I think the idea that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing the globe to warm is a theory, just a theory. It’s an interesting theory. It’s been around for a long, long time and I think the evidence doesn’t support it.”

I think this Government needs to take this issue seriously. I am delighted that Jeanette Fitzsimons has taken this stand and promoted this member’s bill to ensure that our regional councils, when doing their planning in terms of consents and making rules, take into account greenhouse gas emissions. This century, I believe, is a century in which we need to make sure that we leave the resources that we have, whether land or other resources, for future generations, so that they can enjoy the benefits of those resources. If we continue as we are and keep using resources, particularly oil resources and land resources, in the way that we are, then it will be a disastrous future for our children. Having said that, I am delighted to support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : The Local Government and Environment Committee received a whopping 1,925 submissions from the public on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. A significant majority of the submissions were in favour of the bill and an even greater number again expressed support for action on climate change. It is therefore without dispute that this bill and, more particularly, climate change has an impact on the lives of people.

At a forum held just a few months ago in New York the president of the United Nations General Assembly revealed that climate change has a specific and especial impact upon indigenous peoples. The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues released a statement saying that indigenous peoples are “most directly affected by environmental degradation caused by climate change,” and are “the stewards of some of the most precious biologically diverse regions of the world,”. I am proud to advise the House that Professor Margaret Mutu and Catherine Davis, both born of the north, are currently representing Aotearoa at the 2-week United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. On this very day, Wednesday, 17 June, climate change issues are on the agenda. So it may well be that decisions we make in this House today are able to be influential on the world stage.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has concluded that there will be a particular and detrimental impact on traditional indigenous ways of life. The indigenous peoples of the Pacific, South-east Asia, the Himalayas, North America, South America, Africa, and Europe all stand to be threatened by global warming as an immediate consequence of their direct dependence on natural resources. In the Arctic region the Inuits are prevented from continuing their traditional hunting practices as the ice breaks up around them. Pasifika people are losing coral atolls beneath rising seas. The tribes in Borneo watch as their rainforests catch fire. In Tibet the people suffer as they see their medicinal alpine plants disappear before their eyes and their sacred glaciers melt. And for tangata whenua our traditional links, through Hineahuone to Papatūānuku to the land, are a consequent reminder of the full spiritual, emotional, and moral implications of climate change for our people.

Our special relationship with the land, waterways, and other natural resources, as expressed through kaitiakitanga, also provides us with a strong foundation for making a commitment to environmental integrity by addressing climate change. So we support the intention of this bill: that climate change be addressed via local government and the Resource Management Act process. The bill is the manifestation of that old 1970s catchcry “think global, act local”, or, as the Japanese multinationals have coined it, “think ‘glocal’ ”. Acting “glocal” might mean that local government actually turns to tangata whenua to understand how our traditional knowledge has been applied in order to lessen the impact of natural disasters.

We all understand that climate change is a major threat and is already having adverse effects on the environment. As all the submissions pointed out, there is a desperate lack of action on the issue. We also know that urgent action is needed to meet Kyoto obligations. Given that knowledge, it just does not make sense that the select committee recommended that the bill not be passed. The rationale for failing to support the bill was that the committee thought that climate change should be addressed nationally, not via local government and the Resource Management Act. It should not be an either-or situation: we can take action at a local level and at a national level too.

The Māori Party has a different view. As the independent Māori voice of this Parliament, we believe that it is dangerous to delay any further, given the urgency in dealing with emissions at the regional level. Taking action to adapt to climate change, and ensuring that tangata whenua are actively involved in this action, is critical. The cost and the regulatory burden that were rejected by opponents to the bill must be seen in the wider context of urgency and the extent of the challenge posed by climate change. The bill merely seeks to reinstate one tool of regulation, while recognising that many tools will be needed to address the issue.

We thought the submission from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, was of particular relevance. The commissioner expressed qualified support for the bill, given the regulatory vacuum following the 2004 amendment to the Resource Management Act. She also recommended an amendment to the bill to ensure development of a national environmental standard to provide national guidance on effective use of resources. It was a perfect example of support for action on climate change by demonstrating a national approach and local government responsibility hand in hand. That is a holistic approach where we all recognise that we play a part in maintaining and strengthening the resilience of healthy ecosystems.

I cannot help but contrast such an approach with all the goings-on around the emissions trading scheme. The revised rules for the emissions trading scheme make it clear that big industries—the major emitters of greenhouse gases—will receive over $1 billion in subsidies and rebates for about 90 percent of the electricity price increases coming out of the scheme. That is great for the big emitters, but more doom and gloom for ordinary New Zealanders. Household consumers will pay the full price rise. The fairness test surely requires that all sectors should pay in the same proportion at each stage. There should not be blanket exemptions in some sectors, while families suffer. The emissions trading scheme reform came up with over 90 percent of the charges resulting from the new amended scheme falling on consumers, who account for just a third of the emissions.

Coming back to this bill, the original intention was that councils should be required to consider climate change when issuing consents or formulating policy, but do so in conjunction with a national policy statement or national environmental standard to provide guidance. It was literally the best of both worlds: all sectors committed to change starting at the same time. Tackling climate change requires action at a local level, as greenhouse emissions occur from a wide variety of sources. Yet what did we find when the bill came back from the select committee? It was very much the same scenario that confronted the emissions trading scheme reform. Ironically, the opposition that was attached to this bill—opposition to making climate change a local government responsibility—came from much the same sources as the opposition to the emissions trading scheme. I am referring to the submissions from business, industry groups, local government, energy generators, and some environmental and community groups. The same groups that oppose the emissions trading scheme are also opposed to supporting fair mechanisms that make positive steps towards addressing climate change.

The Māori Party’s core position is that we believe that the ability of councils to consider climate change ought to be in place at least until a national instrument is well established and shown to be effective. Why put off till tomorrow what can be achieved today? We believe that the intention of this bill was to strengthen both the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Act 2004 in ways that would consider the effects of greenhouse emissions—and the discharge of contaminants on to land, and into air and water—on climate change. The existing legislation lacked teeth in both these areas, and the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill was a key means to create an opportunity for regional councils to consider such effects and impacts. We are proud to speak up, and out, for urgent action on climate change, and to declare the support of the Māori Party for this important bill.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) : I do not intend to speak for long on the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. The ACT Party will not be supporting the bill, and I would like to explain why. I think the last two speeches illustrate the point very well. Rahui Katene has just explained that households—ordinary New Zealanders—will pay for the costs put on them by the emissions trading scheme; ordinary households will pay for the cost of this bill.

Before my colleague Rahui Katene spoke, we heard from Mr Choudhary. He described the emissions trading scheme as a “useful tool” to provide sustainable transport. But it is more than a useful tool; it is actually a tax. It is a tax imposed on businesses and, more important, on consumers. It is a tax felt at the lowest end of the income scale, by the people who have no alternative but to buy energy, buy food, and buy things that the emissions trading scheme would impose costs on.

Mr Choudhary cast doubt on the Prime Minister’s comments in regard to climate change. Let us be quite open and honest: the ACT Party does not oppose the concept of climate change; we acknowledge that climate change is happening. The Prime Minister acknowledges that the climate is changing all the time. In fact, the scientific evidence is that the climate has changed over generations and generations, over centuries and centuries, over millennia. The temperature of Earth has warmed and cooled over many, many millennia. The issue is whether it has warmed and cooled because of human inducement or human change; whether human activity has contributed to that change. Although it is very easy to say that the science is settled, the reality is that the science is not settled. I have had the privilege of sitting on the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee as a substitute for Rodney Hide on occasions over the last couple of months. Evidence was produced that the temperature of the Earth has actually cooled since 2002, and that it has not risen since 1998. There was no evidence that I saw or heard that discredited that fact—none whatsoever.

Last Thursday I attended a meeting of the Unite trade union. It was a function that my colleague Melissa Lee also attended, and one of its purposes was to launch the campaign for an increase in the minimum wage from $12.50 to $15. The Green Party co-leader Russel Norman and the Labour candidate were both very anxious to sign the pledge: “Let’s sign up. Let’s increase the minimum wage from $12.50 to $15.” But I said to the people of the Unite union that it is not a question of gross income earned; it is a question of living standards. It is a question of what is actually earned after tax. It is a question of what is earned after living expenses have been met. The emissions trading scheme imposes a cost on the community, and it imposes a cost on households, as Rahui Katene has just said. Yes, it is very easy to sign up to increasing the minimum wage, but what a trick that would be. We need to look at reducing people’s taxes in order to reduce the cost of living and to increase the standard of living.

So the ACT Party will not be supporting this bill; it will be opposing this bill. ACT has championed a review of the emissions trading scheme, and we are very proud to have done that. Countries around the world—not least of which was Australia in the last 2 months—have moved in the last 6 months to defer the introduction of their own emissions trading schemes. I believe that the role the ACT Party has played in forcing a review of that bill will go down as one of the most significant achievements in this parliamentary term. Thank you.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : The discussion in the House this afternoon has been very interesting. I thank Dr Ashraf Choudhary for his comments, and I assure him that we respect his knowledge of science, particularly his knowledge of agricultural science. I also thank Rahui Katene for her comments, and for pointing out how important dealing with climate change is for indigenous people. We all agree that there is a need to do something about climate change, but the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment bill is not the right way to do it.

This bill is a member’s bill introduced by Jeanette Fitzsimons, and first read in March 2006. I sympathise with Jeanette Fitzsimons, because since the 1980s she has been well aware of climate change, and has been actively calling for policy to deal with this issue. Her pleas have mostly fallen on deaf ears. This bill was an attempt by Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Greens to do something, but it is a last resort, and a very poor one at that. The bill was born out of frustration. It was an attempt to get some traction—any traction and any legislative provision—to tackle climate change.

The House must remember that back in 2005-06 when the member mooted this bill, there was absolutely no legislative instrument to deal with climate change or greenhouse gas emissions, because in 2004 Labour had removed the only piece of legislation that dealt at all with climate change or gas emissions. In 2004 Labour amended the Resource Management Act to remove the ability of local government to consider the effects of emissions on greenhouse gases or climate change, when making rules on regional plans and determining discharge consents. It was a provision of the Resource Management Act that had been used quite successfully in the past—for example, in 1993 in the consenting of the Taranaki combined-cycle power plant, and in 2001 when Genesis Power was granted its consent for the new Huntly plant.

As I said, this bill was born out of frustration. Jeanette Fitzsimons was frustrated because Labour had removed the one and only piece of relevant legislation actually in place, and Labour had not been able to make any new, nationally consistent climate change legislation stick. Back in 2005-06 Labour’s environmental policy in terms of climate change was a mess, and everybody knew it. I will give a short history. In June 2003 Labour announced the animal emissions levy. It failed. The Government then announced its energy efficiency target, aiming to get a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency within 10 years. That also failed. The Labour Government then announced a carbon tax. That was voted down. It then attempted to negotiate greenhouse agreements with big industry players, and that failed, too. Despairing at the lack of progress, Jeanette Fitzsimons produced this bill, although she, and everyone else, was well aware that a national economic instrument was a far better way to deal with the issue. Jeanette Fitzsimons introduced this bill to fill the void left by Labour’s bungles.

Well, we do not need it now. The National Government has set up the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee to review policy and the emissions trading scheme, and Jeanette Fitzsimons is a member of that committee. This bill was always recognised as a poor relation in terms of dealing with the issue, and we now have better options. A national financial instrument, like the emissions trading scheme, is the right way to deal with climate change. It is an issue that should be dealt with on a national level, not a regional level. Rules to manage greenhouse gas emissions must be consistent across the country, across the industry, and across sectors.

Councils are certainly not experienced enough or equipped well enough to deal with one of the most important global issues of our time. We do not want ad hoc, inconsistent, local applications of rules on a case by case basis. Councils are already struggling to deal with their responsibilities under the Resource Management Act, and we have seen the survey from the Ministry for the Environment just this last week that tells us that many councils are struggling. After 18 years some councils have still not got operational plans under the Resource Management Act, and many are struggling to process consents effectively and on time. We certainly do not want or need the duplication of a messy local council system running alongside the new emissions trading scheme. We do not need any further complexity in the Resource Management Act just when we are putting in place the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, which is designed to simplify the Resource Management Act’s processes in order to cut costs and lengthy delays. Compliance with this bill would be both time consuming and costly for regional councils and the ratepayer, and it would have no real benefit.

In fact, no one likes this bill. Even Jeanette Fitzsimons herself has acknowledged that the idea that a member’s bill could fix global change is absurd, and that it is just an attempt to put back some controls that used to be there. Well, we have moved on, and we now have greater expectations of our legislation. Mrs Fitzsimons has said that the bill was proposed back in 2006 only because there was no carbon charge or carbon trading; it was never the instrument of first choice. Even then, Jeanette Fitzsimons admitted that a national environment standard would be better. As I said, no one really wants this bill. At the Local Government and Environment Committee, the majority of submitters on the bill favoured a national approach rather than a local government solution. The Ministry for the Environment was not supportive of the bill, and, finally, after hearing all the evidence, the select committee recommended that the bill should not be passed. The committee was dead right: this bill should not be passed into law, and I oppose it.

The National Government supports emissions trading as its preferred option for addressing climate change. The cross-party Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee is in the process of debating how that legislation should perform, and Jeanette Fitzsimons is part of that process. Everyone agrees that a nationwide scheme, such as an appropriate emissions trading scheme, will be far more efficient and effective than this bill. An emissions trading scheme will mean there is far more compelling economic incentive to adopt new, cleaner technologies and processes, and to make real changes in our businesses, in our organisations, and in our personal lifestyles.

We all know that New Zealand needs to do its part in tackling climate change. We need to be an active part of the global solution, and, at the select committee table right now, we are debating just how we should do that. I tell Jeanette Fitzsimons that I understand her frustration at how long the process is taking. She has been talking climate change for decades, and I understand the motivation for this bill. But we all know that it is not the right way to make progress on this important and pressing issue. The National Government opposes the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : I rise as the final speaker in this debate to call for the adoption of the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill. Let us briefly recall the background to the bill. In 1991 the National Government introduced the Resource Management Act, which was adopted by this House. Among other things this Act accorded the power to regional councils to consider climate change matters when issuing air discharge consents. In 2004 the Labour Government amended the Act removing those powers. Shortly thereafter, in 2004, the Green Party submitted this bill, which seeks to restore those powers. I acknowledge Jeanette Fitzsimons for her insight and perseverance in this matter.

Neither National nor Labour denies the magnitude of the climate change problem. To quote Eric Roy: “Am I worried about climate change? No, I am not; I am absolutely terrified by it.” To quote Steve Chadwick: “Climate change is a very serious challenge.”, one in which “We have to play our part”. For its part the Māori Party was pleased that the bill was having a reading, because it was forcing Parliament to confront global concerns. Yet National opposed the bill in its first reading. Its stated reason was that regional councils would face invidious decisions in respect of their own areas, and that the problem with climate change was a global and national issue only. Members cited Franklin District Council, in whose area New Zealand Steel is located, and Southland, where a local authority might encourage coal extraction, and whose people might welcome global warming. This is a bit rich, considering that National put on indefinite hold the national instrument that was passed last year.

The Labour Government opposed the bill on the grounds that a national policy was required and it intended to introduce a carbon price. Moana Mackey expressed concern over the regional inconsistencies that could arise from leaving something as important as climate change to regional councils. Labour apparently believed that it was something that only central government should do. Labour, of course, did not have the carbon tax voted down, as the previous speaker just said, it simply dropped it and switched to an emissions trading scheme, but it delayed the emissions trading scheme so long that with the change in Government it is now subject to review. So no carbon price has been set and now Labour is changing policy and supporting the bill. I thank Labour for its unflagging commitment and consistency in our time of national need.

Of course, Labour could have legislated for its proposed carbon tax before the 2005 election when it had a majority with the Green Party—it did not. It could have legislated in 2006 with the Green and Māori parties—it did not. It could have supported this bill last year and at least restored the power of regional councils to consider carbon in air discharge consents. It did not. It is voting for the bill today in the exculpatory knowledge that it lacks the numbers to pass.

The rationale for this bill remains as strong today as in 2004. It is to restore the status quo ante when the 1991 Resource Management Act accorded regional authorities the power to consider climate change in making decisions. It is not Franklin District Council that would make such decisions but Environment Waikato. That regional council is entirely capable of taking into account the global, national, and local interest in combating climate change. No doubt if the regional council succumbed to the siren call of local global warming, the Government would be empowered to override such irresponsibility. But we should not underestimate the wisdom of our best local policymakers, especially on issues such as climate change, which threatens our children.

It should be noted that of the 1,925 submissions, a significant majority favoured the bill, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Those opposed offered three arguments. The first was the quaint logic that restrictions on industrial emitters were unfair if none were placed on vehicles or livestock. But the Resource Management Act requires air discharge consents for stationary industry, not vehicles or livestock. No one has ever to my knowledge suggested it should. The second was the misguided fear that local government lacks the scientific and economic expertise to deal with the issue. The short answer is that such expertise often does reside in regional councils, and national experts are there to assist, in any event. The select committee heard evidence that the bill would work better if the National Government put in place a national environmental standard, guiding councils on how to consider carbon in their deliberations. That would have been our preference, too. The third was a simplistic belief that action against climate change should not be a local government responsibility but a national one. Of course, as has been remarked, it is both.

We all know that throughout this country and now in this House—with the singular exception of the five erstwhile ditherers among us—we are currently failing in our struggle with climate change. We have been cognisant of climate change since the early 1980s. We commenced political action in the mid-1980s. We identified the global interest to combat it in 1992. We introduced our first weak global legislation in 2008. So a quarter of a century has passed before the global ship of State is even considering turning round. But the required 90 degree turn-round remains at the level of consideration only. In fact, the global economy remains on a fixed course to disaster. It is as if humanity is poorly attuned to the pitch of the alarm siren. Certainly, Mr Boscawen and his ACT Party cannot hear the pitch, whether it is from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the majority of submissions to Parliament’s Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. Over those 25 years our global emissions have risen. Yet if we are partially deaf, we are certainly not mute. We still bicker vociferously over the next critical step.

New Zealand must do everything within its power to play its part. This is not an act of altruism. We are not aspiring to be a global leader—no one would notice. It is simply in our direct national interest. We must act at the global level, the national level, and the local level. There is no inconsistency between these levels in pursuit of the common good. Each has a responsibility to act. Each must play its part. Let us adopt this bill without further delay.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I move, That the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill confronts what can be done immediately to reduce the harm associated with alcohol advertising. The specific measures proposed by the bill are to amend the watershed for liquor advertising on television from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and to return the exclusive jurisdiction of liquor advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. In front of us today is a small measure to reduce alcohol-related harm. Television is a small but influential component in our fight against the ills that alcohol inflicts on our communities and especially on our youth. It is my view that it is our responsibility as parliamentarians representing New Zealand communities to refine current rules as best we can and as soon as we can.

The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is one of several similar bills currently before the House. This bill aims to reduce alcohol-related harm, along with the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, introduced under the previous Labour Government, which looks towards local alcohol plans. It is important to note that the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill differs from Metiria Turei’s Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill, also currently before the House. This bill does not seek a complete ban on liquor advertising, but simply a change in the watershed and jurisdiction of liquor advertising to further align liquor legislation with international norms and with the important premise of upholding the public’s health. I suggest that this bill complements the bill that is now in the name of the Hon Simon Power, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. That bill also seeks to ensure that liquor advertising is consistent with the promotion of responsibility and moderation in the consumption of alcohol and to ensure a reduction of the overall exposure of children and people under the age of 18 years to liquor advertising and liquor promotion. There are provisions in that bill to stop liquor advertising and liquor promotion from holding strong appeal to children or young people. However, whereas the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power has liquor advertising playing a supporting role, this bill that we are considering tonight allows that issue—a key to the proliferation of New Zealand’s binge drinking culture—to take centre stage.

This bill would actively reduce the overall exposure of children and people under the age of 18 to television liquor advertising and promotion, and change the watershed when adverts can first be screened from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. The second provision of this bill is to return the oversight of liquor advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The bill recognises that alcohol-related harm is a public health issue; as such, it should be under the jurisdiction of the Government. Again, the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power has provision to give the Director-General of Health the ability to pull liquor adverts from the air. This recognises that the Advertising Standards Authority, as an industry body, can only go so far in addressing concerns about public health. This bill clarifies that rather than leave the important task with an industry body, liquor advertising should be brought back from the Advertising Standards Authority to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Such a move would show that this Parliament is willing to acknowledge that, although the Advertising Standards Authority does a commendable job in regulating advertising at large, liquor is not simply another commodity. As a public health issue, it needs to be dealt with by the Government.

The current review by the Law Commission, outlined recently by its chair, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, supports the facts associated with alcohol-related harm. The societal and cultural damage caused by alcohol is systemic, and this bill, taken in conjunction with the Hon Simon Power’s bill, seeks to have us, as parliamentarians, acknowledge that we need to act on behalf of the communities we represent.

I will mention some background to this bill. It was originally sponsored by the Hon Matt Robson before being passed to Martin Gallagher in 2005. The bill had two parts: firstly, to raise the purchase age to 20 years and to strengthen the provisions relating to the supply of minors; secondly, to provide a statutory restriction on broadcast liquor advertising before 10 p.m. and transfer the jurisdiction of liquor advertising from the Advertising Standards Authority to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

After the bill’s first reading, the Law and Order Committee divided it into two separate bills, the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill, which was defeated in 2006, and the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, which is back before us today. The select committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed with the following amendments: that the watershed relates only to television broadcasting of liquor advertisements; that exceptions to the watershed include one for advertisements in which liquor depiction is incidental to the advertisement’s purpose, so as not to create problems with, for example, televising international sporting events; and that the exclusive jurisdiction of liquor advertisements on television by the Broadcasting Standards Authority be clarified.

The history of broadcast liquor advertisements goes back to 1981, when the advertising of alcohol-related outlets on broadcast media was permitted. In 1991 brand-name alcohol advertising on television and radio was permitted, as a result of a decision made by the then National Cabinet, without the consultation of Parliament. These changes, combined with the proliferation of liquor outlets in our communities and the lowering of the alcohol purchase age in 1999, have had adverse effects on alcohol-related harm, which I think we all acknowledge. The current regulatory environment for liquor advertising on television comes under the jurisdiction of the Advertising Standards Authority. It works in partnership with the Advertising Standards Complaints Board and the Advertising Standards Complaints Appeal Board, which is the final arbiter for complaints. This bill moves to reinstate the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s jurisdiction over liquor advertising, which it lost in 1993 after the Hon Maurice Williamson’s Broadcasting Amendment Bill was passed with staunch opposition from Labour. As stated, it also seeks to amend the current liquor advertising watershed from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Some points members may wish to consider include the fact that youth exposure to liquor advertising increased by 20 percent in 2003 after a panel appointed by the Advertising Standards Authority brought the watershed forward to 8.30 p.m. The self-regulatory framework that the Advertising Standards Authority is governed by means that the industries involved could unilaterally alter the watershed. It was believed that by adding a new principle that stated that liquor advertising must observe a high standard of social responsibility, the watershed could be relaxed. That premise is misguided. As the Advertising Standards Authority is an agency driven solely by public complaints, social responsibility on the part of advertisers cannot be guaranteed. Research conducted by the New Zealand Drug Foundation shows that despite the Advertising Standards Authority’s intention that liquor advertisements do not use heroes of the young or unduly masculine themes or behaviour, in fact television advertisements are largely associated with exaggerated mateship, masculinity, and boisterous group scenes. Under the Advertising Standards Authority all those advertisements pass industry pre-vetting. That indicates that there is a reoccurring issue with advertisers’ interpretations of the code.

There is now a call from constituents asking us as parliamentarians to address the concerns of alcohol-related harm. This bill asks that we take a small, responsible step and give regulation to a body with the public interest as its primary concern, and also move television liquor advertising to a later commencement time. I believe that it is expected of us as parliamentarians to do our best to align the bills currently before the House. The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill complements the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power by providing a specific focus on the power and influence of television advertising. I commend this bill to the House and I seek the support of members, who, of course, are allowed to exercise their conscience vote on this measure. Thank you.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am pleased to speak to the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I note that the bill was originally introduced by the Hon Matt Robson in May 2005, so it languished for some considerable time before it was resurrected here today, and it currently stands in Brendon Burns’ name. At its first reading, this bill was treated as a conscience matter because it contained provisions dealing with the minimum legal purchase age and the supply of liquor to minors. This bill was split into two separate bills at the select committee: the first bill being the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, and the second bill being the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction: Purchase Age) Amendment Bill.

This particular bill seeks to make a number of changes to the Sale of Liquor Act 1989. It does so, firstly, by extending the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It seeks to do that so that the Broadcasting Standards Authority alone has the jurisdiction to deal with certain specified complaints that are currently dealt with by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board. So the bill is essentially moving those complaints from one agency to another. The Broadcasting Standards Authority does a very good job of exercising control and self-regulation over certain specified complaints relating to the broadcasting of liquor advertising. It has, firstly, established a fine not exceeding $100,000 for a breach of this restriction, and, secondly, it has restricted the broadcasting of liquor advertising.

This bill seeks to restrict the broadcasting of liquor advertising to between 10 p.m. and midnight, which has been termed “the watershed”. At the select committee National members were not convinced that the so-called watershed needs to be limited to between 10 p.m. and midnight for television and radio broadcasting of liquor advertising. In fact, there is a compelling argument that the watershed should not apply to television and radio broadcasting. Many young people aged between 10 and 19 watch television and listen to the radio between 9 p.m. and midnight, meaning that their exposure to alcohol advertising may actually increase if this bill passes without amendment. If advertising is condensed to between 10 o’clock and midnight, and these young people are watching a significantly increased amount of advertising during that period, their exposure would be far greater than if the current provisions prevail. That is why National members of the select committee were not convinced. I guess that raises some of the issues the Law Commission refers to in its report, which is titled Review of Regulatory Framework for the Sale and Supply of Liquor. The report refers to some of those concerns around robust legislation. I might go back to it later.

This bill is essentially surplus to requirements. Although it might be said that it could be concurrent with the current investigations and legislative proposals along the same lines, I suggest that the bill is superfluous to them and should probably have been dropped way back in 2005, since when it seems to have languished. The bill has been overtaken by the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which had its first reading this year in March. The bill really is quite extraneous, superfluous, over the top, or whatever you will. In short, it is unnecessary in light of the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which had its first reading in March. However, in spite of that, Mr Burns has persisted and we have this bill before us now.

The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill also deals with the advertising of liquor, and the more recent bill provides an integrated approach to addressing under-age drinking, with a focus on increased responsibility for families and friends of the youths, as well as the youths themselves. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill also sets clearer standards around advertising and ensures consistent monitoring, with a focus on advertising that targets young people. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill also targets the areas of youth drink-driving by making it clear that any driver under 20 without a full licence cannot consume any alcohol. Finally, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill addresses licensing laws to give communities more input into licence applications and to provide clarity around when it is appropriate for an outlet to have an off-licence.

I will come back to the drink-driving issue. It is a significant issue that has been raised by submitters to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill who would like to see serious offending through repeat drink-driving taken much more seriously and with far greater penalties in sentencing. In talking about the Law Commission and its review of the Sale of Liquor Act, I tell members that it has been made clear to the Law Commission that liquor issues are a matter of priority for the Government. The commission has been asked to bring forward the report-back date, and the commission, in light of this direction from the Minister, is to release an initial discussion document in July. The piecemeal and fragmented proposals set out in the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill provide another example of why New Zealand needs a coherent, comprehensive response to liquor law reform.

The Law Commission report I referred to earlier talks about the idea of a party-based vote for alcohol laws and suggests that the conscience vote for alcohol bills is in place largely because of historical precedent and that it would be preferable to have standard party-based voting rather than a conscience vote for future bills relating to the sale and supply of alcohol. The key reason for this is that conscience votes pose a problem to the quality and coherence of legislation, and that tradition alone is not a satisfactory reason for continuing with the premise that the sale and supply of alcohol liquor laws should be based on a conscience vote. The suggestion from the Law Commission about alcohol bills is that there should be a move away from conscience votes because that would create a parliamentary environment that is stable and able to produce better legislative outcomes.

Also in the report is a comment by the New Zealand Police, which expressed support for a comprehensive review of alcohol laws. The statement was from 2008. The police voiced reservations about the use of conscience votes for the resulting legislation, and it was their view that the benefit of any legislative changes to be realised had to be adopted as Government policy and that the tradition of addressing alcohol-related legislation as a matter of individual choice is not conducive to delivering a comprehensive and cohesive legislative framework. That was the view of the Law Commission and the New Zealand Police. So here we have a member’s bill that will be voted on with a conscience vote and is really superfluous to the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which had its first reading in March. That is why I will not be supporting this member’s bill.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I wish to support the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I pay tribute to all of those members who have been involved in its travel through this Parliament—my former colleagues Matt Robson and Martin Gallagher, and, of course, my current colleague Brendon Burns—who have really championed an important cause in respect of this legislation.

On the one hand I was heartened by the comments from Sandra Goudie, because we have had here today a very clear statement from National members that they will be supporting the removal of the conscience vote for liquor bills, which is fantastic. I really, really commend the member for her statements to the House tonight that National will vote as one on this legislation because they agree that the conscience vote is outmoded and that it is time for it to go. Our party has not yet determined its position on the report of the Law Commission. I have been asked by the Leader of the Opposition to prepare a report for our caucus in order to debate what is a very, very important issue. But I take great heart that the Government of the day, National, has decided to eschew the conscience vote on alcohol issues. It is a major step forward for this Parliament and I am very, very heartened by it.

There is a book that I think every member in this House should read. It was prepared by the World Health Organization and has contributions from public health professionals all around the world. It is called Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity. This book is extremely relevant to the legislation we have in front of us today. It is also why I am disappointed that Sandra Goudie stated that National would vote as one against the continuation of this particular law. The reason why I believe that the member would vote this way is that she has not looked at the evidence around the question of reducing consumption and alcohol-related harm. This book makes it very clear that if we want to have an evidence-based approach to the question of dealing with alcohol issues, five very simple steps need to be adopted. The first is to increase the price; second, to increase the legal drinking age; third, to reduce the availability of alcohol; fourth, to reduce the advertising; and, fifth, to increase drink-driving surveillance. Those five measures are evidence-based internationally as mechanisms, or means, by which we can reduce alcohol-related harm in this country.

I presented a submission on the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which the member Sandra Goudie referred to in her comments in the House today. I can say that that bill does not cover the areas that are covered by this bill, which is why it is perfectly acceptable that members vote for this bill and also support the Government measure that is currently in front of the select committee. I will tell members why. Two things are covered in this bill that are not covered in the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. One of them is the watershed time issue, which my colleague has traversed in some detail. It was a decision of the Advertising Standards Authority to bring back the watershed time to 8.30 p.m. To be honest, I was not aware that the authority had brought back that watershed time, because the last time I appeared in front of the authority was Wednesday, 22 April 1998, when the watershed time was much later than it is today. It is really important that Parliament gets to decide these issues. They are important issues. We know that alcohol advertising has an impact on the environment and on the way that alcohol is being treated as an ordinary commodity in this country.

The second issue that this legislation deals with is the transfer from the Advertising Standards Authority back to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Again, this issue is not dealt with in the sale of liquor legislation that is before the select committee at the moment. So I reject the previous speaker’s comments that we should vote against this bill because another bill before a select committee deals with other ways of addressing some of the concerns about the type of advertising that the current law allows.

I believe that this bill must be supported, because it is a very positive public health matter. It seemed strange to me, and I was a member of Parliament at the time, when the then Minister of Broadcasting was also the Associate Minister of Health. I could not quite get that he would be responsible for overseeing the jurisdictional transfer from the Broadcasting Standards Authority to the Advertising Standards Authority. I wonder whether, as a Government Minister today, he really stands by the decision that he made at that time.

Sue Moroney: Who was it?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Maurice Williamson was responsible for that decision. Although I very strongly support the need for stronger supervision in this area, which is why I very much support the transfer back to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, I do not believe that the issue was properly debated at the time. The genie was already out of the bottle, to use an expression I have used in another context. The reason the genie was already out of the bottle was that we already had brand advertising on television by the time the transfer was made. That was not something that Parliament had an opportunity to debate. I recall being a brand new member of Parliament and being quite frustrated by this major shift in social policy, which was occurring without the opportunity to debate it within the House. The amendment to the broadcasting legislation that my colleague Brendon Burns referred to in his contribution actually occurred some time after the real decision about broadcasting alcohol advertisements on television had already been made.

I will comment on a few of the things that I said back in 1998, even though, in a way, nobody wants to be proved to be prophetic in that regard. One of the arguments that was used against reducing, limiting, or, indeed, banning—which is my personal preference—alcohol advertising on TV was the question of whether there had been an increase or decrease in consumption. Those who were arguing for the public health message were being asked to prove issues around the question of consumption rates. The industry itself was never asked to prove whether the rate of decline would have been higher had the industry not been able to push those advertising buttons.

The other issue is the question of aggregate figures hiding the impact on certain groups who are much more exposed. At the time, I used the example of the youth unemployment rate, which was over three times higher than the New Zealand aggregate. Often the aggregated figures hide the real problem, and in this area the youth drinking problem is being hidden. I used the argument that from a public health perspective we had to argue the other side, which was about what alcohol advertising does to the environment and what it does to enhance the public health of New Zealand. We know from the Business and Economic Research Ltd estimates that alcohol, as a whole, causes $5.3 billion worth of damage in terms of the cost to our economy on an annual basis. We are talking about a major harm here. So I ask why we are on the back foot arguing around alcohol advertising, when the industry should be defending its right to advertise, instead of it being the other way around.

I mentioned at the time that we had a visiting public health expert in New Zealand. She worked in a busy emergency department in a large city hospital, and kept seeing the results of violence. It did not take her long to work out that violence has to be treated as a public health issue. She talked about the different forms of interventions: primary, secondary, and tertiary. She used the example of smoking. A primary intervention would be a programme designed to prevent people from taking up smoking, a secondary intervention would be a smoking cessation programme, and a tertiary intervention would be an operation on a cancerous lung. She asked whether health promotion dollars would be best spent on surgeons doing the operations. The point is that, no, that is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We are spending an awful lot of money at the bottom of the cliff—on prison for the offenders and on hospitals for the victims. This bill deserves support.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : I want to clarify that there will be a personal vote, not a party vote, on this bill from the National side. The National members understand that. All sensible, thinking people would agree that liquor abuse is a hugely vexatious issue for New Zealand. I commend the intention of the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. The Government has made it clear to the Law Commission that liquor issues are a matter of priority for the Government. With direction from the Minister of Justice, the Law Commission is working on documents regarding the whole issue, which are becoming available to us as we seriously review the concerns that New Zealand society has about the harm caused by liquor, especially to our young people.

The intention of the bill before the House is to reduce the harm of liquor to the lives of young people—and who would not agree with that intention? Just as important, the intention of the bill is also to reduce the harm on all those who are affected by young people under the adverse influence of liquor. The sponsor of the bill calls it a small step. I believe that the bill does not go to the lengths needed to effectively address the problem.

The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Amendment Bill that has been presented by the Government to the House also seeks to amend the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 and to address the issue of the harm of liquor to youths in a more comprehensive and integrated manner. Like a multitude of parents of teenage children, I am extremely interested in legislation that will make our children’s worlds safer for them and their peers. About the time when teenage boys become interested in liquor they also become increasingly interested in fast cars, which is a dangerous and volatile combination, as we know.

The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, sponsored by Mr Brendon Burns, seeks to address the issue of advertising, but in ways that I believe may—as my colleague mentioned before—make little change to liquor advertising or may possibly even increase the exposure of teenagers to liquor advertising. The bill seeks to restrict all advertising of liquor to the 10 p.m. to midnight time frame. However, the probability that teenagers will not watch TV or listen to the radio between 10 p.m. and midnight is extremely remote. In fact, if liquor advertisers have only that time frame in which to advertise, it is likely that the concentration of liquor advertising during that time frame—a time when a lot of teenagers are viewing TV and listening to the radio—may increase. An unintended consequence of the bill could possibly be that teenagers actually get increased exposure to liquor advertising than is currently the case. Another title for the bill could be the “Compulsory 10 p.m. Bedtime for All Teenagers in New Zealand Bill”.

Iain Lees-Galloway: What’s wrong with that?

JONATHAN YOUNG: I was, of course, being facetious with that last comment. Research indicates that parents are the main suppliers of liquor to minors: 60 percent of minors identify parents as the primary source of their liquor supply. Around 30 percent of liquor is supplied by friends, and 10 to 15 percent is purchased by minors from licensed premises.

I will read out a quote from the New Zealand Medical Association’s New Zealand Medical Journal from 2 June 2006: “The severely worsening statistics for alcohol harm, especially for women and young teenagers, call for radical thinking about the multiple causes, and their long-term solution, not just regulatory, pricing, or policing measures, important though they are … Highly sophisticated advertising, some electronic, is largely ‘beneath the parental radar,’ and promotes youth alcohol culture. Scottish researchers have found that the industry knows the distinct preferences of even 11-14 year olds (who like inexpensive sweet drinks and colourful, wacky packaging) and 15-17 year olds (who prefer sophisticated adult brand names).”

In reading that quote I am saying that there are issues and problems in our society regarding the consumption of liquor by young people—we do not doubt that—but the association says that there are multiple causes, and that the long-term solution is not just regulation, pricing, or policing, as important as they are. I believe that the association is referring to attitudinal changes that our society needs to embrace and adopt. The issue will not be addressed just by further regulation of TV and radio advertising.

I believe that the problem has to do with the attitudes of the public at every level. For instance, when a drink becomes popular amongst teenagers because it is called Cocaine—it is available in some local supermarkets—we ought to wonder not just about advertising times but about attitudes in our society whereby the name of a class A drug can be normalised in the pursuit of financial gain. We have to ask how far over the edge of the cliff we are willing to let our young people lean.

Coming back to the issue of the harm of liquor to youths, the fact that 60 percent of liquor is provided by parents puts the issue of liquor supply and potential harm strongly with the parents’ attitude to liquor. I believe that parents are the best way for teenagers to learn how to handle these sorts of issues, and the responsibility regarding them, in a very positive way. Although electronic advertising is not an issue to be ignored, the biggest promoter of how to manage liquor is the lives and examples of parents and caregivers. Responsible attitudes to liquor are very important to the mature development of our young people.

One principle of the code of advertising liquor from the Advertising Standards Authority is “Anyone visually prominent in a liquor advertisement depicting liquor being consumed shall be and shall appear to be at least 25 years of age with their behaviour and appearance clearly appropriate for people of that age or older.” That principle is to ensure that, in advertising, the consumption of liquor is seen as an adult activity, and that the behaviour associated with it is deemed to be responsible, in keeping with that age.

A number of liquor advertising complaints have recently been made to the Advertising Standards Authority, particularly about some of the adverts that are probably enjoyed most of all by teenagers. None of those complaints received by the Advertising Standards Authority was upheld. That does not mean that the complaints were superfluous, by any means, but rather reflects that in the balance of things the authority felt that the advertisers did not contravene the principles of the guidelines. One complaint that was upheld was an advertisement that stated “Sometimes you can have a hell of a day and still have a hell of a night.” The majority view of the authority was that the advert crossed the line by implying that liquor created a desirable change in mood—to turn a bad day into a good night—and, as such, did not meet the “high standard of social responsibility” required by principle 2 of the code of advertising liquor and was in breach of the guidelines.

I believe that social responsibility is the key aspect we need to see in the thinking and attitudes of New Zealanders regarding the use of liquor and its associated influence on teenagers. Social responsibility is the one mitigating component that ensures that liquor consumption is not harmful to others. The National Government’s legislation takes a comprehensive approach that seeks to highlight social responsibility as the most powerful modifier of the abuse of liquor, by seeking to support a more moderate drinking environment and a culture that reduces normalisation of youth drinking.

I reiterate the New Zealand Medical Association’s comment: “The severely worsening statistics for alcohol harm, especially for women and young teenagers, call for radical thinking about the multiple causes, and their long-term solution,”. Although regulation is a means and a lever to address alcohol harm—and it touches on the issue of advertising—society itself and the environment of the home will provide the deeper and longer-lasting solution. Thank you very much.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : Let me state at the outset that the Green Party will support the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. We agree that there should be much stricter regulation of alcohol advertising in New Zealand. However, I say with respect that we do not believe that this bill goes far enough. Indeed, we have our own bill in the name of Metiria Turei, the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill, which would remove broadcast advertising of alcohol from television and radio.

The aggressive promotion of alcohol features strongly in New Zealand society. This cannot but exacerbate the problems of alcohol abuse. In 1992 alcohol brand advertising was introduced into broadcast media, leading to a 42 percent increase in advertising expenditure and a fourfold increase in televised alcohol advertising in the first 3 years. By 1998 there was approximately $52 million of alcohol sponsorship and advertising on television and radio, and in newspapers and magazines. The money spent on health promotion messages is a fraction of that amount. As a result, the primary source of information for most people about alcohol and how to use it is alcohol advertising.

Alcohol advertising in broadcast media is characterised by the association of alcohol brands with desired lifestyle images. The message coming from that advertising is that if one wants to have what it takes, one has to be able to take one’s drink. The Green Party bill seeks to address the problems associated with this kind of advertising by regulating the marketing, advertising, and promotion of alcohol products through the broadcast media. However, our bill has not been debated yet, and we look forward to the day when it is debated.

Alcohol is a drug like any other drug. When used in moderation by adults, its harms to the individual and the community are generally considered low and acceptable. However, as with all drugs, there are many who abuse and misuse this particular drug, which causes considerable harm to both the individual user and to the public at large. In order to manage those harms while retaining the principle that adults will, and do, engage in non-problematic drug use, a strong regulatory framework is inevitably required. In the case of tobacco, the community harms are severe. This drug, alcohol, similarly causes severe harm. Therefore, it too should be subject to a very similar regulatory framework that applies to tobacco. To this end, it is Green Party policy that the public health measures should include the following: firstly, a ban on broadcast of alcohol advertising; secondly, a requirement for compulsory health warnings on all alcohol and tobacco products; and, thirdly, support for the use of pricing mechanisms, including taxes, duties, and levies, to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol.

This bill, as I say with respect, does not go far enough to address these concerns. Yet none the less, we will support it as far as it goes. We encourage the House to support any and all measures that will reduce the harm that this powerful drug causes in our own national community. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : The key mechanism we are voting on this afternoon is to support a specific restriction on the broadcasting on television of liquor advertising. It is a debate set within the context of the current regulatory framework for alcohol advertising: the power of the message. In this respect, when I consider the steering group gurus—the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC), the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Youth Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the Advertising Standards Authority, and the Broadcasting Standards Authority—there is no denying that those organisations with the power over the policy are able to guide the House to know whether this Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill sets the standards that it suggests it does. So when I read the views of ALAC that more detailed research is needed to understand the impact of advertising on Māori and Pasifika peoples, and that dedicated resources should be set aside to address the impact of alcohol use on Māori, I think that those views should be listened to and respected.

This bill will take the blatant advertising of booze off our television screens. That is a good thing, but it is small speck in an ocean of desperation; a system in which meagre benefits are transferred straight into the hands of grog sellers and where the owners of the alcohol outlets profit from the addiction of the people. In terms of this situation of misery, the Māori Party is particularly concerned with the outcomes for Māori and particularly our rangatahi. We know that amongst young people, there are no significant differences in the prevalence of alcohol consumption between males and females or between Māori and non-Māori. For once, we are all equal. Starting with the good news first, the 2003 ALAC study of New Zealand drinking trends showed that 50 percent of the population of 12 to 17-year-olds are non-drinkers. So often this place is obsessed with fixing up the problems and telling the country what is wrong with it. It is a classic case of the glass being half full or half empty. We need to be looking at this 50 percent figure. What is it that stops our rangatahi reaching for the bottle? What sort of whānau support is in place to mean that alcohol is not the answer?

The other fact we need to promote is that the actual number of young people drinking alcohol is not increasing. The issue lies in how we drink. This is particularly so for rangatahi Māori. Māori youth drink less regularly in comparison to youth in general, but Māori youth drink heavily when they do drink. According to ALAC’s study, Māori youth drinkers were significantly more likely to have consumed large amounts of alcohol at least once a week, at 23.8 percent, compared with non-Māori youth drinkers, at 9.8 percent. The culture of binge drinking across all sectors of our community has a particular impact on our young Māori kids. It is the nature of binge drinking that makes for high risk. I am pretty confident in assuming that it was our Māori kids that Māori MPs were thinking of in 2005, when 14 of them voted in favour of raising the sale of alcohol age to 20.

We believe we need the sort of leadership that is legendary amongst Māori. That leadership dates back to a group of staunch Tai Rāwhiti women who stood up against their men, as those men composed the famous haka “Poropeihana” in opposition to the introduction of legislation on the prohibition of alcohol. Those women called on Apirana Ngata to stand tall to promote the message that alcohol abuse was not part of the Māori dream. I think now about all those cause champions in Kaunihera Whakatūpato Waipiro, or ALAC, who are promoting the message: “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” It saddens me to think that we are still struggling with the “go hard and drink until you drop” culture, and the glory of getting wasted and getting out of it, almost a century after those Ngāti Porou wāhine called on Ngata for intervention. When we think about this bill and the restrictions that will be placed on TV advertising, perhaps we need to think more carefully about messages pointing out the hazards of drinking frequently and consuming higher volumes of alcohol.

In researching the background to this bill, one of the things that got me going was that over half of the young people aged between 12 and 17 years who binge drink said that their parents gave them alcohol, and a staggering 48 percent of them reported that they are not supervised by an adult when they drink. So when we look at youth alcohol abuse, just as I think the alcohol outlets should be targeted and not the boozers, maybe our energies need to stop going into attacking young people and instead need to target whānau. We need an all-out, comprehensive approach that holds us all responsible. We could look at how many parliamentary functions would be shut down if we started putting some limits around alcohol advertising sponsorship. Any members who go out on night patrol with the cops around their electorate will witness the cells filling up with grossly intoxicated young people on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights. How many fights are fuelled by liquor? How many convictions result from drink-driving or alcohol-related crashes? How many young people are referred to Youth Aid for disorderly behaviour? Will this bill address the fact that alcohol is a contributing factor in around 25 percent of fatal crashes and 20 percent of serious injury crashes on our roads?

The Māori Party supports the regulations and prohibition placed on advertising by the liquor industry. Let us be clear: the industry is not interested in public health or youth development when it glamorises the power of alcohol as a mind-altering substance. The essential evil of alcohol is the attitude we hold towards it. I take great pride in being a non-drinker, a non-smoker, and drug-free, knowing that for so many of our whānau, alcohol exacerbates the issues that already confront them. I also take pride in being the mother of five Māori children, who, thankfully, made it safely through their adolescence. But my youngest daughter had several friends who did not make it through, and in many cases alcohol was the cause of their deaths.

Sixty percent of Māori inmates say that alcohol or drug use was a factor in their offending. Whānau destruction goes hand in hand with alcohol abuse. We do not need to see any more photos on the 6 p.m. news bulletins of houses with bottles lined up outside against the wall to see the connection. Sure, the booze barons and the corporate giants must be held responsible for peddling a killer substance across the counter, but I have to ask who takes the first step in initiating change. We need research to liberate our families from dependence on alcohol. We need restrictions in place to ensure we put the brakes on a drinking culture that is motivated by getting totally legless and off one’s face. Most of all, we need to have real alternatives to replace the keg or the bottle. We need whānau who can have fun without the booze, recreation that does not depend on liquor outlets as the only venue, and real opportunities to turn away from drug and alcohol dependence.

Alcohol is still the most damaging drug in our society, and the most frightening thing is that this drug is legal from the age of 18 years.

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

RAHUI KATENE: It should not be a matter of “Just say when.”; it should be “Just because we can.” or “Just because we care.” We will be supporting the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Kia ora.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I rise tonight to speak to the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Before the dinner break I listened to the very interesting speech made by the MP for Te Tai Tonga, Rahui Katene. I share her concerns about the tremendous harm caused by the misuse of alcohol and the insidious nature of the companies that peddle alcohol. Societal harm from alcohol is all too common.

There can be no question that we all wish to reduce the amount of harm caused by alcohol, particularly as it relates to young drinkers. Alcohol-related issues are a priority for this Government—we have made that very clear since the very early days of our Government. I think that all members would agree that this is a significant issue for our communities, that it is a major driver of violent crime—especially domestic violence—and that it causes a significant number of problems for our health system to deal with.

Since I was fortunate enough to become a member of the House, I, like many of my colleagues, have spent time with local police. In speaking with them and spending time out on patrol with them in their cars, one message has kept coming through, and that is the tremendous amount of work caused for them by the abuse of alcohol in our society. Some of the police I have spoken with have estimated that as much as 90 percent of their average workload is related in some way to alcohol. I am particularly concerned about domestic violence, which often affects women. It also affects children and older folk in our community.

These issues are tremendously enhanced by the long hours that drinking establishments are allowed to be open each day and each week. Equally, I have found when speaking to colleagues in the health profession, particularly those in the emergency departments of our hospitals, that the story is the same. If they did not have to deal with alcohol-abuse issues, their lives would be far easier and the pressures on our health system would be considerably reduced.

So it is clear that heavy drinking is not putting only our young people at risk. It puts at risk their families and any stranger who may have the misfortune to encounter them at the wrong moment—perhaps when they are behind the wheel of a car. It also puts at risk the hard-working members of our police force and our health system. It also puts at risk our fire crews and our ambulance drivers, none of whom ask for this problem to come to their doors.

Against the backdrop of the harm caused by alcohol, I commend any member of this House who tries to find ways to address some of these serious issues. But that does not mean that any attempt to deal with alcohol issues should be supported without careful thought. These are serious issues but they are complex, and as a politician I am seriously wedded to the need to ensure that we guard against doing something just for the sake of it. Too often this House has passed laws that have been driven by the need to do something but that do not address the real mischief. I understand that we all feel a need to make a difference, but we have to be careful when we pass laws. It is an extreme responsibility, and we need to be very careful that the laws we pass will actually make a significant difference.

As I said, this is a complex area. My strong preference is not to play around the edges and take a piecemeal approach but to consider the whole of the problem, which has many aspects, and look at real, substantive solutions. When I considered this bill and how I wanted to vote on it, I came to the conclusion that its measures will not make a meaningful difference. I was not lucky enough to sit on the Law and Order Committee, which considered the bill, so I acknowledge that I do not have in front of me all the information that the members of the committee had, but I am called upon to make a decision. I have given it careful thought, and I simply cannot see that the two elements of the bill will really do much more than give the members of this House a warm feeling of having tried to do something.

The transfer of responsibility for alcohol advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority from the current jurisdiction of the Advertising Standards Authority seems to me to address a problem that does not actually exist. I have not seen any real evidence that the Advertising Standards Authority is not handling the issues competently. The more substantive measure in the bill is to restrict alcohol advertising on TV and radio to between 10 p.m. and midnight—the so-called watershed.

I was particularly affected by the argument that a lot of the young people we want to target are more likely to watch TV and listen to the radio in the later hours of the evening—certainly from 9 p.m. to midnight. A real concern worth reflecting on is the fact that if we limit alcohol advertising to those hours, there is a real risk that the proportion of alcohol advertising that young people will be exposed to will in fact increase. That is something we certainly should not take lightly.

I will not be supporting this bill. Although I applaud its focus, I am simply not satisfied that it will achieve anything in real terms. New Zealand deserves a comprehensive response to liquor-related issues, and that response, I believe, is already in progress. The good work that is under way needs to be looked at as a whole.

The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill is already before the Justice and Electoral Committee. That bill covers a number of the issues addressed by this bill and provides an integrated approach to youth drinking issues. It is not a silver bullet, and I do not hold it up as being one, but I think it provides a more comprehensive approach to the issues. It certainly includes provisions around the advertising of alcohol. We are better placed if we leave this Parliament and the select committee to complete their work on that bill rather than try to muddy the waters around the edges.

In addition—and I know that this has already been mentioned in the debate—we have to be mindful of the fact that the Law Commission, which is a specialist body that considers such issues, is in the process of completing a comprehensive piece of work on the issues around alcohol abuse. One of this Government’s first actions was to indicate, through Minister Power, that it wanted that to be treated as a priority item, and it asked for the report-back date to be brought forward.

The first volume of that work has already been released. It relates to conscience voting and to how that has had an impact on the quality of our liquor legislation. Certainly, that has provided food for thought. My understanding is that we can expect the remainder of the report to be released sometime within the next few weeks—I understand that the commission is working to a date sometime in July. In light of the fact that a comprehensive bill is already working its way through the House and that the Law Commission is completing important work on the issue, we really need to take the approach of doing it once and doing it right. We should not try to muddy the waters.

In conclusion, I say that I applaud the work of the members who have brought this bill to the House, seen it through the select committee, and continued to support it, but, for my part, I do not feel able to support it. It falls into the camp of doing something for the sake of doing something. I do not see that it will make a real difference in terms of these important issues. I would prefer that the House focused on the important pieces of work that are looking at this issue more comprehensively. Thank you.

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) : Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. It is indeed my pleasure to stand in support of my colleague the MP for Christchurch Central, Brendon Burns, and his Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill.

This bill is very important because it confronts the reality that we all need to take collective responsibility to reduce the harm associated with alcohol advertising. Everyone in New Zealand—adults, young people, children, families, and communities—is affected by alcohol advertising. The two specific measures of this bill are to amend the watershed for liquor advertising from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. and to return exclusive jurisdiction for liquor advertising to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

I have been really impressed with the amount of research and consultation my colleague Brendon Burns has done in relation to this legislation. He has worked with many groups, including the New Zealand Drug Foundation, and looked at alcohol advertising policy, the Review of research on alcohol advertising and sponsorship, and the report of the steering group for the Review of the Regulation of Alcohol Advertising. One of the biggest reasons why we need to take collective responsibility is seen daily through the evidence particularly of our young people, the impact on them of excessive alcohol consumption, and also the huge influence of advertising.

I want to point out some facts from the research and from the huge amount of consultation that Brendon has done for this bill. First of all we should approach this issue with the knowledge that 99 percent of New Zealand children watch television. In fact, in many families television is a babysitter for our children. Ninety-two percent of 12 to 13-year-olds, 68 percent of 9 to 11-year-olds, and 24 percent of 6 to 8-year-olds are still up after 8.30 p.m. on weeknights and, consequently, are exposed to liquor advertising. The other point the research has brought out—and this research is all sourced—is that young people learn their drinking behaviours from those around them. The results of the secondary school survey conducted in 2007 showed that 72 percent of our students have tried alcohol and 54 percent of students sourced their alcohol from their parents. Dr Sue Bagshaw from Christchurch’s Youth Health Centre sees around 7,000 teenagers every year. She says that for a teenager in New Zealand binge drinking is a rite of passage, and that nothing will change until the marketing of alcohol, and of alcopops in particular, is restricted, based on looking at what we have achieved with nicotine.

A lot of the evidence of the impact of advertising on our children and young people is there. Of course, we see evidence in relation not only to crime but also to drink-driving and binge drinking. In my own electorate of Mana there are nine alcohol outlets in Porirua East, where the majority of the 19,000 residents are aged between 15 and 24. We have seen huge evidence of the negative impacts of excessive alcohol advertising and easily accessible liquor outlets. Alcohol advertising will have contributed to the fact also that over the 10-year period from 1990 to 1999, 14 to 17-year-olds doubled the amount they drank on a typical drinking occasion, going from drinking two to three drinks to drinking five to six in later years. The information acquired by the Group Against Liquor Advertising from Statistics New Zealand showed that teenagers from 14 to 17 years of age drink about $2.7 million worth of alcohol per week.

The other group that has concerns about this issue in relation to our young people are parents. Eighty-four percent of parents surveyed in the Seen and Heard: Children’s Media Use, Exposure, and Response study from the Broadcasting Standards Authority in 2008 registered concern about their children’s exposure to television content. The steering group for the Review of the Regulation of Alcohol Advertising, set up in 2007 after a recommendation from our Health Committee, said that the goal of the review was “to see whether the existing regulatory framework for alcohol advertising fits with the Government’s alcohol policy.” At the core of the work of that steering group was the recommendation—a strong recommendation—to minimise the overall exposure of our children and young people under the minimum purchasing age to alcohol advertising. This is a big issue for us; it is the role of Government to look after the welfare of its citizens, especially our young and especially our children. The review also showed that alcohol advertising plays a role in shaping the culture of drinking that has proliferated in New Zealand; it reflects and amplifies drinking practices in the context of a country’s social and economic and cultural history. It is important that we take responsibility for this issue as it is very, very serious.

The other thing with the Broadcasting Standards Authority jurisdiction is that voluntary health and community sectors have long advocated that alcohol-related harm is a public health issue best regulated by Government, hence the importance of moving that advertising responsibility to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. It is a public health issue; it is an issue for all of us.

What was also interesting from the work of the steering group was that it showed a call from our youth for Government regulation. Submissions from youth-orientated organisations all over New Zealand proposed that alcohol advertising should be Government regulated. These organisations wanted regulation of alcohol advertising within broadcast programming and other alcohol advertising brought under one body, and that call came from the young people also. It is really important that we hear that call.

One of the most important issues in relation to this bill sponsored by Brendon Burns, and it is why I encourage everyone to use their conscience vote to support it, is that we have to take responsibility. That is why we are in these public roles; that is why we are members of Parliament. Our role is to make sure that we minimise alcohol harm but also ensure that it is a public health issue—it is an issue for all of us. We are expected as parliamentarians to do our best to align these bills before the House; of course, the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill complements the bill in the name of the Hon Simon Power, the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. The spirit of being able to rise above party politics is to use our conscience vote in a way that can really make a difference. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : The Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill is really just an example of what we will face in this Parliament, and have faced over many years, with regard to this issue. It is not a new issue; it is not something that has just arisen in recent times. In fact, this bill has its genesis in many other members’ bills that have been put forward to deal with the issue. That constant relooking at the issue of youth alcohol, the advertising of alcohol, and the alcohol drinking age is something that Parliament is grappling to come to terms with. In reality, the constant number of members’ bills in this area reflects a concern in the community and in this Parliament, but also an inability to find solutions. Governments of all descriptions have been grappling with the problem just as the members have. Members did not come to a unified approach in the last term of the previous Government, and this Government is making attempts through the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill to remedy the issue.

When we look at this bill we need to reflect quite deeply on the history and the nature of this issue. I remember that Martin Gallagher took over the bill from Matt Robson, who originally brought it to the House. That was some time ago, in 2005. Martin Gallagher was a member from Hamilton like me, and he was a very good member. Tim Macindoe has taken over his seat, representing it on behalf of the National Party, and he is dealing with the very same issues in his electorate now that were there then. When Martin was bringing this bill forward he struggled to get votes for it, as well. He found it difficult to get support across parties, because the reality is that this Parliament has not judged the issue on its full merits yet. This Parliament is trying just to find some solutions and some stop-gap measures for something that it does not really want to face or has not had the courage to face in the appropriate manner. That is probably at the heart of what we should take from tonight’s debate. There is an issue that needs to be dealt with, but this bill may not be the best way to deal with it. There may be better ways, if we take a more cohesive approach and look at the wider issue and what we are actually dealing with. I think that is why, from my personal point of view, we will not be, or I will not be, supporting this bill. In the sense that—

Hon Steve Chadwick: “We”?

DAVID BENNETT: No, that is my personal view, and I am allowed to have my personal view. There is an issue here, but it needs to be dealt with in the appropriate manner. The appropriate manner is to find a cohesive solution that deals with the issue. We have been talking about members’ bills in this area for many years now, and we have not received the response we needed. National has made an attempt, as a Government, to do something in this area. If we look at the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which had its first reading in the first part of this year, we see that it also deals with the advertising of liquor and provides a more integrated approach to dealing with that issue. It focuses on families and youth in dealing with the issue and providing for personal responsibility. That bill deals with the advertising issue and sets clearer standards and provides consistent monitoring.

One of the negatives of the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that we are debating is the restriction on broadcasting of liquor advertising, in the sense of that watershed period of 10 p.m. to midnight. Basically, a young person in the age group that would be engaged in drinking will be up at that time of night. The really young will not be up then, but for the others 10 p.m. to 12 p.m. is not late. That is probably the time when the TV programmes that are more suitable to their age group would be on and they would be watching them. That is why we have to look at the heart of the bill that we are debating tonight. It does not provide the right solution, and that is why I am not voting for it. If it provided the right solutions, then we would have a better chance of getting this bill through.

When we look at the bill, we see that it has separated out the purchase age from the restrictions on broadcasting, which we are essentially talking about tonight. That purchase age is actually quite a heated issue, and is part of the equation that needs to be dealt with along with the broadcasting issue. Breaking the issues up is an attempt to get one part of the approach through, while leaving the other more contentious part out of the political arena at this time. From a political point of view that may be a savvy decision, but it does not show that the bill intends to deal with the issues that we need to deal with. It probably shows an attempt to try to just deal with part of the issues—

Brendon Burns: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I point out that this bill does not have any reference to age issues. That matter was dealt with by the select committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): That is not a point of order; that is a debating point. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat.

DAVID BENNETT: My whole point was that this bill does not have any talk of the age in it. If that member had been listening, he would have been aware of that. But he was not listening to the nature of the debate. He did not take cognisance of the issues that have been raised, and that is a shame when we consider that he is promoting this member’s bill.

The bill should take into account the wider issues and deal with the nature of the problem, rather than have a part taken out of it when that member thinks that it is politically expedient to do so and that it will enable the passing of the legislation. The reality is that we need a cohesive approach to this issue. We need to take a constructive approach, where we look at the nature of the issue and work for some common solutions that will deal with the problems. We do not need to start up a patchwork of solutions, which members think they can get through this House, just because a bill deals with part of the issue. We need to take a more open approach and look at it in a wider sense. That is why the bill does not have my support, anyway.

When we look at the legislation that we can pass—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime.

DAVID BENNETT: Well, I do not see Labour members making alcohol illegal. That really goes to the heart of how we should deal with this issue, rather than using slogans like “Tough on crime” when we are debating a bill that deals with a very important issue in our community.

There is an opportunity for the House to delve into this issue at some stage and come to a constructive solution, but this bill does not provide that solution. It is an attempt to provide part of the solution, and, in doing that, it does not take into account the real issues that we are dealing with. We encourage members to look at those real issues in the future, and to look to legislation that provides real and meaningful solutions, rather than a measure that has been cut down for political expediency, just to get it through the House.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : Before I get under way, I offer my congratulations to my colleague and friend Dr Rajen Prasad on becoming a grandfather for the first time today. Dr Prasad can see that the whole House is congratulating him and his family on the beautiful baby girl who has joined their family.

But getting down to business, I say I gave the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill quite serious thought, because it is, after all, a conscience vote on the bill tonight, although people may be surprised to hear that if they have just tuned into this debate. Earlier on in the debate Sandra Goudie made the slight mistake of using the word “we”. I do not know whether it was the royal “we”, but she accidentally said: “We will not be supporting this bill.” I thought: “OK, the National Party has had a bit of this lately. It doesn’t quite get around to telling its junior members exactly what its position is on everything.” After all, that happened to Melissa Lee with regard to the Waterview extension. She was not quite told what National’s position was on it, and then she was hung out to dry. I thought the use of the word “we” might show a lack of communication, but then as the speeches went on we heard the same arguments being made over and over again. Obviously, the National research unit did not produce very many notes on this bill, so we heard the same arguments, the same reasons, for not voting in favour of this bill.

Then the previous speaker, Mr Bennett, let that royal “we” slip in there again, just by mistake, I am sure. It was just a slip of the tongue.

Hon Steve Chadwick: It wasn’t a mistake.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It was not a mistake at all. It is not that the National caucus is not talking; actually the conversation at caucus probably went something along these lines: “We can’t whip you, but here’s how you’re going to vote.” Members opposite have all been whipped into line, even if just quietly—

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been listening very intently since that gentleman rose to his feet, but I have not heard one thing about the bill. All that he has spoken about so far is how, supposedly, National members are going to vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I think the member makes a point, but this debate does tend to be a little wider ranging than the member’s expectation. I would have to say that some other members have transgressed in that respect.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: This is a conscience vote, and I know there have been some discussions of that. If I get time this evening, I will refer to the Law Commission’s Review of Regulatory Framework for the Sale and Supply of Liquor and the commission’s thoughts on conscience voting to do with alcohol issues.

This bill, as we have discussed several times tonight, does essentially two things: first, it amends the watershed time for liquor advertising from 8.30 p.m. to 10 p.m., and, second, it seeks to transfer the jurisdiction for liquor advertising from the Advertising Standards Authority to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Mr Burns has put in a lot of work to make sure the Labour caucus is very well informed about the history of this bill. It was first introduced to the House by Matt Robson back in 2005. The torch was then passed to Martin Gallagher, and it has now been passed to Brendon Burns. That is not a reflection at all on the quality of the bill; it is simply the nature of members’ bills, I think. We have very few members’ days, and members’ bills can languish at select committees.

This is a good bill. It is a small step, but a step very much in the right direction. We do have problems—not a problem, but problems—with alcohol in this country, and there is an expectation that we as politicians will be prepared to do something about that. We have heard from a lot of speakers on the other side of the House tonight about how we must do something about alcohol, or about how we as a society must accept that we have to do something. But given the chance to do something that will do no harm—this bill will do no harm whatsoever; although this step may be a small step, it is a step in the right direction—given the chance to take a step in the right direction, and given the chance to take a favourable position on a public health issue, the Government has failed to do so. The Government has absolutely failed to do so. Those members have been pulled into line on a conscience vote, and—

Hon Steve Chadwick: They know.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is right; those members know. Some of them should surely be able to see the merits of this bill and of getting in behind a small step in the right direction.

When we talk to the police, to social agencies, to community drug and alcohol treatment services, or to youth workers, we find that they all want to talk to us about alcohol: about how alcohol is a driver of crime, a driver of social deprivation, and a driver of family and domestic violence. We have heard already this evening about the economic impact of harmful alcohol misuse and abuse. The cost to this country of alcohol abuse is $5.3 billion annually, and that is out of a total cost of $6.2 billion—that is, just $0.9 billion more—associated with harmful drug and alcohol abuse. That $5.3 billion cost is attributable to alcohol. Alcohol stands out; by far and away the single biggest drug issue we have in this country is the harmful misuse and abuse of alcohol. Yet given the opportunity to take one small step to do something about it, the Government has failed to do so.

We get nervous about tackling alcohol issues. Why is that? It is because there is a reasonable, sociable, and responsible way to use alcohol. I am sure that most members in this House probably enjoy a drink or two from time to time, and enjoy it in an absolutely responsible and socially acceptable way. We get nervous around alcohol, but we do not get that same kind of nervousness when we are talking about other drugs. One of those other drugs in particular at the moment is methamphetamine. Methamphetamine has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever—none, whatsoever. It is highly addictive, just like alcohol, but it does not foster any social behaviour patterns in the way that alcohol can. The damage caused by methamphetamine use is absolutely minuscule in comparison with that caused by alcohol, yet the Prime Minister, amongst others, has been banging on and on about P and methamphetamine. I do not disagree that we need to be vigilant about the harder drugs, but why do we have such a disproportional attitude and response to something that has such a tiny impact in comparison with alcohol? I think that that is something we really have to come to terms with, in this House.

Alcohol is a drug. Geoffrey Palmer is on record as saying “Alcohol is no ordinary commodity. It is a drug. Alcohol would be classed as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 if it were treated on its merits … Obviously, that is not going to happen, but the properties of alcohol are the reason why it must be closely regulated. Alcohol, like any other drug, can do harm.” The opportunity is here tonight for members to take a small step, and it is an opportunity where we are not being whipped but can stand up and speak on our own behalf and say what our position is. But, unfortunately, the Government is not prepared to take that opportunity. It is not prepared to take that opportunity, at all.

Some people would say to us that the advertising of alcohol does not really have very much of an impact, and that it does not really encourage people to drink more. Do members know what I say to that? Yeah, right! That Tui advertising campaign is now so much a part of New Zealand culture that it almost does not stand apart as an advertising campaign in itself. It is part of our culture. It is as much a part of our culture as binge drinking is. It is part of the normalisation of a harmful approach to alcohol. So advertising does work, and I am sure most people will remember an example of that—and we are going back a couple of years here—namely, the Lion Red Chin Heads advertising campaign. The penetration of that advertising to minors was illustrated through research that showed that 97 percent of minors recalled seeing the Chin Heads ad, 71 percent knew that it was for Lion Red, 92 percent had positive views about the ad, and 64 percent thought the Chin Heads humour would appeal to minors. OK, advertising works. It is why the liquor industry engages in advertising, it is why Coca-Cola engages in advertising, and it is why the tobacco industry has found the one last bastion of advertising, which is point-of-sale advertising.

We know that advertising works, so an opportunity to restrict the consumption of alcohol should be leapt at. But Government members—and I say this again—have absolutely failed to take that opportunity. As I have said, I have given this bill considerable thought. It is a small step, but it is a step worth taking. I am very, very pleased to vote in favour of this bill and to support my colleague Brendon Burns.

AARON GILMORE (National) : It is a pleasure to rise as the last speaker on this bill, the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. This is a conscience matter, and the bill was originally introduced well before my time in Parliament, but it deals with some really interesting matters that I think affect my family and people I know. It is ironic that the bill is being sponsored by the member for Christchurch Central, given that the last two members who have sponsored the bill are no longer in the House. It does not create auspicious occasions for that member.

Amy Adams: Bill of doom!

AARON GILMORE: It is a bill of doom. I am opposed to this bill, and opposed to it for some good reasons. I am not opposed to some of the bill’s aims, but I am opposed to its means. It seeks to go about achieving its aims in ways that I just cannot agree with. This bill, in effect, has also now been superseded.

We are all worried about the impacts of alcohol; we are all worried about the impacts of alcohol on young people in particular. As one of the youngest members of this House, I have recently experienced and seen many of the things that alcohol can do to young people. In my time as a young man, I have been one of the generation that has been a guinea pig for alcohol laws. We are the ones who have grown up with booze in our dairies, we have had ads for brands blasted at us 24/7, and we have seen the good, bad, and ugly after the lowering of the purchase age from 20 to 18. Working part-time in a bar as a student also made me see the stupidity of the old law, with the purchase age at 20 years, and the lengths that students would go to in order to deal with some of the law’s potential loopholes, like selling meal tickets and other strange behaviours.

It is also ironic that the focus of this bill is solely on youth, when we know that young people get a bit of a bum steer. I was interested in Rahui Katene’s mention tonight of how this bill is focused on youth, and how youth are not always the sole problem in regard to drinking. I can tell members that the most scared I have ever been in my entire life was when I was a bar manager in Christchurch, on the night of a male strip review, and 20 middle-aged women were liquored up to the max, to the extent that I was frightened to leave the building and I locked myself in the toilet. I was the most frightened I had ever been in my entire life. When 20 drunken middle-aged women were chasing me, looking for action, I can tell members that that was the most frightening moment of my life.

Hon Member: Come on—you enjoyed every moment of it.

David Garrett: You can see your six-pack from here.

AARON GILMORE: That is right—that is right. I have seen many, many middle-aged people out of control from drinking. A number of members of this House have had their problems with drinking, with drink-driving, and with other things needing professional help for their drinking. Some of those members have spoken tonight. Alcohol abuse cuts across society, not just youth. We are fooling ourselves if we think this bill will solve that problem. It is my experience that most young people watch television and listen to the radio—shock, horror—late at night. Yet what is this bill designed to do? It restricts the advertising of alcohol to late at night.

What would that mean in practice? Let us talk about some of the research. According to research by ACNielsen—which, by the way, the research unit did not come up with—total drink advertising expenditure in all media in 2005-06 was 21 percent lower than the level of advertising in 2002, which is a drop of about $11 million. This drop in advertising was accompanied by an increase in per capita consumption of 7 percent. So the relationship between advertising spend and alcohol consumption is not quite as valid as one might think.

Hone Harawira: Hiding in the toilets, eh!

AARON GILMORE: That is right—hiding in the toilets. I can tell my friend that it was a frightening evening. What would happen if we shortened the time for advertising? It would intensify the effectiveness of the TV broadcast dollar spend. That $41 million or $50 million would be spent in a shorter space of time. We would have wall-to-wall advertising showing all sorts of things that we do not really want to see. To borrow a phrase from one of the liquor providers, if members think this would solve the problem—yeah, right! I can see the billboards now—“Yeah, right!”. Will this bill solve the problem? Yeah, right! This bill also tries to tidy up some perceived crossovers in responsibility between the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the Advertising Standards Authority in relation to TV. I can tell members that my 6-year-old son knows that the “Yeah, right!” billboard that we drive past every week to go to rugby practice advertises Tui, and Tui means beer. But he also knows that beer is not for kids or teenagers, because he has good parents who teach him that.

This bill would fragment liquor regulation of the media, and that seems to me to be just nuts. More important, this bill is not just about using the wrong tools to solve problems that we wish to solve; it is being superseded by another bill—the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill. This bill deals with the problem in the advertising of liquor. That bill gives us a better, more thoughtful way of dealing with and approaching these issues. Yes, I agree, as do many members in this House, that our alcohol laws need some change. But this bill we have tonight will not do it. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill goes further.

I enjoy a social drink with my friends and whānau, and I would hate to see a move to restrict too far the law-abiding people who wish to pick up a bottle of wine at the supermarket and enjoy it with good food, or to see a restriction on my ability to know what is the biggest special on wine at my supermarket.

Tonight we have heard many arguments from across this Chamber. Most agree that we need to do something about this problem. Most have spoken in favour of the bill from the opposite side of the House. But even those members opposite who have spoken admit that this bill will not solve the problem of youth drinking. Members opposite claim that this bill is a step in the right direction. I say that this bill will not go far enough, and the bill that is soon to become before us—

Paul Quinn: It’s window dressing!

AARON GILMORE: That is right; this is just window dressing. This bill will not solve our problems. It is better that we stop, we wait, and we see the work of the Law Commission, which is currently doing a good job, and this work is about 6 weeks away. The Government has indicated to the Law Commission that it will give priority to liquor issues and to the advice of the Law Commission. Many members would have seen the early work that has come out from the Law Commission, and it talks about all sorts of things that I think we need to have good discussion about. The Law Commission, which is led by a former Labour member, has put forward some good ideas on how to deal with some of these problems. It is 6 weeks away. It is wrong to go off half-cocked and get to a situation where we have processed this bill but then have to change it or amend it to fix some of its problems.

I look forward to seeing the results of the Law Commission review and the debate we will have on it at that time. I think we need to sit down and think about it. Is this a bill that would solve youth drinking? No. Is this a bill, as borne out by statistics, that would stop the advertising of liquor? No. Is it a bill that may increase the effectiveness of spend in a period of time? Yes. Does a reduction in spending on alcohol advertising result in decreased alcohol consumption? No, it does not. This bill should disappear. Research has shown that in 2005-06 a decline in expenditure actually led to an increase in alcohol consumption. ACNielsen did that research. It is a very good research company that is independent of everybody sitting here tonight. I say to this bill: haere rā!

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I move, That the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment 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. This is an issue that has been at the heart of dealings between whānau, hapū, local government, and public entities. This bill—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that we have just had a personal vote and that people are moving around, but because this bill is very important to my heart and my soul I would appreciate it if members could move quickly so that I can deliver the sort of speech that will make my people—in particular, our Māori Party—proud this evening.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I think the member’s point of order has had the desired effect. He has the attention of the House.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: This bill is the first that we, as the Māori Party, have prepared and finally seen in the House under our own banner—ī a! The bill was drawn up after the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill, which as we know has been set in abeyance while it is considered by a review panel. This bill arriving here tonight is a significant event for our party, so I acknowledge all of those in our team who have given advice, especially Judge Heta Hingston, the former judge of the Māori Land Court.

If one were to ask the purpose of this bill, one can read in the explanatory note that it is “to ensure that former owners of Māori or general land taken or acquired by the Crown for the purposes of a public work are given the first right of refusal to purchase that land where the Crown no longer requires it for the public work for which it was originally taken and/or acquired.” The bill covers a complex area, which none the less has had a long-lasting impact on our whānau, hapū, and iwi, and indeed on many New Zealanders. In essence, we are talking about people who have borne the cost of the land being taken by either so-called agreement or compulsion.

I say, for those who do not know, that the origins of the 1981 Public Works Act emerged out of English law. The 1882 and 1928 Public Works Acts were the road maps to developing the infrastructure of what the colonists thought was their new country. There have been numerous claims to the Waitangi Tribunal resulting from the historical use of public works legislation to dispossess Māori of their land. Agents of the Crown have endeavoured throughout the years to come to grips with the problems of land taken under the Public Works Act and no longer used for the purpose for which it was taken. The last big round of consultation was held throughout 2001, and resulted in a series of policy options that appear to have been “deferred”, or filed away in the back drawer. This is an issue, then, that has been parked for many years, yet an issue that has never ever been resolved.

When this bill was drawn from the ballot in July 2007, it became obvious within hours that the acquisition of land under the Public Works Act was still a hotly contested issue. We heard about two blocks of land on Panepane Point on Matakana Island in the Tauranga area that are currently owned by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, which acquired the land through the Act. We heard about a maze of paper roads that run through Te Urewera. We learnt about the impact of the legislation on the whānau associated with the Paraparaumu Airport lands, Te Whānau a Te Ngārara Inc. The airport land was taken by the Government under the Public Works Act to build a Second World War aerodrome. It was then sold to private interests by tender, with the tender limited to people participating in the aviation industry, for goodness’ sake!

At home in Rotorua we had the same concerns, when in the early 1960s about 81 hectares of the hapū land that was the paramount tribal settlement of Ngāti Uenukukōpako was taken under the Public Works Act for the establishment of an aerodrome. Claimants from Ngāti Tūrangitukua have asked for the mandatory return of land that the Crown took under the Public Works Act in order to develop the town of Tūrangi in the 1960s. There has been a call from the New Plymouth hapū Ngāti Te Whiti against plans for council-owned land near the Te Hēnui cemetery. Ngāti Te Whiti Ahikā have petitioned the New Plymouth District Council that the site is ancestral land and should be returned to the tangata whenua. There is also the case of the land overlooking the harbour at Te Atatū. The land was acquired by the Auckland Harbour Board in the 1950s under the Public Works Act for development as a deepwater port. The Waitakere City Council set aside part of the land for a marae project in 2002, but the actual site is encompassed within land that the original descendants of that whenua believe should have been offered back in the 1990s to the original owners.

Further north, near Moerewa, there is the case of Ōrauta School, which was established on Crown land reserved for Māori school use. In 2005 an occupation was held by local Māori, who stated that Māori had a right to the school’s occupation and use for educational purposes, as gazetted in 1940 when the land was taken under the Public Works Act for a native school. At that point the Ministry of Education decided to offer back the land to its original owners, a move that we warmly welcomed but that is not necessarily universally applied.

In my own tribal nation of Ngāti Rangiwewehi in Rotorua the Public Works Act is a sore point—firstly, because it took land; and, secondly, because in taking the land it fenced off our people from a key piece of our history. Taniwha Springs is a reference to our taniwha Pekehauā, our kaitiaki and our guardian. Fresh water gushes from his lair; that place just happens to be on the land that was subsequently taken in 1966 by the public works legislation. Taking the land allowed for access to water to feed the township of Rotorua, but nothing went back to our people.

These examples are just some of the many examples of land that was taken under the Public Works Act for a specific purpose and is no longer used for that purpose. The examples show the distaste many people have for this Act. Of course, it is not only Māori who have suffered from this policy. I give a case in point: the Independent Financial Review on 1 December 2006 reported a case involving a Pākehā family—the Lambie family in Auckland, to be precise—who had their farmland compulsorily taken by Auckland International Airport in the 1970s. The crux of this matter is that whether the land was confiscated or taken under the Public Works Act, the original owners want their land returned, whether it is private or Government-owned land. This bill, then, attempts to respond to these longstanding grievances.

Regarding the types of arrangement for the offer back of, and payment of compensation for, acquired land to Māori, there are some strong recommendations from both the submissions in the Review of the Public Works Act and the Waitangi Tribunal. In the 2001 review, Māori wanted land to be offered back in all cases, preferably at less than the current market value or at no cost. There was also a call for compensation, because with that land the acquiring authorities had also acquired the benefit of that land use. We expected that the Crown would act in good faith, be well informed, and redress any grievances in a timely manner, but, as the history record proves, the Crown has failed to respect Treaty interests, and in doing so has neglected the need to recognise and protect the rangatiratanga of the claimants who have been affected by the legislation.

The explanatory note goes on to state: “The Bill also provides for solatium payments to be made for loss of land and/or opportunities associated with the use of that land where land was acquired or alienated for a public works use for which it was not actually used. Where the former owners of the land are deceased, these rights may be exercised by their descendants.” The fact that the land is offered back generally at market value is often inappropriate when land has been acquired for many years and has appreciated considerably. Although the nature of any improvement of the land might be assessed at current market value, we know that many claimants have recommended that a base value of the land be taken as at the date of its being taken. This is particularly so where breaches of the Treaty have occurred in relation to original takings, which should be a mandatory consideration in the assessment of the value.

Usually, land has been developed for the public good, and generally the community has benefited. Yet despite making this contribution, Māori have missed out on the opportunity for development of their land and then have had to try to purchase the land at the current value, which has increased due to the developments by others around the land itself. There are many instances where land has been sold to the Crown for a specific purpose and only for that purpose. This bill, according to the explanatory note, “proposes land sold to the Crown should be offered back to the original owners and/or their descendants.” It is also proposed that the land taken under the Public Works Act, and no longer used for the purpose for which it was acquired, not be land banked to settle Treaty of Waitangi claims. The Public Works Act has been responsible for a vast amount of State acquisition of Māori land. Indeed, some would call that the State-sponsored theft of tribal whenua. Every opportunity should be taken to return this land to the original owners if the public purpose has expired.

In closing, I and the Māori Party would like to thank in advance all of the parties in the House for their—I am sure—support for this particular bill, and for the opportunity that will come with its going to public submission and through the parliamentary process. I very much appreciate the support given by members to the bill. Tēnā tātou katoa.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I rise to support the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. I congratulate Te Ururoa Flavell on his important speech, which marked the very first member’s bill for the Māori Party. This bill concerns the handling of land taken by the Crown under the Public Works Act 1981. Mr Flavell and the Māori Party are particularly concerned about Māori land. Mr Flavell gave us a whole kete of examples of where land has been taken and is now being used for a different purpose from what it was intended for originally. This bill also concerns the land of Europeans, Pākehā, and all nationalities in our country.

This bill has two purposes. The first is to make sure that the former owners of land taken under the Public Works Act are given the first right of refusal to purchase land that is no longer required for the purpose it was taken for. It is also to provide for solatium payments where land taken for a purpose is not actually used for that purpose. The first right of refusal for original landholders is already provided for in section 40 of the Public Works Act, but this bill amends section 40 and provides more certainty for landowners. It deals with a whole series of different scenarios. The Public Works Act introduced a new regime to protect landowners and their ownership rights. It required that when the Commissioner of Works—whose equivalent now is the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand—or a local authority was disposing of land no longer required for public works, the land was offered back to the original owners. When the former owner had died, the land was to be offered back to his or her successor. Then, finally, it would be offered to the public for public sale.

I have seen situations in central Christchurch where that has happened very successfully in the case of Pākehā land. One example is when Christchurch Girls’ High School moved from Cranmer Square in the central city to a new site across the park, and the properties around the school that had been taken under the Public Works Act for school use were offered back to the original owners at market value. My local doctor had had his surgery next to the school taken 20 years previously, and he was offered the property back. In actual fact, it was his son who negotiated the sale. In that case, the law worked well. But nothing is ever simple. There have been many situations where original landowners who may have expected the opportunity to get their land back have not been able to get their land back.

There are a number of examples where land that has been taken for a specific purpose, such as railways or roading, then is no longer required for that purpose. Under the current law the Crown or the local authority may retain that land to use for another public purpose, or the Crown or local authority can transfer that land to another public entity as long as that will be used for a public purpose without triggering the offer-back provisions. The result is that although the land was taken for a dedicated purpose and is no longer required for that purpose, the original owner still has no opportunity to regain ownership. The original owner still has no opportunity to regain ownership despite the fact that the land is not being used for the purpose that it has been taken for, and despite the fact that the purpose for which the land was taken formed part of the agreement between the owner, the Crown, and the local authority. The use of that land for another purpose is, arguably, in breach of this agreement. Furthermore, the original owner does not get any compensation for his or her lost opportunity arising from the land being taken for a purpose for which it is not being used. There have been suggestions that sometimes the land has been sold on to Crown entities, and that the use of that land is for profit with no benefit returns to the original owners.

In this bill, section 40 of the Public Works Act is amended to deal with those issues. The first amendment removes the ability for public bodies to transfer the land to another public purpose without triggering the offer-back provisions of the Public Works Act. The second removes the provision that land need not be offered back if it is impractical, unreasonable, or unfair to do so or if there has been a significant change in the character of the land since it was acquired. The third part of the amendment requires land to be given back at no cost if compensation was not paid when the land was originally taken for the public purpose.

Most New Zealanders agree that the Crown must act in good faith. It is potentially in breach of good faith to take land for a specific purpose and not use it for that purpose, and then not return it. In the case of Māori, it is a breach of the good-faith partnership established under the Treaty of Waitangi. The second part of this bill provides for solatium payments in cases where the land is not used for the public works for which it was taken. The original owners or their successors may apply to the Land Valuation Tribunal for a solatium payment from the Crown for the loss of use and the loss of opportunities associated with the loss of that land. The bill requires that when accessing the amount of solatium payment, regard must be taken of the means of the former owners and the circumstances surrounding the compulsory acquisition of such land.

The Government will be supporting this bill through its first reading and will allow it to go to a select committee for more detailed consideration. There has been agitation for a change in the Public Works Act for some time. There was a review in 2001 and there has been a lot of talk, a lot of papers, and a lot of proposal about change, but nothing has happened since then.

Paul Quinn: Since when?

NICKY WAGNER: Since 2001.

Paul Quinn: Who was in Government?

NICKY WAGNER: I believe it was a Labour Government. We recognise that there are a number of significant concerns about this bill in its current form. However, important issues have been raised and they deserve the consideration of the select committee process. We encourage the public and Māori in particular to make submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is an important issue for Māori and for Pākehā, and it is important to get it right. We support this bill. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the next member, I observe that the next calls are all 5 minutes long. If they wish, I will give the members a warning bell at 4 minutes.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : I rise to make a contribution on the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Te Ururoa Flavell, for his efforts. I register the intention of Labour to support the first reading of the bill. I also note that the bill will be sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I support that intention. In terms of the issues that will be raised within the context of this bill, I think it will be useful for the select committee to hear them.

The intent of the bill is to rectify longstanding grievances, which have already been discussed by the sponsoring member. Those grievances are about how under the Public Works Act land has been acquired for specific purposes but has been retained long after those purposes have expired, or perhaps some of the purposes have changed over time. I know from a number of local examples throughout the country that there are situations where land acquired has not been used for the initial purpose for which it was acquired and has been the subject of a number of Treaty of Waitangi claims. The point has been well made that the bill will raise a number of issues in that regard.

The bill also applies to general land, and there are numerous examples throughout our various communities and cities of very important and serious issues to do with the way in which the Public Works Act has or has not achieved its purpose.

The bill raises a number of questions. Given that I have such a short time in which to speak, I want to put some of those questions before the House. I hope that in the fullness of time and through the submission process the select committee may make some useful amendments in support of the intent of this bill in order to help it achieve its purpose. In that regard, the first issue that I see is the definition of “the Crown” and who that signifies. If one looks at the way the Public Works Act works one sees that the definition should include requiring authorities, it should include local government, it should include Crown entities, and it should most definitely include Crown agencies. That is the first point.

The second point is in terms of the solatium payments. When Matt Robson initiated the review of the Public Works Act in 2001 a number of submissions stated that the issue of the solatium payments should be considered further in order to broaden the implication of the solatium payment. I understand that the intent of the bill aims to achieve that.

I want to raise for further consideration by this House—and I hope it comes up through the submission process—the way in which solatium payments will be negotiated on a case by case basis with landowners. There is some indication in the bill that the circumstances in which lands were acquired should be taken into account when the solatium payment is decided. But more important, the issue of lost opportunities that have or have not occurred on that land should be taken into account. That is a really important point, because some lands that were acquired for a particular purpose have been used and then no longer utilised, and development on those lands has not been taken into account—for example, lands taken for education purposes, which may have buildings on them; and lands taken for railway purposes, which may have some developments on them. So that is an important issue that should be raised, and I hope it comes up at the select committee.

The last matter I raise for the consideration of the House, which may be answered further on down the track, is the application of this bill with regard to current claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. Is it the intention that this bill will supersede current claims before the Waitangi Tribunal that are about issues to do with the Public Works Act, or is the intention that the claims process for the Waitangi Tribunal and the process proposed by the bill will operate in conjunction with each other? I do not think those questions could be answered fully in the House in this regard, but they should be pursued further at the select committee.

Without further ado, I again acknowledge Te Ururoa and his fine efforts. I hope the select committee draws on some of the findings of the 2001 review, because they will be a useful contribution to the consideration of the bill.

PAUL QUINN (National) : It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this particular Māori Party member’s bill, the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill.

I reinforce what the previous speaker from this side of the House, Nicky Wagner, said and confirm that this side of the House will support sending this bill to a select committee. We will support the first reading. Having said that, I say that I stand for a reason, which is that I have had firsthand experience in respect of Treaty of Waitangi settlements around this Public Works Act. Although I can sympathise, I guess, with the previous speaker, Nanaia Mahuta, I think that in reality she misses some of the actual detail, because they are not the real issues.

I think it was timely that during question time there was a question that I could almost have asked myself; in fact, by some sort of divine guidance, it was asked of the Minister for Land Information by a member of the Māori Party. It was pointed out in that question—notwithstanding the difficulties that this particular Act has caused Māori in terms of their Treaty settlements, which I want to share with members very shortly—that the Government of the day between 1999 and 2008 had three separate reviews of this Act, and each time it parked it. Now members of the Opposition stand here and say what a great thing this bill is. Their behaviour is just another example of procrastination, of deferring, and of setting up a committee to review the committee’s work, to review another report, because they were spellbound and had no idea what they should do. I thought it was ironic that that question should be asked on the very day that this bill comes before us. It is a timely reminder about the previous Government’s lack of work on, understanding of, and commitment to these very real issues that face Māori in terms of Treaty settlements.

I want to say why this bill is important to this Government and to me personally.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Who did your settlement?

PAUL QUINN: Ngāti Awa. I could speak for days on this, but, sadly, I have only another 3 minutes left. Ngāti Awa, in fact, had land declared surplus under section 40 in 1999. Ngāti Awa had to go through two Land Information New Zealand reports and two High Court judicial reviews to prove that the Whakatāne District Council was not the rightful body to which the land should go. The Land Information New Zealand report had decreed that it should go to that council. That is the sort of expense that Māori Treaty claimants had to go to under that Government, because it was unprepared to stand by the principles that its members now espouse. That is the expense that Ngāti Awa had to go to in order to prove its claim. Do members know that even now we are still waiting for a third report?

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Shh!

PAUL QUINN: Well, it is just that Parekura is speaking so loudly. We are now waiting for a third report. I could go on for days, because I know about section 40 and section 50 of the Public Works Act. I know everything about this matter. I am just glad that we are supporting the opportunity to send the bill to a select committee to discuss all these issues—the issues that are dear to the Māori Party, but also the issues that are dear to other Māori groups that are confronting the Public Works Act. I am very pleased that this Government is getting on with the job. It reaffirms once again its commitment to action and to getting on with the job. I support the Māori Party in sending this bill to a select committee. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : If Mr Quinn and his party were so enthusiastic about the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill, if they wanted to see action, and if they wanted to get right behind it, then it would be a Government bill.

We have seen already tonight, on a members’ day, how long it takes for a member’s bill to get through this place. Tonight we have been debating a bill that was first tabled in this House back in 2005. This bill came out of the ballot—here is the press release from Mr Flavell—on 26 July 2007. That is when it came out of the ballot. But by the nature of member’s bills, here we are in 2009 having the first reading of this bill. If Mr Quinn was not being so disingenuous about it, if he was serious about it, and if he did not speak with two faces on it, then he would be encouraging his colleagues in National to get behind this bill and make it a Government bill. It is fine for that member to stand up and say that the previous administration did this, and that the previous administration did that. You are in Government now. You are in charge. Get on with it—govern. Do your job. Do your job, man!

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Hey! Hey!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: My apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker; I did not mean to bring you into the debate.

This bill is quite simple. I had no intention whatsoever to speak for long on this bill. The aims of this bill are quite clear and simple, and the Labour Party supports them. There are two aspects to this bill. The first aspect aims to give the land’s previous owners the first right of refusal should public land become available. The second aspect aims to offer some recourse to those people whose land was acquired under the Public Works Act but was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired.

Potentially, an interesting situation will soon arise around what happens to State-owned land that is used for defence purposes. The Government has said that there is a possibility that some land used for defence purposes will be privatised. The Government has talked about selling off the land to private owners, then leasing it back from them. This is a good, National Party ideological position: to sell it off, then lease it back. But should this bill go through, there may be a flaw in that plan, if the original owners of that land want to take the land back. My colleague Nanaia Mahuta raised several questions that will, hopefully, be addressed in the select committee. I would like to add that situation to the mix as a potential tripping point should the Government continue with its planned sale of defence land. But with regard to the bill’s first reading and its referral to the select committee, the Labour Party is very happy to support it.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. The Green Party is extremely supportive of the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. We congratulate the Māori Party on its first member’s bill. We are extremely supportive of the kaupapa that Te Ururoa Flavell has brought to this House.

It is often said that whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua. People perish, but the land remains. In essence, the land does remain, but thanks to the Public Works Act and a large number of other instruments of colonial rule, 96 percent of Aotearoa was removed from tangata whenua to benefit Crown objectives from the mid-1800s to this day. This bill seeks to patch up a jigsaw of justice that will never be complete, but each piece has the potential to build a more harmonious picture.

We have been looking at clause 4, “Purposes”. There are many things in the clause that we feel are very good, and we are sure that the select committee process will make them even better. We are a bit confused, however, in relation to the wording about the first right of refusal for former owners of land taken under the Public Works Act to purchase back the land when the Crown no longer requires it. The Green Party believes that that provision is a little bit mean. A thief or a conman should not be able to come back to the victim many years later and offer to sell back the stolen items at current market rates, saying “Here you are; I have brought back your treasure. It has been a bit damaged, but it is worth heaps compared with when I stole it from you, so now you can pay me at current market rates. But hey, you get the first choice!”. I recognise that the bill will not solve all of these problems, but at least it makes a start in the right direction.

I support the comments that the date on which something was taken should be the time when the price is set. Virtually all the reports of the Waitangi Tribunal make reference to the effect of the Public Works Act in facilitating the taking of land from the tangata whenua in Aotearoa. In some instances, as clause 4 seeks to redress, compensation was not paid at the time. For example, there was compulsory acquisition of Ahuriri Lagoon from Ngāti Kahungunu back in 1851, and no money was paid. Whatever the land was used for—whether or not it was used for the supposed purpose at the time—we need to give it back and celebrate the clauses in this bill, which will give it back with no cost.

Clause 4(c) is also vital. The descendants of those who were disenfranchised must be recognised and allowed to have their birthright back. Paul Quinn said he could talk for days about the many instances of disenfranchised descendants—and I am sure we all hoped that he would—but I will talk briefly about Hauraki, a place where I come from and live. In Hauraki, the Māori trust board made a submission to the Local Government Rates Inquiry in May 2007 in which it pointed out that, both willingly by gift and unwillingly by the Public Works Act, Hauraki Māori have made significant contributions to community infrastructure and facilities, such as roads, schools, churches, and halls. Thus, Hauraki Māori have contributed to the public good but have very rarely benefited from that public good. They still pay rates but have not received justice yet under the Public Works Act.

The Green Party supports this bill because it is a way of overturning a process that has been going on in this country for a very long time. First, there were the missionary and the musket. Then there were the measles and the flu. Then there were the gunboat and the Native Land Court. And then there were the Public Works Act and many of its unpleasant legal colleagues. This bill is a good start in terms of overcoming that process.

I will also talk about another example that is dear to my heart: Tai Rāwhiti, Tūranganui a Kiwa. I went to the Tūranganui a Kiwa claim. On the last day of the claim I was the only Pākehā in the room who was not a lawyer. One of the problems we have with this situation is that so few Pākehā have engaged seriously in understanding what has gone on in the removal of the rights of Māori, because they do not attend or participate in processes that are about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and about justice for all of us, not just justice for Māori. Let us take Watson Park, a sportsground in the middle of Gisborne. Watson Park is the whenua of Rongowhakaata. It was taken by the Crown for a Pākehā cemetery for Gisborne City. It was then not used for a cemetery; it was used as a rubbish dump, then as a playground and sportsground, and now the Gisborne District Council would like to toss it back to tangata whenua, to Rongowhakaata, but at market rates.

We need these sorts of bills to redress these issues, and I hope the select committee will make this bill even stronger. We support the bill’s purposes. We vote for this bill as another step towards reconciliation plus resources, which together become a recipe for justice. Tēnā koutou katoa.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the next speaker I remind members that they are not to bring the Speaker into the debate. We have now had a number of speeches where it is about “you”—“You did this” and “You did that”. Well, the Speaker did none of those things. I remind members that such references should be in the third person. It is difficult, I know, but we need to improve.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill in its first reading.

Sadly, I am in the position we often find ourselves in of having to question whether the Green Party members have actually read the bill that is being debated. We have just heard a passionate speech about land being stolen, then sold back at market rates. Well, unless I am much mistaken, clause 5(2)(d) requires that any land that has been taken for which compensation was not paid must be offered back to the owners or their successors at “no cost where the Crown originally acquired or alienated the land for no compensation;”. I find myself on the same side as the Green Party, but, once again, it would be really good if those members were to read the bills that they speak to.

The reason I have got up without having planned to do so is that I thought the member in charge of the bill referred to the Raglan golf course issue—

Dr Russel Norman: Read the bill—you’re talking about 4(a). It’s not that hard!

DAVID GARRETT: Well, I just did. The member should have a look. Clause 5(2)(d) inserts a new section 40(2)(ba) into the Public Works Act.

I come from the generation for whom the Raglan golf course land confiscation and the consequences that flowed from it were a huge issue. For the benefit of those younger members who are not entirely familiar with the issue, the land that became the Raglan golf course was taken from the Māori owners during the Second World War for use as an airfield, which was never built. I understand that the late Eva Rickard, from the end of the war until her death, agitated furiously and stoically—

Hone Harawira: Successfully.

DAVID GARRETT: —and successfully for the return of the land. At the time I often found myself in a minority of one. A lot of the Pākehā whom I knew said things like: “Well, why should we give it back to them? It will just grow lupins when the Māoris own it.” I used to say that that was their choice—it was their land. I said that if they wanted to grow lupins on it, or kūmara on it, or whatever—or just look at it—it was their business. But people used to say that it was great land. That whole injustice went on for years. It caused huge dissension between Māori and Pākehā, and it caused incredible resentment—and rightly so. Why on earth should it have been any kind of issue whether the land would be returned? It was an absolute no-brainer. It should have been a no-brainer, but Muldoon maintained for years the argument that it would be used only to grow lupins.

I see this bill as a no-brainer. It requires that land that was bought or taken from people be offered back to them first, at market rates if it had been bought at market rates. I cannot quite see how the Greens could object to that. If land was stolen with no compensation, then it is to be offered back; that is how I read the bill, but if I am wrong, we will find out at the select committee.

ACT has great pleasure in supporting this bill being referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. Tēnā koutou e te whānau. The Minister for Land Information revealed today a staggering list of delays and deferrals associated with the many reviews of the Public Works Act, the most recent of which attracted 90 submissions from Māori—more than 30 percent of all submissions received. This clearly shows the level of interest that Māori have in this issue, and is perhaps why so many delays and deferrals have been caused by the Crown—if Māori are interested, then let us do nothing. Or perhaps it is because challenging the compulsory acquisition of Māori land is an issue best swept under the carpet, to be cleaned up by another Government further down the track or to be revisited when Māori are too tired to fight any longer.

If we look through the submissions from the 2001 review, we see that the concerns that have arisen from public works legislation going right back to 1864 have torn at the very soul of Māoridom and created a clear perception that the many institutions of Government have worked against Māori in the past and offer little hope for making a difference in the future. The challenge for the Māori Party was that any review of the public works legislation had to be based around the notion of redressing those injustices and re-establishing the connection between tangata whenua and whenua lost.

The issue of protecting Māori land is not new. My thoughts go back to 1975, when Te Roopu o te Matakite was formed to fight the continuing alienation of Māori land, and when Whina Cooper led the nation in a historic march from Te Rerenga Wairua to Wellington, under the banner of “Not one acre more”, to raise public awareness of the massive loss of Māori land and to signal the determination of Māori not to accept the continuance of that situation. I think of the 5,000 marchers who carried the hopes of the Māori nation, of the petitions signed by 60,000 people, and of the memorial of rights signed by 200 of our kaumātua and kuia.

We all know about the Māori land struggles that have been debated in this House on many, many occasions in the past. There have been countless reviews and petitions to Parliament, tablings of proceedings of the Waitangi Tribunal, and debates about the righteous occupations that aimed to restore Māori ownership of Māori land that was taken improperly by the Crown right throughout the country. Most notably and most recently, this has occurred in Raglan, Bastion Point, and, even more recently, in Tūwharetoa, Hauraki, and Ngāti Kahu.

I congratulate my good Ngāpuhi brother Te Ururoa Flavell on the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill, which responds to the people’s call that enough is enough, that too much land has been lost into Crown hands, and that it is time, through this bill, to begin to right those wrongs and redress, in a small way, that massive imbalance. The bill targets section 40 of the Public Works Act, which deals with the disposal of surplus land. The current provisions of section 40 do nothing to protect the interests of those who want their land returned. Until section 40 of the Public Works Act is strengthened, those interests will continue to be ignored.

I am proud today to speak for the Māori Party, to speak in support of the member for Waiariki, and to speak on behalf of all those whānau, hapū, and iwi who have waited for generations for this issue to come before the House. I mihi to Te Ururoa Flavell for this, the very first bill to be drafted and delivered by a Māori Party member in the history of this Parliament. I sincerely hope this bill will be positively received and supported by all intelligent parties in this House.

Jonathan Young: That’s us!

HONE HARAWIRA: That is all of us—hopefully.

These amendments will mean that land that was taken for public works and never used for that purpose, or land that is no longer needed for that purpose, is offered back to the original owners in the first instance. It is simple—this is not rocket science. This is about offering back land that is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired. Yes, there may be issues around whether facilities originally included in the public works have changed over time, but these are not insurmountable problems; they are just technicalities that can be easily dealt with if the Crown is willing. Yes, there may be issues around whether compensation is sufficient to purchase replacement land of equivalent value, but, again, if the desire for justice is there, those issues too will be resolved easily enough.

This bill is simply the application of good common sense whereby land no longer needed for the purpose for which it was acquired is offered back to the original owners. The Māori Party will support this bill without reservation. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : E tū atu i runga i te karanga o te pire nei. E mihi kau ana i a koutou te Rōpū Māori, ki a koe e te tuakana e Te Ururoa, tēnā koe. Nā te mea e mōhio atu tātou mai rā anō, e rongo atu ki ngā kōrero e kōrerotia atu a Hone mā, me ngā kōrero a ngā pāti mō te take taumaha nei. Nā te mea, mōhio atu tātou te tangohia a wērā o ngā rōpū, te Kāwana, ngā kaunihera, rātou mā, te whenua, e kore mō te hoki. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[I rise to take a call on this bill and acknowledge you, the Māori Party, and my elder by descent, Te Ururoa Flavell. Greetings to you. We have known and heard for a long time what Hone and others, as well as parties, have been going on about, how heavy this issue is. We know quite well that land taken by those organisations, Governments, councils, and suchlike will never come back. So, greetings to us.]

I join my colleague Nanaia Mahuta in stating that the Labour Party will certainly support the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill going to a select committee. This bill is a test of the Public Works Act, and it has a whole lot of ramifications. I wish that my rugby-playing colleague Paul Quinn were here, because we could discuss the issues that are relevant to Treaty settlements and could take on board the salient question raised by Nanaia Mahuta of the impact or impression that this bill will have on certain aspects of settlements. It is important to address that.

The history of this bill is quite simple. In the early years, soon after the settlers had turned us into one of the last settled societies in the world, Māoris looked up to the postmaster, the policeman, the teacher, and the preacher. The postmaster had the coupons, the policeman would lock us up if we did not do what he wanted, the preacher would save our souls, and the teacher would take our kids and teach them the new way. It was all about a new way. One thing that went with that was land. Land was used to build schools, and Māori gave it incredibly generously. One of the real failings is that on half of the land that was given to build schools, no school ever ended up being built. If we look at schools in this country, we cannot see many that were not built on land that was a gift from Māoridom. Education was certainly important; people could see that at the time. Hone Harawira talked about Te Roopu o te Matakite. Those organisations, those groups that struggled, and people like Eva Rickard, Dr Sinclair, and others, fought over a period of time to get those lands back. Councils took land and put their markers on it, quarried it, leased it out for long periods, and then turned it into freehold title land. Some properties that have been well developed will not be returned, but there are still a hell of a lot around that can certainly be returned. Some of the land was purchased by Pākehā families.

But for Māori this is very important. I am proud that we were around in 1997 when the great Government of that time sorted it all—Te Ururoa Flavell will agree with that. During four terms when we were in Government the then Opposition members, who sat here at the time, did not support this. So it is heartening that over a period of time some people can change their view. Some people will suggest it is a flip-flop, but certainly they are very supportive, and we need to recognise that. There are a whole host of things that come with this: the valuations and how we set them up. The Mangatu case is critical in relation to the Public Works Act because those people did attack and win in relation to the valuations and the rate take. A lot of the properties that are valued up in this case that Māori may want back and that were taken from them come back with a real, heavy weight around the neck. My friend from ACT was saying that was not quite right. It is right, because there is a long history behind this stuff. I certainly want to commend Te Ururoa Flavell.

I hope everybody in the House is genuine about supporting this very, very important take, because it is that. Māoris did give; a lot of land was taken. But a lot of this public works land Māori actually gave for the betterment of the country—a lot of the quarries, a lot of the school sites, a lot of the hospital sites, Māori actually gave them. They did not sell them; they did not get paid for them. And that is the test to work out how we quantify the return cost, if there is a cost. I suggest that there should not be a cost. Kia ora.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : Let me acknowledge the generosity of the Māori people over the years in supporting this great nation of New Zealand that we are building together. I also acknowledge the excellent effort that Mr Te Ururoa Flavell has put into presenting this Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill from the Māori Party. I congratulate him on his first member’s bill, which we as a Government are very, very happy to support being referred to a select committee. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I look forward to the opportunity to go through this bill and be part of the discussion and debate that will see some of the issues come to the fore.

I will just bring clarification to a matter raised by that colleague in the ACT Party David Garrett. I say that I am also pleased to acknowledge that although there was a long dispute regarding the area of land in Raglan that was turned into a 9-hole golf course—it was going to be turned into an 18-hole golf course—back in 1981 it was returned to the local iwi. Significantly, my father, the Minister of Lands at that particular point in time, was part of the facilitation of that. So I count it a great privilege today to stand here in this House to speak on such an issue, an issue that I believe is of the utmost importance to the people of New Zealand’s plan as a nation to go forward together as people of this great territory. As my colleague Nicky Wagner has so aptly stated, the Crown must act in good faith towards Māori. To take land for a specific purpose and not use it for that purpose without returning it to its original owners is potentially in breach of the good faith that we believe we must be engaged in to go forward as New Zealanders. So we support this bill in its first reading, and support it proceeding to the select committee.

This is a significantly complex bill, not necessarily in its drafting—although I congratulate the drafters on their good work—but in its implementation. It touches on many aspects of public amenity. If a public amenity has been moved from its original purpose—for example, a railway station may have been converted into a public park—it is deemed to be surplus and will be offered back to the original owners. That creates a complex process of implementation, which is why, at the select committee level, we are going to enjoy working through the intricacies that this bill presents. But it is a process that I believe is important to pursue in order for this nation to continue to go forward.

In 1981 a new regime was introduced in New Zealand to protect the original landowners. It required the Commissioner of Works, now the Chief Executive of Land Information New Zealand, or a local authority to dispose of land no longer required for a public work to the person from whom the land was acquired—the former owner. In the case where the former owner was deceased, the land was offered to the former owner’s successor. If there was no successor, then finally the land was offered for public sale.

It is the current policy of State-owned enterprises to offer surplus public land to the land bank that holds public land for Treaty settlements. This allows the land to be made available to iwi as they progress in their Treaty of Waitangi settlements. However, although that may appear to be a reasonable action to enable the redress of Treaty issues, there is the issue that the original owners of the land, a specific hapū or iwi, may not actually be part of the iwi group who negotiate with the Crown for that land. So, in a sense, although Treaty issues can be redressed through that measure, possible disenfranchisement may continue. This bill seeks to offer land acquired for public works back to the original landowner at the time when the land was acquired or taken. This, in fact, will stop the process of unused land being land banked.

I believe that this is a bill that New Zealanders will want to participate in discussing, and we encourage New Zealanders—Pākehā and Māori alike, and all people who count New Zealand as their home—to participate in making submissions to the select committee.

• Debate interrupted.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Ā, kāti huri noa i tō tātau Whare, kia ora tātau. Ki te hunga kua tae mai i tēnei pō ki te tautoko i tēnei o ngā kaupapa, ka nui te harikoa kua tae mai koutou ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero. Koinei te mihi o te ngākau ki a koutou, otirā, tātou e noho nei i roto i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa. Me mihi rā ki a koutou katoa ngā kaikōrero i te pō nei i te mea, ōrite ō tātau whakaaro. Āe, he take nui tēnei, me kōrero i te take nei, me wānanga i te take nei nā runga i te mea, he take kua roa e noho tārewa ana. Ko te harikoa i roto i tōku ngākau, kua mau pai i a tātau te tikanga o tēnei pire. Ehara i te mea, kāore tētahi i te paku mōhio ki tōna tikanga, kua mārama katoa tātau ki tōna pūtake, ki tōna aronganui, ā me kī, ki te paerangi.

Ko te mea pai ki a au, ehara i te mea nō roto i te Pāti Māori ngā tauira. Mai i tēnā, i tēnā, i tēnā, tēnei taha, tērā taha, i muri nei, kei a tātau ngā tauira e whakaatu nei i te kino o te pūtake o tēnei pire. Ko te mea pai anō hoki kua mārama tātau, āe, he take nui tēnei, me whai atu i tētahi huarahi hei whakatikatika i te hē o tēnei pire. I ngā tau kua hipa, kua puta ngā mahi arotake a wētahi o roto i te Whare, o roto hoki i te Taraipiunara o Waitangi ki te āta titiro i ngā nawe o roto i te pire ēngari, auare ake. Ko te āhua nei, anā, kua ōrite ō tātau whakaaro ka anga whakamua te pire nei ki tōna taumata.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings, Mr Assistant Speaker, and indeed to us all throughout the House, greetings. To those of you who have come here tonight in support of this one of the policies, I am overjoyed you have come to listen to the addresses. I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to you, and especially those of us seated about the House, greetings to you, greetings to you and greetings to us all. I must acknowledge all of you who spoke tonight because we were of the same mind. Yes, this is an important matter and we should discuss and debate it because it has been on hold for quite some time. The pleasing aspect is that we have a good grasp of the intent of this bill. There is no lack of understanding and awareness of its intent. Let us say, we are fully aware of its rationale, direction, and focus.

The pleasing aspect for me is that negative examples of this bill have come not just from within the Māori Party but also from that one and that one, from this side and that side, and from the back. We have all come up with examples. A positive aspect, as well, is that we have an understanding. Yes, this is an important matter, and we should pursue an avenue that will amend a flaw in this bill. In the past, some in the House and the Waitangi Tribunal have undertaken reviews to examine flaws in the bill, but nothing came out of it. It appears that we are unanimous that this bill should progress to its ultimate conclusion. ]

I say in closing, on behalf of myself and the Māori Party, to all our supporters across the House that I appreciate their support. Clearly, people understand the issues and they have examples, and, therefore, I look forward to the bill going to the select committee for the debate to continue. I acknowledge National, our coalition partner, in the sense that it would have been all too easy for National to move towards a financial veto, and I am pleased to say that National has managed to leave that one to the side.

I close with a little bit of insight, in that today is a spiritual day. I say that because 2 years ago—and we know how hard it is to get a bill drawn out of the ballot—the Māori Party put the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill into the ballot, and as soon as it went in, it was drawn out. That bill has now been referred to a select committee. The second bill we put in the ballot was this bill, the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill. We know that the chances of putting a bill in the hat and having it drawn out on the same day are pretty slim. But what happened? Well, I did a very good karakia on that day, because out came the bill! And 2 years on, here we are tonight debating this bill.

I say also that today, of all days, I was asked to speak at a Treaty forum—and what should be on the agenda for me to speak about? It was this bill to amend the Public Works Act. It was this day—not yesterday, not tomorrow, but today. So I say to Mr Assistant Speaker Barker that he is a lucky man. He is a part of the spiritual history and the spiritual realm that this bill will travel through easily, smoothly, right to a conclusion that will be to the happiness and joy of my people. Nā runga i tērā, kei te harikoa te ngākau kua pēnei rawa wā tātau kōrero. Ki te reo karanga Ngāti Rangiwewehi, ka nui te mihi. Koutou, tātau kua tae mai i tēnei pō, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Kei raro.

[Because of that, I am overjoyed that our speeches were of this tenor. I acknowledge Ngāti Rangiwewehi greatly, and those of you who came here tonight. And to each of you, and to all of us, greetings, greetings, greetings. I resume my seat.]

• Waiata

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) : I move, That the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill be now read a first time. The progress of members’ bills over recent years has been glacial. This bill was written in 2005 to amend the Land Transport Management Act 2003, which was quite new at the time. The bill was put in the ballot immediately. After a couple of years it won the ballot in November 2007—18 months ago. It has sat on the Order Paper for 18 months, and it finally gets its first reading tonight. During those 18 months, there were changes that would require that the bill be amended by the select committee: Transit and Transfund New Zealand no longer exist; reference to them would need to be replaced by reference to the New Zealand Transport Agency. That correction is not beyond the power of the select committee; that is why we have select committees.

It is ironic that this bill is finally read a first time when the new Government is proceeding as fast as it possibly can in the opposite direction from that advocated in the bill. I will come back to that point.

Put quite simply, the bill shifts funding gradually away from funding roading projects and into funding alternatives: a modest 20 percent for alternatives in the first year—which is still a lot better than now—moving up to about two-thirds for those alternatives in year 5. The alternatives are public transport; cycling and walking facilities; travel demand management, like walking school buses and workplace travel plans; coastal shipping; and rail. It also ensures that transport projects that achieve the same purpose can receive the same level of central government funding. It is called a level playing field; the field has been on a very sharply tilted angle for a very long time.

The bill seeks to address the two huge challenges facing transport policy in the 21st century—challenges that are barely recognised and certainly not addressed by current Government policy. The first challenge relates to how long we will be able to continue to import oil, and at what cost. Even the International Energy Agency, which has long been the one outstanding optimist and peak oil denier, said last year that the oil supply would be severely squeezed by around 2015. Many experts and analysts think we have already passed the point where the rate at which any new discoveries can be brought on stream fails to match the rate at which existing oil fields are declining. The total world production is unlikely to ever go much above what it is now, and the trend from now on will slope down. All oil producers apart from those in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries have now probably peaked, and Saudi Arabia may peak around now. When Saudi Arabia has peaked, certainly the world as a whole has peaked.

Oil costs us around $8 billion a year on our overseas account, even at today’s prices. It is set to double quite soon, reflecting the spike to over US$150 a barrel last August. Achieving our transport goals with less oil is surely an overriding objective.

The second challenge relates to the fact that transport is the source of over 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions, and that fact will soon cost us dearly, too. There is no time here to recount the awful risks of climate change to our civilisation, to our way of life, to our farming, and to our survival. Nor is there time to go through our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our emissions. Transport is one of the fastest-rising sources of climate change emissions, and this bill would help to lower our emissions. But current transport policies are designed for an era when oil cost US$10 a barrel, which we had as recently as 1998, and we had a limitless atmosphere in which carbon emissions disappeared into infinity, with no effect whatsoever.

Even the easy things to reduce oil dependence are not done. Our vehicle fleet uses double the fuel per kilometre of the new European fleet standard, and cars continue to guzzle more gas each year than previously. We have the second-highest per capita rate of car ownership in the world after the US, with which we sometimes vie for first place. We have more kilometres of sealed road per person than virtually every other country, yet we pour billions of dollars into creating more sealed roads. We are a heavily car-dependent country and an extremely fuel-inefficient country. There are easy answers but successive Governments have not adopted them. Instead, we pour billions, and yet more billions, into new motorways, and we starve trains, buses, and active modes of transport, which, if they were funded, could get people around safely and quickly, with far less fuel and far less carbon emission.

The Government, not content to inherit Labour’s biggest motorway-building spree since Julius Vogel, as Labour members were proud to point out in the last Parliament, has now stolen a further $420 million of the measly funding allocated to public transport and active modes and given it to motorways, along with another half a billion dollars from the taxpayer. When it comes to building roads, money is no object and there is no recession. The Minister responsible for this theft says that because 85 percent of people travel to work by car, we must spend $7 on roading for every $1 we spend on everything else put together. He does not seem able to understand that if all we offer people is more roads, and if trains and buses are few, expensive, uncomfortable, late, unreliable, and with limited range, then most people will take the only option he has given them: travel by car. We saw what happened last year when the price of oil went up. Traffic on Auckland motorways actually dropped, and public transport numbers increased by a record amount, despite the unsatisfactory service. That is a measure of the unmet demand that is out there

Members of the previous Government used to say to me in the House that tradespeople with their tools cannot take the train instead of their ute, and that buses need roads, too. They seemed incapable of understanding that if those people who commute on their own used a bus or a train instead of roads, the roads would no longer be congested for the plumber with his tools and for buses, and we would not need to keep building more roads. That is why it is to the advantage of road users to pay for others to have the public transport they need; it is a faster way of relieving congestion than building motorways. Other countries have recognised this. Even Los Angeles, long the motorway heaven the Minister dreams of, has realised that one cannot motorway one’s way out of congestion, and it is investing in rapid transit. We can look at Toronto, Fremantle, or most European Union cities for the answer.

I spent a weekend in Bruges a couple of years ago, and two acres of bikes were parked at the railway station, because biking was, by far, the easiest way to get around. It is a civilised city, compared with cities in New Zealand.

There are two major obstacles to sustainable, people-friendly transport systems, lower oil costs and lower carbon emissions, cleaner air, and liveable cities. The first obstacle is the extreme imbalance of funding, and I have described how the bill remedies that fact. The second is something obscure called the financial assistance rate. I will give members an example. If the Auckland Regional Council decided to build a brand new motorway across Auckland, 100 percent of the cost of that motorway would be paid by central government out of the National Land Transport Fund. It would not cost Aucklanders a penny. On the other hand, if the council decided that a more efficient way to carry people from one side of Auckland to the other was by train and that it wanted to invest in a new rail system, it would have to come up with half of the funding itself from Auckland’s rates. That is why, for decades, public transport has not been built, but roads have. This is the tilted playing field I spoke of earlier.

This bill creates the opportunity to vary the financial assistance rate for projects, so that some public transport projects qualify for 100 percent funding from the National Land Transport Fund, just as roads qualify now. It also creates the obligation, before the allocation of funding in the National Land Transport Programme, to ensure that there is support in the local authority regions through which those projects will run. That is a basic democratic principle of the Land Transport Management Act. There is also an obligation for the Minister to publish a review each year of whether the Act is meeting its objectives of safety, sustainability, integration, and responsiveness to local needs. The Act was ground-breaking legislation in 2003. The Greens and Labour worked together on it, and it is time that its very fine objectives—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I regret to advise the member that her time has expired. It may have escaped me, but did the member indicate to the House the particular committee that she intends the bill to go to? I did not hear it.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: I had it in my notes, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like the bill to go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Very good. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I think it is a very wise choice by the Green members to send the bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is a very fine committee. It has great chairmanship and a great membership. It will do a fine job. But saying that the bill should go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is the only good thing that the Green member said; the Green Party disappoints me in this case.

The Green Party should be representing new ideas and seeing the vision of the future. It should be a party that tries to take this Parliament towards some goals and ambitions that Parliament is not ready to move towards. That is the whole idea of what one expects from a Green Party. However, this Green Party is looking back at a technology that is going out of business. The whole assumption of this legislation that the Green Party is putting forward is that cars run on fossil fuels and, therefore, roads are no good because cars run on roads. That is the assumption the Green Party is making. It is making the assumption that cars run on fossil fuels. That was true 50 years ago, but a party of vision, a party that looks to the future, would understand that there is technology, there is development, and cars will not run on fossil fuels in 50 years’ time. Cars will run on different fuel sources. The Green members will not admit that. They are looking to the past. They say that the automobile industry can only ever have one source of fuel and that is fossil fuel.

I disagree completely that that is the way things are going. Anybody who had an idea of what is going on in the automobile industry would see that the big investment now is in non - fossil fuel car energy sources. If we look at what is happening in the US automobile industry, we will see that the big car makers are shutting down. They are being made to come back and produce electric cars, because that is the market of the future. In 50 years’ time the most efficient form of transport will be the roads, and the roads will have electric cars on them. That is the future of the world in transport.

The Greens are looking backwards at an old technology. They are not taking into account the way in which the world is progressing, the way in which the big automobile industry is progressing, or even the way in which fuel companies are progressing. Do members not remember that BP changed its name from British Petroleum to “Beyond Petroleum”? What was the reason for that? The branding was done because the company knew that there was going to be a different future. The Green Party will be consigned to the small ranks of political destiny if it does not think outside the square and if it does not look at technology and use that for green purposes.

The National Government is willing to accept technology and we are working towards it. Today in question time the great Minister of Transport in this National Government put out the policy on electric cars. We made an incentive for electric cars to become part of the New Zealand transport mix. National is looking forward at technology. We are looking forward at delivering a green vision for transport. We are not looking back at old technology, at old ways of doing things, and at an old party political philosophy, which is what the Green Party aspires to. That is the difference between National and the Greens, and the people of New Zealand know that. They know the future and the world economy knows the future.

An electric car is the best investment that a young person could make. In the next generation the richest person in the world will not be the Bill Gates of our generation. The richest person in the world will be the person who cracks the issue of how to get fuel sources into automobiles in the next 10 years. That person will be the new Bill Gates of this world. That person will find a way of transferring energy into what we use as our main mode of transport. If anybody can crack that—and someone will crack it—it will become the big opportunity in transport in the future of the world and in this economy going forward.

That is an opportunity that many countries are taking up. If we look at countries like India and the US, they are investing huge amounts of money in technology to get electric cars to a commercial stage. They probably have the technology now, but to make it commercial is a different ball game. There are incentives to buy electric cars. At the last US election, people got a discount if they bought an electric car. That was one of the big policy planks of some of the political parties. They know the future. They are not looking at old policy and old dreams about fossil fuels driving our transport sector. They are looking at the future of our transport sector, but the Green Party denies that.

The Green Party is hell-bent on the measure that the only answer to solve our transport woes in regard to environmental concerns is public transport. I remember that in Hamilton at the last election, Labour Party members jumped on that bandwagon. They went into the election campaign saying: “We want to have the greenest way of travelling from Hamilton to Auckland.” They proposed a rail link between Hamilton and Auckland, because they thought that was what the Greens had always said was the best way of doing it. Little did they know that the only part of the main trunk line that is not electrified is from Hamilton to Auckland. Those members would have dirty diesel trains on that line with no people on them. Would that be environmentally friendly? No! That is the nature of the debate that the Green are having.

The Greens do not understand public transport. They do not understand what it actually means. They say: “Let’s look at cities like Los Angeles and Toronto.” I ask those members what the populations are of those cities. They should think about that. Public transport works very well where there are large densities of population. It does not work as well where there are spread-out cities, or where there are cities of a smaller size within 2 hours of each other. That does not work well with public transport.

I had the fortunate experience of going on Mexican public transport in January. In Mexico, people can go any way around Mexico City, from point to point, for one peso. That is because there are nearly 30 million people in that city. Their officials can deliver a train system where people can go into a train and it is literally packed. Those trains go all the time, and they are efficient, smart, and clean. The reason for that is that there are the numbers of people required to make it work, which is what public transport demands. It demands high concentrations of people.

The other thing I want to look at in relation to this legislation is what the National Government is actually doing. National is actually investing in the infrastructure of New Zealand. We are looking forward and we are investing in our roading structure. The previous Labour Government did not invest in road construction going forward. Labour spent money on the maintenance of roads, not on the construction of roads. That is the difference between these two political parties when we look each party’s roading policy. National wants to build roads that will have clean, green vehicles on them in the next 50 years. That will save people time and expense in travel, and it will provide jobs in the short term as we build those projects going through the economic recession.

In all ways, our economic policy is interrelated with our transport policy and it is environmentally friendly at the same time. We cannot help but win with that policy. That is the nature of it. We have considered the options, and we have come up with a policy that is effective yet environmentally conscious. We have taken into account the need to invest in public transport, and we have done so. We are continuing the electrification in Auckland; we are not making grandiose promises that are not reality. We are looking at what can be done to make public transport as efficient and effective as we can, but we also realise what the future of transport will be, and our roads are going to be important parts of that because those roads will have clean, green, efficient electric cars on them before this generation is out. That is the future of transport and that is the future of environmental consciousness.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : As Labour’s spokesperson on climate change issues I am delighted to say that Labour will vote to send the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill to a select committee for public submissions. It is interesting to follow the previous speaker, David Bennett, because I think we should examine the National Government’s record to date. Its policy statement on land transport funding has allocated funding away from public transport. That has put at risk important projects that the previous speaker spoke about, such as the continuing electrification of Auckland rail, integrated ticketing for public transport in Auckland and in other areas, and walking and cycling facilities. By those actions this Government has set back public transport so far that the only way to rekindle the debate is to support this bill. By doing so I hope we will be able to show the public that there is a political will within Parliament to support public transport to a much greater degree than the Government is currently prepared to do.

It was also interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about the record of the current Minister of Transport. He is fast tracking seven highways of so-called national significance, and he claims that the National Land Transport Fund will provide $10.7 billion over 10 years for investment in State highways. That needs to be seen in perspective. In Budget 2006 Labour announced a 5-year $13.4 billion spending programme, in New Zealand’s largest ever roading programme. So much for calling it maintenance, as the previous speaker did! But our approach to transport funding was also based on a multimodal programme, involving not only State highways and local roads but also public transport, sea freight, and rail. Labour believes that we cannot just keep on building motorways, even if we have electric vehicles being signalled up as a large growth sector in the future. Inevitably, those motorways would soon reach their capacity and we would be back to where we started, with gridlock. We believe in an integrated approach to getting people off the roads and into more efficient and attractive public transport systems, because taking the pressure off the roads lessens the immediate need for more motorways. That is an obviously sensible approach, demonstrated in many forward-thinking cities around the world.

But sadly, Mr Joyce’s approach means that the balance between public transport and roading projects will be lost very shortly. He is effectively robbing metropolitan areas of effective public transport systems in order to pay for a few big-ticket motorway items that will please his friends. In order to justify this position, Mr Joyce claims that Aucklanders do not use public transport. Well, people use it when it is available. Whenever improvements are made to public transport, such as the Northern Busway—which my friend and colleague Darien Fenton knows about—patronage increases sharply.

It is interesting to compare National’s policy on land transport funding, released in May—last month—with our last statement while in Government, which was released in August 2008. The numbers are as follows. Public transport service funding is down by $85 million. Public transport infrastructure funding is down by a quarter of a billion dollars. Walking and cycling facilities funding is down by $15 million. The major communities that are suffering in these cut-backs will be those in Auckland. So much for the Government’s super-city plan! How can Auckland grow without having an effective transport system?

Finally, I will say just a few words about coastal shipping and rail. It is well known that Labour was developing coastal shipping because within a relatively short time frame our roads will be unable to cope with the projected increases in total freight volumes. An integration of roading with an upgraded rail and coastal shipping network is the only possible solution as we look 10 to 20 years into the future. We bought back KiwiRail with that integration is mind, but now this Government has cast a cloud over the future of rail by not guaranteeing the funding that is needed for an infrastructure upgrade. We put $30 million into helping to get coastal shipping up and running, so that rail wagons could be rolling on and off ships at various ports throughout New Zealand, but now that development funding is cancelled and the future of coastal shipping seems to be uncertain. What is certain is that the containers will now be on trucks being driving up and down our State highways, thus creating an ever-increasing hazard for Kiwi motorists.

The record of this Government is dismal, which is why we must support the referral of this bill to a select committee. Thank you.

• Debate interrupted.